On May 2, 6:44*am, Smooth John wrote:
Science today gives no answers, they only deal
with what is observable, iow detection, therefore
science is no more than a dumb temperature
sensor so to speak.

But they forget that sensors are lying, and at best,
they only detect what they find that it is logic to
present, hereby the not logical detections are not
presented

Similarly, science only presents the logical interactions,
and forget that all these are a result of infinitely many
chaotic interactions, which cannot be detected and
according to science they do not exists.

The functionality of a brain is driven by chaos and chaotic
interactions competing for dominance, which results in
a logical action or decision one may take, so the chaos
must be there in the first place

Therefore it makes no sense to pretend that what we have
out there is only what we detect

I think I have to turn over to religion, which definitely will
tell me more than science today does

What religion do I have to choose, what religion is closest to
deepest reality?

I will give you my answer, as follows:

There are two sources of 'evidence'. One is the outer
world, as used by science, and the other is the inner
experience of the individual. When this includes an
experience of God, it is religion.

Since genuine love is the true life, even for God,
the practical true love for God and other beings
allows the Creator to be involved with the soul, which
is the true life. True wisdom follows as a product of
such a true life, rather than the reverse.

The lowest form of knowledge, though all truth has its
value, is the science of the outer world. With the recent,
careless allowance of the 'counterintuitive', however,
science has degraded much of its usefulness as a form of
knowledge. Philosophy is higher than science, because
it comes from the living mind, which is higher than dead
matter. But the highest form of knowledge is the wisdom
that is the product of true religion, because it comes
directly from the Creator.

Hymns, liturgies, and incantations, as theatre or
superstition, are not true religion, or true life.

Alen

Smooth John schrieb:
Science today gives no answers, they only deal
with what is observable, iow detection, therefore
science is no more than a dumb temperature
sensor so to speak.

But they forget that sensors are lying, and at best,
they only detect what they find that it is logic to
present, hereby the not logical detections are not
presented

Similarly, science only presents the logical interactions,
and forget that all these are a result of infinitely many
chaotic interactions, which cannot be detected and
according to science they do not exists.

The functionality of a brain is driven by chaos and chaotic
interactions competing for dominance, which results in
a logical action or decision one may take, so the chaos
must be there in the first place

Therefore it makes no sense to pretend that what we have
out there is only what we detect

I think I have to turn over to religion, which definitely will
tell me more than science today does

What religion do I have to choose, what religion is closest to
deepest reality?

Maybe you like my idea (it's without religion)

http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...z2tx_9hgv6pjhf

TH

On Fri, 2 May 2008 13:10:30 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Surfer" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 02 May 2008 02:10:19 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"Smooth John" wrote in message
...
Science today gives no answers,

Science never has claimed to answer anything. It is simply a process of
test, hypothesize, test, hypothesise over and over. If what comes out of
that process is 'answers' is a philosophical issue of zero scientific value.

Every test of a hypothesis produces an answer. I think what the
original poster is probably complaining about is inability to find a
comprehensible framework (or set of interpretations) within which to
comprehend the myriad answers that have been produced.

However for a framework to be comprehensible and satisfying to an
individual it must match the cognitive abilities of that individual.

To make sense of science I think different people will need different
frameworks. Ideally the different frameworks should be compatible with
each other otherwise in view of the fact that there is only one
physical reality, one or more of the frameworks would be out of sync
with reality.

I think providing such frameworks is the role of philosophy. Perhaps
the OP needs to look for authors who combine philosophy and science in
a way that he finds suitable for himself.

Perhaps the OP needs to look for authors who combine fraud
and pseudo-science in a way that Cahill finds suitable for the OP.
A good place to start would be
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...ssphysics.html
right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
"argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of
replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim,
rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the
claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to
change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem
abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or
personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to
discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to
find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent
disagrees with it.

"Surfer" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 2 May 2008 13:10:30 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Surfer" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 02 May 2008 02:10:19 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"Smooth John" wrote in message
...
Science today gives no answers,

Science never has claimed to answer anything. It is simply a process of
test, hypothesize, test, hypothesise over and over. If what comes out of
that process is 'answers' is a philosophical issue of zero scientific value.

Every test of a hypothesis produces an answer. I think what the
original poster is probably complaining about is inability to find a
comprehensible framework (or set of interpretations) within which to
comprehend the myriad answers that have been produced.

