Philosophy of electric universe

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Plasmatic » Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:52 pm

There is however,IMHO, a distinct harmonic relationship between the creative human spirit, call it "thought", and the creative spirit of the universe, whom I think of as God. If one denies this as "acausal", I think you run the risk of acausality yourself. This is faith vs. faith, not faith and force vs. reason and science. Intelligent design is demonstrable scientifically, and cannot be attributed to planetary or plasmatic causes. I love the power of the electrical explanation for physical universal phenomena, but there is much more to the universe, and this forum, than can be explained by laws of plasma. "Thought": I don't care how much you want to tell me about the electrochemical interactions along neurons, chemical exchanges at synapses, bit storage capacity of the cerebral cortex, and finely tuned hormonal feedback mechanisms. You are describing for me a supersophisticated biological nanocomputer programmed to respond to internal and external stimuli both physical and nonphysical, far in advance of any machine within the capacity of human inventiveness.


So your a mystic and a skeptic , aye... ;)

You are incorrect sir, theres nothing acausual about pointing out that getting something from nothing is a false assertion riddled with contradiction and mis-integration.

Observing reality is not an act of "faith" , Postulating the existence af an entity that by its prescribed attributes is impossible and contradictory . and asserting it has effects on the given perceptual concrete existents one encounters , is certainly an act of faith.To then go and apply the same reification to the term "universe" and treat as it is an actual entity , instead of a linguistic term used to economically refer to all the individual concretes that exist independent of one another as an entity with identity themselves. Is to demonstrate a conceptual mis-integration and an volitional act of "faith"

I invite you to demonstrate how this is risking "acausality"

It is indeed a matter of Faith which leads to Force vs Reason
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby webolife » Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:57 am

Aye, I takes your challenge, me good man.
Not sure what you mean by mis-integration, but allow me to address your assertion that:
"Observing reality is not an act of "faith" , Postulating the existence af an entity that by its prescribed attributes is impossible and contradictory." Had you said, "objective reality", I might have conceded to this part... however, your and my concept of "reality" is profoundly governed by faith. If you believe that material particles operating by known laws under conditions of random chance are capable of assembling and organizing themselves into intelligent sentient beings given enough time, then you will see the universal reality in one light. If you believe, au contraire, that orderly systems operating integratedly with other systems at all levels and scales (despite laws such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, for example, that would disintegrate such systems given enough time) suggest design, and therefore a designer, then your view of reality will be of a different light. It does not matter whether you have certain facts to support your view, or I have certain facts to support mine... all facts available will be seen to support either view, depending on the faith of the viewer. Likewise the conclusions drawn by each viewer are predetermined (predictable) from an understanding of each one's faith base.
This is what makes science such a tentative endeavor, and why paradigms persit only for so long, until overthrown by another paradigm.
It is also why it is so important that we keep in dialogue with opposing viewpoints. Each person is compelled by inevitable bias (your naturalistic, materialistic, deterministic bias is clearly evident) to draw conclusions reflective of that bias, no matter how "objective" their observations of reality are. Assuming each person is using sound methodologies and impeccable logic, their conclusions must differ.
This is the way of science, and why debate must accompany every claim.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Plasmatic » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:08 pm

Had you said, "objective reality", I might have conceded to this part...


Well fyi there is no other kind my friend so Ill accept your concession! :)


It does not matter whether you have certain facts to support your view, or I have certain facts to support mine... all facts available will be seen to support either view, depending on the faith of the viewer. Likewise the conclusions drawn by each viewer are predetermined (predictable) from an understanding of each one's faith base.



The good old philosophy of skepticism! This is a very old form of nonsense .Its been the same story since Plato , with a few new forms with the same underlying conceptual mis integrations. Aristotle was the first to demonstrate the ilogicity of it , and no one since , until Ayn Rand was able to demonstrate the Objective basis of reason in a consistent system without collapsing into Skepticism.

Reason is the indentification of the facts of reaity. All other conceptual attempts that fail to accuratly percieve the identify of percetual concretes ,input through sensation , are mis integrations.

