Michio Kaku and Crop Circles

[diny]

I probably didn't post this correctly, sorry, but two things.

I'm with Paul Kimball, Thank you! I love Michio Kaku and would love to hear him on the show.

And thank you, cosmonaut, crop circles are so important.

 

[Ezechiel]

I probably didn't post this correctly, sorry, but two things.

I'm with Paul Kimball, Thank you! I love Michio Kaku and would love to hear him on the show.

And thank you, cosmonaut, crop circles are so important.

Very big fan of Michio Kaku here !!!

IMHO, his theories concerning the evolution of sentient beings in a galactic environment adapting to expanding realities are stunning ! And at the same time offer a framework that potentially explains a large part of the unidentified stuff flying around here LOL.

Totally sold on his rational approach even though many here have thrown their hats in a spiritual multi-dimensional out-of-reach basket. His classification of type 0 through 3 civilizations brings an order (hierarchy) and a sane perspective to the dynamics of an evolving universe filled with sentient beings moving towards infinite complexity.

Hail Michio, a totally out of the box guy

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Very big fan of Michio Kaku here !!!

IMHO, his theories concerning the evolution of sentient beings in a galactic environment adapting to expanding realities are stunning ! And at the same time offer a framework that potentially explains a large part of the unidentified stuff flying around here LOL.

Totally sold on his rational approach even though many here have thrown their hats in a spiritual multi-dimensional out-of-reach basket. His classification of type 0 through 3 civilizations brings an order (hierarchy) and a sane perspective to the dynamics of an evolving universe filled with sentient beings moving towards infinite complexity.

Hail Michio, a totally out of the box guy

Yeah man now we talking : Dr Michio Kaku and maybe Dr Jack Sarfatti

 

[Ezechiel]

Yeah man now we talking : Dr Michio Kaku and maybe Dr Jack Sarfatti

Sarfatti ?

Sorry not a fan .... but might be interesting lol

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

That's life

 

[tyder001]

Totally sold on his rational approach even though many here have thrown their hats in a spiritual multi-dimensional out-of-reach basket.

I wanna step in slowly here lest I be labeled a "religous nut or a kook for now bowing at the alter of the latest scientifc flavor of the month. Let me hasten to add that I to enjoy Doctor Kaku and despite my tone I am not a six day creationsist. (I'm not a speller either.) Anyway, why is a materislitc point of view always "rational" but a "spiritual" point of view always "woo woo?" I read (and urge some to see the latest Skeptiko podcast and some Michael Prescott commentary on it) Anyway, I read not long ago some near death accounts. Anyway, no I'm not a true beleiver. Don't know if they point to an after life or not. I hope they do. Anyway at the end of the article the "writer" who was not a scientist at all. Anyway, the writer said "well there are "rational" explanations. It got me to thinking. Why is a purely dying brain explantion "rational" but a "soul" or Consciousness that is not produced by organic matter un rational? I love me some science. I "see" because of science (glassese) I have lower blood pressure because of medical sceince (blood pressure pills.) I can burp because of antacid. But, I also pray and meditate and have my own relationship with God/Universe/Spirit. So, anyway just wonder sometime about our "worship" of scientism. As Rupert Sheldrake said (although an old magician with a GED attacked him) Science is a method not a posistion.

 

[Ezechiel]

Anyway, why is a materislitc point of view always "rational" but a "spiritual" point of view always "woo woo?" I read (and urge some to see the latest Skeptiko podcast and some Michael Prescott commentary on it) Anyway, I read not long ago some near death accounts. Anyway, no I'm not a true beleiver. Don't know if they point to an after life or not. I hope they do. Anyway at the end of the article the "writer" who was not a scientist at all. Anyway, the writer said "well there are "rational" explanations. It got me to thinking. Why is a purely dying brain explantion "rational" but a "soul" or Consciousness that is not produced by organic matter un rational? I love me some science. I "see" because of science (glassese) I have lower blood pressure because of medical sceince (blood pressure pills.) I can burp because of antacid. But, I also pray and meditate and have my own relationship with God/Universe/Spirit. So, anyway just wonder sometime about our "worship" of scientism. As Rupert Sheldrake said (although an old magician with a GED attacked him) Science is a method not a posistion.

