DavidJK:This is to anyone who has visited WBS. After September 15, it will be gone. They will still have the Java chat rooms at www.go.com. That is all. - 11:08:52 on 1 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: If there's one thing about this PCthing as a medium of written communication over and between wide areas and of assorted people's it's that it represents our worded ideas. I have a growing concern over the "slinging about" of some ideas and the utitlisation of catchy words. One already given example- hate crime, another noted elsewhere- god on the internet. A more recent action involves a tv fellow he asked for faxes- your\our comments, declared one a threat and the sender was locked up! Hmmm? Looks the idea of what is "Personal Sovereignty" may have to be reexamined and redefined. - 14:46:53 on 1 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - what is "personal sovereignty"? - 23:29:59 on 1 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Well, I took a well-deserved break from this room, but now I'm back. - 15:44:49 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: "Personal Sovereignty"? I see it as an idea, an unspeakable understanding, that comfort outside but connecting us which we understand, that today some disparage by refering to It as personal space. Some try to reassociate it with other ideas as JOSH so tried. It seems to me that many USA folks- humans, now seek to understand what that means. Religious leaders 'for economic reasons' recognise this time of personal reflection maybe now among people as an opportunity to improve the monetary holdings of the on-going concern of religion. Others, like a finding among the youth disclose that the youngsters see as ok, the separation of the races. Quite likely, leaders as WJC see that individuals as you- where you are, and me- where I am, we can commune and better understand matters as none have ever been able in the aforetimes. One of the things they did in those times, in this country as I read they read and knew of ideas as Sovereignty and how it related to other matters such as the notion of constitutional stuff. I just stuck on the personal part, because that seems like what I see. - 15:53:58 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- Did you get to watch Dateline last night? They had a special about airline security. Here are some facts: U.S. taxpayers dished out a quarter of a billion dollars to the FAA for airline security last 12 years, I think it was. Of this amount ONLY 30% of all airlines have this CTX scanner that scans and electronically dissects objects in the luggage of passengers. The additional problem is that only 5 to 10% of all luggage is screened by this machine, and the operators are minimum wage employees with a 100% turnover rate every year. The FAA knows these problems and they say it will take another 10 years for everything to be matched in security. So what do we do? The governing body in this case has all the information I already wrote to them about (which I expected them to have) and now they want more money. The same problems were found in other countries, as well. Think about this, too. One of those machines costs $1 million and we've had access to them for the last 12 years after the infamous Pan Am flight 103 disaster. The problem here is the entire system. What should we do? Throw more money at the system and write letters and campaign to make corrections to the current system OR should we look at the reason why we need airline security in the first place and solve the bigger problem first? Otherwise, we're not really solving anything. (All of these problems, btw, are in addition to the lack of security amongst crew members globally which we recently saw the results of in the American Airlines scandal.) - 16:02:48 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - okay, so the problems are identified. What are you, as a concerned citizen, going to do about it? Sit back and whine, or take on a cause? - 16:33:28 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - I'm still not sure what you are talking about...is personal sovereignty the same thing as freedom of speech? - 16:34:54 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- Who is whining? As a concerned citizen of the world I am beginning by talking to people about the problems of the world. You don't just go and challenge the entire world system without asking some of its members what they think or how they think about things- so my response is I'm ready to take action, and since one person cannot do it alone I am seeking out other like-minded people who see the same problems. Everyone seems to agree that there are problems but then they turn around and say 'things are fine the way they are'. So it's not just the system we have to change, it's the majority of the world population too who have grown so accustomed to it. So how do you think we should take action to solve why we need airline security in the first place? - 16:52:10 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Howza'bout a quote to affirm what you see of that personal[my addon] sovereignty? "To the world, you may be just somebody. To somebody, you are the world." Some things such as that freedom o'speech ditty and others are what you do and what I do, this very moment where we are. The things sovereign to us our beings the I am, that all, some of it I know of you and vice versa. F. Engels seems to say these things made, began the family then tribes and property, etc., and lookin'around now, thats what seems to account best for what I see. Howza'bout you? - 18:57:34 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I don't quite know where your coming from either. By F. Engels, do you mean the Marxist? - 22:19:27 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Your back but haven't yet woken up from that dream of yours. There will always be people who intentionally hurt other people. We will always need airline security. We will always need to have a protection agency. Lennon wrote a great song _Imagine_ but he does admit in it he's a dreamer. The world would be a "perfect" place to live if that dream could become a reality. Who would need the christian heaven? But Lennon's earth and the christian heaven are fantasy, people with their different perspectives, people who react on emotions differently are the reality. - 22:30:01 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--a Groucho Marxist--:CARL: Huh? - 23:35:57 on 2 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- Don't settle for the idea that things are they way they are because they are correct. That's determinism and fate. You might as well follow Christianity. Let's examine why people hurt each other, steal, and murder. Why do you think they do? - 0:53:30 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:"If perfection is stagnation, then Heaven is a swamp." - Richard Bach - 0:56:03 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- BTW, I agree with "people with their different perspectives, people who react on emotions differently are the reality", but this contradicts with your other line that people "will always" do anything. Diversity ensures that change is the constant, not "always". - 1:26:44 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Doug::Josh; In any utopian ideas the risk of abuse is greater when the goal of utopia is perceived close at hand.History has proven me right.That's why they never work. Xainity and communism are but two utopian systems that can't work, and have done greater harm in the name of their utopian idealism.The type of person is always like:"Christ is near so we have to try harder and not be selfish.Or the revolution is close to won so the personal life has to be eliminated."Vacations and birthday parties aren't in the cards except for the glorious leaders Marx and Jesus. - 2:31:06 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- History can help us learn from our mistakes. Personal life is non-existent anyway. We work and live to support private industry now. We make deficit spending trips to the malls. We throw money at problems as a solution. We are subject to the information handed down from private interests, and we are forced to find happiness in consumerism, vacation days, and in the few hours a day we are with the people we love. We won't lose anything we've lost already to the current system in trying something else. --- Since when has a lack of selfishness "done greater harm" or run "the risk of abuse"? Not all people are selfish; it's not a species defect. It has been learned that things should be this way. They can be unlearned as well. Don't blame the idealism for not working; it's nothing without the right people behind it. - 3:53:31 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- You aren't reading me Josh. I said, there will always be people. If you want to quote me, do it right. Sometimes we think we know why people do things but do we really? Do you really think that humanity will eventually be all little sweethearts/angels? Whatever causes you to think this? So you truly believe in free will? Nothing about humans is deterministic? - 3:58:07 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: since it got in the way of attaining a utopian ideal. Both xianity and communism want to take over the world for their utopia.Most of the worlds greatest horrors have happened under utopian groups like these. **"They can be unlearned as well."** yes the re-education camps and inquisition were very efficient.The rights of the individual are basic to our democracy not dictatorships from christ or stalin.Both systems are brutal and murderous and require that the individual be crushed for their utopian world. - 4:14:28 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." [James Madison, 1803] - 6:25:00 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Idealism does work to some degree when it's not hampered by reality/realism. Some things we can change and I'm not disagreeing with you on that but there are things we can't change. We haven't got that type of control. I suppose the next question would be, do we want that kind of control? If we do, how do we attain that type of control and is it morally right to do so? An ideal for me, may not be the ideal of someone else, for example. - 14:02:10 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: A thought came t'me why we ain't communicating on the word, sovereignty. Is it- the passing ships thing, cuz' you northners got a monarchy yet? Heheh, but still, events occur that happen to place before the wary, questions of what is the person, the citisen? Some of the problem with my particular point of view of the sovereignty topic, the person/citisen is indefineable. Forms of law and authority are definable. The freedom of speech in view of either, for example, is to account for why what you have said, say now and will say none can know, do even you know what you will say next? Can it be controlled in any way? Does the freedom of speech notion apply to the likes of legislators, seeing that they exist per definition and deal in definables? G.Bush the prez candidate thinks so, he seeks to "unplug" a site that spoofs him and his ongoing concern. These acts are both an infringment and silly to the person we are. Why are they an infringment, well DOUG mentions one act in history that was, I assert here, consequential to an attempt to control the sovereignty of the person, the inquisition. Of recent vintage in the USA there was the commie scare o'the 50's. I guess you too have similar examples. - 14:59:09 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: "Marxism", some I bet shudder at saying that word, "Marxism" aargh and eeek! Having at least read a few things on European history and the connections the USA selectively maintains and hold up for viewing, Frederich Engels was touted as the most brilliant mind then on the world. The USA tho', won't allow that on stage. The USA instead, promotes the likes of WJC, good trade? In some of the books I've read [I read oft times because of] the bibliography includes many names of renown learned people and I've noted a regular connection to F.Engels. This is not to to say anything especial of FE, but more importantly that it appears that the intellectual mind seeks other such minds regardless of whatever. Early USA was firstmost and remains foremostly connected to Europe as far as I can tell in all things, and I bet even Engels-like politically. I continue to read and so on. - 15:25:49 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- I don't know how it went from me arguing in defense of idealism to you assuming that I was arguing to replace the world with Christianity or Communism. Those were your examples. Don't try to lecture me about the separation of church and state because what I am arguing for is a general better sense of responsibility. If this is in turn means that the obsessive pursuit of growth without appreciation for long-term effects has to end, then the only one's hurt are the excessively wealthy. If this calls for a better ecological education program, then everyone will gain something. The rights you speak of are not in danger. Relax. - 16:00:38 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- I am not assuming either that there will ever be a perfect world. What I am saying is that it does us no good to try to solve the problem of airline security without first considering what causes that problem in the first place. I believe in free will and the acts of volition and that in human events nothing follows invariably. Absolute determinism denies chance and indifferentism, but as a theory it's nice to know that there are some things we can rely upon, at least in temporary spurts of human lifetime. -- Again, I want to stress here there is no punishment for not following principles of ecological responsibility except the success of our own planet and ourselves. The things that we can control are our effects on our environment and the relationships of everything on this planet. Are you familiar with the Gaia theory, that the earth is entirely one living organism? This is the reality I speak of. People who do not live responsibly will not reap the rewards. The rest of us will. - 16:24:53 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh:The Gaia Hypothesis could you elabarate on your definition of this scientific Hypothesis.Now don't go into the pop culture definition it is irrelevant to Lovelock's and Margulis' paper.Please no quartz crytals and channeling. - 19:31:23 on 3 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Doug - (clearing throat) - I happen to collect certain crystals! - 0:13:24 on 4 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Carl - we Canadians know all about soveriegnty, thank you very much. - 0:15:09 on 4 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Josh - "We work and live to support private industry now. We make deficit spending trips to the malls." I don't agree with these remarks. To me, generalizations like this are a cop out. - 0:18:44 on 4 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Joette: These crystal don't happen to have special supernatural powers, now.I didn't think so,LOL! - 1:41:41 on 4 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- In the U.S., especially, the government is run by private interests: lobbyists, industrial markets, and social campaigns. For example, one of the reasons hemp is not in high production is because of the cotton industry, even though hemp is a more useful, stronger, and cheaper product to manufacture. On a larger scale, we have the technology to create electric and/or solar powered high speed cars, but the petroleum industry reportedly has bought out the technology to do so. Democracy is great in theory, and it's a great facade in light of what is really happening. --- Consumerism is the hightest it's been in years. Deficit spending trips refers to our over-use of credit cards to purchase things we can't afford, and most likely do not really need for other than temporary fulfillment, and then spend a few years paying off. If that isn't you, that's great. - 17:14:30 on 5 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:DOUG- The earth is one living organism. Without following your example of cutting-and-pasting a response to explain things, there isn't anything inside this dome that does not rely upon some other part of the earth or the earth itself. It's entirely self-functioning and self-contained. The food chain is a great (and condensed) model of this. I think the Gaia theory is still referred to as a theory because it's generally not considered a part of everyday thought. Sorry to disappoint you about the crystals or channeling. - 17:23:00 on 5 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - I understand what you are saying. I guess my point is that there is a danger in generalizing. You are correct in that the situation you describe isn't me. I have the tools and education necessary to ensure that I don't exceed my income, and it would be nice if it were the same for everyone else. W.r.t. your hemp example, well, here in Canada it was also an issue, and with proper advocating, hemp is now a common crop in this country. We have hemp clothing, hemp rope, all the goods that come from hemp. We also now have 3 government operated marijuana farms for "hemp for health" trials. I appreciate that the two countries are different; we don't have the lobbying concerns you have to such a high degree. But I wonder why we are so different in that your government seemingly refuses to listen to what the citizenry has to say. - 18:57:02 on 5 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: You missed a large part of the system: mainly the sun.You really don't know what the scientific meanning of theory is,do you.(it's not the one in websters).Have heard of and also used a diversity index.Do you even know what I'm talking about.************* "Without following your example of cutting-and-pasting a response to explain things"*** that is totally uncalled for. I reserve the right to cut and paste my repsonses from my hard drive or otherwise.I get ignorant responses like yours quite often.I will continue to have prewritten responses for questions that keep repeating themselves. - 20:32:10 on 5 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- So, what are you proposing to replace democracy with? Shall we pass a law against predatory self-interest and be done with all the nastiness and war and such? Why has no one thought of this before? - 20:52:28 on 5 Sep 99 GMT

Grant -A cut-and-paste from an anthropology site. Seems appropriate. :-):The greatest danger to humanity and perhaps to the planet is not in fact the oppression of people by other people, is not nuclear weapons, or environmental pollution, or even the growth of the power of transnationals. These are just the byproducts of a far greater danger. That danger is our ignorance, our failure to understand ourselves and the limitations of our cognitive capabilities. The best hope for understanding humanity and its nature is good, dynamic, empirical science, the most advanced manifestation of the effort for truth that has yet to evolve on the planet. - 21:21:49 on 5 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: Two fundamental components of Lovelock & Margulis's Gaia theory; that the planet is, in Margulis's words, a "super organismic system" and that evolution is the result of cooperative not competitive processes.Now, explain why one should sacrifice one's self and one's genetic future for another species to survive.Don't be bashful about using scientific terminology now. - 21:44:23 on 5 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I started reading a book years ago on this Gaia thing. I can't remember who it was written by or much about it, only that the whole idea sounded "really nice". Sort of morally correct. Nature as I've observed it, isn't always really nice. In fact reality is, it's down right nasty sometimes. If I remember correctly, the story had something to do with Tibetian monks, I'm I talking about the same "Gaia theory" thing? - 2:18:59 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- See, this is a discussion room. It's not a cut-and-paste room. Unless, you make it obvious that you know what you speak of without pre-written responses that could come from anywhere, it's uncalled for to try and demand sympathy for doing it. In this same respect, it is not necessary (as I've learned) to go into much scientific detail in this room because most of the room hasn't studied the material, and the rest of us have done the studying and don't see the entire process worth repeating. In other words, it's okay to take some things for granted. Yes, I study what I mention. ---- I'm not sure where you are leading with your question about sacrificing one's self... Who is making the sacrifice for who to survive? - 3:43:14 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- .. because American citizens believe the government listens to what they say and puts the individual public interest first. The government works to promote a healthy image of itself, and it seems to convince people they are being taken care of. - 3:58:27 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: This was a project to define what life was in relationships to other planets.I believe it was the USA, NASA who funded the study.While lots of information was gathered about "ecosystems" and their dynamics,Lovelock & Margulis took it a step further and published the Gaia theory(hypothsis).Lynn Margulis is a real scientist, in fact she was married to Carl Sagan back then.She until recently taught at University of Massachusetts at Amherst.The idea that individuals don't compete is way out of line with the scientific facts.And groups of organisms inter and intra species are always competing, whether it is war or just edging out the competition for resources.Evolution is a dynamic system for the most part that entails masive amounts of competition to stay ahead of the rivials.The selection is based of the "fittest", meaning those that reproduce(pass on their genes to the next generation).To make matters worse the Gaia thing has become a new age creationist type cult of an unrealistic world of mutual cooperation between species.Remember the creationists whom say there were no carnivores and all beings were vegetarians(tree killers), before the fall or some bible crap like that.Cooperation plays a part in survival but only when mutual(symbiotic). The zebra mussel doesn't cooperate very well nor does the gypsy moth.Now corals and lichens do as organisms.¥ - 4:04:08 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- I'm asking to replace what we have with true democracy, and get rid of the private industry politics and two party decisions. The people who haven't thought of preventing wars or predatory self-interests are the ones continually, actively engaging in these practices, and the ones that we keep in office. - 4:04:17 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..:JOSH- I'm reading a book by Canadian astrophysicist, Hubert Reeves. Unlike yourself, he has dedicated his time into helping non-scientists truly try to understand science. The learned man that he is has no problem with repeating processes and methods. I suspect that's because he knows what he's speaking about and has no quandary with his knowledge as you seem to show with what you claim to have knowledge of. I think it's rather moronic of you to whine about any cut and pastes here when you have yet to offer anything worthy of learning. You whine a lot Josh, but..that seems to be all you do. - 4:10:13 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Hey! I didn't know Sagan was married before to this woman! Thank you for the info on this Gaia theory. What you've explained is much like the book I started to read (but choose not to finish). I suppose the book was somewhat based on these supposed findings. I have to agree with the old standard though also. Life on this planet always has been and will likely continue to be a competitive process. BTW for Josh's info, life on this planet isn't all about humanity. - 4:18:56 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:In the wake of Grant's last post, I ask the room a simple question: Where do ideas come from? Is it a trick of the mind that we can take our collective previous experiences and create new ones? Where do we draw the line that 'learning' is not a humble way of saying 'creating new forms'? In other words, because it is possible for humans to explore new experiences, does that mean the experiences were waiting to be explored OR is it that we literally create them out of our own inner desire and self-made powers to reach out and create, and that the universe in general is an undefined, limitless playground for us to try out as our blank canvas? (okay, maybe it's not a simple question) - 4:30:51 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - the answer to the question is this: we are born, we grow up, if we're lucky we grow old, and then we die. That's all there is, there ain't no more. - 4:38:46 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- Funny, that you who knows nothing of what I speak of would claim I have no knowledge in the claims I make still. Go back to day one in here that I started in here and tell me again that I didn't try to explain methods and processes, and that people like you didn't bandwagon together to say it was pointless to discuss such things because it takes years to be able to understand these things -when, instead, it's years of discussing these things that makes things more understandable. I'm not going to let you be the qualitative judge of what is worth learning, especially when I see your reply simply as a cowardly defense for the cut-and-paste pseudo-intellectuals of this room. And don't confuse whining with concern, dear. This world wasn't about humanity until we took it over, and then were content that concern for the planet did not match our individual needs to be in control of it. Read what I post, ask questions, then make your comments. - 4:48:08 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- You should write a book based on your optimism and zest for life. (sarcasm) - 4:50:01 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- If Marlene's last post wasn't the most obvious bandwagon-ism, then there's a lot more to be seen in here. I'm sure she's known in real-life for her leadership qualities and how she can woo the crowd as she picks and chooses which information she 'starts to read' and 'chooses not to finish'. And how easily you won her over, just because you appear to disagree with me... (Marlene take note how I use your same tactics here to come off as a really, immature asshole, yet beneath it all, intend on preventing these bandwagon-slightings from you in the future. Well, we'll see.) - 5:04:03 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..that a boy just keep on whining:JOSH- Yes I do pick and choose what I read and I do pick and choose who's findings I agree with or don't agree with. I'll remind you Josh, that to date you've said absolutely nothing and have incessantly whined when someone like myself won't buy into your line of mystical ramblings. You fail to gain any respect here, hummm...I wonder why? BTW Doug was here long before you and I happen to like what he has to say. I really couldn't give a rats ass what your opinions are. - 5:33:52 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Maybe..coming from you..it is a simple question. - 5:36:48 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh:Marlene and I have been chatting long before I knew you.And Josh were did you major in ecology.Have you ever done any HEP modeling using HSI's ?I was just indexing my library a thought this book wold be very helpful to you. Estimating Wildlife Habitat Variables by Robert Hays, et. al. **FWS/OBS 81/47** or the **NTIS# PB82-139882** It's a manual on how to use the tools of the trade in ecology. it's a USFWS publication (government document).You can also look it up and copy it for free(No copyright it's ours to begin with)at a Depositary Library for US Government Documents.I was wondering when you calculate cover do you use a spherical densiometer, if it is concave or convex? - 5:53:07 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Again, Exit Josh,,, : ,,,Please. - 10:58:32 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

10:58:32:. - 17:03:42 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - maybe not optimistic, but realism has always been my game. I would suggest you try it, but maybe it's easier to get through life wearing rose coloured glasses. - 18:35:21 on 6 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: If there is one good thing about JOSH, and this is a big if, he's not blindly religeous! He could easily be another RTL! - 15:22:22 on 7 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I've also read about the topic of Gaia, it's main objective, to me looked that its just a rallying cry. Is it a real subject or just banner stuff? The book- I read, says its a greek term out of their antiquity- from that book, IMHO it looks like that word was snagged up, dusted off and renlivened. - 16:24:24 on 7 Sep 99 GMT

