Spiritual Blogs

Comments

• 

  Roaring Lovely October 22, 2016 at 2:20pm

  Wings, I can't read the link you provided!
• 

  Roaring Lovely October 22, 2016 at 2:18pm

  One place to start that exploration is to consider how the mind interact with the brain. But a new philosophy of science is necesary for appropriate paradigm shift. Our cognitive neuroscientists are stucked with thinking that the mind must be the by product of neural activities. It never seem to occur that causality is also in the other direction.
  
  I have also begun considering arcane means of isomerizing bio chemicals. When you see me do this, getta know that it is akin to a goalkeeper comming to the field to score lol! It means that our 'foward men' are realy doing poor job!
• 

  Feather Winger October 22, 2016 at 9:45am

  I agree  that that we need to explore the ways that mind interacts with matter..   I also noticed how you do your logic as a kind of math.  I use a system from Max Black where I use diagrams and circles.

  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/critical...

  Critical Thinking. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. By Max Black, Professor of Philo…

  Critical Thinking. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. By Max Black, Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University. (New York: Prentice-Hal…
• 

  Roaring Lovely October 21, 2016 at 1:08pm

  Then what realy does 'falsifiability' mean? The same same philosopher, Carl Popper suggests that we realy can never get to prove any scientific claim! If we can never prove anything, then most likely, we can never falsify anything either, at least not, to the satisfaction everybody (some people still hold even the flat earth theory!). So there is no such a thing as 'falsifyable'. Our scientist momentarily forget that truth is in some way dependent on perspective. To whom must we falsify things? Who gives him the authority?
  
  Now lets come back to the atheist. He says that he has no need to disprove the existence of God and that it is the one who makes the claim who should make the prove. True! However, if given arguments for god, he rejects them based ultimately on absence of 'God' in science books! So he denies the 'proof' cause God is unfalsifiable but demands the proof even if he cannot falsify 'God'!
• 

  Roaring Lovely October 21, 2016 at 12:50pm

  The unfalsifyability ruler is used far much more rigidly when applying to non mainstream theories, especially those distastefull to atheists! Our payed scientists wants a very quick way of brushing aside what he does not want in the basket of 'science', sweeping it into the basket of 'pseudoscience' (these guys takes the beer when it comes to labels)
  
  For instance, to explain the null results of some of his experiments in telepathy, Rubert Sheldrake said that the presence of skeptics affects the results! Our atheistic mindset scientist immediately throws such claims to the folder of 'pseudoscience' when the proponent suggest even a single ad oc. However, when General Relativity failed to correctly predict the dynamics of galaxies, Einsteinian fanatics were at ease with their claim that some unseen fairy tooth as 'dark matter' affected the results!
  
  Why should dark matter ad oc warrant further investigation but not the claim that our beleifs affect the universe? Because the latter suggest a mind working in the fundamental forces of nature. It is realy not because the latter makes the theory unfalsifiable as they pretend. Our atheistic scientists judges the ad oc with their mechanical view of the world of which beleifs affecting molecules are deamed nonsense without proper investigation. It is this beleif (in ubsence of mind from fundamental interactions) though that we are trying to question by conducting a psi experiment and atheist cannot be allowed to use it as a platform to declare by fiat what is a 'sensiblee' and what is 'nonsensible' ad oc. When viewed from atheistic viewfinder, Sheldrake ad oc looks nonsense. However when viewed from spiritual viewfinder, it fits perfectly the world view Shaldrake is trying to prove by proving telepathy: can mind interact with matter, in ways not anticipated by mainstream science?