Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: What is Science?

Expand Messages
  • Phil Schuster
    Hucklebird@: Darwinism that pretends to be science, without looking at its metaphysical assumptions, is NOT science, it is dogma. This is not to say that
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 1, 2006
      Hucklebird@:
      Darwinism that pretends to be science, without looking at its
      metaphysical
      assumptions, is NOT science, it is dogma. This is not to say that
      Darwinism
      cannot return to science, and with my science of Trinity I am
      actually proposing
      that Darwinism be unified with intelligent design.

      Darwinism is context dependent, it does not exists independent of an
      assumed
      sample space, a random universe that unfolds like an automation. But
      you see
      the assumed context does not explain itself to be universal. A mere
      belief in
      randomness is not enough to validate such a belief. This core
      assumption must
      be looked at to do real science. Otherwise, you are back to playing
      with tarot
      cards and palm reading.



      Phil S:
      I know it's hard for me to follow this discussion about philosophy.
      I am aware, however, that modern science does have a method that is
      based on certain philosophical assumptions, such as empiricism,
      cause & effect, objectivism, materialism/naturalism, etc... This is
      why I consider science to be a limited method for assessing factual
      info about objective phenonema, and not a complete philosophical
      system unto itself.

      I'd like to add that this synthesis between darwinism & intelligent
      design might be already happening with post-darwinist approaches to
      evolution. Examples of this would be Lynn Margulis' endosymbiotic
      theory, co-evolution, systems approaches and other ideas that get
      away from the strict reductionism of classical darwinism which
      concentrates only on how isolated individuals are effected by a
      vaguely defined arbitrary environment with no provisions as to how
      the organisms help to create their own environments.In a way, I can
      see a loose form of teleology happening in the universe where things
      go in a vague direction which is not totally premeditated by a
      specific intelligent agent. In that sense, the design & intelligence
      is somehow inherent in the universe itself. Just a thought...
    • Victor
      ... Your list is too high brow. There is a much simpler philosophical assumption, known as a first principle that is the basis of all Western scientific
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 1, 2006
        > Phil S:
        > I know it's hard for me to follow this discussion about philosophy.
        > I am aware, however, that modern science does have a method that is
        > based on certain philosophical assumptions, such as empiricism,
        > cause & effect, objectivism, materialism/naturalism, etc... This is
        > why I consider science to be a limited method for assessing factual
        > info about objective phenomena, and not a complete philosophical
        > system unto itself.
        >
        Your list is too high brow. There is a much simpler philosophical
        assumption, known as a first principle that is the basis of all
        Western scientific reasoning. It is the assumption that matter does
        not intrinsically change. Peter predicted that this would be the
        arche, the first principle of the last-day-mockers almost two thousand
        years ago. History clearly shows how the Catholics built Western
        rationality on this assumption that was invented by Aristotle, the pagan.

        A first principle is elementary. It is the elementary basis for the
        definitions, methodologies, theories and laws of science. It is
        impossible to deny that matter intrinsically changes without holding
        this assumption as a blind dogma, because we can see with our eyes
        that every bit of matter in the universe continually changes its
        "being" - its basic properties. No wonder the Bible states that He
        will make foolish the wisdom of the world. No wonder he commands us
        Christians to not think ourselves wise in THIS AGE because he is
        taking them with their own skills. How complete and total is the
        devastating triumph of the Bible over science, the system of reasoning
        founded upon a single protected assumption.

        Carefully test the first principle with your eyes. We can see the
        past optically - and the basic properties of matter continually change
        throughout the vast ages of the universe's existence.
      • hucklebird@aol.com
        In a message dated 11/1/06 9:14:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... Hello ptolemy, I just wanted to point out that this assumption relates directly to induction,
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 1, 2006
          In a message dated 11/1/06 9:14:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
          ptolemy1022@... writes:


          > the assumption that matter does
          > not intrinsically change.


          Hello ptolemy, I just wanted to point out that this assumption relates
          directly to induction, but is only one leg of Trinity. Induction by itself is pure
          empiricism, and is not science. To bring our doubting nature back in, we as
          much need to reattach ourselves to deduction and abduction. Or we need to be
          "surprised" when we discover that things do change.

          Stephen



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • seekeththee
          ... about palm ... Darwinists. ... separate science ... have ... I believe the question of what is science belongs to anybody that wants to know the
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 2, 2006
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, hucklebird@... wrote:
            >

            > > > > Is there a clear enough separation in your definition to
            > > > > say that tarot card reading is science or metaphysics? How
            about palm
            > > > > reading?
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > Truman, tarot cards, or palm reading, can be subjected to scientific
            > > testing
            > > > as you can plainly see in any Skeptical Inquiry Magazine.
            > >
            > > And so is the claims of creationists AKA intelligent design theorists.
            > > But the problem here is that the scientific testing by Skeptical
            > > Inquirer is the same testing I am talking about, which you seem to be
            > > refuting.
            >
            > Truman, as far as I can tell the issue of what is science, or not, is a
            > question in philosophy. This question does NOT belong to science or
            Darwinists.
            > Moreover, active science cannot be separated from philosophy. To
            separate science
            > from philosophy and you are reading the Skeptical Inquire again, and
            have
            > fell in with pseudo-science and tartot cards.

            I believe the question of what is science belongs to anybody that
            wants to know the difference. The reason I want to know the
            difference is that I want a more reliable way to understand the world us.

            I believe that palm reading, as well as intelligent design theory, is
            an unreliable way to obtain knowledge about the world around me.

            Your comments seem to suggest that you dismiss palm reading, yet you
            must embrace it if we are to employ your "Trinity". Even though you
            say palm reading does not affirm the Trinity, you don't demonstrate it.

            > Darwinism that pretends to be science, without looking at its
            metaphysical
            > assumptions, is NOT science, it is dogma.

            What are its metaphysical assumptions? But first, can you explain
            what the difference is between "Darwinism" and "Evolution", or are you
            using the terms interchangeably? I am assuming you are. I don't
            recognize the term "Darwinism", as anything more that an archaic term
            still used to describe biological evolution.

            > This is not to say that Darwinism
            > cannot return to science, and with my science of Trinity I am
            actually proposing
            > that Darwinism be unified with intelligent design.

            Again, biological evolution describes the phenomena of the fossil
            record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, population dynamics,
            genetics, etc. But IDT only describes ID. There is no need to unify
            them because they explain two different things. If you read essays of
            IDer's, the ones that came up with ID theory, their main argument is
            that evolution cant explain certain phenomena, and that is why they
            promote ID, as an alternative explanation. So you can't unify them, as
            they actually conflict with each other, unless you can specify what
            particular phenomena. For example, IDer's claim the Cambrian
            explosion is unexplainable with evolutionary hypotheses. What is the
            ID explanation? They have not completed their "affirmation" How can
            this explanation be unified with evolution, when there is no explaination?

            > Darwinism is context dependent, it does not exists independent of an
            assumed
            > sample space, a random universe that unfolds like an automation.

            The only assumption I understand in science is that a natural world
            exists, can be observed, and can be explained. As an example of an
            alternative assumption, is Victor, who assumes that the Bible is the
            Word of God, is absolutely true, and can explain everything in the
            world around us. There are also palmists, who assume the revealed
            karma in the shape, color, size, and lines in the hands can explain
            the world around us.

