Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Will you at least agree with me in stating that science and religion have had a pretty rough relationship through the ages?

"Many 'conflict between science and religion' myths come from the work of some nineteenth century historians who advocated the view known today as the "conflict thesis". The most influential exponents of the conflict thesis were John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. However the historical works of both are heavily criticized today. As the contemporary historian of science Colin Russell writes: "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship".[2]" - Wikipedia: Scientific Mythology

To some degree yeah, and I'm sure there are a bunch of cases where it got bad. But I don't think it ever seemed like they were constantly at odds like it does today. I really don't know my scientific history well though, so I could be wrong.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
In this thread it has been sounding like I have a problem with the actual process of science. I don't. What I have a problem with is the scientific community's biases, which leaves certain aspects of our existence unresearched or ignored by the scientific method.

Fair enough. But I think it would be more important to look instead at the people funding the scientific community. The research that tends to get the most funding is the research that may lead to breakthroughs that either save or make us money in some way. People want a decent return on their investment.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
I am not saying that communism is totalitarianism and a capitalist society is a completely free society.

This was your reasoning for linking the cold war with Ra's prophecy of "contrast between freedom and control."
I'm not saying that Ra's "contrast between freedom and control" prophecy fits poorly with the cold war scenario. But I do believe that this particular prophecy resonates more strongly with the modern appearance of trrzm. Let's meet halfway and say that both of these scenarios fit Ra's prophecy to some degree?

Deal. But read my first quote on the matter, I never even mentioned that. You then said the the contrast between freedom and control was not really there in the cold war era, and then I explained that it was with the by explaining how capitalism is free market and communism is controlled market. Do not put words in my mouth.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
I'm going to share some of my own philosophy based on the Law of One material on why bad things seem to happen, such as global warming and Nazism - as a result of this new energy. This is going to sound a bit New Age-ish, but please bear with me.

Bad things manifest as a result of vibratory disharmony. Earth is at this time enveloped in an atmosphere of relatively less developed or slower-vibrating energy due to human consciousness. Now, as this new incoming higher-vibrating energy is bathing the Earth, this creates an interference, or disharmony.

Think of it in terms of hot and cold air. Cold air, by itself, is harmless. Hot air, by itself, is harmless. However, when you mix them, you get a storm.
Global warming, Nazism, trrzm and general collapse of society is the storm.
The Earth is evolving, and these are her growth pains.

AAHHHH! Where the hell did this idea come from that you can just say something like this and have it be the slightest bit meaningful? That is completely New Age, you are doing the exact same thing all of the New-agers do. You take a bit of scientific language, with a little scientific understanding, and maybe a hint of logic and mix in all together with complete unfounded nonsense, and somehow that is supposed to make the nonsense profound. That is what New-Age is, it is the art of taking bullshit and making it sound good. Einstein did not tell us that all matter is energy, he showed us, and that's what made it profound. This is just meaningless drivel.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Interestingly, you can see that there is a temperature spike at the exact time period where the Nazis went berserk. This supports Ra's statement of this new energy not only affecting the climate, but also political systems as well as human behavior.

Are you just trying to drive me insane? THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. You are just looking at random noise and using your human biases to spot patterns. You are a gambler who thinks he should bet more because he is on a hot streak. You are a person looking at a cloud that looks like a human face to him and calling it evidence for god. This is not scientific study and this is not support for the "Law of One."

What you did there is a very clear example of what we call confirmation bias, and is why we use statistics to examine data and not just rely on human perception. You want to know how you might test your theory? Go through a historical entry of each year and rate the political tension in each year on a scale of -10 to +10 with zero being a fairly normal amount. Then you take your results and run a statistical test to see how well your data correlates with with the temperature data and find your P-Value to determine the significance. Of course it is very easy to come up with a million problems that you would unable to account for in this test, but it is just an example of how you do something scientifically.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
I should have been more specific. The Law of One material states that this upgrade took place approx. 75,000 years ago. At this particular time, something happened to human evolution which has led to science into starting the "Great Leap Forward" debate.

Here's a quote from wikipedia:
"Until about 50,000–40,000 years ago the use of stone tools seems to have progressed stepwise. Each phase (habilis, ergaster, neanderthal) started at a higher level than the previous one; but once that phase started, further development was slow. In other words, these particular Homo species were culturally conservative. After 50,000 BP, however, human culture apparently started to change at a much greater speed."