I guess by your assertion you have never been "surprised" or "confounded" aye?
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby webolife » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:38 pm

Plasmatic replied:
Reason is the indentification of the facts of reaity. All other conceptual attempts that fail to accuratly percieve the identify of percetual concretes ,input through sensation , are mis integrations.
But Mr. P, this applies to all scientific endeavor as well!! The aim of science is the understanding/interpretation of the facts, not merely the collecting/identifying of them!!! So are you saying that reason is opposed to science? I doubt it! You are so opposed to anything smacking of religion, or an intelligence greater than your own, that you fail to notice your own materialistic religion smacking you in your face! Why not just admit that you actually believe what you wrote, and concede to my proposition:
Every assertion of the truth is biased. Every conclusion is spawned by its own faith base.
Back to the title of this forum's subject: Philosophy of EU
Clearly the vast majority of the contributors to these EU forums believe in the unifying power of electricity in understanding the systems of the universe [oops, sorry, you don't believe in the "universe", right?]... this belief keeps us threaded together regardless of whatever topic is brought up, or how "far off" anyone's speculations may be. Why is that? Is it merely because we think we have more evidence than the "other guys"? Or are we looking for a satisfactory theory of everything that provides us with a real connection to the "space" in which we live... I would call this a sense of "meaning", but of course you don't believe in that either, do you?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby webolife » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:47 pm

As for being "surprised" or "confounded", what use would a "faithless" person have for such words?
After all every new fact is just another addition to the collection already obtained, according apparently to you... unless you really believe, after all, that there is an overall meaning to the universe, and every new discovery reveals new vistas of wonder and amazement!?
Perhaps you identify with the last statement... if so, Mr. P, you and I are not so different... I conclude that the designer has woven an intricate tapestry with a message... you perhaps conclude that reality is indeed random and meaningless... each of us draws a conclusion that stems from our underlying belief.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Plasmatic » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:33 pm

The aim of science is the understanding/interpretation of the facts, not merely the collecting/identifying of them!!! So are you saying that reason is opposed to science?


Nope , what im saying is understanding is a result of non-contradictory IDENTIFICATION . You are misunderstanding the concept of identification. Could I identify my mother if I did not "understand " that it was her? You are confusing perception with reason. This is what makes you think that I was seperating science from reason.

You are so opposed to anything smacking of religion, or an intelligence greater than your own, that you fail to notice your own materialistic religion smacking you in your face!


Nice scarecrow. first of all I never said anything about being opposed to the existence of "intelligence greater than my own" nor is it implicit in anything i did say. Second religion is the worship of a "god" which I do not recogniza as a valid concept so it is impossible for me to be "religious" And i never said anything about there being no "meaning" in the world . you are now making assumptions and failing to address the actual differences in our perception!

Back to the title of this forum's subject: Philosophy of EU
Clearly the vast majority of the contributors to these EU forums believe in the unifying power of electricity in understanding the systems of the universe [oops, sorry, you don't believe in the "universe", right?]... this belief keeps us threaded together regardless of whatever topic is brought up, or how "far off" anyone's speculations may be. Why is that? Is it merely because we think we have more evidence than the "other guys"? Or are we looking for a satisfactory theory of everything that provides us with a real connection to the "space" in which we live... I would call this a sense of "meaning", but of course you don't believe in that either, do you?


More false accusations that add up to ad hominem. I did not say I dont believe in "meaning" nor is it implicit in anything I did say.

I did not say I dont believe in the universe. I said that it is not an entity itself , but a word to describe every individual entity that exist , in the multiplicity of objective reality
You are misunderstanding most of my words and therefore finding reason to be offended.

Reason is the ONLY method of "connecting" with "reality" . Faith is connection with false concepts that are useless in "reality"
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby webolife » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:47 am

Plasmatic, my friend and EU colleague, let's remain friends here. I apologize for any sense
in which you may have taken my debate points as ad hominem. I was trying to provoke you to admit
that your view of "objective reality" is based on a materialistic faith. Clearly you disavow this.
I will probably never convince you of this, because of your strong bias against the idea of "religion" having
anything to do with a correct understanding of nature. Most of my friends would not describe me as
being all that religious myself, but I do have a deep sense that the interlocking patterns of systems
of the universe reveal design, not just fortune. If perchance you believe this disqualifies me from the
true pursuit of science, I respectfully contend with your belief. Let's talk EU! :)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Plasmatic » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:24 pm

Plasmatic, my friend and EU colleague, let's remain friends here. I apologize for any sense
in which you may have taken my debate points as ad hominem.