            Again, I don't really know what "Darwinism" is, therefore I don't
            subscribe to it, but if is context dependent, then at least you know
            the context, and it does not pretend to be something that is going to
            explain anything and everything. Can you tell me the context of
            Victor's "science"? Is there something limiting in his explanation of
            how the world works? Does Victor's science affirm the Trinity? Does
            that mean we have a 7 literal day of creation of an earth that is a
            few thousand years old by an intelligent designer who got pissed at
            the design and wiped it out with a global flood save a few people and
            some other "kinds" of life forms?

            > But you see
            > the assumed context does not explain itself to be universal. A mere
            belief in
            > randomness is not enough to validate such a belief.

            You are arguing with a strawman. You seem to be claiming that
            Darwinism=mere belief in randomness. Secondly, you seem to be
            conflating evolution with Darwinism.

            > This core assumption must
            > be looked at to do real science. Otherwise, you are back to playing
            with tarot
            > cards and palm reading.

            Palm reading is associated with your "sense-certainty that affirms the
            Trinity" as much as intelligent design is.

            The first stage of palm reading is the hypotheses that there are
            natural and supernatural forces at work, and from the reading of the
            hands you can obtain information about the person and future events. I
            guess the second and third stages are evidenced in the fact that palm
            reading is over 3000 years old, making it one of the oldest methods of
            counseling which is still used today.


            Truman
          • hucklebird@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/2/06 10:41:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... Truman, I have said from the start that Darwinism is not evolution. Darwinism, if it is
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 2, 2006
              In a message dated 11/2/06 10:41:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
              seekeththee@... writes:


              > But first, can you explain
              > what the difference is between "Darwinism" and "Evolution", or are you
              > using the terms interchangeably?






              Truman, I have said from the start that Darwinism is not evolution.
              Darwinism, if it is correct at all, is only a very small part of evolution.

              Now how many times do I have to say this?

              Now Descartes' dualism creates the artificial separation between natural and
              supernatural. But it seems that both natural and supernatural are almost
              meaningless terms. There is no separation like this that is real, and before such
              dogma is forced on school children this issue ought to be debated in
              philosophical circles.

              It is because of these odd separations that I reject Descartes' dualism and
              tarot cards. Rather than an angry dualism, that you can have Truman with the
              tarot cards, I base my science on the sense-certainty that Trinity brings. The
              artificial separations that you embrace are not part of my science.

              There is this assumption that Western science defines the broad truth by its
              narrow definitions of what is real in materialistic terms. But this Western
              science is in need of a broader view of reality.

              Truman, you harp on tarot cards, but is acupuncture snake oil too? What about
              Traditional Chinese Medicine, is this fantasy too? Did you know that these
              other medicines are not based on the narrow Western view of reality? Did you
              know that just recently acupuncture has gained acceptance from the FDA and the
              NIH? Truman, why are placebo effects real?

              What Trinity offers is that these other treatments are not ignored out of
              hand based on dogma that originates from Descartes' dualism (the artificial
              separation of mind and body). Rather Trinity offers a way to evaluate these
              alternatives with the best science.

              Stephen




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • seekeththee
              ... evolution. ... Hopefully not many more. Thank you for the clarification. Like I said, it seems to me that the two, Darwinism and evolution, are being used
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 2, 2006
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, hucklebird@... wrote:
                >
                > In a message dated 11/2/06 10:41:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
                > seekeththee@... writes:
                >
                >
                > > But first, can you explain
                > > what the difference is between "Darwinism" and "Evolution", or are you
                > > using the terms interchangeably?
                >

                > Truman, I have said from the start that Darwinism is not evolution.
                > Darwinism, if it is correct at all, is only a very small part of
                evolution.
                >
                > Now how many times do I have to say this?

                Hopefully not many more. Thank you for the clarification. Like I
                said, it seems to me that the two, Darwinism and evolution, are being
                used interchangeably when intelligent design as an alternative is
                brought up. Part of the problem may be when I read the exchanges of
                other members. My apologies.

                But it would help if you would explain just what Darinism is? You
                seemed to suggest that Darwinism=mere belief in randomness. I don't
                see how that can be a small part of evolution, when a large part of
                evolution is non random? A Darwinist could not accept evolution if
                that were the case. Also, in things like physics and chemistry,
                random behavior of matter is observed all the time, and I don't see
                you accusing them of having a "mere belief in randomness".


                > Now Descartes' dualism creates the artificial separation between
                natural and
                > supernatural. But it seems that both natural and supernatural are almost
                > meaningless terms. There is no separation like this that is real,
                and before such
                > dogma is forced on school children this issue ought to be debated in
                > philosophical circles.

                Understand I am not a student of philosophy, but I would agree there
                is no separation. I guess I only recognize what is natural, and
                anything else is either unknown natural or nonexistent. I don't know
                if you still call that dualism or not?

                > It is because of these odd separations that I reject Descartes'
                dualism and
                > tarot cards. Rather than an angry dualism, that you can have Truman
                with the
                > tarot cards, I base my science on the sense-certainty that Trinity
                brings. The
                > artificial separations that you embrace are not part of my science.

                I still don't understand your science, but it seem you still have
                artificial separations yourself if you reject tarot card and palm
                reading. Like I said, I don't have the separations either.


                > There is this assumption that Western science defines the broad
                truth by its
                > narrow definitions of what is real in materialistic terms. But this
                Western
                > science is in need of a broader view of reality.

                I beg to differ, but science is not defining what is real in
                materialistic terms. Science confines its explanations in materialist
                terms. What is real, like you said, is a philosophical question.


                > Truman, you harp on tarot cards, but is acupuncture snake oil too?
                What about
                > Traditional Chinese Medicine, is this fantasy too? Did you know that
                these
                > other medicines are not based on the narrow Western view of reality?
                Did you
                > know that just recently acupuncture has gained acceptance from the
                FDA and the
                > NIH? Truman, why are placebo effects real?

                Unfortunately, my answer to your question is based on my idea of
                science. Tarot cards are not science. Acupuncture is science. The way
                I make the differentiation is that it can be tested to see if they
                work. Tarot card reading does not work. Acupuncture does.

                Now why would acceptance from the FDA and NIH make any difference?
                Does there methods affirm the Trinity?

                I am sure placebo effects are real, but I don't know what your point
                is concerning something like palm reading? The fact that placebo
                effects are real shows that the existing scientific methodology can
                tell difference.


                > What Trinity offers is that these other treatments are not ignored
                out of
                > hand based on dogma that originates from Descartes' dualism (the
                artificial
                > separation of mind and body). Rather Trinity offers a way to
                evaluate these
                > alternatives with the best science.


                These other treatments are ignored because they don't work. Otherwise
                when a person goes to a doctor, they would first try an exorcism, or
                magical chant, or some other treatment to expunge evil spirits from
                the body. People go to get naturalistic pills, creams, surgery and
                physical therapy.

                These "alternatives" have already been evaluated and shown not to
                work, sure some have had second looks, but that is because somebody
                went to the trouble of using modern scientific methodology to test
                some aspect of it, and that is why they gained acceptance by FDA and
                NIH. They didn't petition school board members to simply adopt a
                curriculum policy in the school. They went to their lab and did
                naturalistic mechanistic research.