PETER:JOSH--Ever read any Ayn Rand? - 18:10:28 on 7 Sep 99 GMT

Steven:CARL <<<>>> ACK! not RTL!!!! - 19:13:42 on 7 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ANY1: yea! Rose-colored glasses. So what was the public interest at the Waco event? That governmental action does not at this point have the look of things being done "for" the people, it looks or sounds like the gov't was "against" the people. So what is this gov't thing if not merely some person doing some predetermined thing in accordance with an authorised- per a prescribed definition of certain and specific, action. Gads, the religious types seek outright control and the gov't types, well, that continued control could be gulag stuff. Remember all the prisons being built? - 22:13:39 on 7 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Carl; Waco! give me a break, that SOB koresh murdered all his kids. Did you see those mothers fight the feds trying to save them from the fire, hell they climbed right back in to the building to die for jezzsus.Koresh set the fires is beyond doubt.When a police officer knocks on your door to serve a warrant you don't have the right shoot them because they are in numbers and look like soldiers.Just for the record I can't blame the police because previous to Waco when a couple of cops knocked on doors to serve papers in a dozen on sites out west they were shot at any some killed.Koresh fit the profile and threatened to kill any cops who came on his property.The big mistake the government made was not to shoot out the water tower.It would have been over in a week with it. - 2:40:18 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:Anybody see the September 'Scientific American' yet? There's a great article about science and religion. - 13:45:53 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Maybe the USA ain't exactly what folks think it is? I am one who see's an archaicness about the constitution, and maybe, its changed and well, the changers just didn't take any time to inform others? Seems I learned that the gov't, serves the people the citisens, but it does not shoot and kill them. Or at least thats the collective spew that books and grade school teachers put out. 'Collective spew' thats just a word I stuck in there, but other writer thinkers say its bourgeois consciousness. - 14:29:53 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - maybe WAC was just a poor example of what you are trying to say? Is it not the government's duty to protect its citizens? There was clear and present danger with some of the denizens of the Waco compound. They were stock piling munitions, as you well know. People in the area were concerned for their safety, and you know as well as I that Koresh was a few cards short of a full deck. It is my opinion that the government acted with the safety of a majority in mind. It's not like they just woke up one day and said "let's blow a few people away"..they were acting on information they had gathered over a long period of time, and it took what, 52 days of a stand off before they storm-trooped the compound. So, if you think that anarchy should reign supreme, so be it, but you have to look at the safety and protection of the majority first. - 17:21:16 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Of that general kind of consciousness, in the U.S.o'A., its connected to the human property notion which makes for an ownable thing. I guess that a studied atheist also knows that the western human concocted the personal association of its members basing it- that association, on a godthing. Is this why atheism is so frowned upon? In some accounts of the human thing, some of them have taken that godthing connection a step further by telling other humans that the godthing picked them for certain favors. In any chosen example of that favortism, the one constant is land and its having. As far as can be seen, law in this country leans heavily in favor of the land\property owners. The more one owns of either the more protection will one have. Do the legislators have an interest in seeing that concern maintained? Is this why atheism is so frowned upon? The hue and cry now heard o'er the USA for the return of it to its religious roots have been noted. Now, DOUG has frowned upon the Waco thing, he says for the sake of the dead kids, yes? But, my own reservation is based on the liar. Do they tell true? I suspect 'they' found it easy to go after those guys because the Koresh feller quite simply, he was belittling religion and the godthing. That "consciousness", serves the few the godthing's favored. Is this just a soap opera or is that hue and cry being orchestrated and kept before folks? - 17:39:57 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: What I was pondering, have been pondering, are those folk who "claim" to be borne again atheists. Do they really know, have they really thought about what they do? It is such an insignificant thing to say no to nothing, which is what I see of the godthing of religion. IMHO, I am ready to suggest that most people have no reason to accept the notion of a godthing unless they are among the few who have and possess things. Of this prospect, so very few people, according to reports, actually control and have the available wealth, and this makes it a very wide fully encompassing notion that atheism rejects, especially in the USA. While science is a mental trip that opens a door out of the religious thought system, it also stimulates thought and thought stimulates action. The two in one person, do you think it could or might upset the status quo? - 18:11:02 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Catl: Usually when citizens shoot guns at the police for serving criminal warrants or otherwise the have the right to shoot back.I for the life of can't see what they did wrong in protecting the general public from koresh and his cult of criminals.You won't get any sympathy for him(koresh) or his criminal kind from me.I want my public servents to stop killers like him.Just remember he publicly stated he would murder any government agents who went on his property. We have the right as citizens to give our public servants the right to use deadly force when certain conditions arise.In Waco these conditions certainlly had arisen.Just because you don't like the "government" doesn't give anyone the right to use deadly force when it's agents knock on a door.And it's irrelavant as to whether they are a swat team or the mailman.Example: a natural disaster strikes and the national guard knocks on the doors warning citizens to evacuate for their saftey.Do we shoot at them because they are armed like soldiers. Guess what, those soldiers would shoot back and wonder what kind of a nut would reason that way. - 19:34:28 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Gov't protection, Hmmm? Is that like a divine protection? If the latter is rot must it be replaced? Are both rot no matter what? Must someone or something else be made responsible for us? - 20:27:59 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:It's too easy to argue for stagnation. Don't ever wonder why we still have the same problems resurface over and over, and stronger than ever, when you insist against change. - 21:13:42 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Peter- I remember reading Fountainhead a few years ago. There's two perspectives one can take from it. - 21:15:10 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:This discussion on Waco is an example that atheists do not always agree on anything but the fact that there is no god. While I value freedom, I don't think anarchy is any better than a whole lot of limitations. The reality is, if the people who choose to follow Koresh were more self-confident and god-free this whole thing wouldn't have happened in the first place. Religion should be taught as myth and not reality from a very young age. (IMO) The more people there are out there who believe in an afterlife, the more people there are who fail to put the proper value on their real lives. - 22:34:57 on 8 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - I agree. JOSH - while Peter is more of a Randyist than I, I would be interested on the two perspectives you garnered from The Fountainhead. That book was one of those rare bits of literature from which my outlook on life was affected greatly. - 1:16:47 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - what would be the alternative if the government did not serve and protect? Every man for himself? - 1:17:51 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - what things resurface stronger? - 1:18:47 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:IMO (again), government and public institutions are at times given much too much power and it's we voters that sit back and let that happen. For instance, how about the girl who has been kicked out of school in Virginia for having pink hair? Really, does having pink hair lead to pregnancy, drugs or violence? Does having pink hair distract the other students from their work (I doubt it)? Just what IS the problem with having pink hair? And is it up to anyone to tell someone they can't have pink hair? - 1:39:14 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Carl:No it's just that we have day jobs and live in a specialized society.Are you that self sufficient that you don't need fire,police,roads,food,school from society.And don't tell me all the folks are just going to get together without government and make it run right.Guess what, by doing that they would have created government.Government is us and we make it to suite our needs. - 2:00:51 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--the kitsch n' sync--:GRANT: Funny you should mention that article in Sci. Am.; just this morning I brought it to my Bible as Literature class to help dramatize the semantic difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. - 3:15:53 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- Well, I just wanted you to know that I took your remarks very seriously. Since I have been accused of using rose-colored glasses I thought it would be beneficial to investigate the world of visionaries/innovators. I figured the best start would be to look up some statistics on the U.S. Register of Copyrights site. Tell me if this is too ridiculous.... It turns out that they receive about 500,000 applications for copyrights annually. This includes poems, books, screenplays, textbooks, and even just plain, old ideas. Considering there are about 300 million U.S. citizens, that works out to about .17% of the population that is actively inspiring to create new ideas. That also means that 99.83%, the majority, does not - and that they either follow the new ideas or at worst do not subscribe to these ideas. But of course, this figure does not include the people who don't want exclusive rights to their ideas. As a side note, I have obtained 3 copyrights this year (one book and two screenplays). Using that .17% figure as an example, would it not be fair to say that the reality is that there are few innovators because there are so many that are not? And that this figure might indicate the difficulty one might have in sharing a different idea, especially considering most ideas are not subscribed to religiously (passionately), but more likely less seriously as entertainment or unreasonable in the reality of the present situation (that the majority does not seek to create new ideas and by virtue would be less likely to appreciate the idea)? So what we end up with is an unfair disadvantage against the innovators? (which leads me to Fountainhead...) - 3:27:15 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- First of all, it's been awhile since I've read it, but I remember a good part of what it was about. I think it's obvious that I would subscribe to the live and die philosophy of the architect. He wanted to challenge the conventionalism of objectivism as it seems to conform people. As a soon-to-be filmmaker I have been taught the same "take no for an answer" philosophy, because the industry, like the art world, is one of the remaining to respect an honest attempt at innovation equally with a strong belief in oneself, and then grants more freedom, respectively of one's ambition and critical success. The opposite argument of the book has been that the author's philosophy represents a cry for socialism and anti-individualism because the architect character is so selfish and relentlessly egotistical in his pursuit of his own dreams that the author intended to inspire the negative effects of his actions, which obviously I don't agree with. - 4:07:32 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Grant -wish I could sit in on that class:JAYWILSON-- Are you suppressing an opinion which aches to be free regarding the S.J. Gould viewpoint versus the Richard Dawkins viewpoint? I'm speaking, of course, of the view that science and religion concern themselves with different areas of truth and reality, and may peacefully coexist, versus the view that the truth and reality which science concerns itself with are the only ones that exist, so religion is bunk and should be opposed. - 4:56:41 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - it is my thought that Howard Roarke was the objectivist. It is also my thought that Ayn Rand was not a socialist. (after all, it is she that introduced the philosophy of objectivism). - 11:24:56 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:Such a diplomat you are, Joette. :-) - 12:01:53 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette= That should have read 'he wanted to challenge the convenionalism 'of society' with objectivism as it (society) seems to conform people. Regardless, you missed a whole bunch in what I posted by resorting to a two-line reply, including the paragraph before that lead to the Fountainhead. - 14:51:33 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- You missed this question from before, too: 'How do you think we should take action to solve why we need airline security in the first place?' - 14:54:13 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- btw, Here's a dollar for all the big words you looked up. I asked you, 'Who is making the sacrifice for who to survive?' If you can't answer it without cutting and pasting some pre-written magical paragraph you manage to conjure up, I don't want your answer. Just leave it alone. - 15:04:36 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:These are some important questions that 98.3% of the population do not seem to think about.... Where do ideas come from? Is it a trick of the mind that we can take our collective previous experiences and create new ones? Where do we draw the line that 'learning' is not a humble way of saying 'creating new forms'? In other words, because it is possible for humans to explore new experiences, does that mean the experiences were waiting to be explored OR is it that we literally create them out of our own inner desire and self-made powers to reach out and create, and that the universe in general is an undefined, limitless playground for us to try out as our blank canvas? - 15:10:19 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Is that article on SA online? - 15:14:42 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- For someone who doesn't 'give a rat's ass about my opinions', you sure spend a lot of time making yourself the biggest hypocrite in here. Haha. You're so predictable. My 10 year-old sister has more common sense than to argue with the "I don't understand what you are saying, but I don't like it anyway, SO THERE!" line. Stick to what you know and I won't be forced to point ou your obvious uninformed rantings. Grant and I don't know why you feel so threatened by what I post. - 15:16:20 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Very good point I concord fully, the gov't is "us" and for doing what suits us. This very perspective is why I wondered to JOETTE, did the borne again atheists really think about the gravity of saying to others that they have chosen to be "atheists". To not be an atheist means that action such as the Kansas deed is rational and required for a religious belief. From such action does this means too, that language- a manmade contrivance, must and will experience new directions and o'course feel the assortment of reins which take one in those new directions? Heck, the public education systems are now rife with the cancers of myth, fairytale and legends. I call them lies, but awhile back I was told and read that these are ok, everybody does it. Heheh! While I am not and do not harbor a militia nor unibomber type concern, the thoughtless random behavior of the human organism is amazing. How about this? Yesterday i was on a xian chat site, they there joined hands and prayed for rain. Last nite to now, here in the bay area we had a lightening and thunder show and some rain. Stuff for myth and fairytales, - 15:20:15 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- Tell me again how if you claim to not know anything about a topic, that gives you the power to decide that I have no knowledge of it? How does that work, please? - 15:23:19 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - would you rather a go on a rant instead of the two line comment I made about The Fountainhead? You see, because you made an error in your own response, I was led to believe that you had completely misunderstood that book. Would you rather I laugh at you then? No, I gave you a chance to correct your response. I am very busy at work (some of us do that you know, in pursuit of our materialistic lifesytles) but I look forward to discussing this further. Btw, if you don't know much about objectivism, then I would suggest you not continue this dialogue. - 15:41:42 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- How does an syntax error in my response determine what I know about objectivism? The dialogue was about alot more before we got to the Fountainhead. I don't really consider this a continuation, but a leap in bounds over the carefully constructed argument I presented before this point. - 16:06:39 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH and GRANT- I haven't posted to you for quite some time and I don't plan to after this particular one. I don't at all feel "threatened" by what you post. In fact I think your so full of bullshit your eyes just have to be brown. If Grant chooses to email you and you him about my opinions then that's his choice, although I would have expected more from Grant than this type of behavior. - 16:53:23 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- I'll revise that last post, this will be the final one. NO ONE, especially an idiot like yourself, gives me power to do anything I wish to do. I paddle my own canoe and I suggest you paddle yours. Unless of course you need Grant's assistance, LOL! - 17:03:13 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Just wonderin'if any read the book, "Framing Youth, 10 myths about the Next Generation" author Mike A. Males? I have not but the author will be in town next week to discuss his book. Since its hype concerns the youth image as presented by the media and gov't officials, my curious george was aroused. Any seen it? - 17:05:09 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I've been looking up some info on your last post and found a site. I hope you don't mind me linking it for others to read. I haven't finished reading it all myself yet so I'll withold comment until I do. - 17:43:22 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Sorry about drifting off, but if JOSH really knew and was concerned about the application of his idea of 'holism' here is where its meaning could be exemplified and argued. He mentioned something about nobody having a personal existence or something so. Well, if he was referring to the notion of a human society as a whole then about here one can insert the social contract thingy and then that no personal existence point might be apprehensible. Briefly, in this or such an understanding of society and the connection that an or any individual has to it, a social organism would live and does live. That is to point out that "anarchy" is just fright talk and nothing but. Here, I do not see any mystery nor spirits nor any prayer involved, I do see, however, the human organism saving time and using energy. - 18:24:56 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- My post concerning the girl who was kicked out of school for having pink hair relates to Mike Males's concern. I remember when I went to high school, I was sent home for wearing a mini skirt. Also boys were taken right out of class and escorted to the local barber if their hair happened to be a more than an inch long. Any of us who bucked the system were considered trouble makers. We were labeled "everthing bad about teens" even though we weren't the teens who were drinking or vandalizing. - 18:56:50 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: O'geez, it sickens and disgusts me that anybody at the behest of anything would act upon kids like one does a household pet. The local papers here say all kinds of stuff that I don't see now and never do. I have mentioned before that I've been among kids, the trouble maker guys and gals are few, just as in the community at large the unlawful are but the few. At reading articles in the local papers one could think the kids are doin'drugs and each other on every other corner. Even as I type this post, outside 6 cops on bicycles pedal by, as if there are rapist robbers and murderers among the students here! What happens here is so insignificant. But the cops are out there, what do they serve? Who do they serve? I suspect they satisfy just an etherial thing, some abstract concept of some desk bound overpaid guy or gal in an unchecked mental rage, not anger or madness just imaginative. - 19:19:07 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- Good. Maybe the fourth time of saying you won't ignorantly debate my posts is the good luck charm for me. My point has been understood, finally. - 21:50:59 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Someone has now posted on "good luck charms". Now were into fetishes of good fortune, maybe even collectively holistic..what is that word synchronic types of "good luck charms". I wonder if those come in pink? - 22:22:20 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Since your accused of "conjuring", maybe you could "magically" create one of those "synchronic/collectively conscious/holistic good luck charms"? (In pink!) - 22:57:51 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:oh, shucks. Marlene broke her promise. She does give a rat's ass! She took the 'good luck charm' for bait. - 22:59:54 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:... hook, line, and sink HER! (this is too fun) - 23:07:30 on 9 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--good question--:GRANT: Used to be the dichotomies were of truth vs. fiction, science vs. religion, fantasy vs. reality, et cetera; now I'm wondering if they have metamorphosed to consensus vs. dissent or theory vs. theory--and if any dichotomy is sufficient to describe the debate. As I've stated before, mine is a dog's atheism; nonetheless, dogs sense things other animals cannot. Wouldn't it be interesting if instead of Truth, all we could be sure of was Selective Ignorance? Poor Plato, eh? - 2:00:53 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene and Carl: you see how Josh thinks he is in the creative elite.Well what about scientists who publish new findings and discoveries? And what about this noncompetive world; copyrighting would contradict it in a lot of ways espcially when compared to publishing in a peer-reviewed journal with no copyright. To be fair he did mention non-copyright creativity but gives no stats on just how large or small these people are. - 3:22:49 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- So how about that charm? LOL! I think Josh may be only interested in those findings (if any)which agree with his ideas. I agree the guy definately is a winner at blowing his own horn but then who's listening anyway. I prefer to listen to someone who is at least in tune. If you remember I posted a site of Vic Stenger's who IMO is very good at explaining his findings in terms I, as a non-scientist can understand. Although he's on a mailing list that I know of and he is a professor he doesn't suddenly appear on a discussion and proceed to "teach" his ideas. He posts on his website his findings. Josh seems to think he is the only person on this page with ideas. Maybe it's just that Josh seems to think. - 3:43:38 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:You appear to bear the markings, JAYWILSON, of exposure to postmodernism or deconstructionism or post-structuralism, or some combination. I've not managed to make complete sense of all this stuff yet but it seems that no matter how much of it one accepts or rejects it's difficult to look at things the same again. I failed to appreciate how simple things were back when. But I haven't given up on Truth yet, though one is being forced to ponder its accessibility. However, I now feel pretty sure about "Selective Ignorance". :-) - 5:02:00 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Anselm:JOETTE stated: Btw, if you don't know much about objectivism, then I would suggest you not continue this dialogue. - 15:41:42 on 9 Sep 99 GMT Anselm: What's wrong, Joette? Have you no desire to enlighten the unenlightened? At any rate, I happen to know a bit about Objectivism. There are many elements associated with it, one of which is an embrace of rational thinking which I fully accept. However, While I can commend Ayn Rand for her desire to be rational, I have to say that her ethical claims leave much to be desired and are themselves far from rational. In fact, I would assert that her ethical claims are stuff of which wonderful fairy tales are created. I know that you, Joette, would love to defend her position. Therefore, I'll await a response before going any further. - 6:28:42 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:ANSELM - I am not interested in discussing anything with you. Nor will I defend my reason for writing it as I did. Go back and read the posts for the last month or so, and then join the discussion. - 10:55:55 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:ANSELM-- Few things ought to concern us more than ethics, IMO, but most things do. I'd be interested in your assessment of Rand's ethics. - 12:40:46 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ANSELM: While I've yet to read A.Rand, if you're the ANSELM of old, then you were at that time a religious adherent. It appears that of your doubt or withholding o'AR on the point of 'rationalism', that is only fitting. Rationalism fits in with the closed thinking system of religion. Is it possible that AR merely addressed matters in terms outside of that, religious thing? If yes, does that really make it wrong or a bad perspective of thought? Or, what did you see? - 15:58:22 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--the postmoderndeconstructurationalist--:GRANT: "I failed to appreciate how simple things were back then"? That's the only way you _could_ experience them _as_ simple, buddy--by failing to see them as such. Check out Wallace Stevens' poem "The Sense of the Sleight-of-Hand Man." I've been telling my students for years that a good education should screw you up for the rest of your days. - 21:23:39 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:Yes, I couldn't agree with you more.Maybe Josh has never had to work in a group as a team. - 22:06:54 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JWILSON: yea, that postmodern stuff gets really wild! I've seen some great names and their works for whatever reason linked to that notion. These lists and works are so varied I'm sure it can overwhelm lots o'folks. Some way out types take the position that nothing is as it was and that this becomes a motivational brainstorm. But, postmodernism, what is it? - 22:28:20 on 10 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--because you asked--:CARL: Postmodernism attempts to make some literary sense of the fact that we as a species can obliterate all trace of ourselves from the earth and take most every other living thing with us when we go. - 1:27:22 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Here is another definition of postmodernism. - 3:07:07 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

