[harmonygirl]

Lloyd,
I don't know if this counts as proof, but one day about 3 or 4 years ago, on the way to my office, I heard the trees hum. Actually heard them hum. This started me wondering if everything else might give off a hum and if we just aren't able to hear it...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Lloyd, I don't know if this counts as proof, but one day about 3 or 4 years ago, on the way to my office, I heard the trees hum. Actually heard them hum. This started me wondering if everything else might give off a hum and if we just aren't able to hear it...

HG, I've seen so many things in my life you have no idea. Even though I've really seen, what I've seen, I still don't believe the mystery of what I have seen. I see all the extra-normal as hallucinations. Funny thing though, I've never heard anything para-normal. That's interesting...

regards

[harmonygirl]

It actually reminded me of the end of one of the sci-fi movies of the 70s (forget which one) where the space ships tried to communicate by melody. When I sing, I feel connected to the Goddess more so than at any other time. I think harmonics is crucial to the TOE. Why don't you believe what you have seen?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl It actually reminded me of the end of one of the sci-fi movies of the 70s (forget which one) where the space ships tried to communicate by melody. When I sing, I feel connected to the Goddess more so than at any other time. I think harmonics is crucial to the TOE. Why don't you believe what you have seen?

Simply put, I scientifically know better. When I do my analyses of my personal conceptual memory, and conceptual imagination interplay, of such ideas, the truth just falls out. It's just the way my simple mind works. I'm dna programmed by logic, I guess. It's a family thing... Blood's thicker than water... This doesn't mean I don't like the intuitive imaginal mind, as I use it all the time, more than logic, it's just that I automatically run all my intuitions through logical syntheses. I've even tried to break this habbit, as my wife is always complaining about it, but it makes me too crazy to change. Programmed by nature, I guess, to be logical.

regards

[harmonygirl]

Well, LG, I'm with your wife on this one. Science is only one way to find truth. If your experiences don't fit with scientific theory, woulnd't it make more sense to adapt the theory, rather than ignore the experiences? Science seems to me to go through phases, fashions if you will. We constantly adjust the theory to account for new discoveries, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me to do it they way you're doing it, because it makes science into almost a religion (in a bad way!). Do you agree that it's not logical to ignore your experiences?

[baudrunner]

I think of conscious as awareness (either of self or of just being). Is an amoeba aware of itself? We call it life, tho, don't we? Or how about someone in a coma-not conscious, but still alive...Chazzysaw, I agree, consciousness is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of life. Is light alive? still looking at that one...it's energy but...

That question you posed about light. Very deep.

To me, life is defined by its ability to replicate, to reproduce itself, no matter what form it takes.

Life evolved out of a virtual nothing that must always have had the life force in it. If you understand my position on the anthropocentric Universe than you understand that light, or wave propagation/reproduction/replication is that which represents the original impetus that got life as we now know it going, and since matter waves are self-manifest than the premise of the anthropocentric reality is upheld. All is life.

[harmonygirl]

Thanks. There is a principle of law ('nemo dat quod non habet')which means you can't give what you don't have. I just started thinking about light giving life and then wondering if it had life. Still don't know, tho. I think that's because unlike you, I haven't come up with a defnition that neatly captures what I mean by life...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner That question you posed about light. Very deep. To me, life is defined by its ability to replicate, to reproduce itself, no matter what form it takes. Life evolved out of a virtual nothing that must always have had the life force in it. If you understand my position on the anthropocentric Universe than you understand that light, or wave propagation/reproduction/replication is that which represents the original impetus that got life as we now know it going, and since matter waves are self-manifest than the premise of the anthropocentric reality is upheld. All is life.

Nice private language religion, Baud. Wish I could accept it as science, but there's absolutely no evidence, except private language stating so. Private opinion is not science. Where's your public science language proof? The burden of proof is on you. I'm only asking for the sound scientific evidence. I accept nothing on faith, as faith is simply mythology.

regards

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Well, LG, I'm with your wife on this one. Science is only one way to find truth. If your experiences don't fit with scientific theory, woulnd't it make more sense to adapt the theory, rather than ignore the experiences? Science seems to me to go through phases, fashions if you will. We constantly adjust the theory to account for new discoveries, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me to do it they way you're doing it, because it makes science into almost a religion (in a bad way!). Do you agree that it's not logical to ignore your experiences?

No HG, I do not agree. To me, it's only logical to ignore your experiences, which you positively know are false intuitions and hallucinations. I'd be stupid not to ignore such self-foolishness. If you notice the e-mail signature I use, you must realize it's for a reason. Kurt Godel, and this statement says it all. You must know what to keep, and just as importantly, what to throw out... I personally have no interest in intuition without it bearing on science,[and I do use it scientifically a lot], except where I know I must respect the intuitive person's feelings, whether I agree or not, just to keep the peace, advance friendship, or be true to my innate respect of individual and universal liberty. Now, if you have noticed carefully, my extreme analytical position forces me to be untrue to my real self, to be intuitively true to even my own intuitive mate. This dicotomy can not be prevented, as she can not learn the depth of my analyses, and I would not want her to,[she's a beautiful person and I like her maintaining her femininity] yet I can not unlearn my position. This is the dialectical trap of living human organisms. My analytic and intuitive mind are dna wired as one; they are not separate, as I suspect many others, may be. Thus, there seems to be no way out, yet, after all these years, I'm comfortable with it...

"To know, is often to know too much." me

If you think there's a solution to this dicotomy, please feel free to let me know. I don't think there is, and I've been looking for over forty years...

regards

[harmonygirl]

But LG, this seems to be a bit of a self-defined situation. Are these 'false intuitions and hallucinations' so defined because they don't fit into your scientific/logical theory? Or so defined because you were on acid at the time (or other hallucinagen)? Another thing, isn't reality made up of your experiences? I think that by rejecting some experiences in favour of others, you are artificially limiting your reality. You said it yourself, you are being untrue to your real self. I don't know how to help you resolve this dichotomy, except to say that logic doesn't (and shouldn't) solely define existence. But that's just my opinion...