                Now I gave you an example of palm reading, which you seem to suggest
                does not affirm the trinity, and therefore you would reject it as your
                science. How did you evaluate palm reading with the Trinity?

                Truman
              • Victor
                ... What the Bible states about everything in creation changing in an orderly way is VISIBLE. You don t even need to believe the Bible to believe what you
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 2, 2006
                  > The only assumption I understand in science is that a natural
                  > world exists, can be observed, and can be explained. As an
                  > example of an alternative assumption, is Victor, who assumes
                  > that the Bible is the Word of God, is absolutely true, and can
                  > explain everything in the world around us. There are also
                  > palmists, who assume the revealed karma in the shape, color,
                  > size, and lines in the hands can explain the world around us.

                  What the Bible states about everything in creation changing in an
                  orderly way is VISIBLE. You don't even need to believe the Bible to
                  believe what you see. All ancient people believed what they saw and
                  what their ancestors said they saw - things like a planet being
                  smashed at close range a few generations ago. Even the Bible mentions
                  the planet smashing and that days and years become shorter and worse
                  for succeeding generations. Even the greatest Greek astronomer,
                  Ptolemy, wrote that physics is nonsense because matter is unstable
                  and changing.

                  Why is that the only scientists cannot believe the accounts and
                  measurements of our ancestors or what we can see in the distant
                  heavens? They invent speculative accounts about billions of years
                  even though what the ancients said about the nature of primordial
                  years is visible. We can see with our eyes that all distant orbits
                  speed up as they accelerate and spiral outward because we can compare
                  the most distant spiral galaxies with closer versions. We can see
                  what the Bible states about the stars continually coming. Scientists
                  apparently have the blindest dogma ever because they refuse to believe
                  what is visible - that all matter in the universe continually changes
                  its properties. The scientific concept of time is visibly false. The
                  scientific universe is 99% undetectable - populated with voodoo
                  matter, vacuums moving galaxies, a phantasmal big bang, vacuums
                  stretching light - all invented to protect their first principle.

                  > Can you tell me the context of Victor's "science"? Is there
                  > something limiting in his explanation of how the world
                  > works? Does Victor's science affirm the Trinity? Does that
                  > mean we have a 7 literal day of creation of an earth that is a
                  > few thousand years old by an intelligent designer who got
                  > pissed at the design and wiped it out with a global flood save
                  > a few people and some other "kinds" of life forms?

                  Since it is visibly obvious that matter continually changes.

                  1. What the Bible states - that science is impossible is visibly
                  affirmed.

                  2. No system of measurement, no system of mathematics, no precise
                  definition of matter, time and energy can possibly be valid - because
                  we can see that matter continually changes.

                  3. A scientist would claim - but our science works. Only locally
                  over short durations. Only because you have defined matter as
                  unchanging. Only because when matter changes, all your definitions,
                  units of measurement and constants change with it. The Biblical
                  version of the universe is confirmed with the strongest possible form
                  of evidence - eyesight.
                • Susan Cogan
                  looks like when it comes to getting kicked off ID blogs I m in good company! http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/heddle_on_ud_on_id_and_ool_1.php#more
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 3, 2006
                    looks like when it comes to getting kicked off ID blogs I'm in good company!

                    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/11/heddle_on_ud_on_id_and_ool_1.php#more

                    Heddle on UD on ID and OOL

                    Category: Intelligent Design
                    Posted on: November 3, 2006 9:31 AM, by Ed Brayton

                    Help, I'm in acronym hell! David Heddle, a devout Christian nuclear
                    physicist who advocates cosmological ID (the strong anthropic
                    principle) but is generally a critic of biological ID, has written a
                    post responding to something Dembski said about Harvard's new origin
                    of life research project. I agree with the post completely; in fact,
                    it's something I could have written myself in most respects. In
                    response to an announcement on the project, Dembski posted his usual
                    excerpt with a sarcastic comment:
                    How much play do you think ID is going to get in Harvard's new origin
                    of life initiative[?]

                    And Heddle rightly points out that the answer is "none" and that this
                    answer is entirely justified.

                    "In fact, Dembski is correct: the answer is none, because nothing is
                    owed a "play" in scientific research, which self-organizes along a
                    pecking order based on "put up or shut up." Dembski is preaching to
                    his choir, one that tends to believe that research scientists view
                    theists and theism as the enemy. This is false, as Dembski would know
                    if he spent any length of time in an actual research environment. At
                    least I hope that's his excuse--I hope he doesn't sing that "they
                    hate us, they really hate us" tune knowing that it's a lie. At any
                    rate, one of his great disservices to Christianity is that he is
                    helping to make Science vs. Christianity a self fulfilling prophecy.
                    He is doing his darndest to drive a wedge between the two--and many
                    Christians, I fear, are taking the bait. Demonizing scientists is
                    just another way that Dembski is very much like Ken Ham of AiG.

                    "Perhaps, Mr. Dembski, if you care to make a testable prediction
                    regarding Harvard's initiative they will give you some "play." In
                    fact, I am willing to bet that if you can make a testable prediction
                    from your theories and apply for research funding under this
                    initiative that your proposal would be reviewed favorably. By all
                    means, submit a proposal that states: My ID theory states that if you
                    do this experiment: [fill in the blank] the result will be this:
                    [fill in this blank too]."

                    As it is, or at least as far as I know, ID makes no prediction beyond
                    that of the theologian: Harvard's effort will fail to explain the
                    origin of life. Though of interest, that's not a scientific
                    prediction. Neither is its corollary: research into the origins
                    question will only further demonstrate the implausibility of life
                    starting by itself.

                    He is absolutely right, and it points up the core problem with the
                    claim that ID is science. No matter how complex and
                    scientific-sounding the various statements of its premise may be, the
                    argument still comes down to this: science can't (yet) explain X,
                    therefore God must have created X. This is not science, it's
                    anti-science. And history has shown such arguments to be false every
                    single time they've been offered in the past.

                    And while you're at Heddle's blog, you might want to read this post
                    [http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-time-dembski-booted-me.html%5d
                    about Dembski booting him from his blog and from a private mailing
                    list of ID advocates recently. The reasons are quite interesting.
                    Like this:

                    "I first got into trouble on the forum before Dembski was the
                    moderator. Unaware that it was the third-rail of ID, I posted
                    something mildly negative about young earth creationism. I soon found
                    out that some members of the list are extremely sensitive about this
                    topic. I also learned about the "big tent." The big tent is this: ID
                    welcomes all views on the age of the earth. Furthermore, to prevent
                    internal squabbles, the topic of the age of the earth is verboten.

                    "Welcoming all views is reasonable--after all science (and this list
                    is supposed to be about science) welcomes all views. But what science
                    never does is place views "off limits." How, I asked in subsequent
                    posts, can we be "about science" if a scientific topic, namely the
                    age of the earth, is off the table? A handful of people replied by
                    email (I flew below most everyone's radar on this list) to say they
                    agreed with me, but on the list the argument against my position was
                    that the age of the earth was not relevant in the domain of ID. I
                    pointed out that for cosmological ID it is extremely relevant, since
                    fine-tuning arguments make no sense for a YEC position--but shortly
                    thereafter the thread was closed for discussion. (I didn't post much
                    on this list, but I had a Ted Williams-like batting average for
                    having my threads closed.)

