Printable View
I'm not asking you to your thinking for me Link, I'm asking you to do some thinking yourself. Can you at least admit that our ethos carries an accumulation of past thought? The way we see things, and therefore the way we teach our children to see things, is reflective not purely of evidence based inquiry but of our cultural history. We see the world inherently differently from other cultures, right? Can we get on the same page here and agree on that?
That’s not a problem for me to think, and again, you’re merely setting this up only to state that I would misunderstand you. No thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I’ll have to reject your invitation to ad infinitum crusades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Okay, I don’t think anyone would disagree with you there that method of inquiry in Science shouldn’t be the sole source of how one should live out their quotidian lifestyles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
You know, StephL’s post before yours pretty much summed up how you misinterpreted Sheldrake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Holy shit you can't even make a comprehensive response to a yes or no question O_O. Look, I'm not going to converse with you on this level, if I were to pick apart every single sentence and respond individually to your posts like you do to mine, then we'd be making novel length rebuttals which don't even remotely orbit around a point of focus. This may be my last reply to you, which I'm sure you'll take as evidence that I'm ignoring criticism on this thread lol.
But it sounds remotely like you answered "yes," so let's go on from there, we both agree that the accumulation of beliefs a culture holds through history influences their contemporary ethos. You just exemplified one version of this rather well, because in our culture, we compartmentalize everything and ignore the gestalt. This is how Western Medicine works, where everything is compartmentalized, especially the mind. Now, to keep things simple and stay on the same page, as well as not provide you too many sentences to break apart and compartmentalize (ignoring the gestalt), I'm going to stop here and ask you, do you agree that in Western Society we compartmentalize everything? To rephrase, a mind raised in western culture is taught to map out the world categorically and see things as separate. Yes or No?
There you go again with straw man questions, called it.
I'm trying to help you understand my point, friend. Are you even willing to understand my point?
By the way, straw man questions aren't a thing. A straw man would mean I'm mocking up an argument of yours so I can tear it down. This is a show of me trying to help you understand my point, nothing more.
You seem to be thinking I'm pulling something like "Is Iran a threat yes or no?" pre-empting "But you don't seem to think we should invade Iran and yet you admitted it's a threat blad blah blah!"
My intention is much less aggressive. I feel like you don't understand my point, so I'm taking things one at a time in order to stay on the same page and help you fully understand. I don't care to prove you wrong, my own mind isn't made up on the matter and I created this thread to help myself understand better. But so long as your participate in my thread you ought to understand what I'm driving at.
Nice, this "gestalt", isn't it - thank me for mentioning it by giving me an answer to my posts as well! Attachment 6675
We use it for all sorts of things, but I can't see Linkzelda ignoring the gestalt of your posts at all.
If the parts are incongruous - the gestalt of a post is not really more than the sum of it's parts.
You are just posting off the top of your head and on a whim, while others think seriously and take it on them to sort of waste their time with simplicists like Sheldrake, looking up references and reading comments from both sides, going on the TED site etc.
But worse yet - trying to communicate with an OP, who appears to be immune to any sort of content and unwilling to answer any questions.
Questions and appeal:
What exactly are your experiences with the scientific community? You stated, they were very similar to Sheldrake's - including having turned your back on western thinking and scientism in some way.
What did you encounter?
Do you have theories of your own? Maybe on consciousness and physics?
Do tell us about them!
Didn't you just deny Link's claim of wanting to make others think for you?
And then you state, you opened the thread to make up your own mind with us - right.
It's quite a hassle to take a post apart and use proper reasoning to show it's lack in value - I have the suspicion, that you are too lazy for such a thing.
I would be delighted to read you take on Link's posts paragraph by paragraph - it's called extended discussion on science and mathematics here - and posts are already long and being read - why not train your grey cells and pretend for a moment, you would want to win this argument of you two's - and coming up against me as well would be nice. Or do you agree with me?
Go ahead - I will not be bored.
Concerning winning debates - as in arguing convincingly and shift one or the other reader's thinking towards questioning people like Sheldrake and views like his in this case - well yes, certainly this is a worthwhile and legitimate endeavour on a forum for extended discussion.
People desperately clinging to the notion of a life after death out of existential fear, should not be able to smuggle their superstitions and magical thinking, let alone religious dogma, into representations of scientific knowledge, like TED talks, directed at layman, who in their turn feel confirmed in whatever woo they happen to believe in.
Even "science" says it - that's what sticks in people's mind after such infective drivel - worth opposing publicly.
Good for Sheldrake, this whole fuss, unfortunately - his book was sold out before going into print - win/win for him - either credited per TED - or this now - and sort of both.
And thank you Link for your comment on my post - I almost forgot to say that!
You seem to think implicitly that my beliefs (or Sheldrake's) are motivated by a fear of death. This reveals your confirmation bias, as you believe those who do not agree with materialism are obviously just afraid of the ugly truth. If you're just going to assume that I'm running from some irrational fear then you can't meet me open-mindedly and you'll read into my posts only in order to criticize them.
So how am I to be convinced that you believe you stand to learn something and are not participating in this conversation merely to deflect what I propose? You've already admitted you think these beliefs stem from rebellion against death.
For all the accusations you've made of my intentions and attitude in this thread, I haven't actually seen an authentic attempt to understand or respond to a very simple point regarding the accumulative history of our ethos influencing our current paradigm so that our beliefs and the beliefs we give our children do not hinge purely on observed evidence but also an inherited worldview.