The Sense of the Sleight-of-Hand Man:... - 3:11:58 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- If you didn't know already, I work in the film industry.. independent films mostly - which are all about teamwork. The independent market gives each crew member a strong feeling of a direct cause and effect relationship between his or her ambition/work skills and the final products. Keep in mind as well, that I came in this room to share some ideas and when certain other peoples responded with cut-and-paste jobs with no sign of understanding them, it wasn't me that said to hell with the group or other members. And I never pretended that I wasn't "listening" to someone and then make comments about what the other person wrote, which would be hypocritical. And I also answer people's direct questions. Maybe it's other people who don't make good team members. Look who's pointing fingers first. - 3:59:07 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: It is Rand's form of egoism which I find to be the most problematic, mainly because of its unfalsifiable nature. For example, what evidence would Rand accept to convince her that people do act altruistically? Well, any example would be quickly dismissed because (as the egoist would claim) anyone who seems to act altruistically is in actuality acting out of self interest. Therefore it would seem that EVERY act is one borne out of self interest. Rand has obviously turned this observational statement into a metaphysical statement which nobody could possibly falsify. Therefore, scientifically speaking, it's nonsense. Philosophically, it's hopeless as well, for it begins as a synthetic statement but ends up being defended as an analytic statement. However, it can't be synthetic because of its unfalsifiable nature. But it can't be analytic either, for it is not self contradictory to assert that some people act altruistically. Essentially, Rand's position BEGINS as an objectively verifiable proposition, but ends up destroying its own credibility by becoming totally subjective. Also, in passing, I would have to ask, why should acting out of self interest be the same as acting selfishly? CARL WROTE: While I've yet to read A.Rand, if you're the ANSELM of old, then you were at that time a religious adherent. ANSELM: I am the "Anselm of old" and I still am a religious adherent. CARL: It appears that of your doubt or withholding o'AR on the point of 'rationalism', that is only fitting. ANSELM: My doubt centers not around Rand's espousing rational thinking, but rather on whether Rand's ethical position is itself the product of rational thinking. CARL: Is it possible that AR merely addressed matters in terms outside of that, religious thing? ANSELM: She may think she did. However, I could, like Rand, create my own metaphysical axiom whereby I make it a universal truth that no matter how it may appear, all people are subjectively acting on the basis of an internal religious belief. One arbitrary metaphysical axiom deserves another. - 5:39:02 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--a.k.a. Dick Shenarry--:MARLENE: Thanks for the links, although I like my home-grown definition better--and if you compare the two, I think you'll find mine explains postmodernism's raison d'etre as well as its M.O.--but of course, I could be wrong. - 14:16:12 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:ANSELM—Nicely stated. Thanks. I'm a little rusty on Rand, but this will be a description of a point of view rather than an argument. I lean toward ethical naturalism due to lack of compelling evidence that anything outside our physical selves determines our behavior. This seems to me to be merely a default position. It's the position that emotions largely determine our behavior and are the mechanism by which evolution selects for behavior. (I'm trying not to veer into determinism.) But observation of behavior suggests that evolution selects for behavior which benefits a group or species as well as, or even more than an individual. Whether or not such behavior be considered selfish or altruistic may be merely a matter of semantics, but I don't fault Rand philosophically for taking what I see as a default, but possibly over-simplfied, position. I don't agree that Rand has turned this into a metaphysical statement. I see the position as implied in naturalism. I don't know if I'm saying this well. Do you see what I'm saying? This is not to say that I'm completely comfortable with Objectivism. I don't see it as dogmatic, but it seems to wander perilously close to ideology- not a good thing for philosophy. --- But my interest is more in ethics. There appear to be contradictions between morality and Xtianity which maybe you could help clarify if you are game. - 14:21:03 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JAWILSON-- MARLENE-- I wish for a definition which mentions that according to postmodernism, postmodernism itself must be suspect. :-) - 14:22:46 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Grant Oops!:We'll eventually work through all spellings of jaywilson. - 14:27:26 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--Oops!--:GRUNT: You'll find my definition suspects itself just fine. - 14:33:38 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Pphhhttttt!!! - 14:40:08 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Grant -Maybe I could find it in the dictionary if I could spell it.:How the hell do you spell the raspberry thing anyway, teach? - 14:43:08 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: And I take it that at work the photo copier is verboten.Now we know why the costs are so out of line with other industries.So you are a person who has a very bad attitude towards others,And a greatly bigoted induvidual.You still haven'd answered my questions about ecology.It is not and shall never be a factor how someone posts information. - 15:52:51 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- You misunderstand me. - 23:24:53 on 11 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JAYWILSON- Sounds just fine to me! Although the definition I linked to was from a quasi-religious site it was encompassing, non? - 1:21:06 on 12 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I don't think your misunderstanding Josh at all. In fact I think your right down to the pin feathers. - 1:25:20 on 12 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--spelling the raspberry--:GRANT: Onomatopoetic spelling is either a) conventional, as in words like _boom_, _splash_, _tick-tock_, et cetera, or b) unconventional, according to the needs of the writer. The raspberry knows no conventional spelling; however, care must be taken to differentiate it phonetically from, say, a fart. The example (BTW, not of my authorship) which followed my preceding post, although fruitfully fricative, lacked the rounded consonantal richness of a ripe raspberry; I suggest that future attempts include a liberal lacing of letters 'B' to reproduce that titillating fibrillation of the tongue--the juice of the raspberry, if you will. - 15:13:21 on 12 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- I've been spending some time thinking about your life philosophy: 'the answer to the question is this: we are born, we grow up, if we're lucky we grow old, and then we die. That's all there is, there ain't no more.'.. and I was trying to figure out how this answered my question about where ideas come from, or if it was even close to what I was talking about. You say this is realistic, so my other question is where does progress fit into your theory? You also said you dislike the fact that I accuse you guys of being content with the status quo and then you gave me your less, than optimistic view of humankind... So help us out here. If that's 'all there is', why do you bother trying to work in your community to fix problems as you see them? Why bother at all? - 15:30:30 on 12 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:It doesn't surprise me Marlene is jumping on the bandwagon again. - 15:31:04 on 12 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- I don't know how we got swayed off the subject, but going back now, competitivism is cooperative. How could one be competitive without the cooperation of others? What Lovelock's and Margulis were talking about was a homeostasis between species, a balance of cause and effect relationships. It's when humans took on that obsessive pursuit of growth that they threw homeostasis out of the window. Any manual you wanted me to read would have this same information. - 15:46:09 on 12 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh:Where did you go to school for your ecology minor or major. And I was asking you about a piece of equipment;you have used this if you have ever done an ecological study in school.And you are determinded to shift the focus on to human sociology and draw upon ecological terminology.If you want to talk about sociology just say so.Carrying capacity is a much more approprate ecological term.Using a Hsi scale any organsim that has a 1.0 optimal habitat for all variables is detrimental to all other organisms. - 20:29:39 on 12 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- Maybe in some other world we would need degrees to discuss certain topics, but not in this one, and certainly not in a discussion room like this one. Let's be civil here. I'm using broad explanations to identify the larger problems here. I understand the significance of mechanistic thinking, but that's what I'm trying to avoid because it's not broad enough. The homeostasis between species is what is meant not just about the interactions contained in one organism, but also by how humans interact within their ecological community (the world), and not just with each other (sociology). I agree that carrying capacity is a great term to identify our population and resource problems because it describes this imbalance in more detail and gives a practical attempt at a solution, but it doesn't solve all of the problems. Do you think humans always had a 1.0 optimal habitat for all variables and it's only recently (earthly-speaking) that we've made excessive use of our skills? (which is the point I'm making) I can't imagine nature making us to destroy itself. We're doing this on our own. - 1:24:53 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Sheesh! Where have we heard this one before "you gave me your less, than optimistic view of humankind... ". That line spoken like a true religionist! IMO, what Joette sees life as on this planet is exactly what it is. It's neither pessimistic or optimistic, it's just fact. The glass isn't half full of water or half empty. The water in the glass takes up 50% of the space available. To add that the glass is half "full" or "empty" is a subjective view. The same as life. Life is life. It add an optimistic view or a pessimistic view is again subjective and has nothing at all to do with what life actually is. - 3:30:02 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: Humans don't have a 1.0 Hsi, other wise all other life forms wouldn't be able to find a "niche" and flourish.Life is dynamic and always changing (Evolving).You have to take in all factors and look to the past,present and future.How does the term "carrying capacity" attempt to solve problems, it's only a description not a method.I'm affraid you're still in the sociology mode.The investigation of Ethics and morals aren't part of the science of ecology.A new field in that area is called sociobiology. - 4:07:45 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- If your having trouble answering the question "where do ideas come from?". I have three answers that may or may not be to the teacher's liking. a) curiosity inspired b)telepathically received c) via the idea fairy. If you picked a)- you much too capable of thinking for yourself and you may disagree with other's ideas. If you picked b) now there's an idea, it may not be your own but keep an open mind and anything will drift in. If you picked c) you don't ask where it came from or why it's covered in fairy dust, it's a gift. - 4:28:58 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Grant (now a more cautious typer):JAYWILSON-- See, now that's the difference between metal sculptor and blacksmith. Though aware of the desirability of trying to differentiate the raspberry phonetically from a fart, "rounded consonantal richness" and "titillating fibrillation of the tongue" seem too fine for my fire, hammer, and anvil. :-) - 4:41:51 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Can we clear something up here on evolution. Although life is always changing, human evolution is a rather slow process. I had a disagreement with Josh when he first posted here on this subject. I understood from his post that the human brain has evolved in the last while. I disagree. Our brains are no different from our ancestors. I mentioned that if it were possible we could take a baby from 100,000, raise the child in a modern home and send that child to school and that child would be no different than any of the other students. - 4:42:43 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Thanks for helping..........Quote........:human evolution is a rather slow process. - 14:18:17 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:You know Josh, you're the most ill-mannered idiot to ever darken this discussion's doorway. - 15:00:01 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Once again, evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. It's not psychological! - 15:46:29 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You on holidays? - 15:47:05 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Come on now, JOSH figgers he's a "teacher". For my part I no longer give his posts any weight, until I finish reading that book on his preferred topic of holism. So far, its safe to say he's doing a preacher thing, fire and brimstone, thats the penalty for anything less than your full acceptance of what he preaches, o'that s/b"teaches". I am finding him well, ill-mannered is as good as anything, for now. - 15:51:16 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:NARLENE: thanks for the link, that does clearup why so many kinds of names and topics appear in that subject of postmodernism. The only association I know of, is art. And that is sparse. - 15:54:46 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I'm in a rush this morn'no puns intended - 16:02:37 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- I never said the brain was evolving. I said there was an evolution in thought. That's the fourth time I had to correct you. Going back on your promise? I knew it wouldn't last. - 16:26:47 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:At least, Carl is smart enough to do the research. Marlene, take a note. - 16:28:43 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- Carrying capacity is a description that helps us understand the imbalance. This description can be used towards finding a solution. Understanding our ecology has lead to the field of sociobiology, true, which is also why I started talking about ecology first - to identify the problem(s). I am taking for granted that we were on the same page here, and for time and space I'm not going into great detail. I think we can talk about these things without attacks of each other's character. We can, at least, set the example. - 16:38:18 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- I'd appreciate your own words. - 16:39:42 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Did I promise? Carl is smart, period. Another ill-mannered comment! You tell me, how has "thought" evolved. Is there an overall thought gene? - 16:40:28 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE?JOSH - Marlene, thanks for that post, but believe me, I don't have any problem answering Josh's question. While he may consider me a pessimist, I'm not going to bother coming up with answers to where ideas come from, because in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. (I used to spend a lot of time discussing such things, but it isn't necessary or important anymore) - 19:25:20 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I thought I'd add a little humor to the page. I really didn't think you had any problem with the question. - 20:29:23 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- You are thinking of physical evolution, when I've already identified I'm talking about something else. How would you account for progress? What makes it progress if it is not a matter of learning from our past and building from there? Evolution of thought describes the process of learning and growing. We learn from mistakes just like we learn from our accomplishments. Learning is a process. We don't start teaching kids algebra and physics, we start from the basics that we now take for granted. It might very well be that a 100K year-old child brought up today would be just fine growing up with what we know, but that's only because we have the advantage now of 100K years of growth in the way we think and process information now as compared to back then. - 22:53:59 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- Why should I believe anything besides your own words? Your life theory doesn't include progress or accomplishments or even goals. My answer would be that we humans have the power to develop ideas because of our powers to reason and creatively control and decide what goes on in our environments, and that is how we largely define how our lives should be. And if we don't like something we can likely go out and change it or try something else entirely different from the way we did it before. So when you post something that doesn't include anything resembling potential on the part of humans and then say, "that's all there is"... What 'grand scheme of things' says 'it doesn't matter'? Who's grand scheme are you talking about? YOU are the one saying it doesn't matter. There is no grand scheme controlling how our lives should be. The rest of us does say it matters. Think about my point about the .17% of the known population that is actively inspired to create, and then think about all those other people who think "it doesn't matter." What if everyone thought it didn't matter? First of all, you wouldn't have a discussion room to post your opinion... then there's cars, airplanes, roads, telephones... all inspired by people who do think it matters. - 23:15:55 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - you bore me. - 23:31:03 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- How am I supposed to inspire unruly students again? *LOL* You said you'd like to discuss this. I'm discussing it. What do you think? - 23:37:56 on 13 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:I know you won't mind my cutting and pasting from the talks origin page:Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)**** "Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)"*** So you are in essence right Marlene. - 1:50:55 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - okay, so your .17% of the population are the only people inspired to create? You base that observation on the number of poems, stories, manuscripts etc. submitted for publication. Now, how many people do you know that write, sing, paint pictures, play musical instruments? Probably the majority of people you know, as is the case with myself, and probably most people. Just because the majority of persons do not seek financial gain from their creativity does not mean that most people aren't creative, or have the desire to be so. What about all those people out there knitting and sewing, or planting gardens that take your breath away? Just look around you and you'll find that most people are creative. - 2:18:24 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- To be fair, I said .17% of the 'known' population - the people that want exclusive rights to their ideas, and I was talking about ideas as potential for progress and development in art, culture, and technology, etc. I agree, alot of people are creative. My point was to show how limiting your view of human life was and that if you were to generalize about human life, why it wouldn't be fair to not include progress and development. Living, growing up, and dying, is not "all there is". Why not at least include creativity into your theory on human life? - 2:37:30 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Anselm:GRANT: You had said that you wanted to discuss some contradictions between christianity and morality. What was it you wanted to address? Also, you wrote: I don't agree that Rand has turned this into a metaphysical statement. Anselm: Many philosophers of science (Popper for one) have put forth the notion that a theory must be falsifiable in order to have meaning within a scientific context. If it cannot be falsified it is then labeled as metaphysical, lying outside of the domain of science. Marxism is an example of a hypothesis that was intended at its outset to be an adequate scientific explanation. Yet, after time, so many qualifications were added to this economic view, that it turned itslf into something utterly unfalsifiable. Rand's ethic has found itself in the same boat. Grant:I see the position as implied in naturalism. I don't know if I'm saying this well. Do you see what I'm saying? Anselm: You see egoism as being inherent within naturalism? - 3:19:35 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:ANSELM-- In reverse order, yes, I see the position as implied in naturalism. Most definitions of egoism seem to state something about people acting according to what they perceive as in their own best interest. I think it remains to be demonstrated that people behave as rationally as is implied in such definitions. Presumably at some point in man's evolution he behaved largely or solely instinctively. He behaved as biologically programmed, evolution being thought to be selecting the programming. It's pretty clear that evolution is thought to operate by selecting for favorable traits. Naturalism encompasses the view that all thought processes are biological and occur solely in the cells of the brain and nervous system, and all behavior results from this. If evolution selects for traits most favorable to the organism (It would have to work that way to work at all. How and why would it select for second or third most favorable?) then it would be selecting for self-interested behavior. Even if man has now evolved to a point where reason overrides instinct to some degree, from a naturalistic perspective, reason itself would be an evolved favorable trait. It would have been selected precisely for favorability to the individual. I'm not saying this is scientific truth, or even philosophic truth. I'm saying I think this is the starting point if one accepts evolution and naturalism, which I do. It is the default position. If other factors are in play here, they need to be demonstrated. Stated another way, if organisms, includings humans, do not act in their own best interest, then this is a contradiction whithin naturalism. The possible wrench in the works here, as I stated, is the tendency for evolution to select for traits favorable to the species rather than the individual, such as when thousands of eggs are dispersed, only a few of which survive to be reproducing organisms, but I wouldn't name behavior associated with this type of occurance as altruistic, and as I said, I think this is largely a matter of semantics. I'd say the individuals are still and always acting to their own best interest. Please feel free to challenge this within its own context. If there is an error in my thinking, I'd very much like it pointed out. If you just disagree with naturalism, which could be perfectly reasonable, I think we should just move along. ----- As for your statement: >>"Many philosophers of science (Popper for one) have put forth the notion that a theory must be falsifiable in order to have meaning within a scientific context. If it cannot be falsified it is then labeled as metaphysical, lying outside of the domain of science."<< I totally agree with this. I'm not sure why you didn't think so. If you are saying that my "default" position is unproved and is not falsifiable, then I'll have to ask you what you consider the default position to be, because a scenario in which humans behave truly altruistically would be considerably more complex, so if my position contains too many presuppositions to be the default, a position which includes altruism would be automatically disqualified as containing even more presuppositions. Also, the inability to prove provisional and changable views regarding relationships between physically observable facts doesn't automatically place such views in the realm of metaphysics, in my view, unless you think no conclusions about meanings or implications of physically observable facts are possible outside metaphysics. Sorry to be so wordy, but I'm really interested in your views on this. The morals question will have to wait. My typing fingers are getting tired. - 13:22:02 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - I went back and looked at your original post about the .17%. You did not ask where ideas come from at that time. It is my conclusion that it doesn't matter what anyone says about anything you post. - 13:40:21 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ANY; So who saw the Exorcist? Any seen the latest, Stimata? By now, some o'you may recall that one o'my concerns are of the few who have the bulk of the wealth and that these few can do things. "They" got that f-you money. Was it arranged awhile back to air that tv program of that S.American woman with the sayso wounds o'christ? You know, get the idea out among the herd to generate some awareness as a get between the herd and their cash? Is it really this simple? - 15:15:54 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:CURSES; The movie is "Stigmata" - 15:17:15 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:I just finished reading an article in the local paper by Red Green. I thought it was rather interesting and would maybe irritate a few guys here so I'm posting it.-----"Heads Of Different States....It's no suprise to anyone that men's heads work differently than women's do. You'll see a woman struggling up the driveway with a couple of bags of groceries and a kid in one arm, stooping to pull a few weeds and tiding up some garden tools on her way in--while not ten feet away, her huband will be standing there, just staring at the lawn. Things may look unbalanced, but really it's just Mother Nature at work. You see, a man's mind is like a mountain pool..still, clear, unruffled and easy to see through. If you listen carefully, you may even hear the call of the loon. On the other hand, a woman's mind is like a surging river, with twists and turns and eddies and whirlpools. Over time that mountain lake will remain unchanged-remote, inaccessible and set in stone. While the raging, rushing river will totally change the landscape. It's a wise man who remembers it's just nature at work because as sure as that mountain lake seems to stand there forever, that raging river will rush through and get that loon on the lawn moving again." - 15:20:47 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I understand that it will be a big hit. I hope a little skepticism is added to the script! I forget the name of the movie, but there was one about a nun who became pregnant and thought she was somewhat like the virgin mary. The way it was presented suggested a very troubled girl, likely raped by the priest and actions she took to try to pretend the whole thing didn't happen the way it actually did. It was a really sad movie but at least the reality of the story was exposed. - 15:27:57 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Well scepticism that is a tough contradictory idea to put in place and still get at the cash. As JOSH so clearly shows the few here that once anyone accepts certain ideas and so said accounts, a dogma-like result appears in the wake of such choices. Scepticism, that was probably just a word to describe the educated and learned, the ignorant peasant types were just referred to as heretics. I surmise these things that way. Priests, that may be a tough and very difficult choice for a normal guy to make. - 16:17:15 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - is the movie you are referring to "Household Saints"? (she was quite mentally ill). If it wasn't, never mind, although I would highly recommend it. (p.s. Liked the Red Green!) - 17:45:58 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- What? Here is the process of the discussion we were having. 1. I asked where ideas come from to the whole room. 2. You submitted your infamous quote, 'the answer to the question is this: we are born, we grow up, if we're lucky we grow old, and then we die. That's all there is, there ain't no more.' which didn't answer the question. 3. I commented on your apparent pessimism. 4 You said it was realism. 5. I showed you what realism is by providing statistics to show how challenging it is to present new ideas, and how the majority of the 'known' population is not in tune to sharing their ideas. 6. Marlene instigated you to finally say you don't 'think about these things anymore' and mentioned some "grand scheme" that makes thinking about where new ideas come from not important. 7. I re-presented your pessimistic views and showed what it would be like if everyone shared your views. 8. You managed a fake plea of "You bore me". 9. I asked for a serious response. 10. You posted that people are inspired to create things. 11. I explained how you should include this into your human life theory. 12. You backed out of the discussion based on a ridiculous conclusion that I didn't ask "Where ideas come from"? ... Come on. Grow up. Either that or pay attention. - 18:09:34 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Carl - What you would call a 'dogma-like' result, I would call an earnest attempt to explain certain things to the understanding of those in this discussion room. In Marlene's and lately Joette's examples, this misunderstanding comes from quick, uninformed generalities that they have concluded without reading everything that I post and that they must follow in logical procedures as I build up my argument. Most of the time, as you can see in my last post, I have to re-explain things many times, often to the disappointment that they back out entirely of the discussion, refusing to acknowledge that I was even making a point or trying to share something. So, in the same example, take into consideration not just my apparent aggressiveness, but also the people I am trying to have a discussion with. You included. - 18:28:58 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: Awhile back, I was stunned at getting booted from the 'theology chat' site. It was a first time. Today I was cruising around and checked on that place and surprisingly got in again! How does that gettin'booted-out work? Does that action require a regular updating or does it just stay in place for some preset period of time? I read others who say they get tossed out of places all the time, so I guess they're in and out of places all the time. One o'the things I see of religious sites "they" can't handle to many questions that take them outside their acceptable thought and word domain. They do, though, allow and like to preface science stuff with their religious stuff. MARLENE has mentioned D.Gish, so did someone else but as DG was in a debate his position was for creation. At reading through it, what I thought I could make out of that he was doing I think could be a "prefacing" action. May be more to come. - 21:31:42 on 14 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- The misunderstandings, if there are any, result from the teacher not presenting his material in a clear and precise manner. Although I don't work in education myself, the majority of my family have for over a hundred years. If any one of them were to present information as you have, they wouldn't have been employed. Do you ever step back and think "maybe I'm not going about this in a proper manner" or "a whole lot of people on this discussion seem to be irritated to the point they don't really read what I'm trying to post, maybe I'm coming across as hostile?". - 3:56:15 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- I can't believe you are able to maintain this "teacher" fantasy at all. You haven't demonstrated that you have a basic, let alone thorough, understanding of philosophy, science, religion, or anything else, which would have to include understanding of opposing views. What is it besides self-esteem that qualifies you as a teacher, an enthusiasm for intellectual shortcuts? I'm not implying that I would qualify as a teacher. I wouldn't. - 13:21:18 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- So the religionists are still Gishing. Like someone else we know, DG uses a whole lot of scientific words in appropriately and misuses findings to support his ideas. - 13:30:34 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: You know what is interesting until I began reading Smuts book,"Holism and Evolution" I had nothing to see to compare what creation science did. Is it safe to say that you also saw that misuse inappropriation of ideas which I call "prefacing", or even prefixing? The scientific finding essentially has placed before It, like some tinted window, another introductory set of words. That looks like what I mean with "prefacing". If this kinda of action is fitting for what creationist do, and it looks like, also what Smuts does for his holism, what do they mean to have want, and is it true? - 14:50:24 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene/Grant- Interesting how you both have discluded the students from your premises, which sidetracked most of my time spent making them realize the fallacies of shortcut conclusions and unsubstantiated biases... and yet still do. Instead, concentrate on the topics, leave the personal attacks aside, and discuss. Look at all this space we waste getting past these petty differences. Everytime I get back to discussing something, I have to go back and explain how silly these attacks on the individual are, by pointing out the attacks made for no other reason than some superficial pride that all atheists are all supposed to believe the same things. - 16:42:28 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Hello - 20:24:45 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: a short while back, you pointed a question at JOSH about the evolution of thought. Well, I ran into this that I will present in two parts: From this point of view the recent experiments of Professor Pavlov on the associative memory of white mice are interesting. An electric bell was rung while the mice were feeding. It was found that a firm association was built up after this process had been repeated 300 times; that is to say, after that the mice looked for their food whenever the bell was rung. For the children of these mice a less arduous lesson was necessary: after 150 rings the association was established. For the grandchildren only 30 rings were necessary; while the great-grandchildren (the third filial generation) only five rings were necessary to establish the association. end part 1. - 20:46:10 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: cont'd; In other words, the acquired experience of the parents made the acquisition of similar experience progressively easier for their offspring. The results of these experiments are not generally accepted. If these experiments are widely corroborated they will throw a new and most important light on the nature of evolution as progressive facilitation of experience; in other words, on the hereditary character of educability of psychic experience. End part 2. Gee! what does or would further research have disclosed? I guess Pavlov has been sidelined. - 20:54:31 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:AN ETHICAL QUESTION - yesterday, in Toronto, a man died while being held down by some security personnel at a grocery store. He had stolen a case of baby food as he had no money to feed his family. He ran from the security guys, and when they caught up to him they pinned him down on the ground. He started shouting that he was having trouble breathing, and his frantic wife was emploring the guards to let him up, as he suffered from severe asthma. He ended up dying while he was pinned down. Now, should we, as a society believe that the guards acted properly or not? Is a case of baby food equal to the value of human life? Should this man suffer the consequences of his action, whether they be deemed minor or not, even if it means he loses his life? Any opinions? - 21:54:45 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl and ANY- Take a look into something called morphic fields, which, I mentioned before, is a theory for a kind of habit in nature. Here it is in summary: When a pattern originates, whether it is nonorganic or living, that particular pattern is more likely to occur again. These have also been theorized to influence patterns of brain activity. Morphic fields are used in addition to describe the distinct patterns of evolution, which is called morphogenesis. As opposed to the reductionist theorists which propose morphogenesis is strictly limited to biochemical approaches of explanation, these morphic fields help describe a living organism as more than just an assemblage of molecules, but as patterns of energy, as well, which allow for a less rigid approach to the changes in nature. If you like, I can describe how this works in electrical activity for the brain and how these patterns lead to evolution in thought... - 22:41:57 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ETHICS: Is this a case o'lets 'spin-the-bottle' ethics? If we consider just the poor guy trying to feed his offspring then the toy cops look at least to be mindless. If the guy was poor before he reproduced then he look's to be, instead the mindless one. Is the next question, of the preceeding possible points of view, is mindlessness capable of ethical contemplation? If the guy was 'stealing' laws are meant to bind people- ethics, and generally law must say such conduct is not fair- unethical, to the people and so such conduct is unlawful, ergo unethical, so double is the trouble! - 22:51:54 on 15 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - LOL! I thought it was an uncomplicated situation! However, is it your opinion that only people of means have the right to reproduce? - 0:07:27 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Of course loosing one's life is too much to pay as a penalty for any theft. I'm thinking though that the security personnel may not be to blame either. Although the guy really did have asthma, many thieves would say they had such a condition, even if they didn't, in the hope that the officers would let up enough for them to escape. You wouldn't believe some of the tricks criminals will pull off in order to elude arrest. Unfortunately this guy wasn't a faker and unfortunately the officers had no way of knowing that. I would imagine they feel just horrible right now too. No matter how safe we try to make arrests, there are always the kinks in the system. - 3:17:00 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- When looking up morphic fields on the net, all I seem to come up with is new age pages and Rupert Sheldrake. If this is such a great scientific discovery, why aren't there some credible findings available? - 3:47:14 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:Joette. I don't remember who said it first, but the gist of it was "If you breed 'em, feed 'em". And as some other cynic said, "I believe in charity as long as it doesn't cost me anything." Ethics are fine, but self interest often over-rides them. While your kind heart may cause you to buy some food for a woman next door who has a child each year, each with a different father, isn't there a little corner of your mind that resents it? I feel it is a woman's right to decide if she wants to bear children. but I also feel she should have a sense of responsibility and not have them if she can't afford to raise them properly. Then of course, religion enters the picture to complicate the matter. I don't believe government should have any role in dictating what a woman should do, but they should make birh control information available so that women could exercise their right to choose. - 4:51:18 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Hey! Good to see you here! In Canada, there is tons of birth control info available, made available by governement to boot. For all on welfare, all drugs are provided including the pill or the vaccine. - 14:04:12 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: You know, when I thunk-up with that bit I'd just read a piece on theory's for the male female pairing-up by a female which said that very thing. The piece seemed like it said many of the weaknesses now among humans go back to when the weak male types joined with weak females types. Until then only the strong guys and gals who were also the ones that could provide for their offspring were involved with reproduction. Polygamy was the norm for the strong and monogamy was typically found among the weak. But dang if I can recall how I got to that site. If its data comes to me I will pass it on. - 14:55:03 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- If you are looking for credible scientific findings on the internet, that might be the problem. Try a library. Sheldrake founded this theory which is why you'll find his name attached to it. What did you learn from those sites? Anything you agree/disagree with? - 16:10:25 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MYOPINE: only the people of means can reproduce- or -there is someone for everyone. Looks like the query just concerns gettin'it on, the kids say its all good. I agree, just do it. - 16:51:03 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:In the matter of reproduction, there is something else that you (anyone interested) may not have considered. Now, being of the female sex, there have been times in my life where I have encountered an almost overwhelming desire to have a baby (Marlene, ever have the same thing?). I refer to it as "baby fever" (which I am having right now ;). Anyway, this is something that I don't conjure up; it just seems to come out of nowhere, and I put it down to something natural or instinctual in a female. I am sure that women who "don't have the means to reproduce" also go through the same thing. So, is it proper that we tell these women NOT to let nature run its course because they don't have enough money in the bank? I personally don't think so. - 17:13:48 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Ok, so there was another shootin'in TX. Of it there is the usual trite talk of who was blessed and so on. One of the investigators while rootin'through the shooters stuff said of the house that the shooter tore-up, "he had demons in him". What did that individual want to say? That kinda'person is probably of the same ilk as that canadian killer toy cop. These religious types, they ought to ask themselves, what is this world? - 17:53:06 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: You are a tease. - 17:54:57 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - you know, I have heard so many "thank the good Lord" and "thank God's" these last couple of days, not just with this recent shooting (another day, another shooting - should be on your coins instead of In God We Trust ;) - it's the mantra for the Avoid Floyd generation too. Why are these people chosen by their God to survive? What are they thinking about the people who were killed? That they didn't deserve to live? I know, I know...their argument is "it was their time. God called them home", which is ludicrous. (and what do you mean I'm a tease????) - 18:39:16 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: "Avoid floyd" you musta'liked that millions running away? For my part, I was headin'out for a slice o'Blondie's pizza when on the lower plaza I heard some live music. Lots o'folks were there already lissen'to a hi school group from N.Zealand playin some big band sounds. They were good, few skaks from the saxaphones but, nonetheless they were on their way down to the Monterrey Jazz Fesitval. {Later, I knew instead ofa'name, when I put forward the tease post, I shoulda'used my favorite pseudonym, "aMan"} - 20:00:18 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Actually I'm quite satisfied with the grandbabies, lol! I suppose what upsets me, and I've experienced this in the community as well as in my own family, are people having children without even thinking of a plan for that child's future or a plan for themselves to provide that opportunity. - 22:17:07 on 16 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - I agree, but that "baby fever" can take over and make rational thinking more of an effort than normal. I guess we're no different than animals in that respect, it's just that we've learned to control ourselves when we're in heat! LOL! - 3:16:56 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:For anyone actually trying to understand where Josh is coming from this site may be helpful. - 3:36:37 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOETTE-- Many don't realize that the cold shower is a recent human developement. - 3:37:01 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Does that happen after 50? Just kidding, this woman is still an animal! - 3:38:50 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I just bet lots of people use to do a quick jump in the lake or river! - 3:40:31 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- LOL! --- That site ain't science. It's ideology. - 3:42:25 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- You don't have to tell me that but I am reading it. Right now I'm reading the "thinking allowed interview". What do you think of that 100th monkey thing? I'm not sure exactly what he's suggesting. Is he suggesting that although the monkeys are never in contact with each other between the two islands, that they have some type of extra sensory abilities or..that sooner or later, later in this case, another monkey would figure the process out? - 4:18:57 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- I think they have an agenda, which as is always the case is more important to them than integrity. I think they are opportunists. I think their critical thinking skills are honed to axe-handle sharpness. I think their anecdotal monkey thing is as suspect as anything I've read on the internet. Where do they site the conditions of the study, who did the study, etc, etc? Other than that, it's a gee-whizzer. "Fields are inherently holistic." Give me a break. - 4:37:30 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- After reading this interview, well...now I know where all this dogma Josh is repeating is coming from. It's the creation of another religion. Same god, same face, same body, he's just wearing a more etheral outfit. Unbelieveable Josh claims to be an atheist! - 4:47:23 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:All scientific principles started as ideologies, only we call them hypotheses. And not all hypotheses prove anything, but all of them prove that the universe is never inclined to just open up and give us all the answers; it's up to us to figure out how to get there. The fact is, mechanistic approaches to the world leave alot unexplained and unidentified. Sheldrake confronts the common obstacle of Darwinian evolution- that mutations are not just blind chance- with the inclination that the universe is basically habit forming, but malleable to new opportunities. There is no thought process for birds that they should fly south for the winter, and birds certainly have no physical compass, but yet if they don't do it, they don't survive. As quantum physics identifies it, fields are non-local chains of interactions. The adaptations of the separated monkeys, and the successive ease in learning for new generations is limited by genetics alone. Things happen in unbelievable coincidences that cannot be explained by reductionism into biological tendencies-- hence, the new theories to explain why these things happen not according to random chance but in fields of energy that aren't localized in any given area, but in everything and everywhere. Yeah, it's a bit unbelievable, but there are still mysteries out there that don't just pop into our understanding. The answer isn't to give up our ideologies. Without them we'd all be a bunch of habit-forming slugs. I'm appreciative of any efforts to avoid being a slug. We have the power to explore. Let's use it. - 5:29:50 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- Who is this 'THEY' you speak of? There is no Rupert Sheldrake subscription card. Sheldrake is a biochemist and the 100th monkey study was not founded by him. Just because you read something on the internet, does not mean it originates on someone's website or that the information appears in its entirety there. Read one his books. I liked "The New Science of Life", which obviously goes into more detail than the website would. What do you think this supposed agenda is? Why would you take his theories, founded in research, as threatening opportunities? - 5:37:02 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- For the last time, atheism is for people that do not believe in a supreme being or beings. There are no other membership restrictions. Let go some of your biases. - 5:43:06 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- I speak of they who are proponents of Sheldrake's lame science. Why do I think it's lame? They have their conclusion beforehand and experiment to find support for it. What's the first thing out of their mouths? An attempt to cast suspicion on real science. You really ought to read more before making your conclusions, IMO. - 12:26:01 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- BTW, nice try on the "ideology=hypothesis", but no cigar I'm afraid. See, proponents of ideologies will say anything. They are opportunists. Oddly enough, this topic is being discussed at Netscape's Open Directory Project. They are trying to work out how to handle webpages submitted to philosophy categories which are really ideology rather than philosophy. You see, you didn't invent this type of behavior, nor did the Sheldrake types. It's common as dirt. Yes, you think this is something new and exciting and we all should study all the books. We see this same shit every day. It's the behavior we complain of in religionists. It's anti-reason, or maybe better described as 'above reason'. - 12:54:42 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- That's what hypotheses are, guesses at the conclusions, and that's all Sheldrake proposes as he calls them hypotheses. I'm reminded of the stories I read about the Galileos, Newtons, Descartes', and Einsteins of this world. They all turned their world upside down, and changed what people called 'real science'. The real truth is that you seem to forget that their views were also called ideologies. All scientists are opportunists. They are all looking for the evidence to support their ideologies. The even stranger thing is that you defend science like you made it your special club or something. Your Open Directory project people obviously all think like you do, but only a few hundred years after your ways of thinking were developed. The problem you don't seem to understand, is that as opposed to reductionist thinking, which breaks everything down into itty bitty pieces to be labeled and categorized, there are now the Capras, Sheldrakes, Lovelocks, Margulis', and Bohms who are smart enough to point out the limitations of this kind of categorizing. What these new scientists are doing, is not trying to be overly vague and idealistic, but they are describing the natural properties of the universe that don't fit into the standard definitions. Reason has no place on a larger scale of things. The basic operations of the universe work on tendencies and unpredictabilities, not absolutes. How do you reason with the universe, I might ask? Organized religionists got one thing right, modern science leaves alot unexplained and supporters of it claim ignorance too easily as a way of life. - 16:19:06 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Check out this quote I found: '"A human being is part of the Whole...He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security." - Albert Einstein --- More to come later today. - 16:30:17 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: Those old timers dealt with mechanical things and used words unheard of that they reasonable conveyed. Your "holism" thing is just worded veneer of things they long ago and recently put forward. In fact your boy RUPERT spends a good deal of his rewriting of their accounts by portraying their accounts in negative terms and in a light of denial. Thats not a meaningful and convincing way for a reasonable thinking human to convey "true" human concerns. I see the same negative portrayal in the book I read now of holism. That is a religious tactic, deny whatever humans do. The single greatest hurdle for any religious endeavor is human reason. To reason one must think, religion wants all to "think" as and of what the religious types want. That is what you seem to desire here, us others to think of what "you" bring here. - 16:39:34 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: That JOSH no fun, but so, when a human female gets "that-way" then there is none yet nor would there have been a way to stop them back whenever from accomplishing the satisfaction of that need? But, the human creature of which we are familiar, I've read we didn't start becoming the 5billion+ until quite recently, maybe just over 12000 years ago. In heat yet. Hahah, some of the females here who I asked about the times of being in heat, gave each other a look smiled and cleverly-like continued a conversation, still smiling. In any case the human creature has reproduced at a rate clearly outside the parameters confines of nature. As the conversation of this topic goes, that outsidedness of the human's rate of reproduction must be, one can think, lost in the sheer number of humans so made. I guess the human creature may have to become conscious of its place in nature again, instead of its place in their outside of nature culture. Why must this be done, well maybe its a human value that they one and all, be vigilantly always thoughtful. - 16:55:23 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- What in hell are you doing cutting and pasteing! SHAME! - 17:02:02 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:You know what Josh? Your keeping the wheel spinning on this one but the hamster is dead. - 17:03:09 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Carl- Not a denial of what humans do, but to continually humble us and our invention of reason to contemplate something infinitely larger, more complex and dynamic, and not entirely condensible into reductionistic theories: the universe. All of our changes have come about from accepting human reasoning as temporary lifetime solutions. There is no one way to view anything. There are no commandments to think the same way. In fact, understanding the greater creative force of the universe liberates us, just like Einstein relays. - 17:06:53 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- You said it. It's not me that's giving up. Here's another quote for you, 'The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent people are so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell ... - 17:15:10 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: You are insane - 17:21:32 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - I liked the Einstein quote. However, here we have a learned man presupposing that all of mankind thinks and acts as he does. It just doesn't happen. Some people do limit themselves to their personal needs and gratifications, while others do spread out and try to make the world a better place. It is just as I stated at the beginning of your tenure here. We are all different, we act differently, and it will be ever thus. I detest generalizations. If a person knows every other person on earth, then he/she can make a statement of fact. Until such time, they must stop grouping us as a lump sum. - 18:36:03 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:CARL - the population has grown. India hit one billion earlier this month (we should watch to see if their population growth slows now that old Mother T has kicked the bucket ;). However, it isn't just a rate of reproduction that is causing this to happen, as you know. Advancements in medicine, technology et al are allowing us to stay around longer than before. So, maybe the reproduction rate is constant, it's just that there are more of us able to stay in heat for longer ;) - 18:39:30 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- We are not separate from our surroundings no matter how much we want to believe we are distinct from our environment. As creatures of nature we all inhabit this single life force called earth. In that sense, we are a lump sum. What Einstein is talking about is an over self-indulgence in the way we treat our surroundings and how we think of ourselves. His quote is about understanding who we are in relation to the whole earth, and the whole universe, and in understanding this greater awareness we will learn more and have the ability to do more when we don't limit our perceptions of who and what we really are. We are not bound by the common theory you posted. Living, growing up, and dying, is not all there is. That is a self-imposed fallacy in perception. - 22:12:27 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:For those of you who are internet researchers, here are some sites to take a look at. This first one is called "Consciousness As An Active Force", and describes in practical terms how we realize quantum potentials in our own lives, just by being aware that our interractions in the world are in every affectual on our own lives. Amy Lansky also talks about non-locality and also the detrimental effects of Western philosophy. I will be happy to discuss anything on her site. - 22:25:55 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:This site describes "The Living Systems Theory" by James Miller, which describes the living systems in terms of energy relationships and interractions in their surroundings. Systems thinking is what I discussed before as a solution to the limitations of reductionism to describe overrall change and self-organization. - 22:32:12 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:This site calls itself the "First International Electronic Seminar on Wholeness". Check out New Concepts of Matter, Life & Mind by Ervin Laszlo for more information on the limitations of Western concepts in matter and space, and how limiting classical Darwinism is. Especially read The concept of life -and- the concept of mind as it directly relates to our discussions here. The site ends with societal implications and addresses why it's important that we open up more of ourselves to each other to understand the collective needs as they relate to our personal growth and development. - 22:42:16 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- I will read every one of these sites but..really., while having a quick look at the first site I couldn't help but groan at the reference sources she uses. - 23:05:06 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:I am making an active attempt here to stress that none of this is extremely new or that I am brandishing this with an excessive pride from learning this information. The fact is that 99.83% of the known population is not in tune to being creatively inspired enough to share ideas, or to be in the mindset to be open to new ideas. Creativity, and therefore change, is largely looked down upon, as seen in this room. The great thing about science is that it welcomes the challenge of new hypotheses. It doesn't surrender to bias. I see the major obstacle in here as a conditioning on the part of people to wait for something to be accepted by the 99.83% of the population before they themselves concede any insight into what is being discussed. No one has yet to identify an understandable threat to systems thinking, holistic awareness, quantum potentialities, ecologically-based growth, and just a general sense that the way the world works now is not entirely productive and that the power to change this would be in our own hands. All I see here are blatant pre-disposed biased conditions surrendered to a superficial sense of independent rationalizations, which are no different than the claims of organized religionists who surrender their perceptions to other man-made theories. I think the real answer is somewhere in the middle. Reductionism and materialism are not adaptible and are too rigid to include everything, and organized religion is not personal enough to include growth and potential. I posted some sights here to inform most of you of what you are missing about life, as I have seen from my own experiences. - 23:11:39 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- Right away, you always inform me of your biases... I have come to expect that. (C; ... - 23:14:24 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:This site is a better overall understanding of this new shift of thought and it's written in simple, understandable terms. It's called "Revolution in Common Sense" and details alot in what we've been trying to discuss in here, including the correlation between mass and energy and group and individual entities. -- This internet research can prove very beneficial, afterall! - 23:51:28 on 17 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..leave those guns alone, son:JOSH- I said I'm reading them and now the new one, stop your damn whining! (Just maybe I'm the only one left who will read them) As you've come to expect me informing you of my biases, I'm getting really bored with watching you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. - 1:17:40 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Wow! "No one has yet to identify an understandable threat to systems thinking, holistic awareness, quantum potentialities, ecologically-based growth," such a volcabulary of wisdom;pop culture slays me. Where did you get this from; the national enquirer.Reductionism and holistic awareness,I'm affraid the way you use these words: the meanings are "mind salad". - 1:29:08 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe you and the people you know are part of the lump sum, but not every body is, damn it. Einstein was instrumental in creating a bomb that had the potential to wipe out civilization. He is not a representation of what we have to do to save the world, is he? Just like good old Nobel. He created dynamite, and so to atone for the damage his invention created, he started giving out a peace prize. Everything is open to intrepreation Josh...did you know that? To me it would seem that you are a bit of a groupie, and because someone who is well known says something, it is fact. Try thinking for yourself for a change. Start challenging instead of believing everything you read. - 2:04:03 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