                    "Here's the thing: there is no such animal as a "big tent" (as the
                    term is used on this list) in science. Science is the ultimate
                    meritocracy. A fragile persona will not survive. Apart from a
                    gentleman's agreement to treat young students with kid gloves--and
                    even then only for a short while--nobody gets a free pass....Put more
                    succinctly: there's no crying in science. You present your ideas--you
                    defend them--and you try to persuade, but nothing is sacred."

                    What Heddle found out was that the ID movement isn't really about
                    science at all, it's a PR effort. And in a PR effort, you don't
                    alienate your supporters even if they are totally wrong about the
                    subject your effort addresses. There's much more in that second post,
                    I encourage you to read it. The tension within the ID camp between
                    the "this is a big tent" position and the "but you can't say that"
                    position is palpable and revealing. It appears from the emails he
                    cites that claiming that the earth is 6000 years old is perfectly
                    acceptable; questioning Dembski, on the other hand, is not.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • hucklebird@aol.com
                    In a message dated 11/2/06 3:13:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Truman, I am only going to respond around this question, not that the other issues are
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 3, 2006
                      In a message dated 11/2/06 3:13:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                      seekeththee@... writes:


                      > How did you evaluate palm reading with the Trinity?
                      >




                      Truman, I am only going to respond around this question, not that the other
                      issues are unimportant or won't find answers.

                      (1) Abduction, someone comes up with the hypothesis that palm reading is
                      real.
                      (2) Deduction, one uses palm reading to predict future observations.
                      (3) Induction, one compares the predictions with sense-certain observations.

                      Now someone can study palm reading if they want, doing real science, it is
                      their choice, but you see I am not particular interested in the results unless
                      they prove something unusual. I am more interested in the placebo effect that
                      hints of a deeper connection between mind and body.

                      Nevertheless, the dedicated palm reader that does this science will arrive
                      with statistical tests after progressing to step (3). Presumably the belief in
                      palm reading will be falsified with data, but you see while my scheme is
                      represented above with no ambiguous qualities there remains the issue of emotions
                      and run-on thoughts. Trinity after all is as much about our dual nature and our
                      ability to recognize and repair errors. This is not unlike the cell's ability
                      to recognize and repair copying errors in DNA. Now in this light steps 1, 2
                      and 3 are lessons we do to tune ourselves to the problem so we can see/feel
                      errors. This requires direct experience by the palm reader, and the lessons in
                      written form is not the direct experience. When K. Popper writes about his
                      falsification principle I don't believe he relates it to these emotions. A Buddhist
                      monk, on the other hand, will point to the need to be mindful with our
                      emotions, otherwise we won't be able to see our errors that have been representation
                      following steps 1, 2 and 3. Something must recognize steps 1, 2, and 3 as a
                      self certitude. That which represents and that which recognizes again signifies
                      Trinity, and this signification is represented again by steps 1, 2 and 3.

                      The dedicated palm reader is unmoved at first. She, or he, continues to
                      believe in the predictive power of palm reading, as there is something more.
                      Gradually, the palm reader starts to change her, or his, beliefs and comes up with
                      new abductions, provided by step 1. Eventually she, or he, comes around, but
                      oddly there are unexpected things that were discovered, things that would have
                      never been know without these investigations. The palm reader is as much Dean
                      Radin that wrote the books, "The Conscious Universe" and "Entangled Minds", and
                      discovered real psi effects that hold up in the statistical tests, albeit not
                      palm reading. You ought to look at his work if you think psi effects are not
                      real.

                      The problem that I see is that sometimes science is restricted to step (3),
                      i.e., following Popper's falsification principle like it is the only thing that
                      is important, forgetting the emotional attachments and the importance to
                      recognize errors as a self certainty. But as you can see it also involves steps
                      (1) and (2). Steps (1) and (2) imply something in broader reality that is
                      missing with pure empiricism. I believe this is a better platform to study
                      evolution, and moreover, it provides a unification of Darwinism and intelligent design,
                      as real science.

                      As you have agreed, Darwinism (natural selection and random mutations) is a
                      very small part of evolution, ignoring the issue of whether Darwinism is even
                      true. Moreover, natural selection is a tautology, and mutations are not random.

                      Darwinism is as much a strawman, as you have agreed, a strawman that has been
                      unable to recognize his errors, his strawman-like qualities. This can be the
                      only reason Dennett wrote his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", taking evolution
                      to mean Darwinism and failing to recognize it as a strawman. This can be the
                      only reason Dawkins wrote the "Blind Watchmaker", taking evolution to mean
                      Darwinism and failing to recognize it as a strawman. Dennett now has a new book,
                      "Breaking the Spell", and Dawkins has a new book, "The God Delusion", and
                      again we see more run-on thoughts that are unable to recognize their errors, there
                      is no mindfulness with these emotions that go unchecked. There is no
                      discipline!

                      And if you think the contingent universe is not as captivating, then think
                      again. The following is another example of taking the sample space to be real
                      when it is an abstraction:

                      http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/edis_22_4.htm

                      My view is that Darwinism is okay, but only when challenged by intelligent
                      design (providing a thesis and antithesis dialectic as provided by steps 1, 2
                      and 3 again). And this indicates that there may be a synthesis that is not
                      reducible to pure "naturalism" or pure "supernaturalism", and moreover as we agree
                      the terms "natural" and "supernatural" are leftovers from Descartes' dualism.
                      Trinity as such goes beyond dualism, and in the name of science.


                      Stephen





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Alan-
                      (((seek wrote: The only assumption I understand in science is that a natural world exists, can be observed, and can be explained.))) You also make another more
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 3, 2006
                        (((seek wrote: The only assumption I understand in science is that a
                        natural world
                        exists, can be observed, and can be explained.)))

                        You also make another more important assumption. That you can explain
                        away the evidence for God and design in the creation.

                        --ALan
                      • Alan-
                        (( Stephen: Now Descartes dualism creates the artificial separation between natural and supernatural. But it seems that both natural and supernatural are
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 3, 2006
                          (( Stephen: Now Descartes' dualism creates the artificial separation
                          between natural and
                          supernatural. But it seems that both natural and supernatural are almost
                          meaningless terms. There is no separation like this that is real, and
                          before such
                          dogma is forced on school children this issue ought to be debated in
                          philosophical circles.))

                          ==> Hurrah. That was well said and bears repeating here.

                          Maybe it could be said another way. The kind of knowledge generally
                          considered "scientific" consists of studying the real world around us.

                          If the "supernatural" does not affect anything at all, then it is not
                          worth talking about. If it does, then these dogmatic Inquisitors of
                          materialism have shot themselves in the foot (so as not to name an
                          embarrassing body part), because if "blind shall lead the blind, they
                          shall both fall into the ditch". They couldn't see it coming.

                          Alan
                        • seekeththee
                          ... the other ... reading is ... observations. ... it is ... results unless ... Exactly! That is why the scientific community, the biological scientists in
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 5, 2006
                            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, hucklebird@... wrote:
                            >
                            > In a message dated 11/2/06 3:13:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                            > seekeththee@... writes:
                            >
                            >
                            > > How did you evaluate palm reading with the Trinity?
                            > >
                            >
                            > Truman, I am only going to respond around this question, not that
                            the other
                            > issues are unimportant or won't find answers.
                            >
                            > (1) Abduction, someone comes up with the hypothesis that palm
                            reading is
                            > real.
                            > (2) Deduction, one uses palm reading to predict future observations.
                            > (3) Induction, one compares the predictions with sense-certain
                            observations.
                            >
                            > Now someone can study palm reading if they want, doing real science,
                            it is
                            > their choice, but you see I am not particular interested in the
                            results unless
                            > they prove something unusual.

                            Exactly! That is why the scientific community, the biological
                            scientists in particular are not interested in ID. And its not
                            because the results haven't proved anything unusual, but because their
                            are no results. They have not gotten past step 2.

                            As the example is the Cambrian period, which ID theorists say
                            evolution has a problem explaining it, but can't offer their own
                            deductions and and inductions on the very same thing.


                            > I am more interested in the placebo effect that
                            > hints of a deeper connection between mind and body.

                            That is fine. I know there are many scientists that are doing that. I
                            don't see how that relates to ID and evolution, and how you are going
                            to bring resolution to the debate doing that?


                            > Nevertheless, the dedicated palm reader that does this science will
                            arrive
                            > with statistical tests after progressing to step (3). Presumably the
                            belief in
                            > palm reading will be falsified with data, but you see while my
                            scheme is
                            > represented above with no ambiguous qualities there remains the
                            issue of emotions
                            > and run-on thoughts.

                            When you say "falsified with data" that seems to be a Popperanian
                            falsification principle. But yet when you say "presumably", it seems
                            you are suggesting it can't be. So I don't understand. Is palm reading
                            science or not? Perhaps I missed where you explained.

                            Palm readers are seeking to understand and explain the world around
                            them like anybody else. They just use unorthodox methods.

                            > Trinity after all is as much about our dual nature and our
                            > ability to recognize and repair errors.

                            I am not sure what a "dual-nature" is? Is it anything like the
                            "mind-body" thing you are talking about?

                            > This is not unlike the cell's ability to recognize and repair
                            copying errors in DNA.

                            This does not make sense. I fail to see comparison. A cell does not
                            have consciousness, it does not recognize errors out of thought. It
                            behaves like a automated machine. Chemicals have affinities for other
                            certain chemicals, there is no choice made on their part. There are no
                            "feelings"

                            Our ability to recognize and repair errors has to do with our
                            intelligence.

                            > Now in this light steps 1, 2
                            > and 3 are lessons we do to tune ourselves to the problem so we can
                            see/feel
                            > errors. This requires direct experience by the palm reader, and the
                            lessons in
                            > written form is not the direct experience. When K. Popper writes
                            about his
                            > falsification principle I don't believe he relates it to these
                            emotions. A Buddhist
                            > monk, on the other hand, will point to the need to be mindful with our
                            > emotions, otherwise we won't be able to see our errors that have
                            been representation
                            > following steps 1, 2 and 3. Something must recognize steps 1, 2, and
                            3 as a
                            > self certitude. That which represents and that which recognizes
                            again signifies
                            > Trinity, and this signification is represented again by steps 1, 2
                            and 3.

                            I think peer review and publication will show that the scientific
                            community is mindful of those things. Also, science seems to be a
                            progressive search for knowledge, not a final solution. Most errors in
                            science are found when somebody arrives at an answer for a problem
                            through different means. IDT has not found that answer yet. If they
                            did they could explain what happened in the Cambrian period, and how
                            it relates to the rest of the fossil record, and offer hypotheses for
                            the other periods in the fossil record. IDT only explains itself, not
                            how the world works.

                            Step one, I already explained that a palm reader will hypothesize that
                            forces are at work that can be detected by examination of the hand of
                            people.
                            Step two, palm readers across the world today, and for centuries have
                            made predictions about people all the time. Palm readers can predict
                            your personality, what kind of mate you should have, your profession
                            you should choose. More experienced palm readers can tell you how much
                            money you can make, how long you will live.
                            Step 3, people swear by its predictions, and people still continue to
                            get those services, because while it may not work for me, or have any
                            interest to you, it does work for those people that use it. It may
                            not have worked for me because I did not "feel" right about it. My
                            skeptical attitude may have tainted the reading, and caused to reader
                            to not "feel" my lines like they normally did. Perhaps there are other
                            plausible explanations or other antitheses for why my readings were
                            not statistically significant. When I think about it, it just goes on
                            and on and on...


                            > The dedicated palm reader is unmoved at first. She, or he, continues to
                            > believe in the predictive power of palm reading, as there is
                            something more.

                            As would an IDT proponent who not only already knows that the ID
                            exists, but its name and it intentions. I mean, if you had a
                            personal relationship with an ID, wouldn't you be moved by IDT whether
                            there was predictive power or not? Isn't evidence of a personal
                            relationship with an ID evidence enough?

                            > Gradually, the palm reader starts to change her, or his, beliefs and
                            comes up with
                            > new abductions, provided by step 1. Eventually she, or he, comes
                            around, but
                            > oddly there are unexpected things that were discovered, things that
                            would have
                            > never been know without these investigations. The palm reader is as
                            much Dean
                            > Radin that wrote the books, "The Conscious Universe" and "Entangled
                            Minds", and
                            > discovered real psi effects that hold up in the statistical tests,
                            albeit not
                            > palm reading. You ought to look at his work if you think psi effects
                            are not
                            > real.

                            OK, you seem to hold statistical tests as valid. So statistical
                            testing is OK for testing whether something is true or false in your
                            science?

                            As far as psi effects go, I would accept those psi effects that are
                            real then. Can you tell me just what the "discovered real psi effects"
                            were?

                            If modern science "discovered real psi effects", does that mean that
                            all of them exist now?

                            > The problem that I see is that sometimes science is restricted to
                            step (3),
                            > i.e., following Popper's falsification principle like it is the only
                            thing that
                            > is important, forgetting the emotional attachments and the
                            importance to
                            > recognize errors as a self certainty. But as you can see it also
                            involves steps
                            > (1) and (2). Steps (1) and (2) imply something in broader reality
                            that is
                            > missing with pure empiricism. I believe this is a better platform to
                            study
                            > evolution, and moreover, it provides a unification of Darwinism and
                            intelligent design,
                            > as real science.
                            >
                            > As you have agreed, Darwinism (natural selection and random
                            mutations) is a
                            > very small part of evolution, ignoring the issue of whether
                            Darwinism is even
                            > true. Moreover, natural selection is a tautology, and mutations are
                            not random.

                            First, Natural selection is not a tautology.

                            Darwin made these observations
                            1. All species have such great potential fertility that their
                            population size would increase exponentially if all individuals born
                            would again reproduce successfully.
                            2. Except for minor annual fluctuations and occasional major
                            fluctuations, populations normally display stability.
                            3. Natural resources are limited. In a stable environment they remain
                            relatively constant.

                            Based on those observations he made a deduction that there is a
                            struggle for existence among individuals in a population, and that
                            only a small part of each generation survives.

                            He also observed:
                            1. No two individuals are exactly the same: rather, every population
                            displays enormous variability.
                            2. Much of this variation is heritable.

                            Based on the deduction on the previous observations, and these two
                            more observations, he deduced that the survival of certain small parts
                            of each generation is not random, but depends on what ever parts of
                            that variation was inherited. Those that survived are best adapted
                            for their environment. That is what he calls natural selection.