If link's method of breaking a post apart and responding to each aspect individually really held the gestalt then why does this concept elude him? Why can't I find evidence this is concept is being understood? I'd like to further contrast the differences between our way of looking at things and other cultures, using our society's prejudicial compartmentalization as an example, but first I need evidence that we're on the same page. When I write a post that's got one point, a response ought to address that point rather than ignore it and instead take each sentence out of context and respond to the individual parts instead.
But you asked me for my own background so I'll give it, I was a christian until 13, then an agnostic/existentialist and it's basically been my foundation. Sheldrake was a researcher and I've always been focused on the arts but I drew similarity because we both grew to accept materialism and then continued reading and learning and grew beyond it. I've grown to see the vastness of possibility and the immense diversity of human perspective, and I've grown humble and learned to question what many take for granted. Where many take it as fact that human beings are more intelligent than another species, or superior to humans of cultures that aren't as technologically advanced (likewise with countless assumptions of reality), I questioned these assumptions and discovered they aren't based on any real evidence at all. I quickly realized that many beliefs about reality are presumed objectively true, even from are necessarily subjective standpoint, that much of what we take for granted as truth is just perspective.
So when I see Sheldrake presenting a viewpoint that calls into question ideals taken for granted, I share it in the hopes of inspiring others to question what they never thought worth questioning before because in my experience it's led to some profound realizations. I find his analysis intriguing, but I've also found in my life that people rebel against questions, often with violent ferocity. I've been called stupid more times than I can count in my life for bringing to the table possibility and then defending this possibility. So forgive me for refusing to take posts seriously which begin each response with "you're a hypocrite" and "you're delusional" etc, but I've grown terribly used to being misunderstood and terribly used to having my attempts at bringing questions back into the conversation perceived as attacks. Everyone grows to identify with what they believe in, and I'd be lying to say that I didn't do the same, so I try not to take it personally. I'd also be lying if I claimed I didn't expect you to call Sheldrake a scam artist or something to that effect. I've seen these tricks my entire life, and I've seen all my predecessors that questioned basic assumptions ridiculed and obstructed in the same manner.
You can always look deeper, you haven't learned enough until you thirst to know more.
This post has three points, the first is a response to your final sentiment about believing the fear of death motivates Sheldrake, the second is my sentiment that compartmentalizing responses does not, in fact, earnestly answer to the topic of discussion and that this topic is still being ignored and honest discussion still hasn't occurred, and the third is my background. You shouldn't have to split this quote up into more than 4 parts in order to respond to it, unless you'd rather attack the words than digest and respond to the points. I understand it's not always fun to digest an entire point before responding to it because you have to silence the monkey mind and actually listen to someone you may potentially disagree with, but it's necessity for people to learn from each other.
Imagine invisible quotes being shown up to see why splitting can help with organizing responses.
Why do you need evidence, just use the basic cognitive ability of a priori knowledge (i.e. theoretical deduction) to see where the person is getting at, and actually answer their questions. Unless you want to end up like those materialist that you were in a pit-pattering rage throughout this thread for apparently using the method of inquiry to cognitively solve how to go about their quotidian lifestyles (e.g. Scientism).
You're still arguing that splitting things is a bad thing, and you're now twisting the roles to mask your hypocrisy (i.e. stating someone is eluding from straw man questions that you think are actually sincere questions when you've set up constant impasses, and expect everything to just be fine and dandy). And if you actually have something that validates your second point as "fact" from opinion, feel free to do so. But for the sake of this thread where there's a myriad of topics to discuss about, breaking things apart is often necessary. You've set yourself up with two concerns: Verbosity (or just tl;dr is poison to you apparently), and incompetence to know that clarification (and actually making efforts to answer others) is inevitable -- you can’t expect people to answer you back when you’ve made more attempts at impasse than demonstrating your apparent quest for an inquiring mind (i.e. check my previous response to you on "so much for the inquiring mind").
Allow me to enlighten you on my mode of process of attempting to comprehend your posts:
1. I read your whole post (I don't go, hurr durr, Kip is responding, split split split split on a whim without reading all of it first). There, you can either take this anecdotal/experiential evidence that I do read the whole before breaking it apart. I am not required to answer as a whole when you've talked about several things that need to be addressed in parts.
2. I formulate what you may try to be getting at, but I don't intend to subscribe to reductio ad absurdum; it's only when contradicting things on your end that I would lightly do something like that (e.g. irreligious and religious dogma seems to be an issue to you, even though you're clearly in the camp of irreligious (but not irreligious dogma)). Difference is, it’s only taken lightly, and my overall aim is to have some neutrality here.
3. I ask questions for you to expound more on your points, ask for clarification if needed (too bad that's futile with your impasses), and try to use whatever modes of discourse to see where you're getting at. I don't go "stop with the verbosity," or setting up straw man questions only to say "holy shit, you can't even comprehend answering a yes or no question." I would expect verbose comments to be inevitable, but it's really not something cognitively taxing to read, it's a freaking pleasure to see someone take things seriously. But I don't attribute length to earnestness for all circumstances, but right now, it's an extended discussion.
Easy as 123.
This is all within ~5-10 minutes for each post, not really something mentally taxing, though I guess I underestimate that, and presume others could do the same. But of course, I can't presume that when people like you only revel in trivial aspects of gestalt and splits. Which is what would be considered ad infinitum compartmentalization on my end is used so I don’t truly go on a crusade in spewing ad hominem, straw man arguments, and such at you. You and that other guy thought I was on a pit-pattering rage with that, but I clearly was not. I was deeply interested in everyone’s responses, though I guess those who thought otherwise could do some research in compartmentalization (both psychoanalytical, and the obvious definition that you can find in a dictionary, or Google search).