As we slowly progress towards infinite complexity... the rational and spiritual should eventually merge into one . Michio Kaku is spiritual, and I wouldn't be surprised if most scientist were (Our ignorance exceeds our knowledge... whereas the religious already have knowledge/scriptures answering the basic questions in simple form).

Most scientists cringe when 'spiritual' points of view lead to static dogmas and religions that potentially get in the way of the process of discovery (ex. Gallileo... G.W. Bush lol). Thus the 'woo woo' factor and the risk of building another roadblock to progress

 

[trainedobserver]

. So, anyway just wonder sometime about our "worship" of scientism.

What is heck is that I wonder?
Are you talking about science?
How can anyone "worship" science? That is just ridiculous.

Please don't take this the wrong way but every person I have ever encountered that made a disparaging comment about science or scientists eventually demonstrated an ignorance of what science, the scientific method, and scientists actually are and do. When pressed as to what they deem a superior means of acquiring reliable knowledge they always fail horribly. I have yet to see an argument for "revealed knowledge", "faith", or "spirituality" that held water. Quite frankly, I have encountered numerous people who in their attack on science have shown a profound lack of understanding and/or inability to articulate what they mean by "science" or the terms "faith" and "spirituality". This is coming from an ex-Christian of over 30 years who is now an atheist. I've been on both teams so to speak. The beautiful thing about ignorance is that it can be cured quite easily enough if the mental blinders are removed and prejudice discarded.

We understand through science that human beings can only perceive the universe via a tiny portion of the existing spectrum (or through a glass darkly, if you will) of phenomena and that what humans actually experience is a brain/mind simulation of what is happening outside of our skulls. We cannot experience the universe directly in other words. We can only experience our own minds representation of it which is all "consciousness" actually is. This is a neurological fact. The 3-D world we know and enjoy is just a product of our minds, it is in fact our minds themselves. Meanwhile the real universe is a quantum soup of strange particles and multiple dimensions which parallels the "spirit world" of ancient texts and superstitious belief. We are attempting to understand a reality that cannot be directly experienced using a brain/mind system that is restricted to 3 dimensions. The "paranormal" and "spiritual" things that are not neurological anomalies or malfunctions are things that don't fit into that 3 dimensional limited spectrum representation our brains provide. The study of which must still rely on true science and not the nebulous and unreliable practices of spiritualism, religion, religious faith, or superstition.

I apologize if that came across as a bit caustic it wasn't really intended to be so.

Peace

 

[tyder001]

We can only experience our own minds representation of it which is all "consciousness" actually is. This is a neurological fact.

Hmmmm, somebody forgot to tell Sir Rodger Penrose that. I guess he can stop all research now. Also, I did not attack science. Science isn't a "thing" to be attacked. Science is a mutitude of methods that we use to make our enviroment better. Not much on religion cause I been there done that and got the t-shirt. But, I don't hate relgion either. I don't make dogmatic statements. I don't worship the method or the religion and I have no absolute revealed knowledge for ya. But I don't get my marching orders from richie dawkins on one hand or patty robertson on the other. Yes, I do esteem my life expereince. Have to since it's mine. Anyway, I do understand the turning away from relgion. But at the same time I also understand the need for meaning and hope that some folks find in relgion. I'm not on a "team" I'm on my journey. I fought hard against religous extreemism in my youth. To think my own thoughts. But, I'll be damned if I'll now turn around and let somedbody else tell me it was all a chemical reaction of grey matter and they are sure and that settles it. Not buying that old time religion or sceintism either. Sorry, gotta run. Family and real world calling. 8)

---------- Post added at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 AM ----------