Humans, unlike other animals have an exceptionally long developmental period before we are able to be independent of our mothers. Most animals brains are programmed with the knowledge they need to survive when they come out of the womb. Humans on the other hand come out very useless and stay that way for a long time until we learn to be otherwise. It usually takes us over a year to even learn to walk and it is extremely difficult for us compared to other animals. This is because human brains come out as an essentially blank slate. The reason for this is because is because a fully developed human brain could not fit through the cervical canal, so we are instead required to learn everything we know outside of the womb and are exceptionally good at doing so.

Because of this human learning is passed on from generation to generation and accumulated, unlike in other animals. It might then be expected that human learning would follow an exponential curve. To demonstrate this imagine a useful developmental idea as a single unit. An idea can either be totally new, grow out of an old idea, or come from a combination of old ideas, we could say for instance there is a 1 in 100,000 chance of any of these happening in in a given year.

So our expectancy would be 100,000 years for the first idea to develop. (1 new idea) Then after the first idea developed we would expect 50,000 years for the second idea to develop (1 new idea or 1 grown idea). After the second idea was developed we would expect 25,000 years for the third. (1 new idea, 2 grown ideas, or 1 combined idea). After the third we would expect about 15,000 years for the fourth. (1 new, 3 grown, 3 combined). 8,300 for the fifth (1 new, 4 grown, 6 combined). That's and expectancy about 200,000 years for the first 5 ideas. Another 15,000 years for the tenth. Another 10,000 for the 25th. Another 4,000 for the 50th. And another 2,000 for the 100th. I'm not going to upload the curve this gives you, but it looks like the letter "L" rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise.

So that's my off the top of my head theory of why learning would speed up while evolution progresses at the natural rate. One of the assumptions you are making is equating learning with evolution in the human animal, but this is a false assumption. I explain why in the first part, which is stuff I have learned from psychology.

Yes the model is simplified, but I don't think it does all that bad of job explaining things. I looked at some of the other explanations after I wrote this and if I had wanted to give you the basic search a theory on Wikipedia response, here is what that would look like:

"Continuity theorists believe that what appears to be a technological revolution at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic is most likely a result of increased cultural exchange resulting from a growing human population. Some continuity theorists also argue that the rapid pace of cultural evolution during the Upper Paleolithic transition may have been triggered by adverse environmental conditions such as aridity arising from glacial maxima.[1] They further dispute that anatomical modernity predates behavioral modernity, stating that changes in human anatomy and behavioral changes occurred stepwise.[5] The findings of Curtis Marean and his colleagues of fishing and symbolic behavior dating to 164,000 years ago on the southern African coast strongly support this analysis."

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by MTT
Our Egyptian god is coming up against a lot of evidence here. And if this new energy came around in 1936, then why does the temperature record of the Earth show a warming trend for the past 350 or so years?

You can't deny that the climate change has accelerated in recent years.

This new energy works in addition to the sun's natural cycles. On the graph you can see that although the temperatures swing according to the sun's natural cycles, it also shows a sharp trend upwards beginning in around 1940.

Sorry, radiative forcing and the effect of solar radiation cycles are two different phenomenon, I can see how that would be confusing, so here is a link for radiative forcing. To deny radiative forcing is to deny something that is backed up by a lot of evidence. The people who deny anthropogenic global warming are saying that the radiative forcing is not having as much of an effect as we think it is and that most of the change is accounted for with solar radiation cycles. The people who are supporting the anthropogenic global warming are saying that we are over and above what we would expect from solar radiation and that the radiative forcing from the greenhouse gases are having a major effect. Neither group is denying either effect, because the evidence for both is so strong. So the only possibly valid stance you have left is that this new energy (with no evidence for its existence) is working along along side the radiative forcing effects and the solar radiation cycle effects to produce the temperatures we are getting today. I see this as a major cop out because it does not sound like Ra ever hints at the other forces that are at play and that you are just trying to worm the theory into an area that is unfalsifiable, never mind the fact that it is clearly violating the Occam's Razor principle. So yeah, the way I see it the "Law of One" has come crumbling down.

[Edited by - MTT on March 17, 2009 8:02:37 PM]

Wide yes, but deep? I don't see it. Extraterrestrials, Nazism and Global Warming? Sounds like someone has spent too much time reading the tabloids.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
No it's not unlikely at all. Humanity has FOREVER made such grand claims, and they still do today, ESPECIALLY when it involves some form of deity or supernatural claim. It's a more effective scare tactic to convince believers if you can convince that the deity has such far reaching supernatural powers.