If you want to make claims of cognitive dissonance for a person dividing posts (compartmentalizing), take note that when you’re wanting to be psychoanalytical in that presumption, you’re contradicting yourself, Kip. Compartmentalization would be something to avoid cognitive dissonance, and yet you want to cut off from that definition (and its variants), which ironically would be analogous to those Materialists that you felt split Cartesian Dualism. The irony could not be more flagrant on your end for cognitive dissonance.
Good day to you, sir. Control your whimsical and negative emotive predispositions, learn to use compartmentalization (as in the cognitive practice both internally and externally when discussing to others), and then I'll take you seriously. Your recent post is actually engaging, but it's now off-topic at this point, and it would be best to either answer previous questions me, StephL, or even Xei asked before.
Stop trying to salvage your ego, and just discuss on-topic (excluding you salvaging your misinterpretations from Sheldrake). And if compartmentalization is so difficult for you, then that's your problem to deal with in augmenting your chances for it to be absorbed as unconscious competence. And if you read that with the implied tonality of me being negatively emotive, another sign for you to research compartmentalization (before you do another misinterpretation), and read #2 in this post.
^ Best post up until now. It is especially nice to feel an honest write-up. It is now very easy to recognize the condensending tone that reaks in all your posts LinkZelda.
StephL.. I might go into more of your post. But I'd like to share something that is relevant to what you said that emotionally enrages me Simply because something you said immediately condtradicts my world-view, Nothing personal. Really.
Here is the exact reason why i find morphogenetic field theory a very interesting concept ;
But first let me just state that mentioning his Christian ties in relationship to his ideas was an Ad hominum thingy. And completely unnecesary. Albeit an interesting fact. Ofcourse he was not completely Eastern. That makes him special. He was in his youth way more advanced in his theories than western science. I think it is fairly certain that this is simply because he did not acquire dogma for one single cultural entity. He did clash with Terence Mckenna in some ways and other slightly Eastern-minded people. Explainable in light of his cultural preferences. Terence was different though.. He seemed to believe (like me) that Jesus was in fact the Demi-urge in the flesh. In other words, the creator.
But to further investigate the topic at hand I advise you to read this: "The New Biology" by Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
It is not the Original page i was trying to find, but my computer is broken. I found this on the internet and it is very interesting. The article i was trying to actually link provides rather satisfactory evidence that "The shape of the human body in fetal development" is driven by an external source, seperate from DNA. This source happens to be Electromagnetic field. Hence, I believe there is a truth to Morphogenetic field theory.
And also, his tests are pretty good. His tests with "Predicting when someone will call you" is actually rather mainstream and commonly accepted in open-minded scientific circles. Rupert is simply more advanced than Dualism-science Dogma.. Face it lol.
Dthoughts,
Me telling him how to have a simple discussion (e.g. building up onto what people stated, or asking more questions for interest) is not really the same level of condescending overtone he’s declared with cognitive dissonance, “can I get a tl;dr,” and other signs of his indolence. But hey, if it reeks more compared to his, can’t really change anyone’s emotive disposition on it.
StephL mentioned the affiliation of Sheldrake for a good reason, and it was apparent that OP correlated Sheldrake as having shifts in paradigms that he felt he shared to some extent, but it’s just that Sheldrake was open-minded about those experiences from Eastern ways of thinking (not necessarily being overwhelmed to absolve from his religious upbringing).
He’s (OP) already made declarations of grandfathered religious dogma, which just broke up the correlation completely (e.g. his mini-narrative of how he shares similar paradigms shifts as Sheldrake, albeit a more arts-orientated one). It wouldn’t be consistent anymore for him to side with Sheldrake if Sheldrake himself would fall under the same camp OP would be skeptical about. It’s just the same path of Sheldrake discrediting himself because of reasons mentioned in StephL’s post, and any criticism you can find about Sheldrake.
His theorems are interesting indeed, but it’s obvious that there’s skepticism in the reliability and means of being reproducible. As for Bruce Lipton, sensationalism, especially in “The New Biology,” and “The Biology of belief,” is no different than imagination taking more precedence in interpretation. There’s nothing wrong with anyone having open-mindedness, and even if the prominent paradigm shifts aren't ideal or perfect (whatever they are), there would still need to be a lot of evidence needed to truly overhaul them (e.g. a theory that may suggest external forces controlling bodily functions in some way that has significant changes, which would slowly deteriorate a loose view if reality may be mind-independent anymore).
It may feel like it correlates to morphogenetic field theory, but for Lipton’s claims on DNA (especially in The Biology of Belief), is just another form of Scientism in some way (e.g. misuse of things that would go beyond the method of inquiry in the first place). As for his (Sheldrake) tests being really "good", I’m interested to see articles, peer-review, or any other sources that can substantiate this that a consensus in the scientific community can see as being a potentially accurate model. Of course, not implying that what would be deemed as accurate models are the only ways to rely on. And if you find personal truth in that theory, nothing wrong with that, but it still doesn't make it (the theory) valid in general.
Perhaps you require a taste of your own medicine in order to get a jist of why it's not productive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkzelda
Because there's no over-all point to apply theoretical deducation to, merely a response to a bunch of sentences taken out of context and removed from the over-all point being driven at. I need evidence you actually have a complete response to make rather than a bunch of individual responses to out-of-context aspects of a post.Quote:
Why do you need evidence, just use the basic cognitive ability of a priori knowledge (i.e. theoretical deduction) to see where the person is getting at, and actually answer their questions.