Apology accepted , and no harm done! :)
I would call structure /identity what you call design , simply because a "designer" requires faith.
Contestation is not a fault my freind. :)
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:21 pm

Plasmatic yet again you are wrong. Memorising philosophical terms off the kronia website does not make you a philosopher. Neither does reading Ayn Rand. And for thee record I do not consider myself to be a philosopher. And you might want to swot up up on your teminology. It is strawman not scarecrow.
Are you in any way familiar with the Empiricist/Rationalist debate which occupied the Western Intellectual Tradition for centuries? Have you ever for e.g read any Kant, specifically where he deals with the phenomenal and the noumenal?
When you look at any thing you do not see the thing. You only see the light reflected by that thing. That is why you cannot see in the dark. Where is the red in the rose? The rose isnt red, it only appears red to us because it has not absorbed the red part of the spectrum.
Picure this:
You, Weboflife and I are, say looking at a red car. It doesnt matter that it is a car, it's just a 3D object. Let us further assume that we all have 20/20 vision, are all the same distance away and that all else is equal. We 'look' at the car and pick up the light being relected from it. The light comes through the eyes, travels aloong the optic nerve to the cerebral cortex and is passed to the area of the brain which deals with visuals (your graphics card). There the image is re-assembled and we see the car. But that is taking part in our brains yet we 'see' the car on the other side of the street (or where ever). Do we all see the same car? (Is the car we each see identical to that which the other two see?)
Okay scenario 2.
You are a pigeon, Weboflife is a spider and I remain human (all too human). Same car same light reflecting off it. Except in this case the light goes through your pigeon eyes, and ultimately into your pigeon brain, similarly throught Weboflife's umpteen eyes etc, etc. Do we all see the same car? (Is the car we each see identical to that which the other two see?)
If not, who sees the 'real' car?
There are now 4 cars. The pigeon's 'real' car, the spider's 'real' car, the human's 'real' car and the noumenal car (the thing in itself).
Next. All atoms are 99.999% space. That is to say that if you draw a circle around the orbits of the electrons, the nucleus and the electrons will occupy only 0.001% of the volume of that circle or sphere. This applies equally to the atoms in your body and the atoms in say your table. Yet if you bang your knee against the table all feels very solid and it hurts. So what is real there the solid knee and table or the pain?
The atoms in your knee never actually make contact with the atoms in the table.
On a different tack. You are championing the scientific method but even scientists concede that there are things for which the scientific method is not capable of investigating. Dreams would be one example. Science can only explain the how, not the why.

"Second religion is the worship of a "god" which I do not recogniza as a valid concept ..."

1. Religion does not necessarily mean the worship of a god. The word religion comes from a latin word 'ligare' (might be a bit out on the spelling there - all this is coming off the top of my head) which means connect or join (I think its related to ligature as in the medical). So religion implies reconnecting or rejoining.
2. Religion does not necessarily imply a god (and here we really should define the term god) - think Buddhism for example.
3. The fact that you don't recognize the god as a valid concept is neither here nor there (that is opinion or faith (that you are correct)) but it sets you in direct opposition to some of the greatest minds (and I mean minds) that the world has known (or at least that we have record of). Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, to name but three, were all monotheists, the Egyptians were too, as are the Indians (Hindus) as were the Maya, as were the Norse, etc, etc. And yes I can show that all these are monotheists.

You should be more careful in your use of the word 'reason'. The ancient Greeks for one example did not use it in exactly the same way as we did. To the likes of Plato reason was a function of mind not brain. In any case, just because modern science says that only reason is acceptable does not mean it is so. Who elected science to speak for all? Or is science now god?
I'm guessing you are young so I can understand your impetuosity. I was young and foolish once too.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Plasmatic » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:49 pm

Plasmatic yet again you are wrong. Memorising philosophical terms off the kronia website does not make you a philosopher. Neither does reading Ayn Rand.