I don't agree with this. In my opinion, some modesty would be a lot more convincing.

">I'll let the video speak for itself

Speaking of evolution.
There was a facinateing documentary some time back on the National Geographic Channel (IIRC) exploreing the differences between apes and humans.

They showed an experiment where some orangutans had been taught to use a touch screen to put numbers in sequence. First the screen would show a "X" and the orangutans would touch that bringing up the numbers 1 through 9 in random locations on the screen. The orangutans would go through clearing out the numbers in order starting by pressing 1, followed by 2 followed by 3,etc.

Then they changed the test. it would start the same way. But the moment the orangutan touched the number 1, all the other randomly placed numbers were instantly replaced by little boxes. Then to finnish the test correctly the orangutan had to touch the identical boxes in the same order as the numbers they replaced. This was a test of short term memory.

The orangutans were shown to have far better short term memory than any of the humans whom performed the same test. Far better on the order of it takeing about a quarter second for the orangutan to have memorized exactly where each number appeared onscreen.

Further, another test was devised around a black box. Hidden inside the box was a food treat. The orangutans were then taught a certain sequence of actions that would allow the box to open so they could recieve the treat.

A group of children around 4 to 8 years old were also given the same test and taught the same sequence of actions to open the black box.

Both groups were able to get into the black box following the taught sequence of actions.

Then the box was replaced with an identical one made of clear plexiglass. This new box made it obvious only the last action of the sequence was required to open the box, the others did nothing.

The orangutans very quickly figured this out and ignored all of the taught sequence of actions except the last one allowing them to open the box.

However the children still at first followed the exact same sequence of actions with the transparent box just as they did with the black one. Eventualy they figured out only the last action was required, but it took them much longer than the orangutans did.

Kinda runs counter to what is expected of 'lower' lifeforms. But the point is the vast differences between the way orangutans and human children learn. In the wild the apes are given a far less formal education. They learn by watching, then mimicing, then quickly adapting their own refined processes basied on what they notice. Its shown that they have no real long term approch to problem solveing. Humans on the other hand have far more unfocused short term memories, and much better long term ones. This allows us to develop long term solutions to problems...instead of scavageing for food like the apes do, we were able to effectively bring the food to us by developing farming.

Further much of our learning in our early childhood is basied almost entirely on the passing of knowledge from mature humans to the children. This allows us to build upon our knowledge from the previous generations.

Apes could not teach thier young how to farm. We could show them how to till the earth, create a shallow hole for a seed, gently bury it, tend to the weeding of it which eventualy allows it to grow to maturity. But the apes don't have the long term memory for the process, they would quickly forget where even the seed had been planted, or even just overlook the whole process and toss the seed on the ground as they cant understand the the long term effect of such actions.

But the young human children were shown to follow the directions, even when they made little sense to those of us maybe just a few years older. Even teenagers would see right through the sequence of actions to open even the black box.

What would seem to give the orangutans an advantage in problem solveing actualy ends up working against them.

A major difference between Humans and even Neanderthals of 130,000 years ago, is we have a weaker jaw structure. Both in the strength of bone, teeth and jaw muscle. This places limits on our dietary needs which explains why so much of our species early advances over other humanoids were in the form of refining processes for gathering food. Neanderthals did not farm but we did.

Conversely another thing to consider is nature is full of specialised speces that have developed unique traits. Flying squirrels, chameleon lizards, the cheetah, even the puffer fish. If evolution explains those species, then can it not also explain a species that has developed the unique trait of long term problem solveing? Seems to me it does.

[Edited by - MSW on March 17, 2009 6:20:42 PM]

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
The scientific community should try to induce out-of-body experiences in subjects, and then see whether they are able to do seemingly impossible tasks. For example, by putting a note with a number on it in a completely enclosed room, in order to see if someone can read that note. IF this experiment succeeds, then that proves without a doubt that consciousness must exist outside the brain.

This is not what the scientific community is attempting to do at all. What they're doing is, as you've mentioned, stimulating certain parts of the brain in order to create the feeling of being outside the body in a subject. This experiment is biased from the very beginning, as it assumes that consciousness is a product of the brain.

Bullshit! Dr. Bruce Greyson has been performing the test you outline on patients receiving cardioverter-defibrillator implantations.