I found no rage. I got a little flustered with Xei for a second, my own fault for trying to gotcha Xei into revealing his own dogmatism. No one's going to admit their own dogmatism. I wouldn't and neither would Xei.Quote:
Unless you want to end up like those materialist that you were in a pit-pattering rage throughout this thread for apparently using the method of inquiry to cognitively solve how to go about their quotidian lifestyles (e.g. Scientism).
Well you notice how you become redundant here, repeating something you've already said earlier in this very post, and have also taken to ad hominem? This is the result of splitting up posts. You're not digesting what's being said, you're only reacting to it so all I see when I look at your posts is criticism, I don't see a conversation happening. I don't have anything to respond to because I see any criticism of my point or response to my point at all, just a bunch of responses to individual sentences used to make the point. The two are not the same thing. One is the point, the other is the tools used to make the point. You're attacking the tools but you're not helping me learn anything.Quote:
You're still arguing that splitting things is a bad thing, and you're now twisting the roles to mask your hypocrisy (i.e. stating someone is eluding from straw man questions that you think are actually sincere questions when you've set up constant impasses, and expect everything to just be fine and dandy).
I am discussing one thing. In the bottom of my previous post I admit that within the post I discussed 3 things. However typically I drive at one, single point. It only turns into a myriad when posts are broken and quotes turn into tangents. Even when there's multiple points, not every single sentence is a point on its own, so breaking apart aspects of a post that drive toward one point doesn't serve the intentions you're claiming and only proves necessary if you want to win a debate.Quote:
And if you actually have something that validates your second point as "fact" from opinion, feel free to do so. But for the sake of this thread where there's a myriad of topics to discuss about, breaking things apart is often necessary.
I'm already noticing, this is far easier than actually responding to a succinct point. It requires a lot less thinking to take a post one sentence at a time and criticize it. But it also makes ad hominem much more likely, as with each response I also end up focused more on you, Link, rather than on the point. Rather interesting.
[I have little interest in inquiring to a response that shows evidence of lack of inquiry or a failure to understand the post it's responding to. If you're off base what my point is and what I'm driving at, and we're not on the same page, then every response following that is a red herring. I could defend attacks you've made on points that don't actually relate to my main point of interest and only reveal miscommunication, but I'm trying to do more than that. My attack on your verbosity relates only to the latter point, you're writing a lot of sentences but by writing them in this style you're not actually saying anything, or you're only arguing with yourself as the points you respond to do not appear intended by me.Quote:
You've set yourself up with two concerns: Verbosity (or just tl;dr is poison to you apparently), and incompetence to know that clarification (and actually making efforts to answer others) is inevitable -- you can’t expect people to answer you back when you’ve made more attempts at impasse than demonstrating your apparent quest for an inquiring mind (i.e. check my previous response to you on "so much for the inquiring mind").
The parts add up to a whole, singular point being driven at. I break posts apart, as well, as you can see in my previous post where I respond to three over all points being made by StephL. Even though StephL's post contained more than three sentences.Quote:
Allow me to enlighten you on my mode of process of attempting to comprehend your posts:
1. I read your whole post (I don't go, hurr durr, Kip is responding, split split split split on a whim without reading all of it first). There, you can either take this anecdotal/experiential evidence that I do read the whole before breaking it apart. I am not required to answer as a whole when you've talked about several things that need to be addressed in parts.
I'm confused, are you now arguing that I'm complaining that if you don't agree with me it means you don't understand me because so far all I've asked for is evidence that you understand, not evidence that you agree.Quote:
2. I formulate what you may try to be getting at, but I don't intend to subscribe to reductio ad absurdum; it's only when contradicting things on your end that I would lightly do something like that (e.g. irreligious and religious dogma seems to be an issue to you, even though you're clearly in the camp of irreligious (but not irreligious dogma)). Difference is, it’s only taken lightly, and my overall aim is to have some neutrality here.
Again, my problem with verbosity is not the length of your replies but their lack of easily found substance. Didn't you learn how to write essays? They begin with a thesis, whether they respond to another point or not. They allow the reader to follow them, easily. I find this style of splitting posts up to be inaccessible, the thesis elusive of existent at all. The questions appear based on conclusions I didn't make and further give evidence to a failure to understand so I've clarified and simplified, and clarified and simplified, and in doing so I've been accused of a plethora of hypocrisy and fallacy.Quote:
3. I ask questions for you to expound more on your points, ask for clarification if needed (too bad that's futile with your impasses), and try to use whatever modes of discourse to see where you're getting at. I don't go "stop with the verbosity," or setting up straw man questions only to say "holy shit, you can't even comprehend answering a yes or no question." I would expect verbose comments to be inevitable, but it's really not something cognitively taxing to read, it's a freaking pleasure to see someone take things seriously. But I don't attribute length to earnestness for all circumstances, but right now, it's an extended discussion.
Yes I find splitting posts apart to be a much easier way to respond as well, it makes it look like you're thinking but you don't actually have to. This is neat.Quote:
Easy as 123.
This is all within ~5-10 minutes for each post, not really something mentally taxing, though I guess I underestimate that, and presume others could do the same. But of course, I can't presume that when people like you only revel in trivial aspects of gestalt and splits.
This is not a complete sentence.Quote:
Which is what would be considered ad infinitum compartmentalization on my end is used so I don’t truly go on a crusade in spewing ad hominem, straw man arguments, and such at you.