However for a framework to be comprehensible and satisfying to an
individual it must match the cognitive abilities of that individual.

To make sense of science I think different people will need different
frameworks. Ideally the different frameworks should be compatible with
each other otherwise in view of the fact that there is only one
physical reality, one or more of the frameworks would be out of sync
with reality.

I think providing such frameworks is the role of philosophy. Perhaps
the OP needs to look for authors who combine philosophy and science in
a way that he finds suitable for himself.

Perhaps the OP needs to look for authors who combine fraud
and pseudo-science in a way that Cahill finds suitable for the OP.
A good place to start would be
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...ssphysics.html
right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:

You can safely call it an "ad excrementum argument".

Dirk Vdm

On May 2, 4:10 am, "Bill Hobba" wrote:
"Smooth John" wrote in message

...

Science today gives no answers,

Science never has claimed to answer anything. It is simply a process of
test, hypothesize, test, hypothesise over and over. If what comes out of
that process is 'answers' is a philosophical issue of zero scientific value.

Thanks
Bill

Dear Bill, so far as I know philosophy is science, which does not
contradict math and physics

And you are right, there are branches of science which are
made up, and therefore not real science, for instance psychiatry
is not science, they put healthy people on drugs and take their money


they only deal
with what is observable, iow detection, therefore
science is no more than a dumb temperature
sensor so to speak.

But they forget that sensors are lying, and at best,
they only detect what they find that it is logic to
present, hereby the not logical detections are not
presented

Similarly, science only presents the logical interactions,
and forget that all these are a result of infinitely many
chaotic interactions, which cannot be detected and
according to science they do not exists.

The functionality of a brain is driven by chaos and chaotic
interactions competing for dominance, which results in
a logical action or decision one may take, so the chaos
must be there in the first place

Therefore it makes no sense to pretend that what we have
out there is only what we detect

I think I have to turn over to religion, which definitely will
tell me more than science today does

What religion do I have to choose, what religion is closest to
deepest reality?

On May 2, 4:47 am, "Bill Hobba" wrote:
"Smooth John" wrote in message

...



On May 2, 12:38 am, "SBC Yahoo"
wrote:
"Smooth John" wrote in message

...

Science today gives no answers, they only deal
with what is observable, iow detection, therefore
science is no more than a dumb temperature
sensor so to speak.

But they forget that sensors are lying, and at best,
they only detect what they find that it is logic to
present, hereby the not logical detections are not
presented

Similarly, science only presents the logical interactions,
and forget that all these are a result of infinitely many
chaotic interactions, which cannot be detected and
according to science they do not exists.

The functionality of a brain is driven by chaos and chaotic
interactions competing for dominance, which results in
a logical action or decision one may take, so the chaos
must be there in the first place

Therefore it makes no sense to pretend that what we have
out there is only what we detect

I think I have to turn over to religion, which definitely will
tell me more than science today does

What religion do I have to choose, what religion is closest to
deepest reality?

- - - - - - - - - -
It is obvious that you want to hear large quantities of pure, 100%
Bull****.
Religion is the perfect choice, because except for a few accurate
historical
elements, it is 99.9% Bull****. You will be happy with virtually any
choice, they are just different flavors of cow dung.

Facts and logical progression are just too much for your comprehension,
so
you might want to try Magic, if religion does not work.

Science, at its core,
is nothing more
than a search for the truth.

No, science today only is searching for dumb temperature sensors

So trying to find supersymetry for example is 'dumb temperature sensors'.
Yea right.

Thanks
Bill

I dont know much about supersymetry, is it based on Quantum Mechanics?






Any truth cannot possibly be bounded to dumb temperature sensors

It is much more then that,

Please reread in order for you to understand, then honestly ask
yourself
if you understand anything you said you understood before

- - - - -/ \ - - - - -

Ohh, am I doomed to stick with a dumb temperature sensor?

On May 2, 1:08 pm, Surfer wrote:
On Fri, 02 May 2008 02:10:19 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:



"Smooth John" wrote in message
...
Science today gives no answers,

Science never has claimed to answer anything. It is simply a process of
test, hypothesize, test, hypothesise over and over. If what comes out of
that process is 'answers' is a philosophical issue of zero scientific value.

