Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Sarkus said:
... more appropriate perhaps to think of consciousness as the Sun, detected by observing the shadow rather than to go blind by staring straight at the object.
Did you ever really try to get to know somebody, I mean to get right down to the very essence of their conscience? That is what it is like, too close to the Sun.
--- Ron.
As I said before. She still lives in the past.
And Gustav, where the fuck were you. We needed you here.
perplexity said:
knowing (very essence), would probably preclude any differentiation b/w the knower and the known aka i am she am he am they am it
pardon the vedantic prose
oh
perplexity said:
come now
kinda adulatory
bet the shit will get old
like all things
this i know
or maybe i do not
Gustav said:need?
nonsense
the past?
more nonsense
lamarck is alive and kicking
my mistress merely takes an extreme position
she is cool like that
here....
nice ja?
i'd advise you to pledge allegiance before it is too late
oh
you bitch slapping my prez?
how dare you
from web:
Indeed he was a clever chap, his ideas are not so off afterall
"Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
The Biology of Consciousness
About Bruce Lipton
Scientist, author, university professor and lecturer, Bruce Lipton, compares the evolution of the cell to that of humankind; clearly demonstrates that much of our technology is in direct imitation of Nature’s designs for cell structures. The myths of genes vs. the magic of membranes. Case made that it is not our genes, but our environment, and our perception of the environment, that ultimately regulates our health and behavior. Based upon his research at Stanford University, Dr. Lipton's most recent research publications on the regulation of cell behavior have yielded insight into the molecular basis of consciousness and the future of human evolution. What is most exciting is that there are patterns in evolution, and the development of community is part of one of these patterns. Bruce is on the cutting edge of the New Biology, which, like the New Physics, is changing the way we see things. In this we find that much of Neo-Darwinian biology is gravely in error and that the bleak picture it paints of our future is, at most, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The vision of the New Biology is far more hopeful."
ALSO
"Epigenetics is the study of epigenetic inheritance, a set of reversible heritable changes in gene function or other cell phenotype that occur without a change in DNA sequence (genotype). These changes may be induced spontaneously, in response to environmental factors, or in response to the presence of a particular allele, even if it is absent from subsequent generations."
semantics
Last edited:
Gustav said:
I need to revise my lingo, and then I am more on track than off.
ROOROOR!
AR AR!
ROOROO!
AR AR!
ROO AR AR! ROO AR AR!
AR AR!
ROOROO!
AR AR!
ROO AR AR! ROO AR AR!
Last edited:
Alright.
It doesn't it doesn't it doesn't
matter what your name is
I don't care bout your age
Have love, me mixin' in a diff-er-ent way
In the year 2oo7 ya'll me change up me ways
When me round the mic yknow me deaf on the stage
nuff of dem me on a diff-er-ent page
you know when I round the mic you know me shaba no its rockin renegade
want to make money...
yes we want it made
want to be sharp just ...like a blade
Never catch me in no damn arcade
do ya know at the end of the day we get paid
money get made, rockin renegade we had made
New style create we gon blwa dem away
nicholas1M7 said:Alright.
It doesn't it doesn't it doesn't
matter what your name is
I don't care bout your age
Have love, me mixin' in a diff-er-ent way
In the year 2oo7 ya'll me change up me ways
When me round the mic yknow me deaf on the stage
nuff of dem me on a diff-er-ent page
you know when I round the mic you know me shaba no its rockin renegade
want to make money...
yes we want it made
want to be sharp just ...like a blade
Never catch me in no damn arcade
do ya know at the end of the day we get paid
money get made, rockin renegade we had made
New style create we gon blwa dem away
:bugeye:
:bugeye:
nicholas1M7 said::bugeye:
ok then what was that peom about and why is it in this thread?
>> Can you scientists not at least keep an open mind when your methods can neither prove or disprove a thing? >>
The problem with online public science forums is that the posters in the main are not scientists
and any scientists that post are big fish in a small fishbowl
so they consider their opinion s very precious, so precious that all other opinions are totally, and I mean totally incorrect.... not even worthy of discussion.
A sad state of affairs for science.
But looking at it another way, often new ideas do not come with public evidence... oh the ideas usually have evidence, it could be just the proponent is unwilling to give away his logic. And of course if no evidence, no background for people to appraise the logic unless they are familiar with that or other areas necessary for understanding.
It is a dilemma, that I often fall into. I seldom "talk" about what they know that I know. I only wish to talk about what I know that they don't... just to find any cracks in my logic.
So only so much can be shared.
However this frustrates readers.
But even so a good scientist reads between the lines, maintains an open mind and should be able to tease out evidence, even from the drunk in the gutter.
Sadly true scientists have better things to do than post on science forums which are polluted with intransigent opinionated laypeople.
So scientific investigation comes to a halt, because a hue and cry goes up and many posters that pursue "criticism" about real matters are banned.
What to do ?
IMU
The problem with online public science forums is that the posters in the main are not scientists
and any scientists that post are big fish in a small fishbowl
so they consider their opinion s very precious, so precious that all other opinions are totally, and I mean totally incorrect.... not even worthy of discussion.