Are you trying to say you compartmentalize for psychological reasons?Quote:
You and that other guy thought I was on a pit-pattering rage with that, but I clearly was not. I was deeply interested in everyone’s responses, though I guess those who thought otherwise could do some research in compartmentalization (both psychoanalytical, and the obvious definition that you can find in a dictionary, or Google search).
I don't but okay....Quote:
If you want to make claims of cognitive dissonance for a person dividing posts (compartmentalizing),
Nice straw man.Quote:
take note that when you’re wanting to be psychoanalytical in that presumption, you’re contradicting yourself, Kip. Compartmentalization would be something to avoid cognitive dissonance, and yet you want to cut off from that definition (and its variants), which ironically would be analogous to those Materialists that you felt split Cartesian Dualism. The irony could not be more flagrant on your end for cognitive dissonance.
I'd prefer to understand a post as a complete idea and respond with a complete idea.Quote:
Good day to you, sir. Control your whimsical and negative emotive predispositions, learn to use compartmentalization (as in the cognitive practice both internally and externally when discussing to others),
You do realize that I have answered these questions, right? Or are you referring to different questions? Some questions were based on false conclusions and I didn't bother with, but most of the posts I've made in this thread revolve around answering questions.Quote:
and then I'll take you seriously. Your recent post is actually engaging, but it's now off-topic at this point, and it would be best to either answer previous questions me, StephL, or even Xei asked before.
You're pulling the same garbage you did with Voldmer, you refuse to digest the point being made and instead respond to the words, all the better if you can surmise a different definition for the words being used, then you don't even have to respond remotely to the point being made.Quote:
Stop trying to salvage your ego, and just discuss on-topic (excluding you salvaging your misinterpretations from Sheldrake). And if compartmentalization is so difficult for you, then that's your problem to deal with in augmenting your chances for it to be absorbed as unconscious competence. And if you read that with the implied tonality of me being negatively emotive, another sign for you to research compartmentalization (before you do another misinterpretation), and read #2 in this post.
You have routinely dismissed my answer to any follow-up questions or accused them of being different from Sheldrake. I'm still patiently waiting for you to finish with this drivel and allow me to explain the point Sheldrake is making in a way you understand. First you have to accept that perhaps my interpretation of Sheldrake's point differs from yours rather than merely accusing me of differing myself whenever I attempt to answer a question. So how about it, are you ready yet? Let's try again. Do you agree that in western society we prejudicially compartmentalize subjects of inquiry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkzelda
I guess you’re expecting a reaction from me on the quote breaking, OP. Well, I have no problem of that from you whatsoever. I encourage it. =) I’ve had individuals do this to me in other forums, so I’m really used to something like this, really. But thanks for showing me something that I’m already accustomed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
How are they out of context if they’re topics to talk about concerning about how philosophies in Science may affect worldviews and such?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Ah okay, good to know, but I’m still worried if you could be confusing skepticism with dogmatism. But hey, I guess no one will admit to confirming that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Your posts are transparent, and easy to digest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
So a conversation with arguments, and such isn’t something permitted as conversation here? What’s wrong with criticism? Especially if the premise of the thread is about how criticism(s) of an individual’s criticism (Sheldrake) of Science was prevalent? And here I thought you were just here to bring awareness of the criticism, not necessarily something that demonstrates your urge of having an enquiring mind. Criticism, critique, etc. can allow one to expand their horizon of dispositions they subscribe to, and see an alternative way of conceptualizing things. Cutting off criticism and critique from that would stagnate the learning process if that’s your other aim.
You were discussing a myriad of things leading to the overall premise in the OP, not just one thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Oh, I don’t see attacks here from you honestly. But if you’re focused on the person you’re aiming to discuss with, all the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
But you just stated that you found this style easier when it comes to discussing with someone. So if you feel it’s a set up for self-referential statements on my end, why bother to use it? But since you admitted to criticism as not being part of the whole learning process for you, it’s no wonder filtering everything I’ve stated as criticism leads to remnants that you feel is self-referential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
That’s because you would have to deal with two individuals, and that would make things problematic for you. So it’s understandable that you need one individual to fixate on instead, and if it’s me, no problem on my end there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I never intended for you to only agree with me, you aren’t required to agree with me at all. Remember when you were asking questions on “can’t we agree...” on so and so? I never made a direct response, but you seemed to have implied I was (e.g. sounds remotely as a “yes,”).Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
I can put this in essay format if you want to, but I don’t think that may be something in your favor. As for learning to write essays…English, History, Sociology, and other subjects, I had teachers that absolutely loved my essays. They all showed that I engaged in an enthusiastic spirit, and (specifically for a History teacher in my college course) that there was a level of maturity that made their day to the point where she would read mine first before having to deal with others that were depressing to her. She was a militant history teacher, almost to the point where you could consider her dogmatic and demanding perfectionism from her students in a college class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
As for Biochemistry, before it got boring to me when it stripped my entire lifestyle, I got mostly 80s in those simply because 50s and 60s would be prevalent to the rest of the class. So I can admit that I can’t convince everyone simply because there’s a different standard (Literature vs. Scientific). The former (anything non-science excluding the sociology) would be more loose compared to the more strict scientific essays.
Nathaniel Hawthorne, Charles Dickens, and other authors that just scream TL;DR for others were a pre-meal warm-up for me, and they still are honestly. Though I guess showing proof of those grades would be kind of off-topic, though hopefully this may clarify this for you.