Yet again??? Your attack seems familiar , I may have come upon you in private discussions before... ;) Your "strawman" here consists of the idea that i have claimed such an arbitrary title. I do "love wisdom" If thats what your wondering . Or do I need to clairify this for you since you dont see my choice of "scarecrow" as an alternative conceptually to the formal "strawman".
"
Are you in any way familiar with the Empiricist/Rationalist debate which occupied the Western Intellectual Tradition for centuries? Have you ever for e.g read any Kant, specifically where he deals with the phenomenal and the noumenal?
When you look at any thing you do not see the thing. You only see the light reflected by that thing. That is why you cannot see in the dark. Where is the red in the rose? The rose isnt red, it only appears red to us because it has not absorbed the red part of the spectrum.
Picure this:


Im familiar with Kant , Hume and Plato's nonsense thorougly. The anylitic synthetic dichotomy is nonsense and It is indeed reponsible for the secularization af all the nonsense duality and skepticism from Plato and his ilk. The abandonment of Aristotles Logic is exactly why the world is where it is . Mysticism secular or not always leads to tyranny.

1. Religion does not necessarily mean the worship of a god. The word religion comes from a latin word 'ligare' (might be a bit out on the spelling there - all this is coming off the top of my head) which means connect or join (I think its related to ligature as in the medical). So religion implies reconnecting or rejoining.


Which leads one to the fact that one is "reconnecting or rejoining " to what??????? We only need to consult the "religions" to determine this.. Words require knowledge of the context they are birthed from.

2. Religion does not necessarily imply a god (and here we really should define the term god) - think Buddhism for example.
3. The fact that you don't recognize the god as a valid concept is neither here nor there (that is opinion or faith (that you are correct)) but it sets you in direct opposition to some of the greatest minds (and I mean minds) that the world has known (or at least that we have record of). Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, to name but three, were all monotheists, the Egyptians were too, as are the Indians (Hindus) as were the Maya, as were the Norse, etc, etc. And yes I can show that all these are monotheists.


Well it is "here" relevent , because the thread you chose to jump in and attack me with has a context that asserted that " I " was "religious". So my response is indeed relevent to the here which can be found up there above. :roll:

You seem to need a lesson yourself as to what "faith" is . Faith is a mental agreement based on nothing but the choice to accept a given concept. Rather than a choice made based on facts of reality. But you being a Kantian ,Platonic folk yourself dont believe in objective reality. Skeptics/subjectivist need only demonstrate to me that consciousness has primacy over existence by using theirs to turn my nwespaper into a million dollars.

Your ignorance of the Mythological model presented herein is what allows you to assert that buddihsim is not about "gods" If you learn what "buddah" was then youll see why your incorrect along with everyone else who asserts the same.

You may consider whomever you like as a "great mind". None of your choices are on my short list. Nor would I place monotheism in the category of a "great" conceptual choice.

You have demonstrated your willingness to assume things without the proper facts being differentiated conceptually. Your assumptions are invalid , not the least of which is that i am a materialist ,in that I dont recognize "mind" as real. ON THE CONTRARY IT IS THE MOST ESSENTIALLY DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC IN MAN !

You should be more careful in your use of the word 'reason'. The ancient Greeks for one example did not use it in exactly the same way as we did. To the likes of Plato reason was a function of mind not brain. In any case, just because modern science says that only reason is acceptable does not mean it is so. Who elected science to speak for all? Or is science now god?


Heres the difining difference. You cannot have the "mind" without the "brain" Which does not diminish its existence as a primary essentail quality in man. I certainly didnt say anyone [or any concept in your usage} was speaking for all. Simply that reality/existence is primary and consciousness[mind] cant do a damn thing about it.


Allow me to help you differentiate properly the difference between concept and concrete. Science is a concept , it is not a actuall objective entity. The same with "god" .Niether are able to speak or exist apart from the "minds" and words [which dont have objective referents!] of folks who dont know the difference , which is what is required to reify concepts into an entity.