                            Just like desirable traits that are selected by humans is called
                            artificial selection. For domestic plants an animals. But instead of
                            humans doing the selecting, nature does the selection.

                            So we have step 1, step 2, and for step 3, there is the mountain of
                            research papers comparing these observations. The way it is done is
                            comparing traits of different populations of animals and survival
                            rates. An organism fit in one environment is not fit in another.
                            Environments change, at different rates, organisms can't adapt and
                            die, other fill in the gaps and prosper. Natural selection is the
                            explanation.

                            I don't see how that is a tautology?

                            Secondly. Nobody says that mutations are random. All Darwin knew is
                            that there was heritable variations. But "Darwinists" ARE saying there
                            is random mutations. Both random and non random mutations still make
                            up heritable variation. So I don't see how that has any effect to
                            "Darwinism". And since IDe'rs have yet to tell which mutations are
                            designed and which ones are not, I don't see how bringing ID on board
                            is going to help answer any questions?


                            > Darwinism is as much a strawman, as you have agreed, a strawman that
                            has been
                            > unable to recognize his errors, his strawman-like qualities.

                            I don't agree that "Darwinism" is a strawman. I agree that your
                            description of it is. You called "Darwinism" a "mere belief in
                            randomness" in another post. But again, I am not exactly sure what
                            Darwinism is, as so many people have their own definition. But since
                            natural selection and random mutations are part of evolutionary
                            theory, with or without "Darwinism", you must be arguing with a strawman.

                            > This can be the
                            > only reason Dennett wrote his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", taking
                            evolution
                            > to mean Darwinism and failing to recognize it as a strawman. This
                            can be the
                            > only reason Dawkins wrote the "Blind Watchmaker", taking evolution
                            to mean
                            > Darwinism and failing to recognize it as a strawman. Dennett now has
                            a new book,
                            > "Breaking the Spell", and Dawkins has a new book, "The God
                            Delusion", and
                            > again we see more run-on thoughts that are unable to recognize their
                            errors, there
                            > is no mindfulness with these emotions that go unchecked. There is no
                            > discipline!

                            People write books to either share what the know, or voice their
                            opinions. Books like those are not scientific papers, and offer good
                            food for thought, but do not offer data.

                            "What Dawkins says" is not science any more that what Popper,
                            Descartes, or Pierce say.


                            > And if you think the contingent universe is not as captivating, then
                            think
                            > again. The following is another example of taking the sample space
                            to be real
                            > when it is an abstraction:
                            >
                            > http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/edis_22_4.htm
                            >
                            > My view is that Darwinism is okay, but only when challenged by
                            intelligent
                            > design (providing a thesis and antithesis dialectic as provided by
                            steps 1, 2
                            > and 3 again).

                            Intelligent design has not made it past step 2, so how can it be a
                            challenge?

                            > And this indicates that there may be a synthesis that is not
                            > reducible to pure "naturalism" or pure "supernaturalism", and
                            moreover as we agree
                            > the terms "natural" and "supernatural" are leftovers from Descartes'
                            dualism.
                            > Trinity as such goes beyond dualism, and in the name of science.

                            Again, my science is not "pure naturalism". It is "pure naturalistic
                            methodology" in that there is something that I can do your step 3 on.
                            I am not sure what a "sense-certain observation is", but if it is
                            something that you and I can stand together an both agree we are
                            observing the same thing, then that is good enough for me.

                            Trinity does not seem to offer anything better to science, but rather
                            incapacitates it, by opening to door to any fringe theory. Science has
                            only succeeded in the last few hundred years by not wasting time with
                            things that can't be tested. While I am interested in solutions, I
                            would like to see the solution rather one, amoung many speculations.
                            It seems your solution is not to just solve a problem, but to make
                            science weaker to incorporate ID, and hope that will solve a problem.
                            But the problem is that it will also incorporate things like palm
                            reading.


                            Truman
                          • hucklebird@aol.com
                            In a message dated 11/5/06 6:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Forgive me Truman, if I respond only to these few items in your previous e-mail. Not that your
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 6, 2006
                              In a message dated 11/5/06 6:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                              seekeththee@... writes:


                              >
                              > I am not sure what a "dual-nature" is? Is it anything like the
                              > "mind-body" thing you are talking about?
                              >






                              Forgive me Truman, if I respond only to these few items in your previous
                              e-mail. Not that your other items are unimportant, and it is true that I don't
                              agree with many of your beliefs. Yet it makes no sense to talk pass each other
                              with only two posts per day.

                              But this issue above caught my attention! Are you telling me you do not
                              experience a dual nature? I experience a quality that helps me reflect, it helps me
                              correct my many errors that I find while I am reflecting. It takes a deep
                              emotional discipline to own up to our own mistakes, which is why training in
                              philosophy is so important. On the other hand, rushing through the day is just a
                              run-on thought. Without reflection these run-on thoughts are uncultivated, and
                              one-sided. But I work both sides of the street to problem solve you see; which
                              is why pure empiricism is not science but more run-on thoughts that have lost
                              their way.

                              My dual nature is a sense-certainty, and is not calling for scientific
                              verification. Nevertheless, such experiences are not uncommon, and they find
                              themselves subjected to scientific investigation; see e.g., Wallace, "The Taboo of
                              Subjectivity". I learned recently that Buddhist monks practice a mindfulness
                              meditation, it helps them bring out their dual nature too. I am not a Buddhist,
                              but Buddhist consider themselves to be among the first scientists.

                              Ken Wilber, in "Eye to Eye" writes about the transrational mind that has
                              learned to master its emotions, rather than be a slave to them as in the case of
                              the rational mind that is un-mindful. The rational mind lacks the discipline
                              needed to meet the future, so the transrational must replace it.






                              > > This is not unlike the cell's ability to recognize and repair
                              > copying errors in DNA.
                              >
                              > This does not make sense. I fail to see comparison. A cell does not
                              > have consciousness, it does not recognize errors out of thought. It
                              > behaves like a automated machine. Chemicals have affinities for other
                              > certain chemicals, there is no choice made on their part. There are no
                              > "feelings"





                              You say a cell has no feelings, yet you give no believable account where
                              life's sense-certain feelings come from. You say the cell is a machine, but this
                              is an unsupported belief based on Descartes dualism. Candace Pert, research
                              professor in the department of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown
                              University, discovered a connection between the brain and the immune system. Her view is
                              that peptides carry emotions through a process of cell-to-cell communication.
                              You can read about her views in her book, "Molecules of Emotion". Pert's
                              views are not unlike Martha Stampfer, PhD. I heard her talk last Thursday in San
                              Francisco. Stampfer is a cell biologist that works for the Lawrence Berkeley
                              National Laboratory, her web site:

                              http://www.lbl.gov/lifesciences/labs/stampfer_lab.html

                              Another person you need to learn about is Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. Lipton
                              developed the new field of epigenetics. He has a book, "The Biology of Belief", that
                              deserves a look.

                              All three of these experts will disagree with you. A fourth person I bring to
                              your attention is the brain specialist Ayub K. Ommaya. He will also disagree
                              with you, he is calling for a theory of mind that affirms our emotional
                              connections:

                              http://www.philsoc.org/1992Fall/1999abstract.html





                              >
                              > Our ability to recognize and repair errors has to do with our
                              > intelligence.
                              >
                              >




                              As we had been talking about the cell's ability to recognize copying errors
                              in DNA, I could say: A HA - you must be referring to an intelligent designer!
                              But you see, I am not going to do that, I recognize the synthesis of Darwinism
                              and intelligent design. This takes us in a new direction!