Maybe when you don’t present questions or topics to talk about, it seems that way. I can see the sarcasm in this, but I won’t react in a way for you to stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Which part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
No, not at all, that would be taking into account of things like PTSD, therapy, and such, but that’s just one branch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
This is in relation to what you were talking about with Western compartmentalization, but I wasn’t so sure what you were trying to get at before. As for the psychological reason (unconscious processes), wouldn’t we all have an unconscious tendency to compartmentalize in the psychological sense (but not being attributed solely for psychological and therapeutic reasons)? It’s just a general term (along with the other meanings) I was mentioning, mostly for people to have their own predispositions in filtering, categorizing, and organizing.
->Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
The only distinction to this response of Western vs. Eastern medicine is their method of delivery (e.g. Eastern that may have more accessibility to individuals that have used techniques for health and treatment before advances in Medicine were considered).Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
How does stating a contradiction that you’ve made on your misinterpretation on Sheldrake a sham argument? It was quite prevalent you did so, but if you don’t think so, okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
If criticism isn’t in your realm of ideas, then you’re just limiting yourself here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Topics and questions made from me, StephL, (which you’re probably going to respond to I guess, I don’t know), and others. I was interested to see your points (through those bullet points as well) on how things like how eastern vs. western ways of thinking could affect what you felt would be inherent ways of being taught was something to see if you could explain more on the matters that would be related to the premise(s) of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Probably because you filter out criticism and arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Western or eastern, we all have own means of compartmentalizing anything (inquiry, or even just acts of faiths). Bias is inevitable in some way, though it should be apparent that everyone has their own opinions, it would just be a simple matter of who imposes their worldview as more absolute than others. It would be highly improbable for anyone to compartmentalize with objectivity when their interpretations would be subjective in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Do you also agree that the world doesn't actually exist as a compartmentalized phenomenon? Colors, for example, are not actually separated by lines, we invent lines to map out colors but this invention differs from reality?
Thereby, our method of understanding reality invokes the purposeful contortion of this reality?
For the color aspect, that might be something to discuss about Qualia.
Or a simple example, how much “redness” an individual may see on an object with their own means of sensory application. So for us to make patterns from the example you provided may be something that’s casually linked with neurological activity. So our method of understanding reality and perception could definitely invoke purposeful contortions of this reality. Just like with sentient beings having the ability to experience subjectivity, what we conceptualize as a line is clearly man-made concepts, or at least something sapient beings would be able to formulate.
So the nervous system could be generalized as retrieving, processing, and responding to information, but that raises the question on how the system would go about processing phenomenological matters (e.g. symbolic interpretations in dreams vs. us applying symbolic meaning in waking life).
Well, for example, Russians have two blues that are not considered the same color any more than we consider red and purple the same color. So they have a different way of perceiving and mapping out their experience, and language is a major influence on this difference--this evidence that we don't all see the same reality and our culture affects the reality we experience because it affects they way we inherently interpret our experience. This is possible in many other aspects of experience as well, so that the way we categorize and marginalize reality is not an accurate reflection or map, it's subjective but the subjectivity and skew of the reflection is taken for granted.
This means that things are considered mutually exclusive which are not. The mutual exclusion is part of our specific society's collective organization of reality, also known as our ethos. In this ethos, we come from a long history of separating various forms of inquiry and considering them mutually exclusive, however not every society mapped out inquiry the same way. So for ancient Egyptians, as an example, architecture was not seen as exclusive from music, merely more solidified resonance. This variant in perspective allowed them to create structures which effect biology, because they could see a structure's place in the resonant field.
Because we separate the inquiry, we create prejudice against the very theory itself. It doesn't fit in with the way we map out reality, as a culture, and thus is deemed unscientific.
To me, it’s not so much the subjectivity (sentience) that is taken for granted, but rather the brain having a grandiose means of mapping information and memory. It’s completely understandable that when it comes to the mind using pattern recognition from memory, it’s not really the most accurate form of conceptualizing reality.
But it is an advanced form of consciousness (i.e. recollection of personal experiential learning, truths, and knowledge of past events). So for the example on the Russians having two blues that aren’t considered to be the same, it brings back to how language may cause minor conceptual issues on their end when doing a comparative analysis of other cultural norms (both at an aggregate level and minute levels). And even with social conditioning, upbringing, customs, and such, their means of procedural, implicit, and other forms of memory may not solve the dilemma on whether or not we see the same reality (e.g. concerns on qualia).
But something to consider is whether or not an individual can retain consciousness without memory (e.g. amnesia). But there can be circumstantial cases where people may know how to do something, but not necessarily recalling how they learned it (i.e. it could be that implicit knowledge may have contributed to such matters, or it could just be that they have bad short-term memory altogether).
If someone is incapable of structuring their sense experience to create thoughts in relation to those experiences, and to have unconscious occurrences for pattern recognition (that lack memories to derive from in this case), then it may be a cause of a mental illness (e.g. Alzheimer’s). But even if that were the case, consciousness isn’t necessarily reliant on memory (i.e. a sentient being can still experience pain and comfort without memory), but memory would make things a bit easier.
And like how the ancient Egyptians in this scenario subscribed to a different collective means of predicting and making patterns of reality, something that may be completely out of norm for them may lead to predispositions for bias and prejudice towards certain theories. And in their case, they may have been engaging in collective self-fulfilling prophecies in attributing theories suitable for them in all cases, even in their quotidian lifestyles where such applications may be a bit impractical today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
But from then to now, the dynamic has completely changed. It’s not perfect, and there’s still prejudice, but how Science applies epistemology for mapping out reality (from predictive theorems) would be a bit more advanced than something like Vitalism (but Science still wouldn't be an absolute way of mapping it out from an individual's disposition on reality). So to make an example of Vitalism and ancient Egyptians, they may postulate questions, and answer them like this:
“Why does X substance cause this occurrence/feeling/experience?”
