[dleviwing]

pbecke;
In science, to say that something is known, you must be able to measure it, not just believe it. Theories are only ideas of how one may think things work; until you apply the methodology of measurement, it is not science. People like you and Michael seem to think that scientist have not pondered the possibility of a universal consciousness or creationism. To science, these are only theories without the means of measurement proofs; similar to string theory, all talk, no measure of evidence.

It is the ignorance of the believers that fail to see the truth of the science.

[mkirkpatrick]

David, thanks for including me in the "one of those people" category, you put in such a way I'm not sure if I have been complimented or insulted! Science needs to "measure” its bloated blinkered and conceited arrogant attitude, towards anything that does not fit into their narrow beam of acceptability?

Dave I suggest you take out your trusty or is it rusty measure, and run the rule up and down the backbone of science, and try and find where its guts lie! Know what I mean? Nods as good as a wink to a blind man! And in many ways science is blind, and stupefied in its bloated self importance!

kindest regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Michael;
It was not meant to be either an insult nor a compliment; only a statement of fact. I’m disappointed with those who have the mental ability to both comprehend science and theology and chose to make judgments without truly knowing either. Some are satisfied to simply accept a belief without evidence to support the dogma; I am not one of them. You are quite aware that I have pondered universal consciousness as a possibility but as yet have not seen any real evidence of its existence other than human intuition. There are scientific experiments designed to support these ideas; however, no supporting data has been found yet.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Michael; It was not meant to be either an insult nor a compliment; only a statement of fact. I’m disappointed with those who have the mental ability to both comprehend science and theology and chose to make judgments without truly knowing either. Some are satisfied to simply accept a belief without evidence to support the dogma; I am not one of them. You are quite aware that I have pondered universal consciousness as a possibility but as yet have not seen any real evidence of its existence other than human intuition. There are scientific experiments designed to support these ideas; however, no supporting data has been found yet.

Yes I am aware that you have pondered universal consciousness,If you want
interesting data!Then why not ask YOUrself,is it so!yes or no!I am confident
that there will bean affirmitive reply?Try it what have you to loose?Only
your out-worn skepticism?

kind regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Simple Kid 18:
It's as much a likelihood as not that that all of the books of all of the major religions represent intial efforts at Theorys of Everything. (No news here.)

Kind regards
- RP

[pbecke]

Hi Michael,

Thought you might be tickled with these words of Dr Timothy Leary quoted by Joe Bageant:

Obviously, I retain a special affection for Uncle Tim. If any of these men could legitimately be called complex, it is probably Leary. A brilliant scientist, he was often reviled by traditional scientists, whom he called "arrogant mother****************ers who deny their role in the military industrial complex's manipulation of the American people." Leary rejected what he called the "grim Newtonian mechanics of objective fact" for the "free flowing quantum physics approach to consciousness" that the changing, not the static, governs consciousness and the outcome of the world. "Understanding this even intuitively," he said, makes people unmanageable by agents of the criminal government syndicate that runs and ruins America." That sort of talk was why Nixon called him "the most dangerous man in America."

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by pbecke Hi Michael, Thought you might be tickled with these words of Dr Timothy Leary quoted by Joe Bageant: Obviously, I retain a special affection for Uncle Tim. If any of these men could legitimately be called complex, it is probably Leary. A brilliant scientist, he was often reviled by traditional scientists, whom he called "arrogant mother****************ers who deny their role in the military industrial complex's manipulation of the American people." Leary rejected what he called the "grim Newtonian mechanics of objective fact" for the "free flowing quantum physics approach to consciousness" that the changing, not the static, governs consciousness and the outcome of the world. "Understanding this even intuitively," he said, makes people unmanageable by agents of the criminal government syndicate that runs and ruins America." That sort of talk was why Nixon called him "the most dangerous man in America."

Truly tickled am I pbecke,thank you for the post,I am at present rapidly cooling off,have
just this last hour returned from Turkey,where the temperature was climbing to 50c,and
expected to peak at around 55/60c this week,here is England it is just 13c,brrrrrrr!

regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Timothy Leary’s PhD was in psychology and thus does not qualify as a reference to the physical sciences. He was only a brilliant hallucinatory drug fanatic. Anyone can achieve that type of brilliance.
He does however; qualify for thinking while “HIGH” or a high level view.

[theunify]

We can only try to tolerate others; perhaps this Tim guy was used to being part of the alternative discussion group? What makes us think he would talk to us if he were here?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Man is the highest intelligence, matter is the highest action...

The TOE will be solved/agreed to, when we all learn to thoroughly see through each other's linguistics...

Lloyd