During the implantation operation, the doctors must induce a cardiac arrest in the patient to make sure the device is working properly, thus this operation provides a high percentage chance of invoking an NDE.

Dr. Greyson’s research design involves putting unexpected visual targets in the operating room that can be seen only from above the operating table. An open laptop computer is placed above the operating table that randomly selects 12 images as it cycles through all of them. Before the operation starts, Greyson administers a battery of psychological tests and goes over a consent form, and then during the post-op phase he asks about how the procedure went and eventually asks the patient to guess what picture was being displayed on the lap-top. He also interviews them 6 months after the operation, because sometimes they remember things that happened during the procedure only after some time has passed. Greyson noted that there are very tight procedural controls on what he can say to the patients and also what types of patients can be allowed into the experimental pool.

In the few years he has been performing this experiment no one reporting a NDE has identified the images. Even if someone did once it is NOT enough, because the validity of your theory of NDE requires repeated success of the test. He uses 12 random images from a much larger pool of images inorder to reduce the statistical guess work. If they only randomly selected a number between 0 and 9 to display then someone could simply guess a number and still have a 1 in 10 chance of success.

Once is never enough in science, the effect must be shown to be repeatable. Even you must understand that, if we are all of one capable of counciousness out of body, then it stands to reason such a test should produce multiple successes.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
Any why are you reluctant to accept that? Even scientists would like to believe the pearly gates stories, or that there is life after death. That's the basis for like every religion. That doesn't mean at all that if there is nothing after death, that our time on earth is somehow meaningless.

I was just stating the origin of my bias, that's all.
Those who fear the meaningful universe might be biased against it because they're afraid of greater responsibility for their actions, for example. We all have biases, and they all come from somewhere.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
Not especially. We tend to dream most when we're unconscious.

Unconsciousness is an unspecific term. You are equating a state of unconsciousness brought on by sleepiness to a state of unconsciousness brought on by draining the blood from the brain. Clearly, they are not the same. If you've read the previous pages of this thread, you'll see discussion on my ability to foretell the future. This ability that I have, that I know to be genuine, is personal proof that there is something to this time/space model of dreaming. Seeing the future is possible in time/space.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
The brain doesn't decide anything. It blacks out when it can't function properly due to lack of oxygen. It's in an unstable state.

This is simply not true. The brain decides to sacrifice its higher cognitive functions first, such as thinking. The essential functions such as control of heartbeat and respiration then get an extra supply of blood to keep on going.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: I sense that most people consider a NDE as something "holy" that can only be triggered under special "spiritual circumstances".

I make no such assumption. I believe NDEs are a biological product of how the brain reacts under harmful circumstances(lack of oxygen, trauma, etc).

Me too. However, I then believe that the NDE is a result of the consciousness leaving the brain into another state of existence, namely, time/space.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
I base this view on the fact that the majority of the evidence supports that. NDE's can be replicated with drugs, brain stimulation,

Replicated to a certain degree. And again, if you bathe a brain in enough drugs then that could create a scenario where the consciousness decides to depart the brain for a short period of time.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
Your definition of NDE may include consciousness leaving the body, but the real definition makes no such claim.

From wikipedia's article on NDEs:
4. An out-of-body experience; a sensation of floating above one's own body and seeing the surrounding area;

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
The evidence points to NDE's as a biological function of the brain that can be replicated with brain stimulation, drugs and trauma. There is no evidence of the consciousness leaving the body.

There are documented cases where the consciousness leaving the brain would be the only rational explanation.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
In fact, your definition, and the concept of remote viewing in general even had the government interested and pouring millions of dollars into researching many years ago because the implications of such a phenomenon would be huge. Like ESP, and psychic nonsense, attempts to prove its existence AT BEST show a very slight positive result above chance, a result that in practically every case can be easily shown to be bias introduced into the testing procedure because the testing wasn't properly controlled. As the controls are tightened, the apparent positive results most often disappeared. Wiki remote viewing and it echos this. Critics of such research aren't close minded to the ideas, they are pointing out the flaws in these sorts of studies. Everyone would love to have definitive proof of supernatural phenomenon. A non blinded and non controlled for study is a worthless study, and the strength of the scientific method and the science community is that such data must be peer reviewed in order to account for weaknesses in the study, alternate explanations, etc. Supernatural explanations are the last things that should be considered.