“Because of the overwhelming and hypnotic resonance from it.” (Or whatever metaphysical dogma/doctrine they would subscribe to)
Amnesia makes a good example because conditions remain present even if one can't consciously source their cause. Likewise, simply because we are not conscious of the conditions that contort our perspective on reality doesn't mean they aren't there.
But I'm having trouble following your argument on how the dynamic has changed. Could you elaborate a bit? I understand that the theoretical method of science is to map out reality based upon epistemology but you also seem to be insinuating that dogma dictated the beliefs of Egyptians in a way it doesn't dictate the belief of modern western civilization. Is this your argument?
The premise of the argument in this scenario would be how ancient Egyptians may have had their own distinctions on relying on making presumptions based on sense experience, observation, and developing their own a priori truths. As for me implying that dogma dictated the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians at that time, I guess I correlate dogma as synonymous to “ideology” and “doctrine” as well for this circumstance, but the three words probably have different connotations.
Kind of like how “Doctrine of ancient Egyptians” might be considered more militant than “Ideology of ancient Egyptians,” even though they would technically mean the same thing.
I’m proposing that the dynamic has changed dramatically simply because there would be a hypothetico-deductive model (e.g. method of inquiry) as a means to test and falsify conjectures. And in the realm where philosophy may have been more prevalent in the ancient Egyptian's case, they would intertwine their own epistemology with their metaphysics of reality (but this isn’t presuming that modern Western civilization wouldn’t do the same intertwining).
So what the ancient Egyptians may have believed, and how they justified certain sense experiences with reality probably wouldn’t be compartmentalized between “scientific” and “unscientific” because how they would find ways to see if conjecture could be falsified would be a lot more rudimentary than today (i.e. they may more likely lead to begging the question, or circular reasoning because they would attribute to their prominent ideologies at the time). Lack of information to speculate alternatives and counter-arguments for them essentially, though this is all speculation on my end though.
So something like the example of vitalism would be a patchy means (for ancient Egyptians) of empiricism (e.g. ancient Egyptians potentially justifying a substances’ efficacy through its harmonic or hypnotic resonance as their justification). But if there’s something else to take into account like their language, or engaging with the environment, it’s a different matter that wouldn’t be reducible only to empiricism, nor dogma that may have been supported because of that.
Right so my point is not that Egyptians had a cornerstone on truth but that the way they viewed reality was different, and not merely inferior because they perceived things in a way that enabled them to invent what we won't invent today.
My point is further that our method of inquiry is only theoretically epistemological and in practice contains a lot of ideology related to our society's form of perception as well. We did not necessarily discard our ethos and inherited prejudice (based on the way we perceive the world to function) when we decided to create a method of inquiry that does not depend on authority.
Furthermore, I'm not going to get into speculation but I don't believe ideology enabled Egyptians to discover biogeometry (a term I'm sort of borrowing and reapplying to architectural resonance). I don't believe their religious ideology enabled them to combine unscientific reasoning and scientific discovery. I believe rather it is our own ideology which disables us from utilizing "unscientific" discovery because our application of "unscientific" is handed out ideologically.
Guys, I hope we cleared up the air a little bit here. This turned out to be a very interesting discussion in the end. I am glad to participate in this thread. I like all of you. :3
OP, are you saying what I think ur saying about the egyptians? It sounds like magical thinking but it makes sense in a strangely magical perspective.
Well this brings my mind right back to what Voldmer was saying about Objectivity and Subjectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkzelda
If i assume what OP was saying about ancient egyptians' way of perceiving the world, then it is also assumed that we lost our ability to see the world as they did. Subjectively, we have degraded in that regard. If what OP says is true then the egyptians saw more of the world. They didn't use our language, but they must have developed their own experiental language system to explain their perspective. Science is definitely catching up, so no argument there from my part.. But, that is not to say that people like Sheldrake are wrong about their theories regarding our objective reality. It just so happens to be that in the limited perspective from numerous scientists these world-views are not complementary to their subjective experience. Hence, they are immediately declined and scrutinized in the name of science. Which, i do agree feels rather unfair for an honest free-thinker like Sheldrake and like OP.
Likewise, my method of approaching theories stems from a belief or a hypothesis. Then i systematically try to justify my belief in an experiental way. Ofcourse I make mistakes along the way. But does that mean that my entire scientific career has to be discredited because of a negative test result? Or a falsified belief?... NO.. ! But when ur belief does not match the status quo of mainstream science. You will naturally find more and more resistance from so called "scientists" i am sure. Who have their own agenda and their own beliefs. That is exactly what happened to Sheldrake's TED talk. It got scrutinized beyond reason and ultimately harmed his career even further. If that is not a form of censoring then it is something worse.
And yes, i equate myself with Einstein and Newton in that regard. They faced a lot of resistance from the scientific world. But the fact is, that Einstein was way more advanced than anybody else. And proceeded to theorize in the face of ridicule. Rupert Sheldrake has every right to do the same as far as I am concerned. Not that i really think i am a novel thinker like they are. But then again, my theories usually fit the scientific paradigm rather neatly.
Uiuiui - some action here - I'll be back - just a bit of lack of time at the very moment - but two things - first thanks OP for answering me.
And secondly, Dthoughts - Mr. Sheldrake seems to have exactly the audience and defenders he deserves - which is sort of satisfying.