PETER:..JOSH--On Sept.17 you say: ....'It's up to us to figure them out'...Oh yeah? says WHO? - 2:08:31 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..sniff..sniff:DOUG- Now don't go making Josh whine more than he already does, lol! But...pass the Thousand Island please! Are you reading the sites he's left. I love to read this stuff. The fragrance of ferns seems to suddenly appear when I do. - 2:12:00 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Shame! Josh isn't wrong, Josh is never wrong! - 2:13:34 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:And what large contribution to humanity has Josh bestowed on the human race.I can't imagine doctors, nurses, police, firemen,teachers,ballplayers,farmers,etc. as being slug like neandertals because they don't fit Josh's definition of being creative.It must be a lack of having a creative mind that leads to his shallow delusions of grandeur. - 3:38:31 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Sid Cynic:Josh. Get your head out of the clouds and put your feet on the ground. What you need is a good piece of ass to bring you back to life. Maybe Joette or Marlene can help you out.(Ha,Ha,Ha) - 3:50:46 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Gee I was reading that new age site.Josh believes in this quackery; it's a total fraud. The amount of energy required for a particle to do some of the feats in question is enormous. With all of humanity you'd need the energy of dozens of galaxys. And if quantum physics is the ultimate form of reductionism!Also quantum physics breaks down with anything larger than an atom, so the new age cranks will have to come up with something better. - 4:03:21 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:BUT..BUT..DOUG- He's a screenplay writer! An independent one! You just know how terribly important that is to our thought survival. You see playwriting mimics a holistic understanding of the morphic fields created by "The Universe" so we non-creative beings (with exception of RS and Josh) can recognize the synchronic moments in our otherwise random event lives. It works like this, you mentioned "mixed salad" and I automatically thought of "Thousand Island". Likely about 100 mentionings of "mixed salad" ago someone creatively thought of "Thousand Island" now the "thought" just happends. It's all explained by qm. - 4:04:12 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Sid Cynic- Are you out of your morphic mind! - 4:07:33 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Now I have to go back and correct all the misunderstandings and shortcut responses... - 4:08:45 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Well goodnight atheists. Gotta work a 14 hour tomorrow, yuck! - 4:10:05 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- I know those are big words but if you took the time to look them up, you wouldn't look like you haven't been paying attention in here. - 4:11:04 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- All your sites explain everything clearly, no need to correct us, we've made no mistakes. - 4:11:31 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- We are all in a binding connection with this planet and everything inside it. We are part of this earth and we are related to everything. Try to live without the help of other creatures or what is produced by the earth and you will see what I mean. We are all connected in this way, and that is what's meant by being lumped together. That's something you cannot escape. --- You are totally off the subject with Einstein. We were talking about his quote and what it meant, not that people misused his inventions. --- Likewise, you should challenge things more often, too. You too easily believe what others have told you. - 4:18:24 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- You also missed the point I was making about idealism. I said without it we'd all be habit-forming slugs. Doctors, police, etc. are also participating in mechanistic approaches to solving problems. They are maintenance workers in this system and are not being used to the best of their abilities. We have the same problems, only worse, several hundreds of years after we started employing them. --- The amount of energy for a particle to do what? There were several topics, you'll have to be more specific. The role of quantum physics is not to reduce things into tiny pieces. You missed the point there. QP is used to identify the potentiality of conscious interactions in non-local chains of events, which shows the larger interconnectedness of things. You are way off there in your approach to discredit the theories. You haven't shown you understand what the theorists intended or that you want to try to understand. - 4:31:15 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene; It's math without the numbers and variables;how charming.And my old friend "seth" speaks from quackland is mentioned as credible source.Hasn't anyone heard of the Plank length and the energy required to pull off these stunts.Who needs astronomy when we have astrology. - 4:33:59 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- By what means are you determining truth? What differentiates your opinions from other conflicting ones? What I'm getting at here is the question of if we don't tie our beliefs to observable reality how can we consider them as other than arbitrary? The religionists have revelation for this. What have you got? You act as if everything I say is equivelent to "Josh is poopy." None of it is. You can't even see the problems with your views, or even that problems exist, can you? - 4:43:22 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:I think Doug said the key phrase, "I can't imagine..." That's what all of this is, a new perception into how the universe and our world operates. I never found anyone who told themselves a thousand times they couldn't do something and then suddenly did it. It doesn't surprise me that I would find part of the 99.83% of the population in here that are resistant to creativity and new ideas. The fact is, none of these theories account for anything but possible new solutions and point out who the innovatively-deficient are in any given discussion room. - 4:48:50 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- The usable forms of energy aren't always observable, but we know it exists and we know we and everything on this planet needs it to survive. We also can study the quantum level of our universe and see that things basically operate on a level of unpredictability and yet in a strange pattern of relations, so when certain events seem too similar to be random coincidence, we can theorize that there are patterns of energy as yet unidentified by human observances that may happen on a larger, non-local chain of events (synchronicity). We also know that we are thinking creatures and that we can develop ideas and put them into action, yet no one knows for sure exactly where in the brain these events take place or if they originate uniquely inside us at all. The reality is our own active perceptions and interractions and relationships in this world. That's it. That's what this is all about. Our thoughts means nothing without relating them to someone or something else. Some of it is observable, but alot of it is not, which just means it is open to interpretation. I can't stress enough to think about this point. When you understand that all of your surroundings, all of the theories you base your life on, and all the theories others adopt and base their lives on, are all interpretations.. that is why everything is arbitrary and secondary to the fact that we are all in this together in a binding connection with everything in this world. I simply choose theories which are the least limiting in concordance with our environment and I'm trying to show others what is limiting by settling for man-made conclusions. The universe is just not condensible to yours or mine theories of it. I base my reality on that. - 5:07:33 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- What I hear from you is that you think .17% of the population can imagine something which you consider niftier than reality, and since it is niftier than reality, it must be true. Have you read any of the great thinkers? These guys you are reading don't compare. Is it your impression that thinking just began? Can you make one argument for the accuracy of any system of detecting truth other than science? How would one tell if another system is more accurate, gut feeling? What substantiation for your views have you offered other than possibility and your personal preference? Do you understand about standards of verifiability, either in science or philosophy? Are you able to accept that some people are not going to make some kind of leap of faith based on feeling, no matter how attractive? - 5:15:36 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- Maybe a better way of saying this is that reducing everything into precise details separates and disconnects us. It's an illusion to believe that this methodology gives us a better understanding because understanding comes from the context of the situation. If we are going to understand the human situation we have to look at the context of our life here. We are roughly 15 to 18 billion years of recycled universe properties. As Sagan called it, "We are star stuff." There are properties of the universe that are so immense in size and proportions that we can't even begin to comprehend all its facets, but we can appreciate our binding connection here and that we were born without the methodologies to understand it. We came with our emotions and feelings first, and ever since the dawn of consciousness humans have been burdened with a sense of the mysteries of life. We can embrace them, or at worst, try to deny them. These theorists are finally responding to these eternal questions not as human identifications, but as universal properties that exist that we are just beginning to truly understand. -- I'm doing my best to explain in this in the simplest, most dispassionate way possible. There is no big controversy here. No mind melt. Just some new perceptions of what we are really doing here and what we are partaking in. Does any of this make sense? I didn't pick this stuff up over night. It's been at least a 5-year discovery for me. - 5:37:58 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- The substantiation is ironically based on the findings of mechanistic science. You haven't read or come to understand the information on the sites if you don't see what substantiates the views of these theorists, all of them scientists. None of this is against science, just the mechanistic approaches science has taken over the past few hundred years. What these scientists are talking about is systems science. You are making leaps in conclusions without knowledge of what you are making your opposition. - 5:43:57 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- It's my contention that they are using bad science, in that they are not attempting to insulate bias from the experiments. Ideally science would be conducted without agendas but this is difficult, I'm sure you realize. But proper scienctific methodology is designed with the intent of minimizing the influence of bias. It's of critical importance. I seriously think you don't understand this part of what science aspires to and why, and about the problems with ideologies, especially how they can cloud investigation. - 5:55:24 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- Who's biases? It's all arbitrary. The basic properties of the universe are unpredictable and fall into tendencies. We call them theories, not facts. There aren't any absolutes in which to minimize bias. When humans are concerned, it's all perception. That's why even scientists disagree on things. I think you are being idealistic. - 6:00:10 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- You don't think there exists an independant "objective" reality then, whether or not we have any sort of direct access to it? - 6:02:38 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:An objective reality implies a plan for what the universe should be and how it should operate, which could also imply some sort of Creator aspect. It can also imply determinism and fate, and that our actions would be entirely useless on the large scale of things. What kind of freedom do you see in an objective reality? I don't see it. It's more likely that the nature of the universe is habit-forming. Just look at the opposition for change in this room, and multiply it by 15 billion years. That's what I mean by arbitrary. You have to think on a larger scale. Did you check out this site on Systems Thinking? Skip down to where it says System Theory. - 6:19:33 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:Poop. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere the evasive doubletalk comes out. Remember what I said about intellectual integrity? I'm off... - 6:26:50 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- That's the cold dark words on the screen, not me. Why do you see an objective reality? For what basis do you hold this? Because it fits your theories? - 6:30:38 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- I just can't make sense of it otherwise. If as some claim, reality is determined by our thoughts, 1.What is the mechanism by which this occurs, and wouldn't there have to be some reality of which this mechanism is a part? How does it keep track? 2.Would everyone not be correct? Wouldn't all beliefs be correct, including mine? How could an opposite belief also be correct? How would this effectively be different from all beliefs being incorrect? 3.How could we learn anything? Everything would be fluid. 4.How would such a universe come to exist? --- Sorry, it just doesn't fly. The legitimate concerns are, IMO, those of how much of reality do we have access to, and how much of it are we capable of interpreting accurately. If you wish for me to consider a belief that there is no objective reality, you've got lots of talking to do. You might begin with how anything could have any meaning whatsoever. - 6:45:15 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:I'm off. We're leaving for the weekend in a few short hours. - 7:09:07 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Passing through...:Neither God, Christ, church or hell get a mention during the previous 30 posts. - 12:38:20 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Joette (if you don't write it, he will come....):Passing Through - we leave those tidbits up to you! - 14:41:07 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - you stated that there is opposition to change in this room. Maybe so. The opposition to change stems from us not buying what you, yourself, are trying to sell. Just because many of us don't agree what you are pushing doesn't necessarily mean that we oppose change. Btw, you also state that what you are selling is new. It isn't. I have heard it all before. - 14:43:13 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette - 'I am making an active attempt here to stress that none of this is extremely new'. These were my words. I'm still inclined to believe that you aren't reading everything clearly enough to understand it, that among other reasons. - 16:29:39 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh:First of all I'm very resistant to using quackery and pseudoscience as scientific methods.You are bastardizing real scientists and real science to promote quackery in the long tradition of faith healers and health tonic peddlers. You're very welcome to follow what you please, but don't try to lie to public by calling it science. - 16:35:36 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Passing Through..:Hey, Joette - you were all for getting rid of "what you considered" people who were not sticking to point of this page. - 16:48:30 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- The doubletalk comes me having to repeat things, double and triple times. Like I said, the reality is what we make of it, our perceptions. I also said that this makes everything comparably arbitrary to the fact that we are here together on this planet and we are in a binding connection with everything here - which still isn't absolute because in the near future some of us will be inhabiting other planets or space stations or what have you. There is no right or wrong, except what we superimpose onto the present reality. This is the power we have which these theorists write about and which also makes up the whole universe. When you start believing that your superimpositions onto reality are correct to the test of all others, you are in fact creating a limited world view, which is what we accuse of organized religionists of. You are also promoting separatism, bigotry, and elitism. Right and wrong, correct and incorrect, accurate and innaccurate are self-fulfilling perceptions. These are conditions we have been made accustomed to, but like all things learned, everything is open to interpretation - subjective human interpretation, not universal interpretation. I will say again, the universe is just not condensible to yours or my theories of it. - 16:48:37 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- Systems Thinking is science. Capra, Bohm, Lovelock, Margulis, and Sheldrake are all scientists and they wrote the books with the information I speak of. Take it up with them that you think they aren't scientists. - 16:51:46 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:you have missquoted many of them; but seth and all your interpretations are pure quackery.You have twisted and distorted them.The scientific method is the way of testing what scientific peer-reviewed journals are your views published in?No where are the views of any scientists theorys published in peer-reviewed journals about your quack conclusions. - 17:00:27 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- As a firm believer with faith in science you should realize a few things. Science is just a tool, a human invention, used to categorize and define the universe. When scientists propose principles, to the test of their peers, they are presenting a human description of a physical or chemical or theoretical property. But the test of it's reliability is still only limited to the best human knowledge at that time. Humans are less than .01% * of the universal lifespan. We appeared more than 15 billion years after everything, and 4.5 billion years after the earth. What makes you think our (human) meaning of anything has any weight comparably to the entirely, otherwise undefined universe? -- [* = (1.5 Million/15 Billion)*100] -- - 17:14:44 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- That last post was for you, too. You make a lot of accusations (misquotings, misinterpretations, distortions). I'm still waiting for you to support your claims from 3 weeks ago. - 17:26:26 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:"You are roughly eighteen billion years old and made of matter that has been cycled through the multi-million degree heat of innummerable giant stars. You are composed of particles that once were scattered across thousands of light-years of interstellar space, particles that were blasted out of exploding suns and that for eons drifted through the cold, starlit vacuum of the Galaxy. You are very much a child of the cosmos." - 'Equations of Eternity' by David Darling, Ph.D in astronomy, physicist. Not all scientists are stuffed-shirts, conditioned into the mindset of mechanistic perceptions... And please tell me if I have misquoted, anyone. - 17:45:36 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: an excellent article Quantum Quackery by Victor J. Stenger is professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii. It has many references. " the current fad of mystical physics began in earnest with the publication in 1975 of Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics (Capra 1975). There Capra asserted that quantum theory has confirmed the traditional teaching of Eastern mystics: that human consciousness and the universe form an interconnected, irreducible whole." It's quackery and that's the truth. - 18:25:48 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims of misquotations, misinterpretations, and distortions. -- Marlene posted that same site a month ago. Stenger is to reductionists as C.S. Lewis is to Christians. She also did the same post it and leave a one-line summary, so now I'm going to ask you defend it to show your understanding of it. What is your evidence of an objective reality? What do you find contradictory in Eastern mystics and human consciousness? What is your evidence that the universe form is not an interconnected, irreducible whole? - 18:46:36 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: well then he covers all your quack topics on his home page and in my next posting I'll give you the link. - 18:56:43 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: here are some other artcles debunking new age quackery. - 18:58:03 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh:here's a quack site you might feel right at home with, so channel right on over and bond with them in the 12th dimension. - 19:25:47 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- "It's quackery and that's the truth" - You came up with that from a site called "Quantum Quackery"??? *LOL* You can't even think of a new adjective, let alone some kind of intelligent support for your ignorant accusations. You're a hack. - 23:06:25 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh; new age quackery;reincarnation,channeling,quartz crystals,NDE'S,etc.You are a pseudoscientistic crank. All of peer-reviewed science must be ignorant too Josh, because they say what I say. Here go meet your lunatic soul mates; follow the link - 23:21:15 on 18 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Passing Through...you must have me confused with someone else. I have never held the opinion that anyone should leave this site. - 4:04:18 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOsh - is there a difference between "new" and "extremely new"? If something isn't extremely new, I would suggest it isn't new. - 4:05:38 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:I notice that Josh doesn't bring up astral projections, channeling(Shirley Maclain stuff),Seth speaks,past lives(reincarnations). but uses real scientists as a cover for his potemkin village.S. J. Gould would call you a quack Josh, I've met the man and he is not a fan of new age garbarge.The smoke and mirrors crowd (new age)are just like their fellow travelers the creationists.They wrap themselves up in slick scientific and technical langauge meant to impress the layman(sucker)to sell a bill of repackaged old stale goods.S. Hawking's "wave function of the universe" is another one that is abused.Non-singularity is a corner stone of his theory; this means that the universe couldn't have been created by the classical god(singularity).And again I will point out the enormous amouts of energy that would be needed to send just one atom to another universe(if we had the technology).Yet the new age quacks will have us believe every atom in the universe is bouncing back and forth violationing laws and theorys right and left.Hey you have to give him credit; he put up a good front hiding the quackery until the end. - 4:45:26 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- By reading your last post, I know now that you haven't the slightest idea of what I've been talking about. Where did I mention singularity or atoms shifting to other universes? Where was any of this mentioned? What theory proposed that laws are atoms are being violated? Back up your accusations, coward. You are arguing with ignorant misunderstandings and ridiculous leaps in categories. None of what I said is that new age crap. Get a grip. You are victim of your own conspiracies. - 5:42:24 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- That's right. Those theories aren't extremely new, they aren't new at all. That's what I said. And then you tried to tell me that the theories weren't new. What the hell are you arguing about?? Why bother posting something like that? - 5:55:12 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:I guess I'll wait for Grant to come back to have some sort of intelligent discussion. - 6:00:14 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- I took this from Stenger's site: 'As I have noted above, consciousness is not needed to explain quantum mechanics.' How do you think he explains quantum mechanics without consciousness? How would he explain anything without consciousness? Come on, I'm giving you another chance to answer a direct question. I think you can do it. - 6:26:05 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- That's just the whole enchilada, you haven't said a damn thing. You use all your key words such as "consciousness" "collective consciousness" "synchronicy" "holism" etc. etc. and have not yet used them to explain a dam thing toward what your trying to say. At least on the other sites we have read on this bullshit, the scientists(?) have put themselves on a very weak limb and stated their beliefs (not findings) but beliefs. All you've done is reiterate Capra's shit or Sheldrake's. - 13:55:19 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- It is likely that Doug hasn't had the time or patience to respond to your ridiculous question "How would he explain anything without consciousness?". Human observation was fine in years past but now with advanced technology there is no reason to employ human obsevation as it is flawed (as you prove beyond a doubt) with human emotions. What real scientists now use in this day are inanimate observers. No consciousness needed at all for the observation of a experiment. Face it Josh, humanity doesn't matter at all nor does it have any control over the universe. We are reduced to bioligical insignificate beings with very limited abilities that can not possibility impact or change physical laws. - 14:37:57 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:josh; here is where you said" This site is a better overall understanding of this new shift of thought and it's written in simple, understandable terms. It's called "Revolution in Common Sense" and details alot in what we've been trying to discuss in here, including the correlation between mass and energy and group and individual entities. -- This internet research can prove very beneficial, afterall! - 23:51:28 on 17 Sep 99 GMT" it has channeling, astral projections, quartz crystals, and all the other new age quackerys.see the link here that you gave to your quackery .Josh I think you're a liar and a fraud. - 14:51:08 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

from your page:josh; this quackery is included in your page link "So we want to increase the range of our consciousness. As we do away with the limitations of our mindset, we automatically act more in tune with the greater reality in which we reside. Our world becomes more desirable for us as well as for others. "You create your own reality", this is the message repeated tirelessly by Seth in Jane Roberts' books. He explains in enlightening detail how we can change our lives by changing our beliefs (101). In fact, Seth's entire philosophy dovetails coherently with the holistic system described here. To this writer this is one of the indications of Seth's authenticity. Without the Seth material, the Multiple World section and some other parts of this paper would not have been written with the same confidence. The Seth books provide a wealth of information for the serious student of M-D reality. Philosophers have suggested multiple worlds in the past. Spinoza, for instance, said that God has an infinite number of 31 attributes, of which humans perceive only two: physical extension and thought, humans being themselves of a physical and mental nature (102). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) postulated that ours is the "best of all possible worlds" (103). The holistic hierarchy described here is reminiscent of Leibniz's system of monads, which are basically spiritual, psychic entities positioned in a metaphysical hierarchy (104). The higher a monad is positioned, the more it represents the reality of the universe, each from its own perspective. There is an all-encompassing supreme monad: God. "The source of mechanics lies in meta-physics", according to Leibniz. He pointed out that the whole overall system is totally homogeneous, without discrete steps."they are talking about past lives and channeling, reincarnation and all the new age quackery.Get a life josh you're wasting your time here we don't have the time for your shit! - 14:59:03 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- For someone who claims to be bored and who doesn't care at all what I say, you are still the biggest hypocrite in here. --- The experiments, the inanimate observers and the data they record, are all the results of conscious interractions in this universe. The interpretation of these events also involves a conscious interraction. You are deceiving yourself. Everything is filtered through human perceptions before we even begin to put labels onto it. You don't even know what you are arguing about. NEXT! - 15:35:29 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- Check it again. There is no mention of that new age crap on there. Keep trying. People who stick with the same beliefs will not change their lives. - 15:39:10 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Here is a little section I call Doug logic: (1) After 3 or 4 cut-and-paste paragraphs and conspiracy theories based on the misunderstanding of what I say, Doug says, "Get a life josh you're wasting your time here we don't have the time for your shit!" somehow avoiding the fact that he does have time for "this shit". (2) Posting an entire paragraph with not one mention of astral projections, past lives, channeling, or reincarnation and then summarizing with these words at the end. (3) "S. J. Gould would call you a quack Josh, I've met the man..." -- Apparently, meeting someone in person qualifies the other individual to understand "mindmelt" with the other person and interpret exactly what they are thinking and will say, which would be like equating your childhood bully to meet with your imaginary friend that would beat him up for you. (4) Using words like 'new age quackery;reincarnation,channeling,quartz crystals,NDE'S' to describe what I post, AND THEN mysteriously defend 'I notice that Josh DOESN'T bring up astral projections, channeling(Shirley Maclain stuff),Seth speaks,past lives(reincarnations)...' -- I am faced with the most childish, and least intellectual of all conscious creatures in here. Just wanted to point out how similar Doug is to the rest of you and your pseudo-intellectual postings. NEXT! - 15:51:47 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- Oh wait, explain to me again about this one: Josh- "Capra, Bohm, Lovelock, Margulis, and Sheldrake are all scientists and they wrote the books with the information I speak of. Take it up with them that you think they aren't scientists." --- Doug: "you have missquoted many of them....You have twisted and distorted them." -- These were your accusations. Defend them, coward. - 15:59:40 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:It's tough always being number one... (sigh) - 16:08:19 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Marlene- BTW, after you try to figure out how human experiments do no involve human consciousness, here's something to think about: just because you reduce yourself to a "bioligical insignificate beings with very limited abilities" doesn't mean the rest of us are. Take a look again at 99.83% of the population. Your self-deceivement has caused you to be just another statistic. That's conscious (or lack of) interraction for ya. If you don't believe in yourself, who will? - 16:17:18 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--of the Lexicon Police--:JOSH: "self-deceivement"? For a self-absorbed, self-centered, self-righteously self-proclaimed "number one," you are certainly full of 'number two'. Pull over and produce a diploma from an accredited college, youngster, or I'll have to cite you for reckless pseudo-intellectual posturing in a rational cognition zone. - 17:03:46 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: I now believe you are mentally ill, please seek help you need it!Have pity fellow freethinkers, Josh is ill. - 17:07:39 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:jaywilson- obviously, sarcasm is new to you. Sorry if the cold, dark words on the screen do not relay this too well. - 17:07:44 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- Can't take the heat? You can only run for so long... your accusations and conspiracies will eventually get the best of you. I'm here for you, man. - 17:09:45 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Oh by the way folks "Seth" is the channeled being that comes into J. Roberts body."Josh the ill" is in a state of denial and won't admit that the cat of quackery is out of the bag. **** "You create your own reality", this is the message repeated tirelessly by Seth in Jane Roberts' books. He explains in enlightening detail how we can change our lives by changing our beliefs (101). In fact, Seth's entire philosophy dovetails coherently with the holistic system described here. To this writer this is one of the indications of Seth's authenticity. Without the Seth material, the Multiple World section and some other parts of this paper would not have been written with the same confidence. The Seth books provide a wealth of information for the serious student of M-D reality."******from the post that josh said explained his beliefs in detail. - 17:13:51 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: I think we have beaten a dead "Josh" for long enough, it's time to move on to other more important debates. - 17:17:17 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- I wish I had a dunce cap for you. This is what I said - 'It's called "Revolution in Common Sense" and details alot in what we've been trying to discuss in here'... I never mentioned any of that new age crap. I asked that you read this article as it relates the discussions in here. The author has additional beliefs and that's his perogative. Pay attention. - 17:35:46 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:put a sock in it Josh! - 17:44:29 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - I could ask you the same question. - 17:55:34 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:jaywilson - I once had an English teacher that I revered. Your writings remind me of the way he spoke to the class. I hope your students admire and respect you as much as I did my own teacher. - 17:57:18 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is - Infinite." - William Blake - 19:07:43 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:"We still carry the historical baggage of a Platonic heritage that seeks sharp essences and definite boundaries. (Thus we hope to find an unambiguous "beginning of life" or "definition of death," although nature often comes to us as irreducible continua.) .... But all evolutionary biologists know that variation itself is nature's only irreducible essence. Variation is the hard reality, not a set of imperfect measures for a central tendency. Means and medians are the abstractions..... If a little learning could ever be a dangerous thing, I had encountered a classic example. Attitude clearly matters in fighting cancer." - Stephen Jay Gould - 20:08:42 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:The Fine Art of Baloney Detection by Carl Sagan;" In the Financial Times this year, I described him as "a beacon of clear light in a dark world of alien abductions and 'real-life X-files', of psychic charlatans and New Age airheads, of fatcat astrologers giggling all the way to the millennium." Richard Dawkins ****** - 21:20:02 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

(Josh is really reaching now...he's using a poet to try to defend his pseudo-science...next thing you know he'll be citing Kurt Vonnegut) - 23:24:10 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

"I'd kiss ya, but I just washed my hair": Bette Davis. - 23:25:34 on 19 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:To needfully humble some people in this room, even Carl Sagan bowed his head in honor of the frailty and easily-misconceived man-made assurances that objective truth is obtained through the scientific method alone, and that the universe can be confined to human conclusions of it: "Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science... teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us. We will always be mired in error." - Carl Sagan, 'The Demon Haunted World'. I have yet to encounter one person in here who seems to understand this. Science doesn't explain everything. Those who truly understand it are continually humbled by the limitations of the humans that invented it and who continue to use it as an argument for objective truth. The mechanism for truth is our own perceptions; this includes the poets, the idealists, the scientists, and those who include the spiritual feelings we all encounter but may not yet understand. The context of the human experience includes all of these. To disclude any or most of them is a segregate, limitating bias, and if anything, it proves that human ego is the source for human truths, and not experience. Well-rounded people are admired for their integrity and obvious compassion for all aspects of human knowledge and experience. Specialization is a limited world view and an obvious insecurity for anyone who lives in the global community. - 1:37:13 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:'alone' should be omitted after "obtained through the scientific method...". I don't mean to imply that there is an objective truth to be obtained. - 1:42:36 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- For some reason you're still claiming I'm personally hip to that new age stuff, so I'll let you take that back if you can please answer why you think your friend Gould says, "nature often comes to us as irreducible continua" and why would 'attitude', a form of perception of human consciousness, help fight cancer? What is he saying? - 2:03:58 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Tonight I was listening to Dr. Joy Brown on the radio, and a 10 year old boy called in to ask her why people die. She gave a very practical answer, and then explained to him that she was a psychologist, and the only thing she could do about death was to help people deal with their fear of it if it becomes a problem for them. Anyway, it seems this boy's family follows Confuscious, and it is his idea that possibly people who have die suddenly have come across "ultimate knowledge", and so they must die so that they do not share the secrets of the universe. My first reaction to this was that the poor kid has bought every conspiracy in print,but then I found myself being quite impressed by such a young person having such intense thoughts. - 2:19:25 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - why do you find it necessary to humble people? Is this a defense mechanism borne of your insecurity? - 2:22:18 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Your SUCH a dingus! - 3:19:15 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Now that sounds like a plan. Josh is impossible anyway. - 3:20:51 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- To this point, I like to listen to Dr. Joy Brown. Was that the child's thought or what he's been taught? There seems to be two problems when it comes to the death of someone close to us. There may be the fear of death itself but also the fear of being without the person who died. - 3:26:09 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- The cold, dark words are without volition. It is you who is responsible for what comes accross on the screen. - 3:26:51 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: I'll try to ask him Tuesday when I'm over at the Farlow doing TLC's.He is over at the MCZ but Phil and some grad students have his class. - 3:43:52 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene and Joette: good points, losing a loved one in many respects is worse that one's own death.That's why so many people want to believe in the afterlife, because death in it's finality is too overwhelming to comprehend and accept. When my father and brother died I always thought that they had just stepped out and I would catch them the next time they were there.I still find myself thinking that the next time I see them we have alot to talk about.Of course I know they have passed away, but those thoughts are the first ones that pop into my head. - 4:02:25 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Joette- Nope, but good question. I used to believe there was some objective truth to be found in reductionism and materialistic needs, but I was humbled by the unique experiences in my life that most people (for lack of a better phrase) are lucky enough not to go through. I realized how experiences greatly affect our perceptions, and doing more research, I realized how many others shared the same insight. Experience defines our perceptions, and for that reason our perceptions of our experiences are largely self-fulfilling. Reductionism, like any other methodology, is man-made. As you can see in here, there's a certain amount of hostility and pessimism that people of this philosophy share - assumedly because of the literal, separations and divisions they force their world into. What I've found is that very few people see the entire world as an exciting challenge, and themselves as creative and innovative potentialities, which can only be credited to a conditioning of these materialistic and reductionistic values. Also when you see people that do not limit their views who seem blissfully content, it's not much of an argument for blunt, absolute skepticism. I'm not denying the obvious benefits of these scientific methodologies, but that they are quite limiting by themselves and in forcing referenced subjects that people may find in opposition to their current views, people may just learn a bit more about themselves and why they believe the conventionalities of the current majority, which isn't always because of personal insight. Even those in here who claim they are bored and/or tired with certain topics have to find a way to defend their perceptions for some reason, and in doing so the honest observer will see how arbitrary these arguments are. The world, and universe for that matter, are not dependent upon who is right or wrong, but if we play it's games and think of the larger issues in all circumstances, instead of just human concerns, we will always have the right insights.--- That's an interesting anecdote, btw, about the kid and 'ultimate knowledge'. Thank you for sharing it. - 4:12:53 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Doug- Cool. Let me know. - 4:13:31 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:Grant- I'll give you some time to catch up, then hopefully we can continue where we left off the other night. How was your trip, btw? - 4:15:29 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:JOSH-- Had a great time. In an antique store I found an 1886 edition of 'Introduction to Psychological Theory' by a Boston University professor of philosophy, Borden P. Bowne. I read it on the beach while roasting my flesh. I'm tempted to scan it and put it up on this site. (The book, not my flesh.) - 5:34:48 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

WHAT WAS THE ...:brilliant poem here to1 or so years ago ending in something like "could'nt give an FAQ? - 13:07:48 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Try this...:http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/prophecy/eatjew.htm - 13:25:31 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:PASSING THROUGH-- There are literally millions of websites now. One has to wonder why if someone dislikes a site they don't just FAQ OFF. :-) - 13:31:07 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

WHAT WAS THE>>>:Talk about anger! More energy spent in avoiding the question, than.....What is the answer? - 13:49:41 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

WHAT WAS THE ANSWER....:Just to repeat!.............. - 13:54:06 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: I repeat JOSH is insane! The haphazard interplay of his neural activity has imploded. Of such folks some say they see pink elephants and gods, they probably do. To these folks, like JOSH, it is us others o'course who do not understand. What does JOSH see? Nothing any more outrageous than anyone of us others would see and could say of, if we did not know or elect to ignore our limitations. His posts and links are no less any annoyance than those of RTL or any other religious type. To think is a good thing, its better if meaningful to our continued existence. If Smut's book will have anything to say its seems to have the human mind as a target. While I inscribe that JOSH is insane its cuz'he exhibits the same mindless fanatacism as anyone else 'touched by a godthing'. The religious point to the invisible, spirits and souls, JOSH points to 'mind play'. - 15:17:09 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

JOSH:When one embraces mechanistic values they find themselves forced to put labels unto everything - even the concepts they have yet to understand. And based on this misunderstanding, they scramble for words to describe their own limitations in understanding as a defense mechanism for superficial insecurities. Instead of accepting that it is their own perceptions that can't make use of the information, they often use words that make themselves feel lofty and superior for developing a classification, instead of classifying the information into the category called ignorance. Ignorance is a word in itself surrounded by taboo and as an insult, when really all it means is to be unaware of certain information. - 15:51:52 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Some things like JOSH, come into our time of existence and allow for some things to be a part of the things that make our day. After the 15:17:09 post I read in two articles of some amusing things. One was on obsessive compulsive behavior,e.g., JOSh and his holism complete with his mask of being a teacher, and the other titled,"Do we think with our hormones?". It was a brief report of a UCB psych-prof studying brain size and sex. His research allowed him to point out that brain size was or can be related to one's sex interests. So for the sake of humor, is JOSH a victim of some obsessive complusive disorder or just itchin'to get laid, again and again and again? - 15:53:56 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Who IS this passing through idiot? A coward to be sure! I think most people on this discussion use their actual names but this person hides behind "passing through" or some other idiotic header. - 17:07:19 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- As you can see, Josh doesn't want to discuss. He just wants to preach. When confronted with actual findings or the lack of, he starts into consciousness and all that crap. Not at all reasonable! - 17:09:25 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- That is an interesting subject and I think, yes, we think with our hormones. If certain chemicals in the brain are overproduced or underproduced, we think differently. - 17:11:51 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- Quite seriously, why do you think consciousness has nothing to do with anything? Is it not your consciousness that has made that perception and found a way to convey that as words on a screen? Why are you taking for granted that as a thinking individual you are continuously influencing, affecting, and experiencing the world around you through your own filters, i.e. experience, knowledge, heredity? - 17:24:23 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: I mention self control, be it as it may, above as a thing any of us others could disregard and go goofy as a few do the religious and those w/special interests. What it seems that JOSH objects to of us others, who are for him and his special interests as sticks in the mud, can be best understood as a polictical process. That because we ain't a religious party here, he's attempted to portray and hook us as a "religious-like" body via hanging on us the group here the mark of, dogmatism. The difficulty he faces is typical of most folks who hold certain presumptions of atheism and, it seems, the pockets of atheists they encounter. Here, I see those other folks who address atheists at other places that I look in on from time to time. In general those other folks, like JOSH, seem to hold that an atheist is looking for some personal meaning or an as yet unknown source of fulfillment. And, of course they, like JOSH, have the answer. Not 'an' answer, they have 'THE' answer. The real answer is just a political one. An atheist group is like any other group of people that come together, some common or unspecified general points of agreement just form. JOSH faces here a simple political problem. - 18:55:30 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Since you propose that I am projecting simply a political problem what might that be? What do you think 'THE' answer is that I am arguing for? The point I'm making here is your are making conspiracy theories without backing up your claims. Doug did the same thing and I'm still waiting him to support them.--- Also you attempted to describe the reasons why I present certain arguments in terms of hormones and relative brain size, which no doubt is a mechanistic approach - where, quite literally, you are trying to break the human organism down into a machine-like base of operations more or less to be consistent in its output/actions, and in this approach you seem to disregard the principles of vitalism which helps us understand our organic outside experiences to level out and determine better perceptions of our environment. Why do you think the simplest answer is always the best answer (Occam's Razor)? Just for example, mechanistic approaches cannot explain morphology or ethology (the study of animal behavior), so would you be in the position to not have all the facts by using one methodology? ... Post your comments to me, not Marlene please. - 19:20:17 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: You are insane. - 19:49:18 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Ricky:Josh, what do ya think about black-magic, which-craft, devil worship, any power it that type of stoff? - 21:40:22 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Hey! RICKY- Your still around. Were you on vacation? - 21:44:24 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Carl: Notice the volcabulary Josh uses. It's filled with all sorts of borrowed expressions.If you look up the original terms most will have specific meannings. They aren't what Josh is talking about.When he denouces channeling,past lives,"quantum macrobiotics"(that's my term for anything larger than a atom using quantum mechanics),NDE(as proof of an afterlife),creators(supernatural),etc. then maybe he's ready to learn.He denies that his pseudoscience is tied up with new age quackery, but posts sites with references to it authenticity.I agree with you that Josh is insane. - 21:49:08 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Ricky- Contrary to the naysayers in here, I don't know much or have any experience with that stuff to give an opinion of it. - 21:51:49 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- Always waiting for some bandwagon to jump on? Sounds like someone else I know in here. How about sticking to the subjects and easing off with the conspiracy theories? - 21:56:08 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: are you and JOSH one and the same? That seems like from here the only reason the JOSH would want things addressed to that pseudonym and not MARLENE. If you two are one, well what if any difference does it make which pseudonym you see? But, if you are not one, JOSH is really insane for wanting things addressed to you to be for him/her/it {I no longer know what is the form of JOSH}. - 22:07:01 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Yikes! I hope I don't have too much in common with Josh. I do think though that Josh is in human form. The problem with Josh, I think, is a pseudo-superego. In reality I think he's really quite an insecure person and this may be the reason for his belief that we humans are more than insignificant biological beings in a very big universe. He reminds me of the kid at school who interupts a conversation to see if your talking about him and if you are, because he's the topic of conversation, he figures he can control what you or the other person says about him. Like I say, very controlling as a result of being very insecure, methinks. - 23:04:28 on 20 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:conspiracy theories, really now Josh,forgot to take your meds?And your's are quack theories of a lower nature of thought.The credability and reprodoucability under standard scientific conditions hasn't passed the tests.You quote scientists then jump to the quack theories without testing. Marlene;I'm sure Josh is quite litterate within his world. But so are astrologers and palm readers; they work hard too. But what Josh fails to understand is it doesn't make it fact.What Josh is neglecting to do is to provide a glossary of terms so us overeducated scientists can relate the volcabulary to our scientific terms.Ex. does Holistic include the supernatural, magic, and channeling as methods. From his posts and links I would say yes.Do astral projections help holistic non-mechanical factual symbiosis to muliti-dimensional thought proceeses. - 1:39:08 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..dictionary time:DOUG- Speaking of literate, why don't we define some of these terms once and for all so that we all know what they mean and next time another Muldner arrives on the scene, we won't go through months of this. If we can define some of these terms in a way that everyone (even me) can understand them, it would be nice. I'll go first with "morphology"---Morphology refers to what an organism looks like. Human beings have a morphology characterized by two legs and two arms, a large head, a spinal chord, hair, and other features. These features enable biologists to compare humans to other animals and to see how they are different and how they are the same. Just like you can learn a lot by studying how other people handle problems similar to the one's you're having, when scientists study an organism's morphology, what they are really seeing is an organism's solution to the challenges nature is posing. For example, in response to a sudden increase in the temperature of a lake, most of the life in the lake may die, but there might be a fish whose DNA is such that it has the ability to handle the warmer water. Scientists will observe all the dead fish and dead plants and say, "What the heck is going on here?" Then they will see this one lone fish swimming around happily and wonder, "How come that fish is still alive?". The fish must have something special. The fish is probably alive because some large or small morphological feature in its body was able to handle the warmer water. Scientists are curious what this feature is and how it works. - 3:18:40 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Let's see... more of adults acting like silly kids, more idle comparisons, more superficial name-calling and labeling, and more cut-and-paste jobs. At least you guys are consistent. Marlene: Cut-and-pasted that by yourself, did ya? Guess I have to wait for the sticks in the mud to become obsolete and die off before anything gets changed around here. *sigh* - 3:26:30 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe.... Accuse not nature: she hath done her part; Do thou but thine. (Do yourself but your own)." - John Milton - 3:31:04 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"Every thing possible to be believed is an image of truth." - William Blake - 3:34:17 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- Oh yeah, what did S.J. Gould say when you asked him about attitude curing cancer? Where's the scientific testing for that? You said you would ask him or was that another bluff? - 3:43:49 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Will Josh reject channeling and other new age quakery. Now for glossary time ****Symbiosis "Symbiosis is an association of two different kinds of organisms in which each is beneficial to the other and indeed may be essential to the life of the other." Example of a symbiotic relationship: Leguminous plants and rhizobia - Although leguminous plants cannot utilize the nitrogen from the air, the bacteria rhizobia can convert nitrogen from the air into useful compounds through nitrogen-fixing. The bacteria are found in the soil and can be grown in a culture, but will not fix nitrogen. Once they have infected a plant, the plant forms nodules on the roots, where the bacteria grow and nitrogen fixation occurs.****Holon A holon is a node in the tree structure. Holon comes from the Greek holos meaning "whole" and on meaning "part" or particle. The key characteristics of a holon include that it asserts its individuality in order to maintain the set order in the tree structure, but it also submits to the demands of the whole tree structure (the system) in order to make the system viable. Holons are self-contained, autonomous pieces which follow a prescribed set of rules. The holon has a "self-assertiveness tendency" (wholeness) as well as an "integrative tendency" (part).This duality is similar to the particle/wave duality of light.(Koestler, 1967) **** - 3:44:00 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:gee Josh it isn't even tuesday yet . take your meds you don't even know what day it is. - 3:45:49 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:No Josh my car will be parked on Oxford Street tomorrow. P.S. it has the darwin emblem on it. Look in the Farlow and you'll find me.No Bluff little man. - 3:48:08 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- You and Marlene can start a new discussion board where everyone cuts and pastes things with not a trace of an original thought from it's posters. It sure is a clever way of creating a bluff, but it's very immature. - 3:48:59 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Ricky:Yah, been on vacation. Scanning over and felt sorry for Josh, you guys shouldn't pic on him so hard. We had a hurricane over here and got houses with nothing but the chimleys out of the water! Thank God, I'm high and dry! Guess i was blessed! - 3:53:03 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- Here's a bit of trivia for you: Darwin never held any institutional post. His theory of blind chance and natural selection was based on self-study. So much for the straws you're grabbing at. - 3:55:31 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Now, back to the serious stuff. Enough playing with the delinquents. Can anyone in here defend a basis for objective truth, and if so how do we remove the bias of perception? - 3:58:41 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Oh I couldn't resist to post this from a new age nonMECHANISTIC UNIVERSE site :most of the links has all sorts of quackery:Meditating with Crystals An article by Sylvia Percival: To make it easier to do this meditation you may wish to make a tape recording of it, remembering to read it out slowly and leave enough time in between each part. Or ask a friend to read it out for you. Put a glass of water and your favourite colour candle and put the oven timer on so that you will be free of thinking that you will not come back. USING YOUR FAVOURITE QUARTZ CRYSTALS Connecting to the Love Within and Without and to your HIGHER SELF. Either sit with your back straight or lie down. Make sure your body is relaxed. Do some deep breathing, if there is an area of tension as you breath in, tense it right up, as you breath out, let it go. Breathing in Love, breathing out and relaxing. Feeling your feet relax, legs, buttocks and hips, abdomen, back, chest, shoulders, arms and hands, neck and head. Becoming deeper and deeper into a relaxed state. Going deep within. Now imagine that you are in a beautiful place in nature, it may be in the mountains, in a forest, a lush valley, or anywhere that is of your choosing. You are walking through this beautiful place, becoming aware of the sun, any breeze, the plant life, birds singing....as you walk, you follow a path that leads you to a beautiful big Crystal of your choice.... there is an open doorway into the bottom of the crystal and walk inside the Crystal, in the centre is a wonderful, comfortable bed and you go and lie down. As you lie there, beautiful Spirals of Coloured, Crystal energy starts to move all around you, it feels so Loving, Warm and Safe, you start to feel the beautiful spirals of Crystal energy as they start to flow in through your heart, expanding your heart and chest in radiant spirals of Rose Light, Love and Warmth as this beautiful energy moves out through your body in gentle spiral through your neck, head, shoulders, arms and hands, back, chest, abdomen, pelvis, buttocks and thighs, lower legs and feet until your whole body is filled with spirals of Warm, Loving, Rose Light. *** Josh must get orgasms from them. Everybody check out the links. - 4:01:57 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- You seemed to miss an entire paragraph that I posted and picked the lowest common denominator of discussion topics, the fact that you, like Doug and Marlene, need each other's support, so I'll repost this question to give you another chance for a serious discussion: 'Why do you think the simplest answer is always the best answer (Occam's Razor)? Just for example, mechanistic approaches cannot explain morphology or ethology (the study of animal behavior), so would you be in the position to not have all the facts by using one methodology?' Take your time. Think about it. - 4:04:24 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- I'm not picking on Josh, he's clobbering himself over the head, lol! Where do you live? I would hazzard to guess, along the southern east coast. About three years ago, a person who, at one time, posted here had her beach home destroyed buy such a storm. Good thing your okay! I think maybe you weren't so much blessed as you were forunate enough to be in the right place at the right time. - 4:04:27 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug is entertaining himself again, I suppose. - 4:05:51 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- I'll post this again. You said I didn't want to discuss anything: Quite seriously, why do you think consciousness has nothing to do with anything? Is it not your consciousness that has made that perception and found a way to convey that as words on a screen? Why are you taking for granted that as a thinking individual you are continuously influencing, affecting, and experiencing the world around you through your own filters, i.e. experience, knowledge, heredity? - 4:08:09 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Wow a fortune teller, ****Where does this lead us? We cannot yet say that Sheldrake's ideas about morphogenetic fields have been proven to the satisfaction of his fellow scientists, but it looks to me as if they are on their way to that kind of general acceptance. Especially in Western Europe, where the theory is well-known and has been widely discussed, an increasing number of scientists are taking it seriously. If further experiments continue to produce significant results, it will soon be the critics who will need to prove their case. The most difficult part for most to accept is the fundamental idea that information, created by and retrievable by physical systems, can be transmitted and stored in a non-physical form. This is a direct contradiction of the materialist vision that has served as the basis for most of the sciences, and many (but by no means all) scientists are reluctant to let go of that vision. Yet the experimental support for materialism has been crumbling for some time - from the "instantaneous communications" implied by Bell's Theorem in quantum physics to the solid experimental demonstrations that now exist for such psychic abilities as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis (see, for example, Charles Tart in the December 1985 Special Report for Members from the Institute of Noetic Sciences, 475 Gate Five Rd, Suite 300, Sausalito, CA 94965). Thus the morphogenetic field research is more like the last straw than the first wave in the assault on traditional materialism.*****Bell would have a merde if he knew you quacks were abusing his theory.clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis; give me a break.This is what Rupert Sheldrake(Josh) is talking about folks. - 4:12:48 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Great! Now we're clear on those two terms but now it's time to hit the sack. I have another 15 hour work day tomorrow, then YEE-HAW, I will be finished! - 4:13:25 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene goodnight atheists, Ricky and Josh:DOUG- Just read your last post before I logged off. I just bet that site is where Josh gets all his ideas from! LOL! - 4:15:54 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Same here, it's been a long day. - 4:22:57 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Joette- 'As you can see in here, there's a certain amount of hostility and pessimism that people of this philosophy share - assumedly because of the literal, separations and divisions they force their world into.' - 4:36:19 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"Many people make an unfortunate and invalid separation between heart and mind, or feeling and intellect." - Stephen Jay Gould - 4:40:08 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide buildup of knowledge over time converts science into something a little short of a transnational, transgenerational META-MIND." - Carl Sagan - 4:52:04 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:This similar problem arises again. People that have not liberated themselves from the conditioning of mechanistic values forget that they are the victims of a learned process. This learned process was established and made conservative before the wealth of knowledge and experience had been exhausted, and therefore certain fundamental problems are ignored or treated as taboo because the conventional paradigms have no way of exploring certain things. Having come to this insight, even though my own words do not support them, I cannot denounce psychic abilities, channeling, reincarnation, or fortune telling out of simple honesty. No one honestly can. I especially won't denounce something to please anyone in here who suffers from a conditioning of limited world views. The fact is, and it's good that Doug brought these up as part of the (one-sided) discussion, that these things exist in the human experience, and conventional science has no collectively accepted methodology to describe these phenomenae. Since we have no way of qualitately judging someone else's brain for actual mental experience, and also because we don't even know how to begin to explore the origination of cognitive processes, it is premature and an ignorant position to deny others of their claims - which all comes back to perception and subjective truths. I'm sure Doug does well amongst his peers and he gets a pat on the back for doing exactly what he is taught and what has been taught to people like him for last few hundred years. Like I tell the organized religionists when they argue for a certain scientists' religious preference, DOUG, there is a difference between text book knowledge and the knowledge yet to be written down. "Argue for your limitations, and they are yours." - Richard Bach - 5:19:44 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Who really cares what Carl, Richard etc. etc. said! All I care about is what they've actually found out. Answers are much more to me than someone's sentiments. Enough with the cut and paste quotes, you impress no one by them. - 11:32:17 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - happy election day! Btw, I enjoyed your post on morphology and am a bit clearer on it as a result. I do know that those were your own words, and not a "cut and paste" job as Josh seems to think. - 13:52:39 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:An interesting legal case transpiring here in the Great White North...a 5 year old boy was hit by a car and killed, and his parents may be charged because they had been warned previously to keep their child out of a roadway under constrution. I wondered why the parents in this case may likely go to jail for their son's death, whereas people of certain religions leanings are allowed to sit back and let their children die. - 13:57:15 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Sort of in the direction JOETTE looks to, some o'you may have heard about some H.S.students in NY not answering some test questions on evolution becuz its agin'their religious faith. Last nite I watched a newstalk show about that event w/Falwell and another fella. One of the hosts is the conservative and he simply said straight out that he was for religion in schools and that laws o'the USA were based on assorted xian things. The unsettling point was the conservative just saying he "believed" the bible and jc and the commandments and creation and not that man evolved from slime. He and Falwell seemd to take no position on the prospect of ignornace of scientific processes but total acceptance of assorted xian stuff was all man needed for his immortal soul. Today, I reviewed a poll about the worldwide quakes, 36% clicked on the response that it was 'a warning'. A warning, incredible! Then, here at this site in this small community, we got JOSH the insane. Talk by being surrounded by extremes. - 14:54:42 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG: On one hand I can understand what JOSH imagines that he wrestles with. On the other hand though, he has gone overboard, in the acceptance of his chosen, lets say, of his chosen "hypotheses". As far as I can tell, that holism thing did not begin on solid ground. That book I'm reading that is an early account of his holism hypothesis makes assorted references of the hard sciences only to deny them. Other references that the author finds favor in, are mere assertions and more mystical than fact. How I say I can understand JOSH, is in that for the western world much of it is based on philosophy that is false to facts. Its dominant religion is the clearest example of that. But, for whatever JOSH has opted for insanity, perhaps its nicer that way. - 15:18:34 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

PETER:..JOSH..I have read some of your posts for the past few weeks. You do post some very insightful and well-thought arguments. Regretfully however, they are interspersed consistently bad and weak arguments as well. Thus far I can conclude that the problem here is that you seem to think they are all good arguments, and you are unwilling to concede the weak ones, garnerining a lot of flak from other posters here. Like i have said before, the most difficult thing for me to do now, is to try to establish some semblance of a reference point with you. While i am still working on this, I sincerly hope you will be able to work on a couple of things. First of all, what is this obsession you have for the demands that one person put things 'into their own words'? The last time i heard someone demand this from me was my eight-grade English teacher when writing a composition. Often another writer ( regardless of his area of study ) can construct a particular argument so profoundly and succintly, it inspires a reader to quote it directly. Despite your objections, there is nothing wrong with this at all, and in fact in philosophical 'circles' this is actually encouraged. Your obsession that one put certain arguments 'into their own words' only translates to me a last ditch attempt to knock down an oppsosing argument when all other methods have failed. Get used to it-it won't go away. Josh, only until you can demonstrate that this certain aspect of discussion doesn't rot your socks, will I even consider adressing any of your arguments. Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but I anticipate you accusing me of 'copping out' and acting 'arrogantly' and 'heavy handed' but I wouldn't really recommend this course of action, as i can see it doing nothing more than perpetuating your own particular brand of PeeWee Herman ' I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' style of argument that I have regretfully yet to see you take to a higher level. What i am finding disturbing is that all the postersd here taht addess your posts-- after all these weeks you first appeared--feel it relevant that attacking you on a personal level is finding some common ground with you. By eliminating their motives to do so, perhaps some of the points you attempt to convey will be met with a higher degree of respect , if not credibilty. - 15:24:30 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

PETER:..JOETTE--I think the parents of those religious groups who 'let their children die' should be beaten to death with a rattan cane that meets 'internationally accepted standards and specifications'..In fact , i think this particualr cane be used as retribution for practically all offences world-wide. I KNOW we would all be better for it as a result. - 15:33:28 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene and ALL- Simply put, what scientists like Sheldrake, Sagan, Darling, Gould, Capra, Margulis, etc.. who have not lost touch with their spirituality/feelings side of them to the mechanistics of science, are realizing is that the current methods are quite limited. That's the first answer. The second answer is that there is a lot more to be explored that cannot be reduced into pieces to fully understand and appreciate. Again, what the evidence is showing is not a direction of facts that leads to an objective truth of the universe, but rather that the interactions on the quantum level that only appear as phenomenae on the mechanistic physical level, reveal something not yet entirely explained - and for this reason the outcomes of experiments are greatly affected by human expectation. Also, there are psychic phenomenae, that Doug has mentioned, such as ESP and channeling that over 20% (I believe) of the population claim to 'experience', there is the unexplainable phenomenae of "phantom limbs", and we still don't know how pigeons home. Some people in here called this the "gee-whiz" branch of knowledge, which is exactly what it is. It doesn't comply with our conventionalities we once thought were so stable. Sheldrake didn't make up these phenomenae, but like a true scientist he's still exploring the world unbiased by the limited conventional standards. If you want his own words about it, he calls for "a more open way of doing science: more public, more participatory, less the monopoly of the scientific priesthood" because, for those who do not know, even scientists bow down to the mighty dollar, and science does not have to be limited to the select few. Lovelock is an independent scientist, and even Darwin was an amateur. This comes back to trusting authority over your own intuitions. - 16:54:57 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Peter- Contrary to some people's beliefs in here, I am not immune to constructive criticism. Thank you for your time. --- Putting arguments into your own words, will hopefully garnish discussions based on the level of knowledge of the participants. Anyone can cut and paste a paragraph and as we've seen, some have tried to argue that even though they are ignorant of the topics in the paragraph they posted, if it seems to disagree with the other person, or it comes from a third party 'authority' figure then that is the final answer. That's my complaint. If you look more carefully, I continually ask people questions from their adopted paragraphs to no avail. Doug claims expertise, but just about every paragraph leads to his pompous disregard for integrity. On top of that, this is a discussion room. I use quotes and examples only after I explain things in my own understanding of them. As I've stated there is a kind of laziness associated with the majority of the known population. Only .17% of the known population is actively inspired to create and be innovative and to share their ideas. I don't think it's so ridiculous to ask people to put things into their own words if it means there will be less followers, and more innovative, creative participants in the world. - 17:10:28 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Peter- Unbridled, you think your 8th grade teacher wasn't preparing you for the real world? or maybe a better world? - 17:22:25 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:PETER: Our friend JOSH is like anyone else on a mission. In a certain light he looks good, from just the right angle he even pleases, not many here, but for sure at least his mother[thats some BET humor]. To me a lot of his views have been addressed, already. Religion- take your pick, already says one way what the friend seeks to say, some o'the pseudoscientist well they say it another way. Of the learned and studied, I got kick out of, some o'B.Russells mathematic philosophical writings or, Whitehead's "Process and Reality" wherein it says of things that allow for points, concerns and issues that the friend seems to think so unique. F. Nietzsche, Sheldrake and Capra could only wish to address the human creature as intimately as does FN. Hell, I even like some of stuff that appears in the songs o'solomon, why, its speaks to what is human. Our friend JOSH, well, he is, however, insanely intent at verbal jousting with anyone for favor o'his holism. - 18:54:32 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Sounds like something out of a book to me, but that's ok when Doug does that! - 19:06:16 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Rusty, is that you? - 19:44:24 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Holism isn't mine or anyone's specific cause. You don't understand it's meaning if that's the way you present it. - 20:46:03 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"Even a thought, even a possibility, can shatter us and transform us." - Friedrich Nietzsche - 20:52:38 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: You brought it here by mentioning it, it didn't appear in its own. You are the only one who drags in points made by others on its behalf. Not to speak on behalf of the others, I for one don't see anything special about it. - 21:05:41 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Gould says he is an atheist and doesn't believe in "Josh's" new age quackery.Esp, channeling,astral projections,Etc. isn't what he is talking about. - 22:59:35 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug: "DOUG, there is a difference between text book knowledge and the knowledge yet to be written down" ***yes Josh there is, and my way is the scientific way of reporting new information, it has the best proven track record of any known.Your's is just a rehash of old disproven and discredited superstitions. - 23:04:40 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh : if you have so much contempt for non-new people then you're free to leave and go rave with your own kind in the 47 dimension or what ever.We are skeptics here are you that thick in the head that you can't understand that proof has to be provided.You haven't backed up anything about the pseudoscience you claim exists.You try to cover your tracks by quoting real scientists such as Gould. he in no way believes what you believe.His beliefs stop before your new age quack agenda.If you are what creativity is the world is a sorry sack of shit. - 23:17:04 on 21 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- That was a cut and paste job, lol! Yup! election day here has been quite a surprise. It's been a whole lot of fun working it this year! I believe we'll be seeing a new Gary tomorrow morning. - 3:15:06 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- I agree with Peter on the point that you write an argument very well BUT your arguement has no clout, no basis, no substance. Some people see unicorns, claim to have esp, claim the world is ending in 2000, hear voices. There is absolutely no evidence to support their subjective experiences (if you will) are objective realities. - 3:38:58 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I have to wonder at authorities charging parents for accidents that happen to their children. I'm sure the parents are suffering enough right now. - 3:41:56 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - you won't be seeing a NEW Gary today...you won't be seeing ANY Gary! LOL! (the ultimate sore loser!) - 13:29:51 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: While watching another newstalk show, the host looked favorably at the pres.candidate Forbes for saying he wants to see the decalogue in schools. The host pointed at how so many H.S.students cheat and think nothing o'it as something to remedy, as an example of the need for the likes of the decalogue. Well, in view of such and more, an irresponsible and simple thinker would or could thoughtlessly agree. Then the host said furthermore, 90% of the USA 'believe' in god, so obviously the decalogue action has support. The host is an educated and learned fella, he even smirks at instances of ignorance wherever it lay. He implores for improvements among the learning processes. The thought that got me to scratching my head, wait: 90% of the USA 'believe' in god; these kid shooters where do they come from? If they come from that 90% figure that represents god-believers, is the godthing really believed in, in those homes? If not, then good ol'uncle sam is gettin'religious. - 14:44:43 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

PETER:.JOSH--Yes, it is ridiculous. If one cannot back up the contents of his cuts and pastes, fine-that is the the chance he or she takes. If you wish to attack the contents of that paste, that is also your perogative..but if your point of contention is that one's arguments is anothers, again, this is an ad hominem as you are attacking the person who is presenting the argument, not the contents of his argument. An argument where an hominems run rampant can never be rational or civilized, and every time you accuse someone of quoting others, you will always keep it at this level. - 15:09:07 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- It's a perception, not a cause. That's what you don't get. - 16:32:20 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- Since I didn't support those things I don't know what you're talking about. I thought you were going to ask Gould about his attitude curing cancer? - 16:33:58 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Actually I haven't seen the new Gary but I've sure been hearing him. - 16:34:57 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- Like I said, there is no qualititative way to judge someone else's cognitive experiences. I also never claimed there was an objective reality. What makes you believe there is an objective truth by which all things stand the test? - 16:39:59 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:The phenomenon of phantom limbs: the symptom of phantom limbs occurs after a limb has been amputated. There are approx. 300,000 people in the U.S. who claim to experience symptoms of feelings from their previous limb. Patients experience pain, sensations of movement, itching, warmth, and a sense of shape of the previous limb. Attempts to remove nerve cells, parts of the thalamus and cerebral cortex, and connections to the spinal cord have failed to relieve patients. This is an area of science that is widely unexplored and often passed off because of all the previous attempts. Science has declared that the problem must reside somewhere else in the brain, previously unidentified and that this is irrefutable. This is what some people call the "best proven track-record". - 17:11:29 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:The phenomenon of homing pigeons: Homing pigeons have been used for thousands of years. In addition, various insects have homing capabilities, like the Monarch butterfly. And fish, like the salmon, can migrate from thousands of miles away. Migrant birds the scientific term "inherited spatiotemporal vector-navigation program" a fancy term, which only states the problem, rather than the solution. Some say birds orient themselves by the stars or by the earth's magnetic field, but birds can still find their way in the daytime and the magnetic field fluctuatates constantly. To this day, it remains a puzzle, but some of you might be saying why bother, they're just fish or birds? It's not. It's a test of mechanistic science. Mechanistic science fails the test. It can't explain it, so what do we do, give up? Or expand the possibilities and test them? But who will fund such non-traditional methods? Who thinks it necessary? Certainly no scientist who has dedicated their life to mechanistics. Another case settled for ignorance. - 17:27:01 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"..in fact, language is the first stage of scientific effort. Here, too, it is the belief found in _truth_ from which the mightiest sources of strength have flowed. Very belatedly (only now) is it dawning on men that in their belief in language they have propagated a monstrous error. Unfortunately, it is too late to be able to revoke the development of reason, which rests on that belief." - Nietszche, 'Human, All Too Human'. - 17:55:39 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: you are insane. - 17:56:05 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..Sliders is great SciFi but ..:JOSH- And who says that mechanistic science will not discover the answer to these questions (if they already haven't)? Because objective observation has worked quite well up until now. So what are you saying Josh, that a severed limb, a piece of long disposed of or decayed flesh and bone still exsists in another dimension? How about memory? Sounds like a O.R. solution to me. - 18:04:38 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl always takes the easy way out of a discussion. - 18:34:57 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- I didn't saying anything about other dimensions. I said we don't know the answer but that mechanistic science has exhausted its efforts to explore something that doesn't fall into conventional standards. It's too bad you have to equate everything to your pre-conditioned biases in order for you to fulfill your need to label things; that's the victimization of mechanistic values. You still haven't answered my question why you think there is an objective reality to judge things by. Why are you stalling? - 18:39:09 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: as you can tell, for me JOSH's behavior and his interaction with the others here leave me no choice but to declare him insane. Insanity is not limited to only those who see pink elephants and gods. The insane includes those who most others cannot establish a line of communication because the insane one allow only a select few, or the insane one simply holds a grandiose self perception. JOSH the insane seems to be demanding that the others here can communicate with him only upon his approval. Maybe he figgers he lives in a platonic world of ideas? or maybe he thinks he's one o'those old roman types who declared themselves gods? Hmmm? - 18:45:35 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:This is what I see being argued in here: "Marlene: there is no reason to employ human obsevation as it is flawed... Face it Josh, humanity doesn't matter at all nor does it have any control over the universe. We are reduced to bioligical insignificate beings." --- "Joette:JOSH - the answer to the question is this: we are born, we grow up, if we're lucky we grow old, and then we die. That's all there is, there ain't no more." --- Pessimism, laziness, the case for self-deceivement, arguments for stagnation, and a general content that people would rather believe the ideals they were taught in place of better ones. - 19:08:44 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- How about addressing your concerns about me to me, instead of pleading to your compatriots for support? Stand up, be a man. Open the line of communication. You resort to pre-conditioned labels as an attempt to idealize yourself and your insecure ways of handling a discussion. Discuss, don't whine. Marlene hates that. - 19:12:52 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: you are insane - 19:18:14 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: for those o'you seeking to reproduce, well plan on kicking in at 6bil+ when you act. According to the report a good portion of these added people come from the poorer parts. Is there a solution for controlling this outrageous number or is more better? - 19:42:49 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- I'm not stalling, it's a stupid question, and yes, Josh, there is such a thing as a stupid question and you seem to be an author of many of them. So what's your damn point then with the phantom limb thing? It's obvious that a limb no longer intact doesn't exsist, that is objective reality. Anything else is subjective and not relative to reality. It's a non issue! - 19:46:08 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: Well, some o'the others here may find it in them to be nice to you. They address you with tones of encouragment and maybe even a sincere desire to listen or see what you have to bring forward. So far you've really not posted anything of any interest to me or anything of slightest concern. Of course you want to be called smart or any of the other magical words acknowledging the prowess of the contents of your grey matter. So far the contents as issue look like bullshit, and bore the fuck outta me. So what do you want to "discuss"? - 20:31:27 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- We're not talking about the physical limbs. We're talking about the symptoms of feeling pain and other sensations from the area of the removed limb. Not understanding the situtation is your subjective perception and has nothing to do with the patients' symptoms. That's the 'damn point.' What you call reality is something different for someone else. It's not objective. - 21:38:06 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- So for the last 2 months my comments "bored the fuck out of you" so much that you have to post to other people your feelings each and everytime? It has no interest to you, but for some reason you feel it necessary to mention my comments in 2 out of 3 of your posts? Reading up on Smuts' book on holism was not in the 'slightest concern' of what I brought up in here? Marlene and Doug tried the same tactics; it's spreading thin. --- Let's discuss mechanistic science as it applies to our perceptions. Do you think that there is an obtainable objective truth, and if so, how do we separate our individual perceptions from biasing(?) the results? - 21:47:16 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- To be a little more clear, it's only a non-issue to you. The reality is that this phenomenon exists. How you react to it is your subjective views. Do you see what I mean? I'm honestly trying to share this. It all has to do with perception. That's where your objective reality falls apart. - 21:52:39 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"The principles of physics cannot be formulated without referring to the impressions - and thus to the minds - of the observers." - B. Espagnat, 'The Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics'. - 22:04:29 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: You are insane, the only emotion of you on my part is humor. In the beginning it was curiosity, as in watching for which way a worm will proceed. The Smuts book was only cuz'you were too outta control. I for one won't try to make out and support what "you" say. As MARLENE points out you've yet to supply sound support for your assorted and peculiar inscriptions. I've read of some o'your points as said by others but, as I've said they made the same points with much more clarity. You do no such thing, in fact I see you as another example of one gettin'very insane. - 22:26:44 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene speaking from experience:JOSH_This phantom pain is arbitrary, has no link to reality, and is based on nothing. There is no limb left to feel pain in. It's the same as hearing god talk to you or smelling odors that don't really exsist. I have had such experiences and like I have stated before, they are subjective. They are NOT an objective reality. I took certain meds that corrected certain brain chemical balances and no more experiences. The same phantom sensation can be felt when a tooth is removed. One still can seem to have a toothache in that same area. It's a subjective. - 22:40:07 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Now if I felt I saw unicorns in my back garden, that being my perspective of course, would that mean that unicorns are a reality? - 22:43:16 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:JOSH.I have been watching the procedings on this site for quite a while. You state that "mechanistic science has exhausted its efforts - - -"Really? how many scientists have you interviewed who have made that statement? Name a few. What does the term "mechanistic" mean as applied to "scientist"? As a non-scientist what gives you the right to speak fot them - a message from you god? I disagree with those who think you're insane. You're not. You're a blithering idiot. - 22:47:04 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I don't think he's insane either (at least in a legal sense) but I do think he's an egotistical control freak with plans to use his silly theory to gain some "students" (if you will). - 22:54:43 on 22 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: I missed this boner by Josh.***Josh:Doug- Here's a bit of trivia for you: Darwin never held any institutional post. His theory of blind chance and natural selection was based on self-study. So much for the straws you're grabbing at. - 3:55:31 on 21 Sep 99 GMT*** Darwin was peer-reviewed;that's what counts Josh. - 0:59:31 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: if your holistic methods(whatever they are) are so much better that mainstream science; can you show me the results of this great new method for scientific information.Please show me their web sites and professional papers, so I(we) can review their hypothosis and theories(If they have even gotten that far).All you have so far shown us is pseudoscience and quackery.Surely the real scientists will record tests and results that are reproducable for other scientists. - 1:11:37 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- As Marlene points out? That is your reference? Funny and clever, how you make these distinctions about your apparent discussion tactics only after you spent two months responding to what I post without the "slightest of concern". I didn't ask for your support. I asked for your opinion but some of your biases keep getting in the way. - 1:19:27 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene- 'They are NOT an objective reality'. Calm down. We agree. - 1:22:47 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- That last post was from me. As I've stated, medications and brain and spinal surgery fails to relieve patients of their symptoms. You're not paying attention. - 1:26:08 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:PapaSam- 'mechanistic science has exhausted its efforts to explore something that doesn't fall into conventional standards' (i.e. phantom limbs, etc.) - That's what I said. Mechanistic science is an approach founded by the methods of Descartes. You do the research. Save the labels for when you understand what you are arguing about. - 1:27:53 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: So how has your holistic method answered the question of phantom limbs? There are some answers from mainstream science on this question, I'll like to compare notes from the mainstream and new age results.Don't be bashful about cutting and pasting, I don't have prejudices against it. I won't make you hand type the reports. - 1:33:34 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:cut and paste for freethinkers, close your eyes Josh, cover your ears (sorry I didn't know you already did those)::EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 21 JANUARY 1998 AT 14:00:00 ET US Contact: Christina Marshall christina.marshall@utoronto.ca (416) 978-5949 University of Toronto New Piece To Puzzle In Phantom Pain Mystery Researchers at the University of Toronto and The Toronto Hospital have discovered a biological basis for the phantom sensations that are frequently experienced on the missing limbs of amputees. The findings of the study are published in the Jan. 22 issue of Nature. The researchers found that the neurons in the brain that used to represent sensation in the lost limb were still functional but now driven by the stimulation of other body parts, usually the part of the body closest to the amputated limb. The investigators also found that in patients experiencing phantom pain, the sensation can be recreated by stimulating within the brain. Phantom sensations could not be elicited, however, in amputees without a history of phantom sensations. "Many amputees have a sense of their missing limb and frequently these sensations are painful," says investigator Andres Lozano, an associate professor in the department of surgery at U of T and a neurosurgeon at TTH. "Phantom pain can severely compromise the quality of life of patients who have already had to adjust to a change in body image and quite often their activities of daily living." An area of the brain called the thalamus functions as a relay centre in the brain, receiving messages from the surface of the body (input) and sending these impulses to higher centres in the brain (output) to interpret where and how the sensation is perceived. "Amputation can change the representation of the body surface in the brain, but until now it has been unclear how these changes relate to phantom sensation," says Professor Jonathan Dostrovsky of the department of physiology at U of T, who was also involved in conducting the study. The team of scientists and clinicians at the U of T and TTH treating people experiencing chronic pain and movement disorders through the electrical stimulation of the thalamus identified an opportunity to investigate phantom sensations. They hypothesized that in amputees who experience phantom sensations, the area in the thalamus originally representing the missing limb remains functional and stimulating this area of the thalamus results in phantom sensations. The study involved six amputees in the pain/movement management program who all had chronic pain following amputation; four had experienced phantom pain and two people experienced pain in their stump but had not experienced phantom sensations. As part of their treatment for chronic pain, the patients underwent surgery to map the sensory areas in the brain. During the mapping process the investigators were able to stimulate the patients' thalamus and the patients were able to report what they felt because they were conscious, enabling the researchers to learn about sensory output from the thalamus. "In addition to providing patients and caregivers with a sense of reassurance knowing that there is a biological basis for phantom pain, the research has helped us understand the ability of neurons to adapt to change, a characteristic referred to as plasticity," says Karen Davis, an assistant professor in the department of surgery at U of T and neurophysiologist at TTH who, along with Dostrovsky and U of T postdoctoral physiology fellow Lei Luo, were the basic scientists involved in the study. "Although the results won't immediately change how we treat phantom sensations, we can now study a larger group of patients and try to further understand the plasticity of neurons." Some amputees develop pain in their phantom or stump and this is frequently very difficult to control with conventional therapies. Continuous electrical stimulation through electrodes surgically implanted into the thalamus has been found to provide relief of this pain in some patients. "This technique blocks spontaneous neuronal activity in the thalamus that is thought to cause phantom sensations," explains Lozano who notes the 'bursting' activity of neurons may be responsible for spontaneous phantom pain, an hypothesis the investigators plan to pursue. Additional investigators involved in the study were Professor Ron Tasker of the department of surgery and a neurosurgeon at TTH and Zelma Kiss, a U of T PhD student and neurosurgeon at TTH. Funding for the study was provided by the Medical Research Council. - 1:56:25 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Here's another site that science reports the findings on phantom limbs. - 1:59:30 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:And now for something completely different:This Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is a crank.He believes the speed of light has changed over time(al la creationist)**** compare with real science above(my post)******************* A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Revolutionary Science Do you and your pet have a psychic link? Why is it that you can often "feel" when someone is staring at you? How do pigeons home? These are just some of the simple questions posed by unconventional scientist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. Witness firsthand the dramatic answers in easy, inexpensive experiments you can perform yourself. The results could very well change how you view the world! For centuries, science has considered the natural world a "machine," whose every mystery can be (eventually) solved. Sheldrake, however, believes there are aspects that are unexplainable and which science has largely ignored. Why have so-called "universal constants", like gravity or the speed of light , changed over the years? How does a termite colony-- divided by a steel sheet -- manage to construct a repair around the damage whose halves mesh perfectly? What is the reality behind "phantom limbs"? Questions like these, and his controversial theories, have gotten Sheldrake branded everything from a genius to a heretic within the established scientific community, yet have resulted in best-selling books and popular lectures that engage the average person's natural sense curiosity. Using plain language, humor and easy-to-understand examples, Sheldrake enlists you as an amateur scientist in a startling exploration of everyday phenomena, the results of which are shaking up the scientific world. These simple experiments will delight and intrigue you...and may actually let you play a role in "the next wave" of scientific discovery! Seven Experiments that Could Change the World (60 minutes) E8506 $19.95(I was born in the house that my father built)R.Millhouse N. - 2:03:21 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:What do you think folks, is this where Josh is filling up with the brown stuff! - 2:06:12 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- You know what they say about the size of a man's cut and pastes in relation to their, well you know... - 2:21:23 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Thank you the post on phantom pain! Nothing like actual factual findings whether they are cut and pasted or copied, at least they report the reality. Now if you were like some others, you could have put that into your own words and added all sorts of goodies saying that "so and so scientist" comfirmed them. - 2:27:18 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Everybody check out Sheldrake's books and home page; light is shining down on Sheldrake's hypothosis for all to see and judge.New age quackery to the max, fellow freethinkers. - 2:27:40 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Those sites definitely confirm the phantom pains and their generally unresolved nature. Thanks, Doug. - 2:28:49 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Now we can move on from here. - 2:29:39 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I read that article of Sheldrake's on the speed of light changing over time. Strange though that he hasn't been recognized for this, beguiling LOL! I bet it's something like his "angels exsist" theory. - 2:32:13 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Are you completely dense! Did you not read Doug's post???? - 2:34:30 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Yikes! Did you read the writeups on some of those books? Those experts are something else "shamanologists" and the whole enchilada! Bet he makes a fortune off all the fern sniffers! - 2:40:02 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:BTW JOSH- Would your dad's name be Bill? - 2:42:15 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: I just knew Sheldrake was a new age quack. And Josh is just parroting his moronic veiws.In fact alot of Sheldrake's postings look word for word like Josh's posts.Hmmm could it be c+p! Here is an article on homopathic medicine. (click the link)Sheldrake is metioned here "Prominent believers in ESP, PK, and precognition (some no longer living) who have been active in the center's conferences and/or contributors to its journal include Brian Josephson, Rupert Sheldrake, Andrija Puharich (author of a book about Uri Geller), Robert Jahn and his psychic assistant Brenda Dunne, Glenn Olds, Willis Harmon, Helmut Schmidt, Ramakrishna Rao, Harold Puthoff, Stephen Braude, David Griffin, Fred Wolfe, and many others" *******What do you say Marlene does Sheldrake believe in the power of quartz crystals and astal projections? - 2:54:41 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- Maybe you missed my post a few weeks ago when I first discovered Sheldrake's site. I think I mentioned at the time that Josh virtually uses Sheldrake's words verbatim. And maybe just not his words but his ideas as well. I don't think though that Josh buys into the angel thing. For some reason Sheldrake has Josh sold because he uses qm to support his wierd ideas, methinks. Like I said before, I love sci-fi and all this stuff makes good sci-fi but it's not fact or even impending discovery only whim. - 3:27:56 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I buy SI and Skeptic all the time. I read that article a while ago. When Josh mentioned Sheldrake (he called him something else and I forget what name he used now) I knew I had read about this guy before. Do you ever buy these mags. They are really quite good. A little expensive but I suppose they need to charge as there aren't too many skeptics out there. Most would rather buy the latest horoscope book. - 3:32:57 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

marlene:Well time for bed and to read my latest sci-fi novel. I've been reading _When the Wind Blows_ by James Patterson. It's pretty good. - 3:35:14 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlenne; yes I'm hooked on skeptic Mag. and a friend subscribes to SI mag. so I read them both when they come out.I must have missed your posting of Sheldrake's site.This only makes Josh look worse.The guy (Sheldrake) talks about not being able to do simple chemistry experiments, because all the chemists are busy that he knows, Huh!What kind of a biologist doesn't have access to a simple chem lab. I mean this guy is pathetic in his excuses.They're trying to tell me that with all the shekels there soaking up, that they can't even put on a front and create a High school chem. lab. - 3:46:04 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Think I'll take a break from this room. No sense trying to have a discussion with hysterical biases, cut and paste jobs, and people who go looking for pats on the backs and high fives from each other like some demented fraternity hazing. Take the time to learn about something before you cast judgement on it. This is a sign of shallowness. I shouldn't have encouraged any of this behavior. I should have ignored all ignorant responses. Regardless, some of you have yet to realize how you learned to think the way you do and that you are just a product of that kind of conditioning. That's what makes you just another statistic. Fall in line with the rest of the 99.83%. Any well-rounded, innovative person who is in tune to share ideas knows that life doesn't fit into anyone's theories of it. Science is not the answer to life, and until the rest of you realize this I'd rather stick with the .17% and have a good time. Goodnight, lazy brains. - 4:05:14 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:JOSH. I asked you before what gives you the authority to speak for science? You make a blanket statement that "mechanistic science has exhausted its efforts - - -" I repeat - who made you a spokesman for science? Do you occupy a chair in the science faculty of some university? How many scientific degrees do you hold? Frankly, I don't think you know your ass from a hole in the ground. You're a bullshit artist, but not a very good one. - 4:10:01 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Grant- No wonder you were so hard-up for things to post to your site. It's a misery loves company thing. See ya, later. - 4:14:02 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:huff,stomp, stomp,take your toys and go home.Say hi to Shirley M.. in you channels Josh. - 4:40:14 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:may the quartz be with you! LoL! - 4:45:22 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:I don't want to play with you anymore either Josh! - 13:15:49 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:A SUGGESTION- We really should investigate some of these new age religions so we know what they are all about. Most of us have the material on hand to make a good argument with chrisitanity and such but not this new stuff. Josh's last statement "science is not the answer to life" is your basic religionists motto. My motto is the study of life leads to the answer to life and that is the only way to the answer. - 13:32:34 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Lately I've been looking at theology and such. Some of it is really remarkable, and even beautifully reasoned, but some is, at least in my view, completely ungrounded to reality, and consequently very difficult for me to force myself to read. This new-age stuff, for me, is like the ungrounded theology. There is too little pleasure in reading the "Reality is not nifty enough- we can do better", and "Rules and verifiability are too limiting." type rantings. - 14:00:11 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So what has this JOSH personality actually brought to this site? His various inscriptions disclose that he knows enuff to dot his eyes and cross his tees. I've seen enough of a difference in what this Smuts wrote and where Rupert, et.al. have taken JOSH's holism thing to think that this JOSH, he too descends that rabbit's hole. It appears that he must be in control, he wants sole authority to approve any contribution and allow any merit. Just don't look behind the curtain. - 14:53:23 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:All: the new age is sometimes masked with scientific and technical jargon just like our creationist friends do.It's very easy for a lay person to get sucked in by the "Volcabulary". Most people (sometimes skeptics too)are to embarrassed to ask the definition of terms, because it will be viewed that they are uneducated.Another thing they(new age) play to is the elitest snob appeal, such as Josh and his 17%( a fallacy, many if not all aren't believers in new age quackery): and who wouldn't want to jump on the mensa band wagon.Most of it is just a rehash of the seance crowd of the past.The eather(hope I spelled it right)has been disproven for almost 90 years, but to the uneducated and uniformed it is impressive.Like the creationists the new agers will use outdated science to dredge up disproven materials and present them as science fact or beyond science.So we come to the knowledge of non-knowledge that the new agers exspouse as higher thought. Higher thought isn't shabby accountability and glossing over of the facts, as the new age material certainly is.All this is ; is a return to our superstitous past of ignorance. - 14:54:52 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- I know it's a pain to read but even more upsetting is the bible itself. I would imagine that is why many "spiritual" type people are getting involved in a more peaceful type of religion. I must say that the new age stuff is non-violent and actually very comforting for some people but it is still not the answer to life or the formation of the universe. But like all religions, new age relies basically on the emotions of the follower which is obviously a subjective and creates if you will a "subjective reality" as opposed to the objective reality. So that the follower doesn't sway from this agenda, objective reality is denied. The follower may choose to distance himself/herself from reality but then the objective of the leader of this religion(like all other leaders of all other religions) needs to teach and substantiate denial of objectivity to maintain their control. What pisses me with these newage religions is the fact they use scientific terms in one breath to convince then in the next breath say science isn't the answer. They use these terms incorrectly and actually prostitute them to verify their beliefs. If we here, all understood the terms and how they actually should be applied we could argue more effectively. Doug, IMO, has done a really good job of this. - 15:07:03 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL and DOUG- Looks like all three of us were typing out the same thoughts at the same time. Wouldn't Josh find some type of mysticism in that! LOL! - 15:09:58 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Thats a constructive point of view of this JOSH. I like it, because these psuedo-science/religions ought to be given thoughtful consideration. Afterall, the times when thunder and lightening storms were unknown/gods are myths and superstitions of old, are the past. While notions words as the JOSH means to enliven here are but redefined, redirected or reestablishments of spirits and soul kinda talk, these advocates do represent or, at least to me, appear to be religious like. Like the religions of old in order to place their views before all had to upset and redefine the human connections to the of then structures of existence, these new-age folks must also upset and redefine the current structures of existence. If you recall, one of the first points I made to this JOSH was that we today like those of old still gotta go to the bathroom and wipe after ourselves. So what has changed in the human creature? What will change? - 15:43:07 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: hahah! "Where's the beef?" your input always a pleasure to see. - 15:59:09 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG: of course you and me will both face heresy charges that could get us burned at the stake for exchanging some thought and opinion on JOSH's 'holism' thing, but gads! Your 2:54:41 23sep99 post! So thats what that creative 17% go along with, eh? I won't be a bit surprised if the JOSH has some extra tickets for whoever sees the light on the next comet passing by. Wow, thats all I have to say. Who was that dark ages guy who said of the xian stuff that its believable because its impossible. - 16:41:42 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - it would be nice if you "paid attention" sometime too. You went on ad nauseum about the .17% of the population that care to be creative, where I countered that with an argument that only .17% only seek financial compensation for their creativity. I pointed out several examples of different types of creativity, and my argument has more validity than your own. You have also droned about how people live materialistic lives, and by your chagrin that only .17% seek material compensation for their art, I would think that you are talking out of both sides of your face. What is the ultimate goal for you Josh, to be creative? If you are writing for the sake of sharing ideas and for the joy of it, why are you trying to get your work published? Did you know that I have been published? Bet that just rots your socks. You see, not all of us need to flaunt our own abilities. We DO (!) Josh. We aren't (as the old saying goes) "all talk, no action". - 17:34:48 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Josh - further to that, in a micro-sampling, I would like to use an example of what I talked about, and which you obviously didn't think was realistic - I have had articles published, I know that Peter is a professional musician, you are a writer. So, let's use the regulars here: Marlene, Doug, Grant, Peter, Carl, Joette, Josh - that is 7 people, and of those 7 there are 3 that are professional "artsy types". Therefore, using basic mathematics that would mean that in this survey, .42857142857% are creative. I am not taking into account that Marlene has incredible creative culinary skills, that Carl has very strong athletic abilities, Grant creates out of wood, which would bring the percentage up to .85714285714 which is probably the norm. (sorry Doug, I don't know where your creative talents lie). So, pay attention to the real world. - 17:41:49 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

PETER:-JOSH--You are leaving? Well before you feel inclined to return perhaps you can do some research on how to present and support an argument. You obviously have a ream of opinions, but they seem to be met with a great deal of hostility, and you have not garnered too much respect in here. And please don't use as an excuse the fact that others in here are somehow conspiring to drive out all newcomers. The one's who have 'survived' on this board understand how an argument is presented, and have the ability to concede any argument which can be shown to be unsupported. When I came in here, my opinions were not all shared by others , but strangely, I didn't receive even a fraction of the hostility you have created upon yourself...and that pretty well goes for all the 'survivors' in here. It has been my experience when one declares they will not return, this can only be seen as a last ditch effort to somehow call the very people who one found worthy of presenting his opinions--unworthy, simply because they find the arguments they present to back up those statements inadequate. Josh, your position to defend the things you do ARE difficult to do in a forum of rational inquiry ( let alone this website ). Your opposers have presented extremely valid counter-arguments, and your reluctance to even concede at all even on the smallest points ( ie, my reassuring you that quoting others is actually encouraged in forums such as these )has been your downfall here, and if you continue with this position, this will not be the last place this will occur. Like I have said to you before, keep looking, and keep reading. - 18:00:36 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Peter- I didn't say I was leaving. I was pointing out what I was up against: "We really should investigate some of these new age religions so we know what they are all about....If we here, all understood the terms and how they actually should be applied we could argue more effectively....just like our creationist friends do...may the quartz be with you...There is too little pleasure in reading the "Reality is not nifty enough- we can do better" ... these new-age folks must also upset and redefine the current structures of existence...you and me will both face heresy charges that could get us burned at the stake," --- and that my arguing that only .17% of the population is creatively inspired to SHARE their ideas, which means that the rest WOULD NOT be in tune to hearing new ideas. -- All Ignorant biases and they flaunt it like it's something to be proud of. I'm just taking a break from it all. Talk to you soon. - 19:22:11 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: you are insane - 19:52:47 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - pay attention. The point in my posts has gone right over your head. (e.g. if people didn't SHARE their ideas, how would I know that Marlene is a great cook, Peter is a musician, Carl is a jock, Grant can build things?) - 19:58:06 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Obviously JOSH admires us, thats why he stays here. All this time all he wants, is to be like us. Thats why the things we post, most of it goes right over his little head. - 20:07:22 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: ok, that was a silly post of JOSH, not inappropriate for him, but for the others. Of late we have been inundated by news events of shooting and so on. Here, we have this JOSH person to consider, along the same line of thought that we utilise when reading of those events and the 'news' accounts of those events. An event example now before us concerns that littleton shooting. In particular that lil gal who 'reports' say was shot after saying she believed in god. Murmurs are out and about that that account is untrue! The religious types discount those rumor things and go along with what best suits their interests, concerns and way of thinking. Now here, JOSH drags in some accounts of things as viewed, well they can be seen as odd, sci-fi like, just stuff, or the ideas even can be simply castigated if improperly presented. So of either written account- the columbine thing or the Rupert stuff here, if they have a following, then nothing said by others will dissuade the true follower. All they think and say can be in favor of that thing, and only because its good for some unseen or, even some misunderstood, this is typical, good. In either case, in order for a new adherent to fit in as a follower and to inhale any account, their relation to any and all else is a simple favortism. Some are in and others, well they can be saved, or shot [in olden days they were burned]. - 21:47:13 on 23 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Joette: I'm researching lichens right now, and going to write a peer-reviewed paper as soon as the testing phase is over with.It looks good; lot's of new information that has never been studied before. - 2:38:13 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene and Carl: Yeh, we all had the same ideas.Josh was being very arrogant and cryptic about his beliefs.You can bet your boots that most creative people don't follow Sheldrake and his quackery.I'm just so happy that Josh's true colours have come out for all to see. - 2:50:13 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I think what Josh fails to recognize (and maybe because he turns up his own light too brightly) is that maybe some of us have done or do creative things but don't choose to post them here because they have no relevance to this discussion. Now something like you do, does. You'd love it here. There are lots of different kinds of lichens. I live right on the edge of the Canadian Shield so there are lots of rocky areas for them to grow. Just curious, just what is the life span of a lichen? - 3:35:00 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I'm upset here. While my cooking skills aren't too bad (although my partner claims I never make the same thing twice), don't you remember all my mythmas songs a couple of years ago? I was especially proud of the little song I dedicated to Quake. And how about Corny? Just as creative IMO as ole Edward Sizzorhands (yikes how DOES one spell that!). - 3:43:34 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

BLAH.:BLAH PETER - 12:02:46 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - all apologies. Your songs and Quake posts were evidence of a rare talent. I look forward to more! - 14:44:20 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: In the outside world, how one communicates is always so interesting. Here, the JOSH had some wants and for those wants his impression, and actual efforts, were simply that of discreditation. If one pays due consideration to that kind o'action and one's articulated or inscribed behavior, the wants of an individual will appear. Some may refer to such findings as motives. Sheldrake, Smuts and this JOSH spent a good percentage of their presentations to discrediting the how of the ways and means most others learned to comprehend things. Another example, in the USA political world Gore looks like a loser and G.Bush jr. looks like a winner. The USA media, however, that has been supportive of the current administration now runs story's that G.Bush sr. was not favorably looked on by R.Regan. Hmmm? This looks like another example of the point I made above regarding what suits some folks. The 7 named- above, individuals have been patiently and some nicely accomodating with that JOSH pseudonym. JOSH has, apparently, committed who and what his mental state may be to the holism notion. Of the Bush matter, the committed Demo types must see the committed Rep types rolling along too smoothly, so the reports may be intended to cause a comparison and raise some doubts. O'G.Bush jr., if he reacts like Muskie did in reponse to reports of his spouse, well, the Bush game is over. Its important that one keep an open mind and think through what someone says or writes because their wants are "their wants". - 16:44:15 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene:Some lichens are supposed to be 1000's of years old. Others are much faster growing; such as the lichens on trees.There are a couple of good guides for the Canadian lichen flora on the net, soon to be 3 sections.Srs8.htm and Srs9.htm have most of the lichens to be found in your area.The crustose lichens haven't been published yet. These guides are excellent for the beginer or proffessional alike(as you can see I'm pushing lichens).Once you can identify about 50 species on sight alone; you can impress your family and friends.And you can even teach nature courses on ecology(shudder, that word now has a pavlovian response)and indentification, as lichenologists are in large demand. - 21:24:00 on 24 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..speaking of hiding behind a curtain.:I suspect that "passing through" and the person who last posted to Peter, is the one and only Grimwood. You'd think the guy would get a life. He must feel very intimidated by Peter's excellent communication skills. Hell, Peter even signs his actual name to his posts. - 0:52:46 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Ricky:Your last statement makes sence, Josh. If you study hard enough, you might find that there just might be something to this "spiritual stuff" I'm doing a series on "evidences of Christianity", when I complete it, I'll send you a copy. I'm doing some extensive resurch on the subject. What I've found thus far is quite interesting. - 4:15:40 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

jaywilson--I know one when I see one--:RICKY & JOSH: Now there's a match made in.....well, you know. - 11:29:04 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - so what do you think? Did she throw the baby, or did she fall? - 14:49:30 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:RICKY- I can see where you and Josh could agree. This "synchronic" stuff, maybe that has something to do with the keyboard event. Now on this "evidences of christianity", when you do find these evidences, why not pass them by us for scrutiny purposes. If they are infallible, you have proved your point. - 14:53:02 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I read about this thing briefly in the paper this morning at the local cafe while having coffee. I don't know enough about the incident yet to even form an opinion. I understand the baby is alright though? Fill me in a little more on this. What I do know is that the baby fell from a suspenion bridge over a ravine in BC. - 14:56:05 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:I hope things have calmed down a bit. I guess I was taking for granted that this stuff is easily understandable, having forgotten that it's been a 5 year discovery with these concepts for myself; like I said, I was once a strict reductionist before I studied. One of the things Grant mentioned is that people like myself are proposing a "niftier" version of reality than is necessary. I would say, if your faith is in reductionism, then yes, these concepts are not useful to you. Reductionism is an easy habit to get into, like other things that we absorb ourselves with. If you believe in evolution, you understand the constant change of habits in nature – and historically speaking, reductionism/materialism is only the current fad. What too few realize is that like religionists, scientists will claim they are looking for truth as well. Which is just substituting one religious devotion for another (one perception of reality for another), and it only promotes a superficial elitism that has nothing to do with searching for answers. One question to think about: How would truth be limited to one method of inquiry? How could religion/mysticism OR science be the right method? New scientists like Sheldrake, Capra, Bohm, & Lovelock realize this limitation so they incorporate and combine concepts and phenomenae already prevalent in the physical, chemical, conscious, and theoretical realms to offer the world the best possible theories. There is nothing "niftier" about a broader perspective, except that you can't disclude and discard things just because you don't like them. - 18:24:20 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:After comments like, "We are nothing more than another animal" about a month ago, I was assured that what people were arguing in here was not stemmed from true, rational inquiry, but from the additional adoptive values of the scientific method. People in here, and reductionistic-like people in general, have lost touch with some of the deeper issues that have been targeted as taboo (such as mysticism), and therefore any mention of these topics enrages an immediate default to dismissals based on skepticism alone, and sometimes, a hysterical panic of emotions and leaps into all kinds of irrational conclusions about someone's character, as some of you have displayed- undoubtedly hypocritical of a true, objective scientific nature. "Scientists, animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless, constitute an interesting subject for study." – Alfred Whitehead. Frank Barr, the author of this article, also shares the same belief that reductionism is a faith adopted by conservative scientists and people who have adopted the scientific method as the objective, and only source, for truth, originally as an opposition to the institutionalization of churches and religion, and not necessarily to the spiritual archetypes that are a part of all basic religions, and therefore basic to the human experience. Barr incorporates Arthur Young's Process Philosophy (a speculative world view which asserts that basic reality is constantly in a process of flux and change – which is contrary to Substance Philosophy) as he honestly proposes the emergent need for a unified theory of reality that incorporates science, mysticisim, philosophy, and quantum physics (to name a few). Reality, as I've tried to explain, is self-fulfilling unless we incorporate qualities and conditions outside of our own experiences. You will not understand this in trying to use mechanistic approaches. Your world will consist of imposed meaningless facts unless you apply them to the context of a broader perspective. This site will help better explain how I feel about using a well-rounded base of ideologies in forming opinions about the nature of the world and universe, and everything included with them, including the conscious human experience. Yes, Sheldrake is also mentioned as a reference, because of his theories that give form to the theoretical propositions founded before him. Sheldrake saw this basic, habit forming nature of the universe and set out to describe it. And yes, certain "new age" thinkers have found the implications supportive of their entertainment needs (while others are indeed searching for life's answers), but I wouldn't be inclined to believe fellowships at Harvard and Cambridge universities would have turned Sheldrake away from rationality, nor make him think that his unconventional theories wouldn't be dealt with any controversy; read any of his books and you will see what I mean. Calling it a "following" to share Sheldrake's theories in here is also primordial, considering most of you are followers of Descartes, or any number of contemporaries. I am waiting to see who will emerge with honest questions. All ignorant responses, based on uninformed biases will be ignored and/or berrated as such. As rational people, prove your abilities to reason based on informed speculation, not pre-conditioned biases. Let's have fun, too. - 18:26:10 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:I am reposting this to remind that some others may have fallen into this category as well, resorting to biases and predispositions as the source for your truth before you explore other possibilities: "We really should investigate some of these new age religions so we know what they are all about....If we here, all understood the terms and how they actually should be applied we could argue more effectively." The part about arguing more effectively, I hope, was not a defense for a members-only club to fight off presumed hostile invaders, although I suspect this is the case. - 18:26:53 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." - Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994) – Taken from the scientific pantheist site. - 18:28:14 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..:YIKES Josh, we can't even take two asprin for you. Who says science has thrown anything out and I have yet to hear any scientist claim they know the "truth". What I have heard is "the best answer for now is...." and "there is no supporting evidence for...". See Josh a even a scientist has to know when to hold em and know when to throw em. - 18:35:23 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- I'm an atheist and not a pantheist. Just why are you quoting constantly. It impresses no one. - 18:37:36 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:"scientists will claim they are LOOKING for truth as well.."; "People IN HERE, and reductionistic-like people in general...an immediate default to dismissals based on skepticism alone....undoubtedly hypocritical of a true, objective scientific nature." - 19:07:21 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Who in hell is dismissing evidence? Post evidence, supporting these theories and I'll look at it. I think your trying to label all scientists as making outlandish claims, many do not, admit it. - 19:22:07 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene: Like I've explained, there are certain things we have to get past first before I can re-present the evidence. Number one: the reductionistic mindset that limits one's understanding of the evidence. "People IN HERE, and reductionistic-like people in general ... therefore any mention of these TOPICS enrages an immediate default to dismissals based on skepticism alone" Not all scientists are reductionists. No one IN HERE is a scientist. Let's move on. What do agree/disagree with Frank Barr's site? - 20:24:57 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..let's not be pushy:JOSH- No one in here includes you, does it not? And it sounds like Doug may be a scientist although I'm not positive. How can you "assume" so much but "know" so little.? Let's not move on yet. I would imagine if anyone wants to discuss this at all with you some ground rules should first be set out. - 20:55:53 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:JOSH. Let's start at the beginning. I am an atheist. I do not believe in ghosts, spirits, gods, or any supernatural or so called spiritual phenomena. Now let me know yor basic beliefs. Do you believe in any god(s), angels , ghosts and so on. If so, on what do you base your beliefs? Have you ever seen your god(s) or angels" When I get your answers, we will go on from there. Till then, all your talk about "reductionism" is purely psychobabble. I am not an intellectual or scholar but I can speak and understand proper English. Try expressing your thoughts, such as they are, more clearly. - 21:00:17 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Josh, you mean what do I think of this.... - 21:05:43 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- I'm trying to establish the ground rules, correct. One of the bigger problems that we've overlooked in here is that maybe this isn't the right format to build a discussion of topics that require levels of understanding and which covers various fields of knowledge, which is what I mean about a well-rounded base of opinions. In other words, a real-time discussion would allow a free flow of thoughts and questions. In this room, we are limited to blunt postings and generalizations to get points across. With this in mind, it makes it very difficult to have an actual discussion. However, I want to discuss Frank Barr's site as it relates to whether the science of reductionism is capable of handling matters of cosmic dilemmas, meaning the ultimates of reality, or whatever we call reality. Barr includes Young's process theory in his article, but I'm specifically referring to Barr's use of it. - 22:52:41 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:PapaSam- I am an atheist, too. I do not believe in ghosts, spirits, gods, or any other supernatural phenomenae - but other people do. So far your questions do not relate to me. What is not clear about my talk of reductionism and the sites I use as references? I want to clear it up. - 22:58:52 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - are you using the "reductionist" label incessantly just to get a rise out of the denizens herein? - 23:17:45 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - the case in a nustshell: a woman takes her 18 month old daughter and her 3 year old son for a stroll on one of the world's highest suspension bridges. There are signs posted all over the place that children may not be carried, but must be in strollers or must walk. The bridge has shoulder high fences so that people can not fall off. No one has ever fallen off. Somehow this 18 month old child fell over the side, and thanks to trees breaking her fall, she survives a 20 metre plunge. The baby has Down's Syndrome, the mother is in serious financial condition, she has just had a bitter seperation from her husband. The police questioned her, she was released while a criminal investigation is continuing, and she has hired a lawyer who is trying to accuse the police of overstepping their authority. Today she lost custody of both children. So, what do you think? (my first reaction was that she did throw the baby, then I changed my mind because I couldn't understand why a woman would take the chance as the bridge is always covered in tourists, but then today I started wondering why someone would take two little children to a place like this, as they would not get anything out of it). It will be interesting to see what transpires. - 23:24:14 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - I would like to hear your opinions on my real-life sampling of how your .17% creative population is probably not true. - 23:26:01 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Joette- I was going to let it go but you are intent upon argument. Obviously, if you were content in your opinion, you would have let it go as well. --- Grant building things, or Marlene cooking, or Pete's physical abilities are not what I'm talking about being creative. I've already vouchered your claim that most people are creative in their daily lives, but the majority of the population is not in tune to be creative and innovate enough to create new ideas and new concepts and share them with the other people of this world, and not just in the selected personal relationships of the individual. By new ideas, I am referring to the concepts that are revolutionary in concept with the potential to change our lives (novels, computers, VCR's, films, etc.), as are most of the new innovative theories I try to share in here. Yes, in this world we live in people want materialistic rights to their ideas. People like me intend to make a living by creating new ideas and that's the unfortunate sidestep to the process. I want to share ideas with people but the actual mechanism that carries these ideas are of legal concerns (the scripts, the films, the books) and are important for the income and livelihood of the individuals; the ideas are basically free but the medium isn't. Regardless, the creative entrepreneurs of this world are few, and the people who are responsive to all these new concepts at first are even less. Just as an example, think about the development of computers, how many years they've been available, and only how recently they've been a major consumer item influencing the entire world. Change takes time also because learned habits are hard to undo. - 23:52:06 on 25 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Your idea of creative genius and mine are certainly different. While the persons who create "novels, computers, VCR's, films, etc" are part of world of creators, there are many more persons in many more areas with maybe much more in the way of talent. Where DO you live, in what DO you live, what DO you eat and how DO you eat and what DO you wear and what KEEPS you warm and how DO you travel and I could go on and on..It seems to me you have a tunnel-vision view on creativity. - 2:12:57 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Sounds pretty fishy to me. More tomorrow, can't miss the premiere of Mad TV, lol! - 3:31:32 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - I agree with you w.r.t. creativity. (btw Josh, I didn't say anything about Peter's physical abilities, but I could if you want me too ;)(pay attention). I suppose only those first in line for the patents, copyrights etc. are the only persons allowed to wear the "I am creative" badge. - 3:58:56 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Was there any word from the witnesses? If she did throw the baby over there must have been someone who seen her do so. - 15:13:54 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Although some people claim to be experts on human nature, they seem to fail to work with it. I had to LOL at your post to Josh and the (pay attention). I think as soon as that comment is made, we start blocking out the person who is demanding the attention. - 15:18:17 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- "etc." means that the list goes on. What do you think of Frank Barr's site? - 15:23:50 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Joette- "By NEW ideas, I am referring to the concepts that are revolutionary in concept with the potential to change our lives." I already acknowledged 3 times that most people are creative in their daily lives, but that that this is not what I'm referring to. Let's move on. - 15:33:23 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:*stutter* - 15:34:26 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:I am trying to have a discussion about the ultimate nature of reality and people keep dragging me into these miserable little arguments. - 15:45:19 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:JOSH. I am not interested in quotes or sources. In your own words, what do you mean by reductionism? - 23:59:33 on 26 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:He's back, aaahhhhh!:As insulting as ever.Josh has never written and/or published any proffessional paper/s.You are a brash person who parrots others.You insist on drawing in pseudoscience as knowledge.Reductionism and "holism" are used in science, but not pseudoscience.Josh, how could I separate the Lecanora symmicta group using your type of holism.What types of mathematics are used in your holistic studies.Where are the proffesional papers published(not the pop layman articles).If no studies have been made then isn't it quite premature to come to any conclusions.Don't extraordinary theories demand extaordinary evidence. - 3:32:23 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:Josh. "Barr includes Young's process theory--". I am not interested um your sources. State what you think in plain words, your words. What, in essence, is the science of reductionism? What cosmic dilemmas are you talking about? What do you mean by the ultimate reality? If you can't explain your ideas simply so that an ordinary intelligent layman can understand you, you're not saying anything worthwhile, you're simply an intellectual "poseur". - 4:10:14 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Seems like you really don't know what you are talking about. You sit around all day and babble on about your beliefs-which honestly-you have no basis in which to believe in. You make your own religions-pantheism (?)-and believe that atheism is the answer. Not one of you have figured out enough about anything to even comment on what is and what isn't- how it was and how it is- what is real and what is a dillusion-WHO is God-to even come remotely close to knowing a thing about life. Life-reality-the existence of you and everyone and everything on this planet. You think you have researched and live enough to pretty much have everything figured out and you think you are set. Well you are not. You haven't lived enough-you haven't experienced enough-you haven't researched enough-you haven't thought enough. You haven't believed enough. You make your beliefs up-on nothing-no information-no basis-nothing. You make them up-and you are sadly confused. - 4:16:05 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Sounds like a dualist trying to wish away the materialist reductionist world. - 4:30:00 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:NAMELESS ONE-- Well, since you have all the answers why not share the wealth? We have room for another know-it-all. - 12:42:44 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:Sounds like someone who's emotions are in overdrive, typically religionist. Grant, you silly, answers aren't needed as long as god is parenting them. - 13:15:52 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Hey Doug. Did you ask Gould yet about the way he describes how attitude, a conscious perception, can cure cancer? "Attitude clearly matters in fighting cancer. We don't know why (from my old-style materialistic perspective, I suspect that mental states feed back upon the immune system)." Gould seems to think perception has a lot to do with reality. I followed these links about health related issues and attendance at religious services that say the same things. "The research team speculates that faith brings psychological perks of a better attitude in the face of sickness and death." --- http://www.worldhealth.net/search/archive/97072101.html ----http://www.apha.org/text/newstxt/publications/Journal/abs1june.html - 15:26:03 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: Well, I read and skimmed over again the J.C.Smuts book,"Holism and Evolution". JOSH and his pseudoscientific links, represent to me, are the mere efforts o'one who wants to sit in the front seat. Smuts wrote back probably before 1926 this of holism,"The holistic view thus not merely negatives the far-reaching spiritual assumptions of the monadology, or panpsychism, but it is also in firm agreement with the teachings of science and experience." It was a most interesting read especially in view of the present advocate of the idea of "holism", here at this site. What was as interesting was that Smuts says holism is not science because science is a result of a deductive investigation, holism as it was presented in that book seemed to be an inductive argument. This would explain why JOSH and Smuts and JOSH's pseudoscientists had to and have to separate their ideas from science as we others are aware of and know it. The words of science have relevant deduced meaning, an inductive process- I think, essentially require words to mean "a something" before an inductive position can be meaningful. So it is, that all I now see of JOSH, is a childishly inane attempt to be important. If we choose to ignore him, we would not miss out on anything of any significance. We already know that he picks and chooses the pseudoscienticifc for support, does he want to be serious? Of course, but he must sit in the front first. - 15:31:13 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:PapaSam- Reductionism is just like it sounds; it's a methodology used to examine the world into reducible empirical observances assuming all things can be broken down into non-living properties, such as genes or chemicals, etc. -- I explained some of the problems on Sept. 25. - 15:45:48 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:carl- That's what Smut said. Like I've explained, nobody's discarding science. They are just realizing it's limititations. What do Lovelock and Margulis say? What do you think of Frank Barr's article? - 15:48:35 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: you are inane. - 15:58:08 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:The problems of trying to solve the world and universe with mathematics is that this is a creation of the human mind. Mathematics is a way of trying to establish order and form in experience. Just like any other scientific principle, it's a man-made description of isolated and already defined aspects of experience. Anything that can't be described by mathematics is discarded, just like the process of natural selection; only the ones that fit best are retained. Live I've explained, "Your world will consist of imposed meaningless facts unless you apply them to the context of a broader perspective." This broader aspect includes some of the things science has discarded out of superficial elitism. - 15:58:40 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Putting labels on things you don't understand is the easy way out. - 16:01:06 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:It's funny how people try to take the hard-earned degrees away from the scientists I mention to add credit to their biases. They think scientists are only people that think like them. - 16:31:10 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: I don't think this JOSH has the goods and stuff for putting "in-his-own-words" what his ideas of holism might be. When I was giving his posts any semblance of heed, I seem to recall that he disallows one's experience, I think he holds that one's experience and the learned interpretation of it, as something in error. If the book I just read said anything, it was that for the view of "holism" to have true meaning, then the Whole of one person within the greater Whole made- was the relationship, what Smuts called "holism". This word was dragged from its resting place in greek antiquity into the light of today. Now, its meaning conveyed, is being attired with all the fixings and triming o'how the human creature now knows the world today, for a new meaning! Holism, however, probably means just what JOSH and its adherents want it to mean. Its kinda like how the xians seek to reset the slow running clock of their religious faith. They say they do this by calling their myths and superstitions,a.k.a. scripture, "creationism", get it holism crationism, both are now up to date. - 16:37:37 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: Are you promoting the standard deviation.I've heard both sides of the issue and would say that "faith" a red herring.The confidence in your immune system and doctor should be run as a blind standard too.There are plenty of people who have "faith" and still die of illnesses. - 19:24:11 on 27 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- I'm not promoting anything. Gould seems to think perception has a great deal to do with his own health issues. I thought the comparison was interesting. - 0:54:35 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- What is your input on process philosophy versus substance philosophy, if you have a preference? - 1:04:00 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: You have on one hand contempt for mathematics, but have no problem picking and choosing those bits of science that are in the abstract like your ideas.When those mathematical theorys are examined "holisticly" they have ruled out your extra science hypothsis.Have you ever heard of sociobiology.It will blow the new age crap out of the water. - 1:09:02 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:I just watched 20/20. They did a bit on how some people believe that their pets can communicate telepathically with their owners. Seems Sheldrake is an expert in these matters, and he was quite firm in his assertion that animals can read human minds. He stated that this communication is done by morphic fields. He claims he has done 250 tests on animals, and so is positive about this. Other scientists have done the same tests, and have found his findings wanting. He is so sure he is right that he has written a book on this subject, and I can see every National Enquirer reader lining up to buy it (and it's just not the book they'll be buying). Anyway, it left me wondering why animals can only read their owners' minds, or can they actually know what I'm thinking as I pass them by on the street? - 1:10:57 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Joette:Pretty soon the animals will be used as informants for the mind police.Hell, in court rooms all over the world animals will be able to tell who is a committing perjury and who isn't.I'd love to put old Sheldrake to a test of his hypothsis. - 1:25:21 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette Siskel:unabashed movie promotion - I watched "God & Monsters" last night, and even though I watch more movies in a year than most do in a lifetime, this is one that I wish everyone would see. IMHO, it's the best movie to be made in many years...I put it right up there with Citizen Kane. - 1:25:24 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Doug - what I also want to know is what language we are communicating in? Is it a secret morphic language, do animals know how to interpret our spoken language into meows or barks, or chirps for that matter? Can they do sign language? So many questions, so few answers! - 1:28:05 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Joette:And conventional wildlife biology can't even tell what a dog is dreaming about; they just guess when the paws are going during sleep that it must be another squirrel chase.It seems like Sheldrake has a thing against writting professional papers.I want to reproduce Sheldrake's studys on my daughters cat.Even though I think Bixby is smarter that Sheldrake; seeing is believing. - 2:31:27 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- Realize the limitations, that's what I'm saying. You can't solve everything with mathematics and reductionism. As far as sociobiology goes, Dawkins himself calls the selfish gene theory a "thought experiment". How could genes be selfish? Dawkins only refers to genes that way as a metaphor; it's not proven. Also, Edward Wilson cannot explain or provide evidence for the holistic properties of organisms ('The Social Insects'). Biology doesn't provide the answers. You're grabbing at straws. - 3:45:00 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:I think dogs try their best to communicate with humans by signing. For instance when my dogs want outside they go and sit by the door and look at us like we are stupid or something when we don't rush over to let them out. When they want a cookie they sit by the cookie tin and give us that same look if we haven't rushed over to get them a cookie. When it's bed time (they sleep with us, yuck huh?) they look at the hallway to the bedroom and then back at us then again until we go to bed. IMO they pick up on body language and communicate with the same. - 4:01:44 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:All. There is no question in my mind that attitude can affect a person's illness. An individual who lacks the will to live will die while another under the same circumstances will survive. Based on my personal experience as a POW of the Japanese during World WarII what kept me and the other survivors alive was the feeling "If those son of a bitches want me dead they're going to have to kiil me." Even as a patient in what passed for a hospital I saw men on either side of me die from the same malnutritional diseases. They just gave up hope. - 4:27:32 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:ALL- If human attitude has curing abilities why don't all animals have the same abilities and/or interactions? Anyone who has had a pet they truly cared for and treated as a member of the family knows there are things we still can't explain. Pets know when we are sick, happy, sad, etc. There was a special on the History Channel (I think) about the dogs used in Vietnam. The dogs were treated with the same respect as the other soldiers in the platoons and when sent out into battle, the dogs stayed by the wounded until help arrived, and some of them even dragged their human friends to safety at the cost of their own lives. Scientists haven't really come up with an explanation yet of the benefits or origins of what we call emotional support in humans (either in local or non-local events), and I'm not about to dismiss the same qualities in pets or any animal for that matter. Another kudo for Sheldrake. - 4:50:10 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Ricky:Well Josh! When man and animal was "created", animals were given a thing called insinct. That took the place of what was given to humans. We were given the priviledge of "choise" We can choose what we say and do, or when and where we want to go. Geese, for example, just fly south in the winter and north in the summer, without choise, just instinct. - 5:03:30 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Ever get the sense you're being stared at? Direct Mental Interactions have been researched for many years. The power of conscious interactions has only recently been identified largely on the quantum level because Psychology had largely occupied this domain before. "Physiological measures of detection have proved to be more robust than conscious guessing thus far." The problem with isolating these incidents to a laboratory is that the original motivation for one staring at another is removed and the effects aren't as reliable. The implications suggest that conscious interactions (the motivation) have yet to be fully explored. - 5:19:45 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Ricky- Instinct is a guess, just like your god. Since geese do not carry compasses we'll need a better explanation. - 5:23:46 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Emotional stimulations in plants? - 5:30:52 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