A sad state of affairs for science.
But looking at it another way, often new ideas do not come with public evidence... oh the ideas usually have evidence, it could be just the proponent is unwilling to give away his logic. And of course if no evidence, no background for people to appraise the logic unless they are familiar with that or other areas necessary for understanding.
It is a dilemma, that I often fall into. I seldom "talk" about what they know that I know. I only wish to talk about what I know that they don't... just to find any cracks in my logic.
So only so much can be shared.
However this frustrates readers.
But even so a good scientist reads between the lines, maintains an open mind and should be able to tease out evidence, even from the drunk in the gutter.
Sadly true scientists have better things to do than post on science forums which are polluted with intransigent opinionated laypeople.
So scientific investigation comes to a halt, because a hue and cry goes up and many posters that pursue "criticism" about real matters are banned.
What to do ?
IMU
nice article
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1768862.htm
>> Aberrant science can involve the use of methods or the arrival at conclusions the majority don't agree with and is often shunned as if it was fraudulent, he says.
And yet, says Little, some aberrant science is by honest hardworking scientists who produce very important results.
Little says those whose only crime is to use unusual methods or reach unusual conclusions should not be treated with the same contempt.
Instead, he says, they should be greeted with open-mindedness, a feature that is supposed to be the hallmark of good science.
Little says an example of such unfairly treated aberrant science is something that challenges the current scientific paradigm, the given set of assumptions about how the world works.
Little says a related category of unfairly treated aberrant science is something that challenges the accepted ideology of the day.
Little says scientists' prejudice against aberrant science reveals a failure of the community to live up to its own rhetoric.
Science is supposed to allow for freedom to experiment, including in unusual ways that could challenge scientific paradigms, he says.
It is also supposed to allow for the possibility of scientists making mistakes.
Instead of vilifying those who step outside the bounds of what is regarded as acceptable science, Little says scientists should first investigate their claims using the objective criteria, said to be central to good scientific practice.
Failure to do this means that useful science is ignored, productive laboratories are closed down and careers are often destroyed unnecessarily, he says.
In other words, says Little, scientists should think twice before judging their colleagues badly.
They should ask what exactly about the scientist's work is bothering them and acknowledge if it is because the aberrant scientist is challenging their preconceptions. >>>>>>>
AND THE PERSONAL OUTCOMES
"He was denigrated in a way which made it seem that he was utterly dishonest," says Little.
Although Burt was largely vindicated later, the damage to his reputation remains to this day, says Little, even though it is generally accepted that genetic factors interact with environmental factors in shaping intelligence.
"So great is the effect of what was said about him is that you can't even quote Burt in your essays in most sociological and psychological schools," says Little. >>>
Scientists have been living with these conditions for a very very long time.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1768862.htm
>> Aberrant science can involve the use of methods or the arrival at conclusions the majority don't agree with and is often shunned as if it was fraudulent, he says.
And yet, says Little, some aberrant science is by honest hardworking scientists who produce very important results.
Little says those whose only crime is to use unusual methods or reach unusual conclusions should not be treated with the same contempt.
Instead, he says, they should be greeted with open-mindedness, a feature that is supposed to be the hallmark of good science.
Little says an example of such unfairly treated aberrant science is something that challenges the current scientific paradigm, the given set of assumptions about how the world works.
Little says a related category of unfairly treated aberrant science is something that challenges the accepted ideology of the day.
Little says scientists' prejudice against aberrant science reveals a failure of the community to live up to its own rhetoric.
Science is supposed to allow for freedom to experiment, including in unusual ways that could challenge scientific paradigms, he says.
It is also supposed to allow for the possibility of scientists making mistakes.
Instead of vilifying those who step outside the bounds of what is regarded as acceptable science, Little says scientists should first investigate their claims using the objective criteria, said to be central to good scientific practice.
Failure to do this means that useful science is ignored, productive laboratories are closed down and careers are often destroyed unnecessarily, he says.
In other words, says Little, scientists should think twice before judging their colleagues badly.
They should ask what exactly about the scientist's work is bothering them and acknowledge if it is because the aberrant scientist is challenging their preconceptions. >>>>>>>
AND THE PERSONAL OUTCOMES
"He was denigrated in a way which made it seem that he was utterly dishonest," says Little.
Although Burt was largely vindicated later, the damage to his reputation remains to this day, says Little, even though it is generally accepted that genetic factors interact with environmental factors in shaping intelligence.
"So great is the effect of what was said about him is that you can't even quote Burt in your essays in most sociological and psychological schools," says Little. >>>
Scientists have been living with these conditions for a very very long time.
The icons of medicine started disparaging "home remedies" before there was such a thing as effective antibiotics in the allopath's repertoire. They disparaged handwashing for a long time because the midwives practiced it. I think that allopathy has a very nasty reputation that people need to be aware of. Allopaths developed the habit of disparaging various things like colloidal silver because that was the only way that their paradigm would last.