Thing is and then I'll let this go. The thing is I was raised in "the church" and know well the extreme thinking of extreme religion. I actually found my way out of religion through prayer and honest searching. Still, I have seen some of the same kind of dogma expoused by people who seem to think that we are at the height of knowledge of the universe. To say it's all "this " or that is the same as a religious person saying "it's all in my bible or Koran or whatever." Let me give one example. Remember to prove all crows are not black ya don't need to find a bunch of white crows. Ya only need one. It only takes one hole in the dike to do away with extreme dogma of any kind. That's why I'm no longer a religious person. Anyway, I have a friend who holds a PHD in mathamatics. We had a conversation one time and I offered the observation that I was symphathetic toward the "theory" of reincarnation. My friend assured me that only what "science" could measure and prove was real. Anyway, it all came down to this. Either you had a simple chemical based reality which allowed for only what could be experienced in the "arrow" of time or you had to be woo woo. It's o.k. because our friendship survived it. But, one night I had a dream. Now in this dream I was shown a certain "event" that was about to happen. It wasn't something that would change my life. Not earth shattering and not even important to me or my friend or my family. Still, it was a well known event and I told my wife the next day. Now I didn't dream in sequence. In other words I didn't see every event just the way it would unfold. But, I knew in the dream what the symbols and the colors and the events meant. So, the next day I told my wife that this weekend a certain event (it was a sporting event) would take place. That's nice she said since she could care less. Everyone knew it was taking place. But, I then told her not only "who" would triumph but how and by how much and by what method. I said "I don't know why but I know it and I want you to be my witness that I'm not crazy." Well, it happened and we were at my friends house some time later. I mentioned it to my friend and he said "that's not possible." to much detail for guess work. Well, I turned to my wife and she confirmed the whole thing. He said "well I'll just file that away for later." He never mentioned it again and neither did I at least not to him. I say all that to say this. That is my "white" crow. It does not prove life after death or Jesus saves or Buddah blesses. But, it does show that the "arrow" of time is not steady and that there was more than my very intelligent friend could measure with his equations and test tubes. I am not a fortune teller. I can't "forsee" the future or read your fate. But, there are times wihen I just "know" and yes I've heard the old "skeptical" saw about "Your just counting those times." Anyway, I've seem some "white" crows in my time and I do apologise for this ramble. Peace.

 

[trainedobserver]

Science is a mutitude of methods that we use to make our enviroment better.

Well... no it isn't. Your adding support to the first statement I made about my experience with those who disparage science.

Hmmmm, somebody forgot to tell Sir Rodger Penrose that. I guess he can stop all research now.

So you are familiar with Penrose then? My experience with Penrose is limited to Shadows of the Mind. Of course there is a need for further research. What I have described doesn't explain what the substance of consciousness is or how the brain actually generates it nor would I attempt such a thing.

But, I'll be damned if I'll now turn around and let somedbody else tell me it was all a chemical reaction of grey matter and they are sure and that settles it.

I don't know what you're talking about there. I certainly didn't say or imply that.

What I attempted to describe is a bit complex for a paragraph and for something that we seem to be designed to ignore. That is to say the fact that all you experience is your own mind portraying the world around you and yourself is something you are supposed to ignore by design in navigating and interacting with the real world. Your mind is an "interface" with the real world displaying (or perhaps more accurately "portraying") a unique version of the real world. Coming to an actual realization of this can be a bit ... unnerving and elating at the same time. You can prove to yourself that this is the case though some simple experiments and some contemplation. The "blind spot" exercise should prove to a person that what he "sees" isn't what is actually there but rather what the brain/mind system constructs. There are others of course but that is the most basic. When you realize you don't "see" the real world you should soon realize you don't "hear", "smell", or "feel" the real world or your body in that real world either. What you are experiencing is a brain/mind construct of the real world and yourself on the other side of your senses. Another way of realizing this I guess would be to spend time with someone with dementia or Alzheimers. You soon realize that they see, feel, and experience an entirely different world than you do because their brains are malfunctioning while attempting to construct a model of what is happening in the environment around them.