Now my comments where only a result of a direct contextual nescessity in response to WeboLife. Yours seem to be a personal vendetta or mission. But its niether "here nor their" , as Im not threatend by disagreement,your false assumtions only serve to demonstrate your character, however:

I'm guessing you are young so I can understand your impetuosity. I was young and foolish once too.


This is an attempt to condescend and a direct ad hominem attack. You should consider the way of others who have done so in the past! You need to read the rules of the forum. Oh My your Sure How I think arent you! ;)
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby webolife » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:32 am

My friends, my friends,
Let's not make ad hominem attacks... can we ask questions of each other's philosophy, however, as in this thread title?
I clearly see I misunderstood Plasmatic's use of the word "faith." Mr. P believes and equates that faith = assumption.
This I see differently. Every person, incl. Plasmatic, bases his/her conclusions on an underlying paradigm, attended with varying degrees of evidence. "Religion" is also like that... which is why it seems to me to be a valid point that you, Mr. P are "religious", despite yourself. Sometimes the only substantial difference between one person's belief system and another's is the selectivity of their facts/evidences.
Let's take a closer look at scientific paradigms:
1. Our paradigms are based on our understanding of the available evidence.
2. They are changeable based on the revelation of further evidences.
3. They drive conclusions about whatever evidences are being collected.
4. Scientific "consensus" is sometimes the terminal life-support mechanism for a paradigm.
5. They sometimes drive the weight/objectivity given to one piece of evidence over another.
6. Belief in them drives the connectivity (or lack thereof) with which one views the universe.
7. Therefore, our understanding of the universe is based on our paradigms. (See #1)
Make no mistake about this: The EU is a paradigm.
No matter how much we want to feel that this is a superior paradigm to, eg., Einsteinian relativity, the Big Bang, or whatever, our pursuit on this forum is driven by a belief that we understand the evidences we have compounded for a universe connected by electric principles.
Plasmatic thinks of me as a skeptic. I don't think any of this post is skeptical, rather I see myself as being very senstive to the influence of personal bias in scientific endeavor.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Plasmatic » Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:06 pm

My friends, my friends,
Let's not make ad hominem attacks... can we ask questions of each other's philosophy,


Of course , and as i stated it is never a fault to do so. Your dimplomacy and maturity amidst disagreement is commendable! :)

Mr. P believes and equates that faith = assumption.


Not just assumption , faith is the choice of a concept that explicitly disregards the facts of reality ,or a conceptual choice in spite of explicit unverifiablilty/provablilty , other words no "evidence" can be supplied at all.. Assumption is a failure to integrate available facts of reality ,mis-integration without knowledge of the unverifiable nature of said persued concepts. It is a fair question to ask if all "religious" persons are "explicitly " aware of the unverifiable nature of their abstract constructs. A big question indeed. ;)

Every person, incl. Plasmatic, bases his/her conclusions on an underlying paradigm, attended with varying degrees of evidence. "Religion" is also like that... which is why it seems to me to be a valid point that you, Mr. P are "religious", despite yourself.


Again religion is explicitly based on EXPLICITLY UNPROVABLE CONCEPTUAL ABATRACTIONS. Here is where my distinction comes in .If most folks explicitly new their conceptual choices where unverifiable would they continue to consider it as a worthy conceptual choice??? Theres probably more than one answer. depending on the persons values metaphysically and epitemologically.

,

Sometimes the only substantial difference between one person's belief system and another's is the selectivity of their facts/evidences.


This seems a little bit like stating the obviouse. Everyone is responsible for the process of differentiation. Its a volitional activity. The problem is almost no one does this on the EXPLICIT level of conceptual awareness.


1. Our paradigms are based on our understanding of the available evidence.
2. They are changeable based on the revelation of further evidences.
3. They drive conclusions about whatever evidences are being collected.
4. Scientific "consensus" is sometimes the terminal life-support mechanism for a paradigm.
5. They sometimes drive the weight/objectivity given to one piece of evidence over another.
6. Belief in them drives the connectivity (or lack thereof) with which one views the universe.
7. Therefore, our understanding of the universe is based on our paradigms. (See #1)


[1] , Of course , to state anything else is to assert omniscience or at least "revelation"

[2] , Only if we are volitionaly differentiating the evidence in the first place.[explicit level of awareness]

[3] , Certainly , only if ones "paradigm is not EXPLICITLY about volitional differentiation and the need for integration , then they are not essentially controlling the conclusions , they spit out statements and words that are a default of the subconscious process.