Every test of a hypothesis produces an answer. I think what the
original poster is probably complaining about is inability to find a
comprehensible framework (or set of interpretations) within which to
comprehend the myriad answers that have been produced.

However for a framework to be comprehensible and satisfying to an
individual it must match the cognitive abilities of that individual.

To make sense of science I think different people will need different
frameworks. Ideally the different frameworks should be compatible with
each other otherwise in view of the fact that there is only one
physical reality, one or more of the frameworks would be out of sync
with reality.

I think providing such frameworks is the role of philosophy. Perhaps
the OP needs to look for authors who combine philosophy and science in
a way that he finds suitable for himself.

Regards,
Surfer


I suspect you are wrong entirely, and you not understood what
this discussion is all about, is about the detectable reality and
what detection is all about

Reread and try to understand

While at it, please say nothing and I will understand that you just did

On May 2, 4:30*pm, Smooth John wrote:
On May 2, 4:10 am, "Bill Hobba" wrote:

"Smooth John" wrote in message

...

Science today gives no answers,

Science never has claimed to answer anything. *It is simply a process of
test, hypothesize, test, hypothesise over and over. *If what comes out of
that process is 'answers' is a philosophical issue of zero scientific value.

Thanks
Bill

Dear Bill, so far as I know philosophy is science, which does not
contradict math and physics

Philosophy is not science, nor is religion. Science doesn't have all
the answers. Admitting that is better than making things up so that
it looks like you have an answer. If it makes you feel better, trust
me on this

Bruce

And you are right, there are branches of science which are
made up, *and therefore not real science, for instance psychiatry
is not science, they put healthy people on drugs and take their money





they only deal
with what is observable, iow detection, therefore
science is no more than a dumb temperature
sensor so to speak.

But they forget that sensors are lying, and at best,
they only detect what they find that it is logic to
present, hereby the not logical detections are not
presented

Similarly, science only presents the logical interactions,
and forget that all these are a result of infinitely many
chaotic interactions, which cannot be detected and
according to science they do not exists.

The functionality of a brain is driven by chaos and chaotic
interactions competing for dominance, which results in
a logical action or decision one may take, so the chaos
must be there in the first place

Therefore it makes no sense to pretend that what we have
out there is only what we detect

I think I have to turn over to religion, which definitely will
tell me more than science today does

What religion do I have to choose, what religion is closest to
deepest reality?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Smooth John" wrote in message
...
On May 2, 4:47 am, "Bill Hobba" wrote:
"Smooth John" wrote in message

...



On May 2, 12:38 am, "SBC Yahoo"
wrote:
"Smooth John" wrote in message

...

Science today gives no answers, they only deal
with what is observable, iow detection, therefore
science is no more than a dumb temperature
sensor so to speak.

But they forget that sensors are lying, and at best,
they only detect what they find that it is logic to
present, hereby the not logical detections are not
presented

Similarly, science only presents the logical interactions,
and forget that all these are a result of infinitely many
chaotic interactions, which cannot be detected and
according to science they do not exists.

The functionality of a brain is driven by chaos and chaotic
interactions competing for dominance, which results in
a logical action or decision one may take, so the chaos
must be there in the first place

Therefore it makes no sense to pretend that what we have
out there is only what we detect

I think I have to turn over to religion, which definitely will
tell me more than science today does

What religion do I have to choose, what religion is closest to
deepest reality?

- - - - - - - - - -
It is obvious that you want to hear large quantities of pure, 100%
Bull****.
Religion is the perfect choice, because except for a few accurate
historical
elements, it is 99.9% Bull****. You will be happy with virtually any
choice, they are just different flavors of cow dung.

Facts and logical progression are just too much for your
comprehension,
so
you might want to try Magic, if religion does not work.

Science, at its core,
is nothing more
than a search for the truth.

No, science today only is searching for dumb temperature sensors

So trying to find supersymetry for example is 'dumb temperature sensors'.
Yea right.

Thanks
Bill

I dont know much about supersymetry, is it based on Quantum Mechanics?

It is a QM theory - yes. If true it would be a discovery of major
proportions.

Thanks
Bill







Any truth cannot possibly be bounded to dumb temperature sensors

It is much more then that,

Please reread in order for you to understand, then honestly ask
yourself
if you understand anything you said you understood before

- - - - -/ \ - - - - -

Ohh, am I doomed to stick with a dumb temperature sensor?