my ignorance

[Palinurus]

Again, what is the problematic question (that presumably is not well enough answerable without channeling)? What is the hypothesis (presumably somehow or other concerned with channeling) that comes in answer thereto and how so? How is said hypothesis being tested and what would be the conditions of refutation? In other words: What results are hoped for in corroboration, but most crucially, what conceivable results would have to be accepted as refutation? What are the experimental controls? Without first the coherent framing of refutable hypothesis, all remains vague and inconclusive. And without experimental controls, there are simply too many variables, known and unknown, to narrow interpretation of the results. That is all that I am concerned with, because I am serious.

Thank you for being persistent and I admire your tenacity. It certainly will serve us well to get to the crux of this matter, given enough time and interest.

The problematic question seems to be (to my mind at least): What is this 'thing' called Inspiration? Where does it come from, from which realm? How does it work exactly? What are the differences between creative inspiration and destructive tendencies, and how do they come about? Same set of questions around the phenomenon of Intuition. Just to name a few tangible examples - you get my drift. Plenty more available in The Wave series, a must read in my opinion to make this current exercise fruitful.

The hypothesis seems to be: Inspiration and intuition could consist of more than sheer subconscious brain activity or subliminal processing of 'hunches' from the direct environment. Recently, there was a rather hilarious vid on YouTube about this, which was discussed here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,24227.0.html Impressive, but not really satisfying in the long run I wouldn't think. Not entirely convincing nor exhaustively complete I guess.

A real life example of how to further go about this sort of problems and questions (i.e. testing, conditions of refutation, corroboration and the like) could be found in the crop circle phenomenon. Was this only all about Dough and Dave with their picket fence poles, ropes and slider? Or would there be more to discover about that? The discussions on this forum (and in many other places as well) have yielded some remarkable conclusions about this cropcircle phenomenon which I can't aptly condense for you in a few words or sentences. You do have to acquaint yourself with the arguments in order to be able to decide your own stance around it if you're really serious. But there were some preliminary conclusions pertinent to our main themes of densities, non corporeal consciousness, communications from 'elsewhere', and so on - which in their turn constitute a rather minor part of the greater discourse. That's how this thing works at the moment - as was already pointed out to you previously.

Now, this simple example illustrates your point about vague and inconclusive, and about too many variables, known and unknown, to narrow interpretation of the results rather well it seems. This cannot be helped in this phase, given the subject matter at hand. The real problem then would be, why to be afraid of temporal inconclusiveness and uncertainties? I perfectly can live with that, why can't you?

 

[Gonzo]

...
Now, this simple example illustrates your point about vague and inconclusive, and about too many variables, known and unknown, to narrow interpretation of the results rather well it seems. This cannot be helped in this phase, given the subject matter at hand. The real problem then would be, why to be afraid of temporal inconclusiveness and uncertainties? I perfectly can live with that, why can't you?

Interesting how such discomforts perpetuate the need for either heads in sands or religion. While the one who needs absolute proof may choose to ignore that which cannot be quantified beyond doubt, another will be satisfied with such mysteries provided they can be ascribed to some force that knows best as it steers the ship toward some intended destination.

Both seek comfort in directions related, perhaps, to some innate inclination, be it toward spirit or science.

And yet there remains a few in the middle who, with their varying degrees of both attribute, are content and comfortable living in a mysterious universe, perhaps due to an intuition or awareness of something greater than the sum of the parts and a curiosity to learn about and from it. This combination of faith, curiosity and skepticism seems to keep some suspended in the middle, pulled by both extremes, OSIT.

I thank you, AaronAgassi, for initiating this discussion, although the results of which might not align with your intentions, for it has allowed me to further understand why some of us in the world have never fit into either extreme. Even though I am deeply interested in aspects of both, their respective limitations prevented me from solid membership.

Gonzo

 

[StrangeCaptain]

And without experimental controls, there are simply too many variables, known and unknown, to narrow interpretation of the results. That is all that I am concerned with, because I am serious.