[4] , Only for those who are not along the process of individuation far enough to reach the level of explicit volitional evaluation of the facts in spite of consensus.

[5], Incorrect , objectivity it the word that describes the fact that existents have imutable identity irrespective of sensory perception.

[6] implicit in number 3 in your post.

[7] Again ask you are you capable of being surprised? I have . My life is a refutation of the idea that one cannot excape their paradigmns. As a former minister ,dualist ,mystic ,faith preaching ball of unidentified contradiction.[without explicit awareness of the mis-integrated facts] But I had a counter affecting policy of understanding that objective knowledge of the facts of reality is indeed possible. This only took time to catch up to the inertia of my implicitly stored mis-integrations. Jung called it the dialog of the ego-self axis, or discovering the shadow.What ever you call it , man is capable of objective knowledge of the facts of reality.

Make no mistake about this: The EU is a paradigm.
No matter how much we want to feel that this is a superior paradigm to, eg., Einsteinian relativity, the Big Bang, or whatever, our pursuit on this forum is driven by a belief that we understand the evidences we have compounded for a universe connected by electric principles.


Plasmatic thinks of me as a skeptic. I don't think any of this post is skeptical, rather I see myself as being very senstive to the influence of personal bias in scientific endeavor.


Both of these quotes sum up the qualities that make one a skeptic in the philisophical sense. The belief that one cannot excape their imperfect sensory perceptions and therefor all concepts or "paradigms" ar essentially equally invalid because objectivity is not possible.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby webolife » Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:38 pm

First of all, you err in suggesting I do not believe in objective "non-contradictory" reality.
I very much do believe in this and believe any person with an open and sincere mind can attain an understanding of it...
a partial, experience-limited, perspective-driven, and self-satisfying understanding. If that makes me a skeptic, so be it.
Your phrases, "volitional differentiation..." and "explicit volitional evaluation of the facts..." cause to me to wonder if you
are perhaps still unaware of your fundamental faith base? You apparently were once a "mis-integrating" theist by your admission,
and now an atheist... perhaps accompanied by a degree of disappointment. Do you believe then that "atheism" is not a faith base, a paradigm, or Grey Cloud's "religion"? Do you further believe that this atheistic perspective does not inform your conclusions regarding the EU or other aspects of your life? If the answer to either of these two queries is "yes", then I submit that you are still "mis-integrating". "Post-modern" science has limited itself to viewing the universe through the window of naturalism, materialism, and determinism, and cannot (unlike "modern" science before it, as demonstrated by the likes of Galileo, Newton, Kepler, DesCartes, Huygens, Kelvin, Morse, Faraday, and many others, and even Einstein, though not all of his "students") accept potentially supernaturalistic perspectives such as Design or Creation... to rebutt such views as unrealistic, impossible or contradictory is a dismissal entirely based on your faith of athesism. I already admitted in an earlier post that I will not likely "win" this argument with you; not because I am fundamentally a skeptic, it is, I think, because you are entrenched in your own belief system... every "philosopher of the EU" needs to recognize this in order for free and open information dialogue to actually result in the increase of understanding. Otherwise we only become more set in our own belief. I have some pretty strong beliefs myself, but in just a few short months of dialogue with EU folks of markedly different views from myself have found my understanding enriched and enlightened considerably.
My signature line, recovered from the "old" forum:
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse with opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:43 pm

Plasmatic pal, can you go easy on the capslock please? My ears are ringing from reading your posts.
Of course, that is only my subjective opinion. Objectively it may well be that neither me or my ears actually exist.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Philosophy of electric universe

Unread postby StevenO » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:18 pm

Reality is those things that don't go away if you stop believing in them...

The trouble with us humans is that we first have to observe reality with our limited senses and tiny ape brains (filter in) and then articulate it into our infant stage ambiguous phonetic update of sign language (filter out).

Only science can save us ... :D
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests