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

Re: [existlist] Science and scientists

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me dense and ignorant . I see this often. Some grand scheme like rocks having consciousness. It just
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 27, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
      "ignorant". I see this often. Some grand scheme like rocks having
      consciousness. It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely. Sure
      we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
      universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking out
      for humanity or can think. Wheeler and others were at one time saying that
      the universe is only out there because we are here to see it. That idea
      also went down the drain. Which isn't to say that the concept of a cosmic
      consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea. Humans have [or
      rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are comfy,
      but not real. It's time we entered the 21st century.

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: William
      Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists

      Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science. He
      is what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists
      with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he
      knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems for
      Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has a
      problem with perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
      statements he made about the sun would not have been posted.
      Knowing scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
      accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill



      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • Mary
      One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a bit of the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that the brain
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 27, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a bit of the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that the brain and every other cosmic phenomenal structure receives and shares information. One could call this information 'consciousness' to the degree that it has stored properties. Awareness isn't limited to the human; that hubris would be an example of anthropomorphism. Awareness in an informational scheme which doesn't require a brain; it requires an interaction.

        May

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
        >
        > Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
        > "ignorant". I see this often. Some grand scheme like rocks having
        > consciousness. It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely. Sure
        > we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
        > universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking out
        > for humanity or can think. Wheeler and others were at one time saying that
        > the universe is only out there because we are here to see it. That idea
        > also went down the drain. Which isn't to say that the concept of a cosmic
        > consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea. Humans have [or
        > rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are comfy,
        > but not real. It's time we entered the 21st century.
        >
        > eduard
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: William
        > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists
        >
        > Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science. He
        > is what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists
        > with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he
        > knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems for
        > Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has a
        > problem with perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
        > statements he made about the sun would not have been posted.
        > Knowing scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
        > accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
      • Dick.
        You too are rather dim. I did no write that email I posted it on from the group which is mentioned at the bottom of it. Can any of you even READ? I have done
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 27, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          You too are rather dim. I did no write that email I posted it on from
          the group which is mentioned at the bottom of it. Can any of you even
          READ? I have done science all my life sweatpea. It is you lot that
          don't seem to know the difference bwtenn KNOWING and Be-liefing-
          be-wishing.

          Dick Richardson

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote:
          >
          > Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in
          science. He is what you might call home schooled. He also equates
          knowing scientists with knowing science. You will not change his mind
          because he believes he knows science. In short knowing and believeing
          are definitional problems for Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad
          guy , it just means he has a problem with perception. Had he had
          formal scientific training the statements he made about the sun would
          not have been posted.
          > Knowing scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science
          under accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • eduardathome
          Yes, you can redefine consciousness so that it no longer means consciousness . Consciousness ... as used to be the word ... has the meaning of being aware.
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 28, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes, you can redefine "consciousness" so that it no longer means
            "consciousness".

            Consciousness ... as used to be the word ... has the meaning of being aware.
            If you send a rock to Pluto, you have an interaction. But that does not
            mean that Pluto is aware of anything.

            eduard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Mary
            Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:09 PM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists

            One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a
            bit of the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that the
            brain and every other cosmic phenomenal structure receives and shares
            information. One could call this information 'consciousness' to the degree
            that it has stored properties. Awareness isn't limited to the human; that
            hubris would be an example of anthropomorphism. Awareness in an
            informational scheme which doesn't require a brain; it requires an
            interaction.

            May

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            >
            > Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
            > "ignorant". I see this often. Some grand scheme like rocks having
            > consciousness. It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely.
            > Sure
            > we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
            > universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking out
            > for humanity or can think. Wheeler and others were at one time saying
            > that
            > the universe is only out there because we are here to see it. That idea
            > also went down the drain. Which isn't to say that the concept of a cosmic
            > consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea. Humans have [or
            > rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are comfy,
            > but not real. It's time we entered the 21st century.
            >
            > eduard
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: William
            > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists
            >
            > Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science.
            > He
            > is what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists
            > with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he
            > knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems
            > for
            > Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has a
            > problem with perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
            > statements he made about the sun would not have been posted.
            > Knowing scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
            > accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
            >
            > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
            >




            ------------------------------------

            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          • Mary
            eduard, I m not redefining consciousness but asserting a different concept which might be more relevant, such as information and information systems. After all
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 29, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              eduard,

              I'm not redefining consciousness but asserting a different concept which might be more relevant, such as information and information systems. After all what is consciousness but a highly complex and integrated system of information? In order to accommodate the vastness of the universe as well as the most fundamental chemical interactions, a medium of exchange needs to be defined. Who cares if a robot or a rock has consciousness or free will? Information can be exchanged without consciousness. Remove the words spirit, energy, and consciousness from an interaction and you are left with only information, information of such complexity we can never know it all.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
              >
              > Yes, you can redefine "consciousness" so that it no longer means
              > "consciousness".
              >
              > Consciousness ... as used to be the word ... has the meaning of being aware.
              > If you send a rock to Pluto, you have an interaction. But that does not
              > mean that Pluto is aware of anything.
              >
              > eduard
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Mary
              > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:09 PM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists
              >
              > One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a
              > bit of the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that the
              > brain and every other cosmic phenomenal structure receives and shares
              > information. One could call this information 'consciousness' to the degree
              > that it has stored properties. Awareness isn't limited to the human; that
              > hubris would be an example of anthropomorphism. Awareness in an
              > informational scheme which doesn't require a brain; it requires an
              > interaction.
              >
              > May
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
              > >
              > > Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
              > > "ignorant". I see this often. Some grand scheme like rocks having
              > > consciousness. It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely.
              > > Sure
              > > we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
              > > universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking out
              > > for humanity or can think. Wheeler and others were at one time saying
              > > that
              > > the universe is only out there because we are here to see it. That idea
              > > also went down the drain. Which isn't to say that the concept of a cosmic
              > > consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea. Humans have [or
              > > rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are comfy,
              > > but not real. It's time we entered the 21st century.
              > >
              > > eduard
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: William
              > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists
              > >
              > > Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in science.
              > > He
              > > is what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing scientists
              > > with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes he
              > > knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems
              > > for
              > > Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has a
              > > problem with perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
              > > statements he made about the sun would not have been posted.
              > > Knowing scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science under
              > > accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------------
              > >
              > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
              > >
              > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              >
            • eduardathome
              If it is a matter of exchanging information, then it isn t consciousness . And as you say, Information can be exchanged without consciousness. Words are
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 29, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                If it is a matter of exchanging information, then it isn't "consciousness".
                And as you say, "Information can be exchanged without consciousness." Words
                are important as is their meaning. We tend to bend words and use them in
                other senses, because it seems appropriate at the time. There is no cosmic
                consciousness, although the cosmos can exchange information, because rocks
                do not have a brain. Pluto isn't out there pondering the fact that it
                exists. I doubt it is offended because it is no longer termed a "planet".

                eduard


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mary
                Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:44 AM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists

                eduard,

                I'm not redefining consciousness but asserting a different concept which
                might be more relevant, such as information and information systems. After
                all what is consciousness but a highly complex and integrated system of
                information? In order to accommodate the vastness of the universe as well as
                the most fundamental chemical interactions, a medium of exchange needs to be
                defined. Who cares if a robot or a rock has consciousness or free will?
                Information can be exchanged without consciousness. Remove the words spirit,
                energy, and consciousness from an interaction and you are left with only
                information, information of such complexity we can never know it all.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                >
                > Yes, you can redefine "consciousness" so that it no longer means
                > "consciousness".
                >
                > Consciousness ... as used to be the word ... has the meaning of being
                > aware.
                > If you send a rock to Pluto, you have an interaction. But that does not
                > mean that Pluto is aware of anything.
                >
                > eduard
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Mary
                > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:09 PM
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Science and scientists
                >
                > One of the wonderful areas of science is information theory. Using just a
                > bit of the theory one can hypothesize, as did physicist David Bohm, that
                > the
                > brain and every other cosmic phenomenal structure receives and shares
                > information. One could call this information 'consciousness' to the degree
                > that it has stored properties. Awareness isn't limited to the human; that
                > hubris would be an example of anthropomorphism. Awareness in an
                > informational scheme which doesn't require a brain; it requires an
                > interaction.
                >
                > May
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
                > >
                > > Well ... it does get to be a bit much when he calls me "dense" and
                > > "ignorant". I see this often. Some grand scheme like rocks having
                > > consciousness. It just doesn't work out when you look at it closely.
                > > Sure
                > > we are connected to everything else, simply because we are part of the
                > > universe. But that doesn't mean that the universe is somehow looking
                > > out
                > > for humanity or can think. Wheeler and others were at one time saying
                > > that
                > > the universe is only out there because we are here to see it. That idea
                > > also went down the drain. Which isn't to say that the concept of a
                > > cosmic
                > > consciousness isn't a neat, warm and fuzzy feeling idea. Humans have
                > > [or
                > > rather their brains have] invented all sorts of fantasies that are
                > > comfy,
                > > but not real. It's time we entered the 21st century.
                > >
                > > eduard
                > >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: William
                > > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 6:01 PM
                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > > Subject: [existlist] Science and scientists
                > >
                > > Eduard, As you have found out Dick has little formal training in
                > > science.
                > > He
                > > is what you might call home schooled. He also equates knowing
                > > scientists
                > > with knowing science. You will not change his mind because he believes
                > > he
                > > knows science. In short knowing and believeing are definitional problems
                > > for
                > > Merlin. I do not think it makes him a bad guy , it just means he has a
                > > problem with perception. Had he had formal scientific training the
                > > statements he made about the sun would not have been posted.
                > > Knowing scientists does not mean you know science. Studying science
                > > under
                > > accredted scientists is a different matter as you well know. Bill
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > ------------------------------------
                > >
                > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                > > nothing!
                > >
                > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                >
                > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                >




                ------------------------------------

                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.