There are phenomenon that have too many variables to be studied in the reductionistic sense. If one is curious about these phenomenon and wants to study them, then it is necessary to accept that other ways to study them must be found.

 

[AaronAgassi]

clerck de bonk, no I do not want proof. To reiterate, there is no proof in science, let alone absolute truth, Gonzo. Proof exists only in logic, and of validity which is internal consistence of propositions. Whereas, science deals in Empirical investigation of external reality. But I'm not even asking for evidence, though I am asking about standards of evidence. Simply because there is no absolute certainty, does not mean that all assertions are equally good and equally bad. Science in pursuit of truth, ever lees wrong, narrows the field of viable hypothesis by process of refutation.

ark, I fail to see how anything you sat contradicts with my own standing question that are, after all, only the standard fundamental questions in the conduct of scientific investigation. Nothing you can point me to read will be intelligible or relevant without clear specific question and refutable hypothesis, and no experiment either without controls.

Gonzo, the above are my only assumptions. No, I do not even assume that any experiment has already been concluded. I have been invited, indeed requested, to look into your work. But I cannot find any intelligible beginning thereto, for wont of clear question and refutable hypothesis, let alone even proposed experimental controls. Nothing else you seem to be reading into my position is at all relevant.

Ark, you say that you have a theory. I am no mathematician. Can you state your hypothesis and conditions of refutation? But first, can you explain what question your hypothesis seeks to answer, and the inadequacy of existing knowledge to answer it well enough and explain whatever known repeatable observations to date, without your new hypothesis? Then perhaps you can even propose even however generally, experimentation and necessary controls.

Palinurus: What are inspiration and how do inspiration and intuition or for that matter, destructive tendencies, each and all arise? How are they different? Those are clear questions, thank you. Even the added question: from what realm? when taken literally, makes no unwarranted assumption, allowing as it does, explanatory hypothesis of how all the aforementioned phenomena might arise even right here in space-time as we know it. It's all a question of explanatory elegance.

And even the limits of our understanding thereof, ought to caution us against failure of imagination underestimating what the brain in process of the unconscious can do, entirely mechanistically. Indeed the hypothesis, that there is more involved than subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception, is very broad. First of all, why are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception deemed explanatorily inadequate? Crop circles can present no such challenge until there is anything at all mysterious about crop circles, which there isn't as yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Patience, I would never advocate Reductionism. That does seem something of a red herring.

 

[ark]

Ark, you say that you have a theory. I am no mathematician. Can you state your hypothesis and conditions of refutation? But first, can you explain what question your hypothesis seeks to answer, and the inadequacy of existing knowledge to answer it well enough and explain whatever known repeatable observations to date, without your new hypothesis? Then perhaps you can even propose even however generally, experimentation and necessary controls.

Well, I am a scientist and I know what to do. If you know something else - just do it. I will go my way, you will go your way. In science this is typical - experts often disagree, they even fight with each other. That is normal. Without that there would be a stagnation. And I am serious. There is nothing wrong with the fact that you do not like my approach and you have other ideas. That is good. But I would like to see the results of your methods. You see, ignoring some phenomena, claiming they do not exist, is cheap, is easy. Observing them and creating something new - that is hard. But the fact is that many people do not like the hard way. They prefer the easy way. And, again, there is nothing wrong with such a choice. You have free will. Although there is no proof based on the "scientific method" that free will exists. So, perhaps you do not have free will, you are just an automatic machine ;)

 

[John G]

First of all, why are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception deemed explanatorily inadequate?

For me the channeled information is quite good no matter where it came from and Ark's physics is quite good without even considering paranormal stuff. That Ark's physics allows future effects past causality and that the channeled information claims it comes via Laura in the future are certainly things to consider given that Ark's physics is good overall and the channeled information is useful overall. I actually came here originally just for Ark's physics, I had no idea he channeled with his wife or that he even had a wife. The mind and quantum physics are certainly areas where there is room for multiple theories; I like Ark's and a friend of Ark's (Tony Smith) who also works with conformal structures.