                              Judging from above I guess you mean a machinelike intelligence that has no
                              experience of a dual nature? Intelligence is only smart if it affirms its innate
                              emotion, and Stampfer tells us a cell needs smarts to fix all those errors in
                              its DNA. This can only be done by working with our dual nature, hand in hand,
                              be it a cell or us grownups. Mystics, like Teihard de Chardin, will tell us
                              that the connection of ourselves to our dual is of pure love. But a machinelike
                              intelligence is sleeping, unable to feel its errors because it has fallen in
                              love with its own machinelike qualities. Such a machine is as much one of
                              Dennett's "cranes" that he writes about in his book, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
                              Dennett eliminates all "skyhooks" as he says. And to think that this blunder of
                              Dennett's, caused by his own blind self love, wants to infect children, inject
                              them with one of Dawkins' memes. I guess you think it is okay to teach
                              children how to become one of Dennett's cranes, while blocking any mention of our
                              dual nature that comes from philosophy and deep spirituality? And you are going
                              to do this in the name of error recognition?

                              Stephen




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • seekeththee
                              ... previous ... that I don t ... each other ... Works for me. ... Well, I am telling you that I don t know what it is. Maybe I experience it, maybe I don t.
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 6, 2006
                                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, hucklebird@... wrote:
                                >
                                > In a message dated 11/5/06 6:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                                > seekeththee@... writes:
                                >
                                >
                                > >
                                > > I am not sure what a "dual-nature" is? Is it anything like the
                                > > "mind-body" thing you are talking about?
                                > >
                                > Forgive me Truman, if I respond only to these few items in your
                                previous
                                > e-mail. Not that your other items are unimportant, and it is true
                                that I don't
                                > agree with many of your beliefs. Yet it makes no sense to talk pass
                                each other
                                > with only two posts per day.

                                Works for me.

                                > But this issue above caught my attention! Are you telling me you do not
                                > experience a dual nature?

                                Well, I am telling you that I don't know what it is. Maybe I
                                experience it, maybe I don't.

                                > I experience a quality that helps me reflect, it helps me
                                > correct my many errors that I find while I am reflecting. It takes a
                                deep
                                > emotional discipline to own up to our own mistakes, which is why
                                training in
                                > philosophy is so important. On the other hand, rushing through the
                                day is just a
                                > run-on thought. Without reflection these run-on thoughts are
                                uncultivated, and
                                > one-sided. But I work both sides of the street to problem solve you
                                see; which
                                > is why pure empiricism is not science but more run-on thoughts that
                                have lost
                                > their way.

                                OK, at this point you still haven't explained to me what what you mean
                                by a "dual-nature" is, so I can't tell you if I have experienced it or
                                not.

                                I guess I constantly question whether I am right or wrong, just as I
                                question whether others or right or wrong. I simply ask questions like
                                "Why did you do that?" "Why do you think that?" "What do you see?"
                                "How do you know that?"....

                                I know I can be wrong, and because I seek truth and know I can't hide
                                from the truth, I admit when I am wrong. But somebody or a book
                                telling me I am wrong, doesn't make me wrong. I realize there is more
                                out there than I can possibly know. So is that dual-nature?

                                I too feel I work both sides (actually, I like to think I work all
                                sides) of the problem, and I have discovered that there can be a side,
                                that while may or may not be wrong, does not yield enough information
                                for me to make a determination. But there can be so many aspects of a
                                side that conflict or are just wrong, I don't want to waste my time
                                with it, just like I don't waste my time trying to learn and
                                understand every single religious/non-religious opinion and the basis
                                for it that is out there.

                                I fail to see how modern science, is "pure empiricism" and how its
                                lost its way, when it has discovered more about the world, and
                                continues to do so, than any methodology before it? It seems that
                                that are certain questions you would like answered? If you have a
                                better solution, then by all means, tell me what new knowledge about
                                the world has been discovered with it, that couldn't be found with
                                modern science, rather than what you think can be discovered with it?

                                Or for another example, tell me something that is unknown that can't
                                be explained by the Bible.

                                > My dual nature is a sense-certainty, and is not calling for scientific
                                > verification.

                                Well, whatever I used to help me determine what reality is does not
                                always call for scientific verification. I have found there are
                                somethings I believe because I just do. But I don't expect other
                                people to believe what I do, just because I do. Heck, I could be wrong
                                for all I know.


                                > Nevertheless, such experiences are not uncommon, and they find
                                > themselves subjected to scientific investigation; see e.g., Wallace,
                                "The Taboo of
                                > Subjectivity". I learned recently that Buddhist monks practice a
                                mindfulness
                                > meditation, it helps them bring out their dual nature too. I am not
                                a Buddhist,
                                > but Buddhist consider themselves to be among the first scientists.

                                Well, again, I don't know what a "dual-nature" is, but you keep
                                telling me that people have it.

                                I am not a Buddhist either, and while I may practice science, that
                                does not make me a scientist. When I do my gardening, hunting,
                                fishing, cooking, hiking, exercising, and things like that, I
                                sometimes employ scientific methodology. But also with those
                                activities along with other things, like understanding the meaning of
                                life, my part in that meaning, and why I feel the way I do sometimes,
                                I don't use science. Sometimes I do this "mindfulness meditation"
                                too. I do a lot of praying which sometimes is just me doing the
                                talking, sometimes God just does the talking. I also reflect on my
                                life and reflect on situations, and ponder how behaviors of my self
                                and other affected it.


                                > Ken Wilber, in "Eye to Eye" writes about the transrational mind that
                                has
                                > learned to master its emotions, rather than be a slave to them as in
                                the case of
                                > the rational mind that is un-mindful. The rational mind lacks the
                                discipline
                                > needed to meet the future, so the transrational must replace it.

                                I only understand you are a slave to your emotions if you don't
                                recognize them. I am not a monk or PhD or any expert, but I have had
                                courses in basic psychology, and don't think what you are saying here
                                is any revelation, in that people can be slaves to their emotions.

                                But what Wilber seems to want to do, based on what you have just said,
                                is turn people into Vulcans. Fine with me, but if you don't mind, I
                                like the way I am, and I am sure many other people like the way they
                                are too. I am guessing that their are some people that like the way
                                they are, and like Wilber, and apparently you, would like to change
                                other people to be that way too.


                                > > > This is not unlike the cell's ability to recognize and repair
                                > > copying errors in DNA.
                                > >
                                > > This does not make sense. I fail to see comparison. A cell does not
                                > > have consciousness, it does not recognize errors out of thought. It
                                > > behaves like a automated machine. Chemicals have affinities for other
                                > > certain chemicals, there is no choice made on their part. There are no
                                > > "feelings"
                                >

                                > You say a cell has no feelings, yet you give no believable account
                                where
                                > life's sense-certain feelings come from.

                                What would be believable? Do you have a believable account where they
                                come from?

                                > You say the cell is a machine, but this
                                > is an unsupported belief based on Descartes dualism.