ADAMoving ¶¶¶¶:Hey denizens, thought I'd check in and let everyone know that I'm starting a new life in Seattle on Nov. 1. I'll be out there for the 1st half of Oct. without a computer, then back here to wrap up in the 2d half of the month. I will miss NYC, of course, but I'll re-establish contacts with the M&M pagers when the dust settles from my move. I still can kick Jesus' ass from the West Coast, rest assured. - 10:01:19 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Grant - Watch out Seattle! -:ADAMothercoast-- Glad you are still around. Let me know if I can be of assistance in regard to the move if you have no Seattle-type acquaintances yet. - 13:27:21 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Grant:ADAM-- I should say *particularly* if you have no Seattle acquaintances yet. - 13:46:21 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - more kudos for Sheldrake? If you believe everything he says or thinks, then I guess it would be okay for everyone to go around making any kind of claim they want because there is no evidence to support the contrary. Therefore let it be known that the invisible pink unicorn does exist, that I am the reincarnate of Marilyn Monroe, and I guess the world really is flat too, since we merely perceive it to be round. In the Marlene's famous word, SHEESH! - 14:28:11 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:ADAM - silly man...you might be missing your only chance for a subway series! Where are your priorities, man?? (HAR) - 14:29:19 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- according to Sheldrake, Mother T could really be residing with Stan, Gabby really could have screwed up St. Peter's entry sheet, Rusty and Finnigan finally did start school and didn't run away from the castle and the magic mirror is really a goverment spying device. I knew it, I just knew it! - 15:09:36 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:ADAM- I hope your new home will be full of friends and happiness. I hear that the US west is just as friendly as the Canadian west. And you never know, Grant may be a potential off-line friend! - 15:31:39 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- SHEESH! - 15:35:45 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:DOUG: Of your anticipation of animal witnesses, awhile back an animal was excuted for a crime. That struck me as silly, but if folks like JOSH, et.al., have their way what you at this time jest of, could become a real concern! - 15:52:11 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Joette and ALL- People have realized for centuries that certain animals and humans share special bonds. Ask any Animal Partner (I think that's the term they call themselves now, instead of Pet Owner). The evidence is there. Sheldrake sought out to define it. Pink unicorns? Reincarnate Marilyn Monroe? Mother T and Stan? Rusty and Finnigan? These things were imagined many years after humans got here. So were hysterical biases. My philosophy is not to dismiss someone's theory of actual, physical or conscious phenomenae just because it doesn't fit in with conventional standards. 99.83% of the population isn't receptive of new ways of thinking, new perceptions of how the world works. The mechanistic perception was invented only a few hundred years ago and it's now wonder it's full of limitations. You're forgetting, too, that Sheldrake is a biologist, a PhD, and a Frank Knox fellow at Harvard University. You guys gather in an internet discussion room claiming to be rational and objective. I don't see any rational, objective people here. - 16:51:59 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:'no' wonder - 16:52:37 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: you are of and for the inane - 16:57:23 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Thanks for the example. - 17:05:32 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Is there a scientific term yet for emotional support? What is the support? I know when I went in for a life-threatening operation that the support I got wasn't a placebo. I have another one coming up and I'm not going to turn away prayers (which really are concentrated thoughts for another individual, not a petition to a magical being) or the numerous phone calls and cards because science hasn't come up with a collectively acceptable theory to describe emotional support. This is the old cliche, but it's true: If you haven't been there, you don't know what it's like. - 17:20:57 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - sorry to hear that you require more surgery. There have been many studies and papers written on "emotional support". Possibly you don't consider psychology science? Back to your love affair with Sheldrake: it's nice that he has several degrees. Is it possible that even an educated person may lose their mind? Or those of us with papers hanging on the walls of our offices are protected from such things? If someone else had made the statements he made, and didn't have that education, would that invalidate the findings? - 17:45:07 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: O', "if" I am your example, then it must follow that you will cease and desist further nonsense posts of stuff like Direct Mental Interaction, or that a nifty idea like holism is a special, or the next sacrosanct idea meant for just a select few. "If" I am your example you will stop such bullshit posts, and conduct yourself like a responsible intellect, "if" thats what you are. - 17:45:18 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - I almost choked on that politically correct "Pet Partner" title. I have cats, I love them, but they certainly aren't my partners. - 17:46:56 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:MARLENE - I've been mulling over your post about how animals communicate with their "partners", "owners", "masters", or whatever title we should be using these days. I have always had animals in my home, as well as birdies and fishes from time to time. Like your dogs, my cats also know my schedule. They know that they will be fed at 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. most days. The one cat gets her tummy rubbed every night at 9:30, and she is always at my feet at that time. The other goes to my bed at midnight because that is the time I usually take a book and relax before going to sleep. They know these things because it is the same thing almost every day. They recognize my own activities as a prelude to these things. If I deviate from this schedule, they do not communicate with me telepathically. Instead, their actions will entice me to go about doing the things they want or expect. If I go away, and leave my cats in another person's care, they do not send urgent morphic messages to me. Like most humans, the behaviour is learned. They wouldn't be communicating with us if they were allowed to roam free. - 17:59:40 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I've always found the ideas and stuff of behaviorism very appealing. - 18:04:44 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Think of it like this. As living creatures, we operate on a very basic level like biological machines; we break down, sometimes we need new parts, we carry disease, and we can perform very fine and rough motor skills, but also we are recepticles and way-stations of energy. When we eat, when we go outside in the sun, when we have fun, when we're with someone close or the people we love, we receive energy - a non-material substance that keeps us healthy. When we have bad diets, don't properly exercise, fill up with stress, abuse drugs and alcohol, surround ourselves with boring and/or bad people, or we experience a moment in our lives of incredible mental strife, we lose energy, we feel depleted and drained and it often leads to depression (a low state of functional activity). We know energy exists. It's a property of physics, and we know all of our symptoms but taking pills or going for maintenance checkups at doctor visits isn't preventative care. Think of prayers as a direct transfer of energy from those who are strong and full of energy, to those who are in need. That's how I would describe emotional support on a holistic level. We don't know why this happens or how we do it, but we know it works. Scientists like Stephen Gould realized the limitations of his "old-style mechanistic" ways when he was confronted with a period of emotional strain, and instead of being affected by the "sombre attitudes" of the doctors, he took it upon himself to spurn a healthy attitude. In light of this, what does pessimism and skepticism solve? - 18:10:06 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Joette- I could say everyone in here has a love affair with Descartes, but I don't because that doesn't solve anything. It's a superficial sense of separatism and elitism. The point is, Sheldrake does have the education and the evidence, he's only theorizing the reasons for these phenomenae that haven't been fully explored. Psychology is a placebo, it's a way of looking at our lives in different perceptions, into classifications and mental constructs, but it doesn't explain the physical or sometimes chemical reasons behind all of these different mental activities. There is a reason why dogs and cats (and some monkeys) make better pets than giraffes and lions; they are more emotionally related to humans. When humans realized this connection 20,000 years ago, we made them a part of our daily lives. - 18:25:46 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: Not that I'm disappointed, but you've lied, I am not your example. Same and more bullshit. You are of and for the inane. - 18:30:11 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Now you're trying to dismiss the experiments for Direct Mental Interaction and the overwhelming evidence for the events? I wish I had that courage. You never had a sense that you were being stared at? And you never looked around at this incredible planet and at the people and creatures here and felt an incredible sense of belonging and connectedness? You never looked at any other creature and seen biological survival tactics that your ancestors re-invented to make you what you are today? I'm glad I don't have this much pessimism. - 18:32:33 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- You made your decisions before you even read what I posted. - 18:33:53 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: If you are indicative of the pieces you drag in here, it does nothing for them except leave me to figure, if they are the cause of your conduct and behavior here, then it is poison to one's mind. No thank you. - 18:42:51 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Carl- Rational, objective people would say, "I see what you're saying. I respect your opinion, but I don't think I understand where you are coming from, but thank you for sharing." - 18:49:46 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:JOSH: In light of your childish conduct, name calling and general bad behavior, that would elevate you and your position without warrant. There has been nothing about you worth any measure of thankfulness by any except those like yourself, whatever that is. - 19:03:31 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Ricky:That's just my point, Josh. They don't need a compas. They have the instinct to know where north and south are. If you or I, on the other hand start to travel, without directions or a compas, we would merely get lost. Why do certain fish migrate up stream to lay their eggs, all instinct. How do animals care for their young? All instinct. Yes, you can teach certain animals tricks, even dogs will show signs of smartness, but still have the instinct to make it on their own if need-be, called instinct. You don't understand that because that's something God-given, something you don't believe in, but I will be nice, I won't call you names like Carl does. - 19:52:17 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:RICKY: You old snake in the grass trouble maker. - 20:09:37 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So there is RICKY and his godthing and JOSH and his, is it a world to be? For a few years a couple of us here, joked of human bar codes and chip-implants as the most likely prospect for the human creature o'tomorrow. We liked to joke, also, of things regarding matters of social and personal control. Of the latter some legalisms now, allow some criminals to be "collared" and serve their sentences at home. One of the things we fantasied of, the process by which the plan for chip-implanting would be handled. Now, like Sheldrakes educational plaudits and so on, there is another fellow in England- also learned and so on, who says he 'knows' why and how and oh so many more good reasons, the whys that humans would be better off with chip-implants. Hmmm? - 20:51:33 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN01: Kinda of a bellyache, some o'us w\offspring keep an eye on reports and issues of education, for our seedlings. I just breesed over 2 news articles on the shortcomings the writing and science tests o'USA youth. The report states found that about 1% o'those tested cleared it in the level of brain well off. O'the science books used by those tested a minimal number were considered 'good' books. A good book allows the learned the student to apply the scientific concepts with an understanding. The writing tests were as dismal as the science tests and the concluding remarks were that reasoning and understanding would be a concern in the times ahead. Here, at this site I see the likes o'JOSH, the teacher, promoting his pseudoscience and declaring the rest o'the folks wrong, just because they won't agree w/him. I have seen private school science books of which certain parts were not tested for, math courses set aside, RICKY so that a religion course could be taught. In public schools programs that appear designed to net-up and provide for only the upper crust and declared the measure of that school success well, it looks like a stacked deck. While the question must be asked, what is knowledge, most miss the point of this very important question. The point is not right wrong or even good bad, the point is when what how why one can think of. There is no wrong, IMHO, there is only better understanding. - 22:00:52 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

"The ole snake":Yea, look around at this planit at all the many differant forms of life and tell me it all just "happened" Man, there is a power out there that even I don't understand fully. But it all just didn't happen by chance. For every creation, there must be a designer! - 22:11:48 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:"TOL"; You could be wrong if this were a static world or insted, we could see your post as a proposition. Then it would be only false. Things as you and me see and know them, this brings into our consideration that us two are here but for such a blink o'time, well, in that blink o'time these things sure did just happen! But, it may provide a better understanding to think that in time for them to be what they are, they evolved. How did they begin as a cop-out some say it was a big-bang. I can see tho', those words are supposed to make you religious adherent types feel good, its sorta god-like. Honestly, tho', who knows and who could know? - 22:47:42 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..:OLE SNAKE- But who said life was created? Not I! - 23:11:44 on 28 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:Today is "wooly caterpillar day". Apparently if the wooly caterpillars you encounter today are of the blonde persuasion, we will have a mild winter. If the caterpillars are the normal dark brown variety, then it will be a long and cold winter. I didn't see any wooly caterpillars at all today, so does that mean we won't have winter at all this year? I'll have to check my morphic fields to see what my cats have to say about this. - 1:43:20 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- So tell me, do they morphasize in English or Feline? - 1:50:27 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Doug: Josh:What would Dawkins,Edward Wilson ,and Gould say about your pseudoscientific beliefs.I doubt very much you can take your ways any farther, because your system breaks down for lack of credibility.***"Biology doesn't provide the answers."*** oh contra ,but it does provide answers.You need science and math to prop up your potemkin village of allusion. As we speak, biologists are chipping away the your refuge of pseudoscience. Soon the emperor(Josh) will have no clothes.Explain why, in intelligent terms why you reject Edward O. Wilson's socioboilogy.Josh have you ever had visions of feelings of "god/spirituality? If you answer yes you might be suffering from TLE(temporal lobe epilepsy). - 2:19:12 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

PapaSam:The Ole Snake. "For every creation there must be a designer." So who designed your god? And who in turn designed your god's designer? I look upon the Big Bang theory as the most reasonable theory of the creation of the universe. Can I prove it? No. I have no idea where the first primordial bit of matter came from that initiated the Big Bang. If a better theory comes up, I am free to change my mind. You, on the other hand, have frozen your belief with the glue of faith. And that, in essence, is the difference between science and religion.Religion allows no room for doubt, science welcomes new ideas. - 3:45:54 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Doug- Because Wilson said in his own terms that biology is not complete; he's just another theorist. You can take or leave what he says. Dawkins' selfish gene is pseudoscience, my friend. And just so you know, and you'll most likely take advantage of my honesty, but I have experienced TLE and it's not a 'good' thing. Other people who have experienced it share the same feelings that it doesn't leave one with optimism or satisfaction. It doesn't have the effects you described. I'd suggest you do more research before you make anymore claims. Science and math are only part of the puzzle. - 4:33:14 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Okay, I guess I'll wait for a rational, objective discussion participant to come along. - 4:36:00 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:I'll ask this again, how can you come up with a unifying theory of everything using one methodology, one set of criteria? - 4:38:07 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:btw, for those with misconceptions about TLE here is a pretty good site. The words on the screen hardly do it justice, but I was fortunate to have only experienced it temporarily. - 5:19:05 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Your site only verifies that all these illusions are chemical produced. Nothing mysterious about these. In fact I'm sure most of us have experienced some of these malfunctions. - 13:35:17 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- Doug was the one who made 'mysterious claims' about it (god/spirituality). Since I had a physical tumor, it was the presence of the tumor that triggered the epilepsy, not chemical reactions. To make a point here, I seriously doubt you have experienced these symptoms to the degree of epilepsy singularly and never all at once. Besides the hallucinations that were more like daytime nightmares, the headaches, the whole-body anxiety, the stomach churnings, and a tortuous sense of deja vu that lasted for about a half hour at a time (taking control of any rational experience), there were extreme ammonia-like smells that accompanied the bigger episodes- which all would basically ruin any spark of optimism for life I tried to maintain. I would appreciate it if you didn't take this lightly, trying to "reduce" my experiences to a conventional familiarity of symptoms. This is reductionism at it's worst. You leave out the individual (the person, not the group of patients), varied (in this case, non-chemical stimulus), and whole body experience (depression, pessimism) for the sake of a generalized sombre label. At the very least, you have provided a good example of the problems here. - 15:10:23 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Hopefully, this will spark some true, rational inquiry, and maybe an intelligent discussion: 'In sum, then, our -thesis is: we inhabit a universe, and this implies one universal set of principles or of truth. To discover these principles or truth, we must enlist both religious and scientific inquiry, and, recognizing the variety of expressions of both, be prepared to seek out the unity in its true implication and significance.' As Barr explains, the religious expressions he means are the most basic ones, the ones lost in the institutionalization of religion. The strange thing is that all undistorted religions carry the same archetypes, the mythological common themes. Because this was true over thousands of miles in distant lands, there is significance in the common universal traits and therefore cannot be denied. People still appreciate the beauty of nature, generally fear death, and often take some time to ponder the nature of the universe and our own existence. So how can we deny these basic feelings from our complete understanding of how things work? How do we remove the conscious experience from universal meaning, when it's consciousness that seeks the meaningg in the first place? - 15:33:50 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Read that for the religious types some other trained and learned religious types are reviewing some recently found scrolls. 'They' want to say of these things that they are holy things. It escapes me that the religious types would want to say anything else. At this time it would not serve any religious cause to declare these things to be a hoax. Afterall the religious would respond with why not can they be of the holy, the spiritual, of god? At the watching of this the thoughts of true false grammar reality came to mind. While it is the atheist view that they lack the belief in a god, and theism is the contrary, is either view based on merely, structure of language and communication? In a proper context w\grammar rules setup by matters said and accepted as true and others false, thusly can it be "said" that there is a god. These religious folks examining those scrolls are probably just looking for "grammatical facts" that will appear consistant with the current grammatically accepted truths. If there are matters that have a hoaxy look, the appearances of the then facts- on scrolls, and the current truths of grammar will allow the acceptance of both in foremost and the hoax, if any, then can be discounted disregarded. The religious in public can then hear exactly what it wants. That to say, I won't be surprised if they the examiners search not for an is true, but will offer a corroboration of a true, the religious one o'course. - 15:38:24 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

.a smarter snake:..'the old snake'..your lack of understanding or having knowledge of certain processes, cannot lead to a conclusion that would conform directly to this lack. - 16:14:43 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Joette:JOSH - while not trying to diminish the experiences you have had w.r.t. your health, your post this morning brings to mind something I read in your "bio". In that writing you mentioned that you believed that the accident that led to the discovery of your tumour was, for lack of a better word, pre-ordained. You implied that if the accident hadn't happened that it's possible you may have gone along without knowing about the tumour. Reading your post this morning, I wondered how you could ignore such obvious symptoms of the illness? Is it not apparent that you would have sought medical attention sooner than later, anyway? Do you still believe it was a cosmic incident versus a plain old accident? - 17:06:27 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..:JOSH- You are an absolute asshole! How would you know that I've never experienced these symptoms, how do you know if I've had a tumor or not and your post that none of these symptoms are chemically based just goes to show just how much you don't know. Too bad you had an illness but that doesn't excuse your moronic attitude. Just like your ASSUMPTION that no one here is creative and your ASSUMPTION that no one here has experienced illnesses "quite like yours", your ASSUMPTIONS on the answers to life are just as moronics as the others. - 17:24:25 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:ASSumption Josh- Furthermore how can someone like you participate in an intelligent discussion in the first place. Assumptions don't make good topics as one is already predisposed to their assumption. - 17:36:11 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..I'm don't need to reduce you, your doing just fine all by yourself:JOSH- And in addition, I'm tired of you using your medical history for a springboard to lauch your beliefs. Your are "reducing" your illness by doing so. You won't get any sympathetic attention from me when you do things in this manner and hopefully the rest here will tune in on your little game. - 18:24:36 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Joette- Pre-ordained is a bad description of it. What I said was that my own choices have led me to where I am. It wasn't an accident because I inspired the events that led up to that night (from me convincing the producers to hire me at less pay to me hanging out with my friend Steve who is notoriously a late and dangerous driver). I believe in a conscious universe ready, willing and able to respond to our expectations as described by certain theories about quantum physics and non-local chains of interractions and a holistic perception of experience. At a point in time in my life when I was finally realizing my goals and not just experimenting in the film industry of what I might do, my past resurfaced again as if to remind me of who I am. It was a literal blow to the head. Like I also said, you can't understand this from a mechanistic perspective. I also don't believe in random coincidence or accidents because we can observe external catalysts that inspire our actions and realizations with our without motive. The only element that wasn't inspired by me was the other driver, and he would never know it, but our colliding (literally) at that time and place was an important part of my life. People come in and out of our lives all the time and we can learn something from all of them, of more or less importance than other things. Does this mean it's cosmically inspired? No. It means that all of us here together are part of an inseparable web of relationships which is how we have evolved to this point. It was a collective effort. --- As far as the symptoms of the illness go, you must have glanced over the part where I explained that I was treated for depression and acute anxiety and tested for certain allergies. Mechanistic science broke my symptoms into individual pieces, even though I knew there was something more, so I asked questions. I didn't ignore the symptoms (and also being in the college experience) the hallucinations/flashbacks were attributed to my experiences with LSD. Everything was categorized for me. I was led to believe by doctors that I would spend the rest of my life dealing with these problems to a maybe lesser degree with time. Accidents are non-local chains of observable events. Does this mean there is there a plan? Yes. That we continually evolve, learn and grown from our collective experiences, actions, thoughts, failures, defeats. Plain and simple and we can observe it holistically. There's no doctrine to follow, and no labels to make. When I realized this holistic assemblage of interractions it turned me away from an absolute faith in mechanistic perceptions and reductionistic thinking. Mechanistic perceptions have worked great for the last few hundred years, but it's not complete. We need a more complete way of looking at things. --- This isn't meant to be an excessive pride. People in here brought up something I had a direct experience with, so I am explaining my reasoning based on the best perception of the evidence. All of my posts relate to this perception. - 18:40:46 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Geez, I was just contemplating some sorrow on his behalf, well, now its over. - 18:44:05 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- Take a chill pill. I said my symptoms were not chemical. You said that all of them are related in that way. Why are you so hostile? The .17% figure describes an actual fact about the innovators of this world. Yes, my experiences are a springboard for my perceptions. Just like yours and anyone else's. Take them or leave them, but be respectful and don't fall into irrational, hysterical conclusions. That's not being rational and objective. Take a hint from Grant. You don't have to post anything even if you disagree. Name-calling is childish. - 18:50:43 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Childish or not, your still acting like an asshole. How come when I name your game, you label me hostile? I'll be "respectful" to those who deserve respect. Your a whiner Josh, can't respect that. I also don't respect people who use their misfortunes to gain sympathy and in turn hope to gain attention for whatever cause they may be supporting. When you stop acting like an asshole, I may change my mind. - 18:59:45 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- You lie! You likely named his game well before me, LOL! - 19:00:57 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- You missed this post to Joette, too about creative people in here... "I already acknowledged that most people are creative in their daily lives... Marlene cooking..." --- You're out of control. - 19:01:25 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: From the horse's mouth, or something so they say, I can see now what JOSH does via his springboard action. He is not beyond making mountains outta molehills, as he won't or doesn't hesitate doing that from any o'his experiences. He figgers that since thats how he see's himself handling things, well so does everyone else. His efforts are clearly of the inane and for inanity. Someone should laugh, before he hurts himself. - 19:06:36 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..why ask Grant?:JOSH- Why do you keep mentioning Grant as though he is the great kahuna? Grant's a great guy and has opinions like the rest of us. - 19:07:14 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- "Your" is a possessive adjective, meaning ownership or relationship to a specific noun as in "Your dinner is ready." But when you call me a whiner or an asshole you should use the contraction of "You" and "are", which is "you're", as in "You are an asshole," or "You are a whiner." I noticed you misuse that word frequently. (Just trying to help) - 19:07:42 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:JOSH- Joette assumes I'm good at cooking, again an assumption but at least a good one. Tell me Josh, do you not eat? Are you insinuating that cooking isn't an art? - 19:10:00 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Somebody should check the pulses in here to check for life. I hate being surrounded by smugness. - 19:10:33 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..whine some more Josh, it becomes you:JOSH- Hummm..let's go back to your posts and find all your spelling errors. Trust that an ass like you would find such a tiny fault. Keep looking Josh, lol! - 19:13:25 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Marlene- 'Are you insinuating that cooking isn't an art?' I didn't insinuate anything. I specifically referred to that .17% figure as a description of the innovators of the world AND that daily creative activities are popular among many citizens. If your cooking inspires new innovations then you are part of that .17% - I don't decide who is a part of that, we all do. - 19:15:44 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:I hate being dragged into these petty arguments. Let's stick to the issues. If you don't have something besides blatant denials and insults, please don't respond. How do we remove the conscious experience from universal meaning, when it's consciousness that seeks the meaning in the first place? - 19:19:03 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Naaaaa! I don't think he's nuts, just egotistical. I think he'll go to extremes to get someone to agree with him. I just don't approve of the extremes. Like most egotisical people, I doubt he can laugh at himself. BUT we can do it for him, LOL! - 19:19:04 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene..just being hostile again..:JOSH- Just the opposite, I love to be dragged into them and your starting them. So I figure... why not! BTW, if I want to respond I will and who ARE you to tell me I can't. Your right, I'm "out of your control" but so are the rest of us here. Get use to it! - 19:23:48 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:NOTICE JOSH the "your", take possession! - 19:25:03 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Josh:Okay, I'll wait. - 19:25:56 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: As I've mentioned to JOSH a coupla'times, I have seen a lot of the things that he carry's on about here, its already been sed. Some said by others o'long ago and some by some o'today. Some I've read said and presented the ideas as poorly as JOSH does here and others have said of similar thing quite well. So, except for some unapparent psychological need- that I ain't got time for, I have no idea what he is after or needs of any one of us here. Like JOSH we all could go bonkers for our pet peeves, but what for or even why? All I can figger is that somebody better laugh at him. - 19:36:47 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think it was Bill who tried the ole sound of one hand clapping. - 19:55:09 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Unlike many people here, I've never taken drugs experimentally. The only one's I've taken are those prescribed by a doctor for one illness or another. Josh mentioned LSD flashbacks. I also noticed that many of the people I know who were heavy into drug use including LSD and mushrooms etc. are also the people who have gotten heavily into the "born again" religions or tarrot/wicca or even this newage stuff like Josh. I have to wonder if the two are connected. - 20:03:58 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:ANY: So what kinda drugs does one take to get upset over an image, paint on canvas, of a said mary and elephant drop's? Is this where that "spring-board" action gets handy? They say, that they "believe-in" a virgin mary as a mother o'god and then they say, that they accept also that that paint depicts elephant dung! The why of this issue is the same as the why of a child, such why's seek reason and a cause, these religious groups do the same for their now supposed issue. If this is not an example of some group of people making a mountain of a molehill, or drug users, then its a quite humorous affair. - 22:09:49 on 29 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Josh: Marlene is right you have no idea what each of us has experianced.Your symptoms sound more like Grand mal and petite mal epilepsy not TLE.If you have found meaning in you're holistic nonsense, then it's personal and "ends at the tip of your nose" - 2:38:21 on 30 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Carl: Yes drug use and spiritual awakening have a long history of being together.Remember all those hippys trying to see god through LSD and other mind altering drugs in the 60's and 70's.It wasn't the atheists who pushed the experiances but the theists."Expand your mind" that was one of the slogans.It did in a round about way prove that the god thing was all in each individuals mind not outside it.Why purg,chant and starve your way to god when a pill will do the same thing.If you have ever read Joseph Campbell, he was very popular with the LSD crowd because he made tons of connections with other myths(religions) and the drug experiance.The born again experiance is like a LSD trip and living to tell the tale. Also certain forms of schitzophrenia and religious experiance are synonomous according to Campbell. - 2:51:36 on 30 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I think this idea of holistic medicine is a need of some moral support that most doctors don't have the time to give. Right now I have something wrong and tomorrow I'm starting a ton of tests. My doctor orders all these tests then says come back in three weeks. Meanwhile I'm thinking what if three weeks is too late. The reality is that it will take at least that to get all the tests back and read. If the tests reveal the worst, medicine can only do so much. I suppose the holistic approach gives the person some kind of hope that they can do something for themselves even if it only makes them feel better for the moment. I think it just may be the same thing as the old advice of "try not to worry and get some rest" or "try to make the best of what you have". Nothing new or amazing about this approach to one's health. - 2:57:49 on 30 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- I thought I had heard of most cult leaders until you mentioned Joseph Campbell. I found a web page about him. I'll leave it in case you're (notice I remembered the you're and not your, lol!) interested. Thanks! - 3:07:36 on 30 Sep 99 GMT

Marlene:DOUG- After reading that article, it brought back a descriptive phrase my mom always uses "now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black." - 3:23:52 on 30 Sep 99 GMT

Doug:Marlene: good post even if it was slanted to the xian view point. I don't blame Campbell for other people using drugs; he was only telling it as he saw it; and years before the 60's.Campbell's "masks of god" 4 volumes is a work of genius.He follows the evolution of religous ideas and concepts throughout human history and different societies. He certainly tilted toward the eastern buddhist point of view.The xian on the web page reacts just like a typical xain misquoting Campbell.He went in big time for the gospel of thomas (5th gospel of the gnostics) discovered in the egyptian desert around the turn of the century.the gnostics jesus acted alot like buddha from the text; leading to his theory.xains have ripped off alot of buddhist ideas, from the rosary beads(buddhist prayer beads 600 years earlier)to the one who is born of a virgin.What it comes down to is ,that the more you know about religion(all religions) the more you know that it's all in their heads. - 3:33:01 on 30 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Now if there is anything amazing about theism its gotta be all those folks who come-up with all these things to say of it. Over the long run, for the most part these sayings, writing, thoughts can be appreciated and I do so by not loosing sight of the simple fact that they are just the deeds of other humans. About here I'd like to pass on a passage I read in Smuts that goes,"the universe,etc., its deepest tendencies are helpful to what is best in us, and our highest aspirations are but its inspiriations." This means to me that what all those pieces- referred to at that Campbell site-link, represent only the expressions of the living experiences of those folks. They have taken the time to attempt to communicate as they did, many have done this for at least as long as there have been humans, these simple deeds have been noted and gathered to be inimically utilised by a few. This is religion. I attempted to say above how these few people fabricate things along the lines rules of grammar, the current term of reference for this fabrication is 'spin'. These few by so doing don't they mean but to control others, and the more under control, the better off some will be? - 15:04:40 on 30 Sep 99 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Of others matters, what is beauty? I read a bit jist the other day that said it really is only skin deep. From my fenced pen tho', seems I can see such ever so often an'I kno'there would be no beginning at the having. So, today the sun is bright and warm I figgered to go get an up-close look. As I began to look, danged if I didn't keep on looking and lookin'. I saw a few interestingly brief clothing styles, but saw and felt no 'that way' of the facial form, the chin, the nose, the mouth, the lips, for instead there were the gangly strides, floppy feet, a long arm short arm set, no cleavage, and so on. Where did that beauty, attractiveness, that suns reflection upon the long locks, that poised still moment before the next step, it seems, it was gone! Where? Well, maybe it was just a chemical thing, or maybe beauty is just and abstraction of an abstraction of an abstraction, and so on and on? - 20:16:56 on 30 Sep 99 GMT