 

[kenlee]

Gonzo, the above are my only assumptions. No, I do not even assume that any experiment has already been concluded. I have been invited, indeed requested, to look into your work. But I cannot find any intelligible beginning thereto, for wont of clear question and refutable hypothesis, let alone even proposed experimental controls. Nothing else you seem to be reading into my position is at all relevant.

Aaron, I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Your talking about "refutable hypothesis," "clear questions" and "experimental controls" but of what? Your not specific here but just talking in generalities.

What your talking about here are simply some of the basic protocols followed by the scientific method. As I understand it, in the the scientific method you make empirical observations on observed phenomenon, then based on these observations you make a working hypothesis to possibly explain it, then experiments are made to test the validity of the hypothesis in predicting how something will behave, then modifying the hypothesis (if necessary) based on the results of the experiments (along with any new information) and then eventually making a coherent theory to explain the behavior of the phenomenon accurately so that this theory can be used as a basis for further observations, testing and experimentation for increased accurate predicting.

But the scientific method has to be applied to something specific, some observed phenomenon that needs a description. All your taking about in the above statement concerns the scientific method in general, it's not mentioning anything specific and I think your just going in circles because of it. If you read the Wave you'll see that it is through and through a masterpiece of critical thinking and discernment regarding multiple subjects that extend and interconnect from the outermost, and into the deepest levels of reality. I would say to read The Wave thoroughly and completely. Just the act of reading it will help organize your thoughts and it will answer many of your 'burning' questions.

 

[ark]

I like Ark's and a friend of Ark's (Tony Smith) who also works with conformal structures.

Thanks. To make you happy: right now I am working on a paper dealing with a particular five-dimensional conformal homogeneous space - possibly related to "time loops". And I am not going to hide that, to some extent, I was guided to this particular research by the C's remarks about "cyllinder" in Kaluza-Klein type theories. Or, alternatively, C's were guided by my interest in Kaluza-Klein theories :)

 

[Chopper]

After checking out Dr. Frank Tipler's work and others ( physics has been my hobby for years) and watching his vids , I keep comeing back to "Renormalization" I know it is the ground floor of physics but ... (forgive me for being only a hobbiest in physics) ... My mind keeps telling me all the Spin in the universe is infinite , Toqure alone could account for "Dark Energy" (imhhho)

Shurely Renormalization can be discarded with by todays computer abilitys ? It seems to me accounting for the spins in and of the Universe could allow for Time movement within the text of C's answers ?

sorry just had to look in here and show just how much I really don't know lol....

Heres hopeing you achieve your dreames Ark.

 

[obyvatel]

Toqure alone could account for "Dark Energy" (imhhho)

In his book "Electric Sky", Donald Scott discusses alternative hypotheses for explaining some astrophysical observations which bypass the introduction of dark matter or dark energy . If interested, you can check out the book or his website _http://www.electric-cosmos.org/.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Very interesting documentary about paranormal and communication with the "spirit world" phenomena observed by a team of scientists of diverse backgrounds who were convinced that the phenomena were authentic and presented very solid evidence.

"The Afterlife Investigations - Movie Feature - The Scole Experiments"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qSEi_sfaSU&feature=player_embedded

Breakthrough scientific evidence for the afterlife. The Scole Experiments. For five years a group of mediums and scientists witnessed more phenomena than in any other experiment in the history of the paranormal, including recorded conversations with the dead, written messages on sealed film, video of spirit faces and even spirit forms materializing. These experiments may finally convince you there is life after death. The scientific team in change of overseeing these experiments include world renowned Cambridge Scientist - Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Dr. David Fontana and Researcher Montague Keen who died during the filming of the documentary.