                                Of course a cell is not a "machine", but that analogy most accurately
                                describes how it works better than anything else I can think of. I
                                think a cell is more like a machine than it is a rational thinking
                                individual that can set goals, behave irrationally, dream, love, think
                                abstractly.

                                > Candace Pert, research
                                > professor in the department of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown
                                > University, discovered a connection between the brain and the immune
                                system. Her view is
                                > that peptides carry emotions through a process of cell-to-cell
                                communication.
                                > You can read about her views in her book, "Molecules of Emotion".
                                Pert's
                                > views are not unlike Martha Stampfer, PhD. I heard her talk last
                                Thursday in San
                                > Francisco. Stampfer is a cell biologist that works for the Lawrence
                                Berkeley
                                > National Laboratory, her web site:
                                >
                                > http://www.lbl.gov/lifesciences/labs/stampfer_lab.html

                                I don't see how a you can infer that a single cell has a sense-certain
                                feeling from this?

                                From what I read she is looking at the mind-body connection, not
                                saying that individual cells have emotions. I don't dismiss here
                                research, but it is new and interesting, and based on her scientific
                                methodology, I am sure more research is going to come from her
                                discoveries, and we will learn more about the subject. She is
                                changing the way the human body is looked at, but she is doing it
                                using the same science that works so well too.


                                > Another person you need to learn about is Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. Lipton
                                > developed the new field of epigenetics. He has a book, "The Biology
                                of Belief", that
                                > deserves a look.
                                >
                                > All three of these experts will disagree with you. A fourth person I
                                bring to
                                > your attention is the brain specialist Ayub K. Ommaya. He will also
                                disagree
                                > with you, he is calling for a theory of mind that affirms our emotional
                                > connections:
                                >
                                > http://www.philsoc.org/1992Fall/1999abstract.html


                                I don't see how they disagree with me. Based on what you have shown, I
                                don't seem to disagree with them. It seems you are the one that
                                disagrees with me. And if that makes any difference. Then concerning
                                your assertions about science and ID in particular, There are many
                                scientists out there, just by the name of Steve, that would disagree
                                with YOU!

                                Perhaps there is misunderstanding ? You said:
                                "Trinity after all is as much about our dual nature and our ability to
                                recognize and repair errors. This is not unlike the cell's ability to
                                recognize and repair copying errors in DNA."

                                So I asked you what "dual-nature" was, and you still have not seemed
                                to answer that. I assumed that "dual-nature" was something like a
                                mind-body connection.

                                I don't see any "dual-nature" in individual cells when they go through
                                a mitosis. my understanding is that replication in mitosis is a
                                mechanical process, with no emotion or feeling from the cells that
                                exhibit it.


                                > > Our ability to recognize and repair errors has to do with our
                                > > intelligence.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > As we had been talking about the cell's ability to recognize copying
                                errors
                                > in DNA, I could say: A HA - you must be referring to an intelligent
                                designer!
                                > But you see, I am not going to do that, I recognize the synthesis of
                                Darwinism
                                > and intelligent design. This takes us in a new direction!

                                But I don't recognize the synthesis, and just because you do, does not
                                mean we should just drop what we are doing and take that direction. I
                                have explained before. Your definition of Darwinism seems to me as
                                something that nobody believes, and secondly, intelligent design is a
                                religious apologetic, it can't be synthesized to any scientific
                                theory, without excluding things like voodoo and palm reading.


                                > Judging from above I guess you mean a machinelike intelligence that
                                has no
                                > experience of a dual nature?

                                Again, I am not sure what you call "dual-nature". And No, I said
                                "intelligence" which meant "human intelligence".


                                > Intelligence is only smart if it affirms its innate
                                > emotion, and Stampfer tells us a cell needs smarts to fix all those
                                errors in
                                > its DNA.

                                Robots can be programmed to fix all kinds of stuff, but that does not
                                make them intelligent. My understanding of DNA replication in a
                                cell is just copying a template. There is not "thinking"

                                I guess I would like the know the context of "smarts". Does a cell
                                have to be consciously aware of itself and the body its in?

                                > This can only be done by working with our dual nature, hand in hand,
                                > be it a cell or us grownups. Mystics, like Teihard de Chardin, will
                                tell us
                                > that the connection of ourselves to our dual is of pure love. But a
                                machinelike
                                > intelligence is sleeping, unable to feel its errors because it has
                                fallen in
                                > love with its own machinelike qualities. Such a machine is as much
                                one of
                                > Dennett's "cranes" that he writes about in his book, "Darwin's
                                Dangerous Idea".
                                > Dennett eliminates all "skyhooks" as he says. And to think that this
                                blunder of
                                > Dennett's, caused by his own blind self love, wants to infect
                                children, inject
                                > them with one of Dawkins' memes. I guess you think it is okay to teach
                                > children how to become one of Dennett's cranes, while blocking any
                                mention of our
                                > dual nature that comes from philosophy and deep spirituality?


                                No, I don't think it is OK to teach children how to become one of
                                Dennet's cranes (whatever that is). And I probably would not teach
                                "dual-nature" as I have no idea what that is either. If it comes from
                                philosophy, then I would have it taught in philosophy class, and if
                                its from spirituality, than that would be taught in religious studies
                                along with occultism and reincarnations.

                                Furthermore, along with not teaching "Dennett" or "Dawkins", I would
                                not have taught "Chardin", "Pierce", "Popper", "Lipton", "Pert",
                                "Stampher", and even "Darwin".

                                What I want taught is "Science", which is, despite your objections, a
                                naturalistic methodology that is not perfect, but works very well. In
                                addition to science, I would teach was is the latest in understand of
                                the natural world by scientists, which are a collection of
                                individuals, not some lone individual. Evolution is not "Darwin".
                                Evolution is a scientific theory that collectively explains not only
                                the data from biology, but from other scientific disciplines like
                                geology and paleontology.

                                Furthermore, I want them to know science is simply one method that is
                                employed to discover how the natural world work, not *THE* method to
                                understand all of reality, as you seem to want to have taught. The
                                success of science was the result of its separation from mysticism.

                                > And you are going
                                > to do this in the name of error recognition?

                                Absolutely not! But I have not "recognized" any errors either.

                                I fail to see how I have fallen in love with my own machinelike
                                qualities, if that is what you are suggesting, just because I disagree
                                with you?

                                Truman
                              • hucklebird@aol.com
                                In a message dated 11/6/06 10:17:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... Truman, This act of synthesis, when content in a thesis sees in the antithesis its context,
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 7, 2006
                                  In a message dated 11/6/06 10:17:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                                  seekeththee@... writes:


                                  > I am not a Buddhist either, and while I may practice science, that
                                  > does not make me a scientist. When I do my gardening, hunting,
                                  > fishing, cooking, hiking, exercising, and things like that, I
                                  > sometimes employ scientific methodology. But also with those
                                  > activities along with other things, like understanding the meaning of
                                  > life, my part in that meaning, and why I feel the way I do sometimes,
                                  > I don't use science. Sometimes I do this "mindfulness meditation"
                                  > too. I do a lot of praying which sometimes is just me doing the
                                  > talking, sometimes God just does the talking. I also reflect on my
                                  > life and reflect on situations, and ponder how behaviors of my self
                                  > and other affected it.
                                  >




                                  Truman, This act of synthesis, when content in a thesis sees in the
                                  antithesis its context, is no less the act of self recognition.

                                  Stephen



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.