I am aware of the remote viewing research that has been done. The fact that these projects were closed down are rather testaments to their success rather than proof of failure to me. How is that logical, you might ask? These projects were re-classified as secret in order to receive funding from a black budget. Don't take anything that the intelligence agencies of your government tells you as complete and utter truth.


You can post a picture of a person with a tinfoil hat on in return if that will amuse you. It's going to amuse me. [smile]

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
Yes I have, and I immediately come to the conclusion that no evidence supports that possibility, and there are explanations that are both much more practical, demonstrable, and much more easily explained.

For a resource-deprived brain to start dreaming vividly is completely and utterly illogical. You are denying this. I'm going to go all latin and cool and say that this is argumentis denialis (argument based on denial).

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
I make no such assumption to them being holy. You have the bold part right, but you are making a leap of faith to connect that with a consciousness leaving the body, a leap that I don't. The bold part is explanation enough, and is the only part the evidence supports.

I have my own views, as well as make up my own mind on things. You are very evidence oriented. Having a very strict evidence oriented view of reality is healthy, and I've considered going in that direction myself on numerous occasions. I'll have to debunk the Law of One material, first, though. As well as explain my ability to foretell the future through current scientific understanding.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: When the centrifuge stops and blood seeps back into the brain, the consciousness returns. Therefore, the fact that you can induce a NDE by forcing blood out of the brain does not prove anything.

It damn sure does prove something. It is strong evidence that supports that there is a physiological effect at work. An effect also achievable via drugs and other stimulation.

It proves that the brain and the consciousness are linked intimately together. You'd expect this regardless of whether the brain generates consciousness all by itself, or whether consciousness is a product of cooperation between several parties.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: Well, first of all the scientific community should remove itself from any preconceived notion that consciousness is generated by the brain.

Why? Because you want to believe otherwise? The community follows the evidence. What you see as preconceived notion is the conclusion that current evidence points to.

Again, you are presenting a noble perception of the scientific community that I don't agree with. Fact is, the scientific community is biased against "supernatural" claims. They keep each other in line by fear of ridicule.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
I'm sure they didn't think of that in the government funded research on the subject. It must have worked great, hence the canceling of such projects.

If you remove the underlying sarcasm from these sentences then that is exactly correct. They (the intelligence agencies of the government) want to keep it for themselves. The government lies to you about a lot of things, and one could argue that it is in your best interest for them to do so.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: At some stage in the future, we might know enough about the Brain to fully understand the Near Death Experience. But right now, we know that you don’t have to be dying to have one, and that it neither proves nor disproves the existence of an after-life.

I wonder if the author of that article is named Brian. [grin]

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: If this is something that science shouldn't concern itself with, then it's pretty unfair to demand scientific proof in the next sentence.

Huh? I demanded no scientific proof of a creator/designer. Science demands no proof of a designer. Supernatural claims are untestable, and science doesn't concern itself with them. Only when claims become testable, or when they are used to attempt to undermine what science knows does it become a conflict.

I wasn't directing that at you specifically. What I meant is that this thread bounces back and forth between two states:

1) We want proof!
2) Science shouldn't concern itself with this, because these things are unprovable!

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
BUT IT HAS. The government alone has poured millions into such research, for the obvious implications that it could have on intelligence and the benefit that such technology could have. It hasn't held up to scrutiny.

You don't know that.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil
You are very much saying it is magical. The consciousness leaving the brain implies that the consciousness is something supernatural, and it exists beyond our brain or body. Maybe it does, but there is practically nothing to support that.

There is nothing in this universe that is supernatural. There are only natural things, and the things we don't understand as natural, yet.
Phenomena in the past that were considered supernatural to science are now proven as completely measurable natural occurrences. How can you say that consciousness is not going to be another one of these natural phenomena that science will eventually embrace at a later time?

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: I don't agree with this. In my opinion, some modesty would be a lot more convincing.

[...] The more far fetched the better. [...]

This doesn't apply to a reasonable human being. Ironically, the claim that the ancient primitive Egyptians would be able to create such massive perfect structures seems pretty far fetched to me. You just proved your own point. Notice how I also elegantly slipped in the fact that you are not completely reasonable? [smile]

Even though this is stand-up comedy, it makes a very good point.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: It would make a lot more sense from a hoax standpoint to claim that Ra aided the Egyptians in their construction of the pyramids. But no, according to the material, Ra just put them there!