NOW on DVD - The Afterlife Investigations 2-DVD Special Edition, Cat#U81107 - Go to _http://www.UFOTV.com

http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com/

 

[ark]

After checking out Dr. Frank Tipler's work and others ( physics has been my hobby for years) and watching his vids , I keep comeing back to "Renormalization" I know it is the ground floor of physics...

According to Richard Feynman (withi whom I agree in this respect) the need of "renormalization" indicates the fact that our theories are wrong or, at least, incomplete. As for Tipler - he relies on the standard General Relativity theory - which Einstein considered as incomplete, and for a good reason. I would not take Tipler too seriously. Michio Kaku is better ;)

 

[AaronAgassi]

ark, if you are indeed a scientist, then you know exactly the fundamentals you are sidestepping, and if don't understand how and why the questions I press are the beginning first fundamentals to all competing scientific hypothesis in any field, then I fear that you are not much of a scientist after all. After all, the competition amongst viable hypothesis is for fitness in explanatory elegance and testability, meaning clear conditions of refutation. Otherwise any notion whatsoever would be no better or worse than any other. I shouldn't need to explain this to you!

So, what phenomena do I ignore? I am awaiting from any of you, hypotheses better explaining whatever stated or referenced observations. Thus for the most part, I have neither attended upon nor ignored phenomena one way or another. I have only admitted that personally thus far I am aware of no compelling evidence that crop circles need any but the most prosaic of explanation. To clarify, I am asking to see not only whatever question and hypothesis in answer thereto, but to understand whatever explanatory gap said hypothesis fills better than competing hypotheses.

And not to digress, but of course there is no proof of free will in science, because there is no proof in science which deal in Empirical evidence. Proof exists only in logic, and of validity meaning only internal self consistency of propositions. Furthermore, science is not inherently Reductionist as you seem to be suggesting, ark. Indeed, there is viable and supportable hypothesis allowing for free will despite or even because of mechanistic determinism. Know more at _http://www.FoolQuest.vom/atheism.htm#moral

Bluelamp. I cannot answer for your information yo which I am not privy, nor the explanatory power of arks hypotheses of which I remain ignorant.

kenlee, those generalities as you call them, are indeed the general essence of science. I am asking any of you for any of the specific hypotheses, conditions of refutation, and experimental controls, of which I am quite unaware. Since I have already gone into this, what remains unclear, how so and why?

The experimental testing of an hypothesis, in order to be scientific, requires conditions of refutation, a range of explicit conceivable outcomes inconsistent with prediction from said hypothesis. I have only been asking what is hypothesis of your work together here, and the conditions of refutation. Also whatever experimental controls. I will also need to understand question said hypothesis seeks to answer the explanatory gap left by current understanding. I hope this clears things up.

 

[Palinurus]

the hypothesis, that there is more involved than subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception, is very broad. First of all, why are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception deemed explanatorily inadequate? Crop circles can present no such challenge until there is anything at all mysterious about crop circles, which there isn't as yet, to the best of my knowledge.

Nothing is deemed explanatory inadequate, it just so happens that those type of explanations are found lacking when applied to more complex issues than the Youtube vid I mentioned. A quick peek (sneak preview) into some of the intricacies of this minefield can be found here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=13665.0 and you might as well have a look elsewhere for context, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/ for instance. Shifting the emphasis onto the brain itself opens a whole new can of worms, if only because some people's brains are typically differently hardwired than others's.

As for your opinion about cropcircles, we don't have much stake in opinions here. You can find more about the reasons why in this thread: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,3925.0.html To state there wouldn't be anything mysterious about cropcircles, is stretching reality far too much I'm afraid. You could use the search function of this forum to find out more or -would that not yield enough- google the site as a whole for specifics, using quotemarks around any term you might consider appropriate or interesting (e.g. cassiopaea.org "cropcircles"). As it now stands though, we might have reached a dead end with it.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?