See ya all later.
Just to nitpick:
Actually Einstein, who said himself that he "stood on the shoulders of giants," faced very little resistance or ridicule from the scientific community -- it did take them a while to figure out what he was talking about, but because his math worked so well there was little room for ridicule (he was arguably a rock star in the scientific community, even before he published General Relativity). Newton was one of the guys who invented modern science, so I don't think his scientific community resisted his work; about the only resistance he got was anger from his peers about the fact that he consistently refused to publish his work. Both, however, did their greatest work in a virtual bath of support from their peers, because their peers understood the magnitude of what they were doing, even if they didn't yet quite understand the details.Quote:
Dthoughts:...And yes, i equate myself with Einstein and Newton in that regard. They faced a lot of resistance from the scientific world. But the fact is, that Einstein was way more advanced than anybody else. And proceeded to theorize in the face of ridicule. Rupert Sheldrake has every right to do the same as far as I am concerned. Not that i really think i am a novel thinker like they are. But then again, my theories usually fit the scientific paradigm rather neatly.
I really do not think Sheldrake is in the same ballpark as Einstein and Newton. If he were, this thread likely would not exist.
Spoiler for For OP:
Spoiler for For Dthoughts:
I feel, I should have repeated myself less - but since I'd like to do other stuff as well - it's un-pruned:
I need not believe, I could learn something, to participate in this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
If somebody thinks twice when being presented with quackery like Sheldrake's - noticing that pattern of accusing all others to have it wrong, and realizing, that somebody saying there are studies showing this and that does not mean there are.
On death - I have my theories as to why people hold irrational beliefs even today, after enlightenment and the establishment of the scientific method of inquiry illuminated the utter lack of positive evidence for the foundational premises of said ideologies.
Voicing this does not reveal confirmation bias - it reveals one of my theories on that matter.
Don't forget - you are also voicing your theories as to why the scientific community is so indolent as to refuse to take people like Sheldrake and your pyramid people seriously.
That is the point - not your straw-man yes-no question on if there is a cultural influence on current thinking.
Your wording differs - here you say, there would be cultural influences detracting people from reasonable evidenced-based beliefs.
Of course there are - and it sure is not something bizarre as Scientism - as I have answered a similar question before.
Who are to be blamed here, are mainly the 3 desert-religions - and esoterical lunatics/scams.
I initially thought, Mr. Sheldrake would fall in the latter category.
Now I found, he is not hobby eastern of philosophy but - hurrah - a Catholic, as devout as to life for years as a monk.
To find a Catholic accusing Science of systemic dogmatic problems - that puts the cherry on top of affairs.
Enlightenment has a long way to go still - and how can you come from evidence is being ignored to Sheldrake?
He has not a shred of evidence, as I have pointed out extensively before.
So should we listen to people like him in your view?
What you do is try to squirm away from my deconstruction of Sheldrake on the last page, which went unreplied.
Again - you try to imply, that the whole discussion would be about, if it is correct, that there are cultural influences on current thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Is that really your point?
How come, there was ever a discussion then?
You could have posed that - and we would have been over and done with.
No - we are on about a supposed empirical view on Science having dogmas, which are supposedly incorrect.
Namely the 10 he attacks - failing miserably.
Sheldrake sprouts his ideas here - he is not concerned with anything else - he cries dogma because he is not being taken seriously for ages - guess what? - he doesn't deserve being taken seriously.
His hands are empty.
Thousands of comments in his favour, though - it is a worthwhile endeavour to set something against it.
So that's not the same problem Sheldrake has - he wants to get credited by mainstream science - by actual scientists, not laymen, for his hypotheses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
What laymen know depends highly on their enthusiasm and sources.
You claim, there was no evidence, that we are the most intelligent species on earth - so what would your evidence to the contrary be?
Animal consciousness and intelligence is a topic of great interest and there are lots of studies - again - somebody actually finding out, that for example octopuses are more intelligent, than we are - Nobel Prize assured.
Same with ancient civilisations - there are tons of documents, showing the misconceptions being held - yes by Egyptians as well.
And where is your evidence of their superiority?
How is it a trick to look at what Sheldrake throws up and find, it is not valid?
How is it narrow-minded to not take seriously somebody, who feigns evidence, claims things, which are untrue (rats, crystals)?
I am convinced, there are things worth questioning - esp. in medicine - but maybe that's just, where I know the most.
But to bring somebody like Sheldrake - utterly discrediting himself, see that post last page - is nothing shy of completely contra-productive, if you were seriously on about incorrect beliefs being held.
That would be something like mobilizing patients after surgery, meanwhile common practice, but your example is pyramidal energy.
So that does put you into the same camp - people consistently ignoring all contrary evidence and relying on hobby-scientists doing unreliable studies.
Do you really think, I hit the quote button seeing a post of yours and then go sentence by sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Same as Linkzelda - I read your post as a whole, and then address the points of your argumentation as well as your conclusion.
But they shift, and are often not quite logical.
Was your point not, that Science suffers from misconceptions, put upon it by - yeah - whom exactly? - something cultural?
And that this makes them refuse to listen to certain persons?
I disagree with this point - these persons don't find an open ear, because they are coming up with wild theories, typically simplistic and in ignorance of the depth of current understanding - and don't have a shred of positive evidence which withstands scientific scrutiny.
Sheldrake claiming Einstein and Darwin wouldn't be listened to today - the former had the maths and the latter documentation of incredibly deep reaching observations and logical conclusions - he has nothing than his own convictions. So there.