It would make more sense to a rational person sure, but supernatural beliefs/stories have never been about being rational. It's much more frightening and a much stronger show of power that Ra just put them there.

The pyramids were intended as healing devices. Ra might be powerful, in the sense that Ra has reached a level of development that we can't fathom yet. However, we'll eventually reach that stage of development as well. The scientific community can't explain how the pyramids were built. This doesn't prove that Ra built them, but it certainly leaves the possibility open.

Quote: Original post by DrEvil

Quote: Extraterrestrials.

Right. Explaining one supernatural claim with another. That's where the parallel to Scientology came from. Xenu did it!

Please explain this newspaper article in which the Air Force of your government admits to having a flying saucer in its possession. The next day, strangely enough, this flying saucer had transformed itself into a weather balloon. Cover-up?



[Edited by - polymorphed on March 18, 2009 8:19:44 AM]

Quote: Original post by MTT
To some degree yeah, and I'm sure there are a bunch of cases where it got bad. But I don't think it ever seemed like they were constantly at odds like it does today. I really don't know my scientific history well though, so I could be wrong.

Let's just agree on the fact that science and religion are pretty incompatible with each other, although there are probably situations in which they can co-exist without disharmony.

Quote: Original post by MTT
Fair enough. But I think it would be more important to look instead at the people funding the scientific community. The research that tends to get the most funding is the research that may lead to breakthroughs that either save or make us money in some way. People want a decent return on their investment.

Agreed.

Quote: Original post by MTT
AAHHHH! Where the hell did this idea come from that you can just say something like this and have it be the slightest bit meaningful? That is completely New Age, you are doing the exact same thing all of the New-agers do. You take a bit of scientific language, with a little scientific understanding, and maybe a hint of logic and mix in all together with complete unfounded nonsense, and somehow that is supposed to make the nonsense profound. That is what New-Age is, it is the art of taking bullshit and making it sound good. Einstein did not tell us that all matter is energy, he showed us, and that's what made it profound. This is just meaningless drivel.

Call it whatever you want. This "new energy" explanation fits nicely with what has happened in our society for the past hundred years or so. Also, the ebook I provided you with goes into much, much greater detail. What I presented as that personal philosophy was just a general outline of what is presented in the ebook.

Quote: Original post by MTT
Are you just trying to drive me insane? THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS.
You are just looking at random noise and using your human biases to spot patterns.

I'm using common sense to spot patterns. I'll agree, common sense is not the same as science. But I don't need science to prove my common sense.

Quote: Original post by MTT
You are a gambler who thinks he should bet more because he is on a hot streak. You are a person looking at a cloud that looks like a human face to him and calling it evidence for god.

If you need science to prove your common sense then you have completely subjected your own personal opinion as nothing but a reflection of your God Almighty Science. Think for yourself, it doesn't hurt.

Quote: Original post by MTT
This is not scientific study and this is not support for the "Law of One."

If you want scientific study, look at the ebooks I've provided you with. They're nicely written.

Quote: Original post by MTT
What you did there is a very clear example of what we call confirmation bias, and is why we use statistics to examine data and not just rely on human perception. You want to know how you might test your theory? Go through a historical entry of each year and rate the political tension in each year on a scale of -10 to +10 with zero being a fairly normal amount.
Then you take your results and run a statistical test to see how well your data correlates with with the temperature data and find your P-Value to determine the significance. Of course it is very easy to come up with a million problems that you would unable to account for in this test, but it is just an example of how you do something scientifically.

Call it confirmation bias. I use my common sense to spot a very distinct pattern between social upheaval and climate change.

Quote: Original post by MTT
Humans, unlike other animals have an exceptionally long developmental period before we are able to be independent of our mothers. Most animals brains are programmed with the knowledge they need to survive when they come out of the womb. Humans on the other hand come out very useless and stay that way for a long time until we learn to be otherwise. It usually takes us over a year to even learn to walk and it is extremely difficult for us compared to other animals. This is because human brains come out as an essentially blank slate. The reason for this is because is because a fully developed human brain could not fit through the cervical canal, so we are instead required to learn everything we know outside of the womb and are exceptionally good at doing so.

Because of this human learning is passed on from generation to generation and accumulated, unlike in other animals. It might then be expected that human learning would follow an exponential curve. To demonstrate this imagine a useful developmental idea as a single unit. An idea can either be totally new, grow out of an old idea, or come from a combination of old ideas, we could say for instance there is a 1 in 100,000 chance of any of these happening in in a given year.

So our expectancy would be 100,000 years for the first idea to develop. (1 new idea) Then after the first idea developed we would expect 50,000 years for the second idea to develop (1 new idea or 1 grown idea). After the second idea was developed we would expect 25,000 years for the third. (1 new idea, 2 grown ideas, or 1 combined idea). After the third we would expect about 15,000 years for the fourth. (1 new, 3 grown, 3 combined). 8,300 for the fifth (1 new, 4 grown, 6 combined). That's and expectancy about 200,000 years for the first 5 ideas. Another 15,000 years for the tenth. Another 10,000 for the 25th. Another 4,000 for the 50th. And another 2,000 for the 100th. I'm not going to upload the curve this gives you, but it looks like the letter "L" rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise.

Interesting theory, but I'm pretty sure that you'd need more than a few thousand years to manifest that very exponential "reverse L"-curve. This is what it comes down to.

Quote: Original post by MTT
So the only possibly valid stance you have left is that this new energy (with no evidence for its existence) is working along along side the radiative forcing effects and the solar radiation cycle effects to produce the temperatures we are getting today.

The chicken or the egg, which one came first? You are equating a correlation between increased CO2 and global warming as a proof that CO2 causes global warming. Why not the other way around?

Could infact the increased CO2 concentration that we measure in our atmosphere be nothing but a side-effect of the warming? Earth's geological history shows a stunning correlation between temperature and CO2 level. Did we drive cars 20,000 years ago?


Link.
Some scientists have suggested that ocean warming is resulting in increased CO2 and not the other way around (5). This is based on the idea that there is a lot of CO2 trapped in the oceans, and as the temperature rises, the CO2 is released, since the solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature. Oceans have long been considered to be a sink for atmospheric carbon. If it is releasing CO2 as a result of warming temperatures, the CO2 should be decreasing in the oceans.
Here's an interesting news article related to this - barely a week old.

This "new energy" has a secondary warming effect alongside its primary effect (vibratory disharmony) by releasing CO2 from the oceans into the atmosphere.

Quote: Original post by MTT
So yeah, the way I see it the "Law of One" has come crumbling down.

No, not really. Try harder. [grin]
You shouldn't deal that card after every argument you make, by the way, it loses its effectiveness that way. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

I actually would appreciate it if someone could debunk the Law of One material for me though. I've been trying to do that myself. Here's a collection of references Ra has made to actual people. This should serve as cannon fodder for debunking.

[Edited by - polymorphed on March 18, 2009 9:22:14 AM]

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Wide yes, but deep? I don't see it. Extraterrestrials, Nazism and Global Warming? Sounds like someone has spent too much time reading the tabloids.

I don't think that you can deny the existence of any of those, especially not the last two. Roswell proves the existence of ETs to a very reasonable extent. What I'm doing is linking these topics together into a greater and more unified understanding of our very recent history.

Quote: Original post by MSW
Speaking of evolution. [...]

Yes, this is fascinating. Apes beat humans at certain repetitive tasks. In the grander sense though, I think we can agree on apes being less intelligent than humans, even though they might score 50% better on a short-term memory test?

Quote: Original post by MSW
Bullshit! Dr. Bruce Greyson has been performing the test you outline on patients receiving cardioverter-defibrillator implantations. [...]

This seems like an awfully convoluted way of examining whether consciousness is separate from the brain. It would be a lot more efficient to let people trained in astral-projection just astral project out of the body in order to identify the pictures.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Wide yes, but deep? I don't see it. Extraterrestrials, Nazism and Global Warming? Sounds like someone has spent too much time reading the tabloids.

I don't think that you can deny the existence of any of those, especially not the last two. Roswell proves the existence of ETs to a very reasonable extent. What I'm doing is linking these topics together into a greater and more unified understanding of our very recent history.

What I'm denying is that this is deep philosophical stuff.

Roswell proves ET's? No, it doesn't. [smile]

Somethings just shouldn't be linked together, like Nazism and Climate Breakdown.

I agree with MTT: You are just looking at random noise and using your human biases to spot patterns. It's not common sense, it's your idiosyncratic sense. Common sense suggests a community sense, a sense of commonality, at the very least, a widespread and easy to find low cost sense.

That said, I think you'll get a kick out of this: UFO disclosure alternative energy and our environment