Not buying that old time religion or sceintism either.

I have no idea what "sceintism" could possibly be. When you make up words you should provide their definitions if your intent is to communicate something.

I actually found my way out of religion through prayer and honest searching.

Honesty with self is definitely the key to escaping from these things. I abandoned my religious faith because I could no longer honestly justify it.

Either you had a simple chemical based reality which allowed for only what could be experienced in the "arrow" of time or you had to be woo woo.

Well that is just plain wrong for a bunch of reasons. For one thing "time" is another construct of the mind like the color "red" is.

While you may think I am being "dogmatic" I do not intend to be so. I will gladly revise my understanding given the evidence that justifies doing so. Everything I've said can be proven scientifically and individually. The gist of which is simply this. You think you know the "real world" but you don't, therefore paranormal events my actually be intrusions from that "real world" into your Mind/Consciousness/simulation that cannot be directly perceived. Or in other words a white crow may fly through occasionally from the outside.

Peace

 

[tyder001]

I went back and read the first statement. My bad cause I thought you were saying something I don't think you werer saying. Now as for me making up words I assure you I didn't make any up.

Philosophy Dictionary: scientism
Top Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Philosophy DictionaryPejorative term for the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other enquiry. The classic statement of scientism is the physicist E. Rutherford's saying ‘there is physics and there is stamp-collecting’. Philosophers wary of scientism believe that it distorts or denies the special methods of psychology and interpretation (see Verstehen), or tries to impose a crass reductionism where it is neither plausible nor necessary.
Sponsored LinksPhilosophy Cosmetics
Shop Philosophy Beauty Products at Sephora. Free Shipping over $50!
www.Sephora.com

Philosophy Forum




I do agree that we percieve little of what is really going on. I to came out of a strict religious background and I to abaondoned much of the dogma and the non sense that I could no longer honestly support. That being said I still pray and honsestly beleive we are more than the sum of our parts. But, I have no problem with people who have a different view. I do think "some" are guilty of listeining to the scientist of the moment be it Sagan or a scientist wanna be like Randi or a historian like Schermer. Still, we all "heap teachers to our own ears" and I'm guilty of liking Penrose and Sheldrake and dismissing Sagan and company. Still, I try to be honest with my own inner life and those "white crows" give me hope that I'm on or at least that their is a path out of the turmoil of religous dogma and the bleakness of reductionism. I also still find strength in some of the religous disciplines such as prayer or meditiation or communion. But that is me and I don't think I have the "Keys" for everyone to enter the "kindom." Did not mean to disrepect Doctor Kaku cause I have immense respect for him and his work. But, science is indeed a collection of methods and observations and not a dogmatic position to take. I don't think he makes that mistake so it's not him I'm talking about. I to wish you peace on your journey.

 

[trainedobserver]

Now as for me making up words I assure you I didn't make any up.

Ok, "scientism" is a real word. I will drink some more of this bad coffee as punishment. On that subject ...science has been proven to be the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge to date. Things like "revealed knowledge" (which encompasses all religious or spiritual revelation), dreams, intuition, guessing, and superstition all fail horribly, repeatedly, and well ...quite reliably.

I went back and read the first statement. My bad cause I thought you were saying something I don't think you werer saying.

What? Are you saying your brain constructed a model of reality that wasn't entirely representational? Get outta here!

But, science is indeed a collection of methods and observations and not a dogmatic position to take.

That's not what you said before. Science is the discipline of acquiring knowledge through the scientific method. Other methods (revealed knowledge, intuition, guessing, superstition, etc.) do not apply and what you do with that knowledge is outside of the purview of science. Some may use it to make the environment better while others may use it blow things up, kill people, or worse. For worse think karaoke (one of the bowl plagues from the book of Revelation b.t.w.).

True enough, religion and 'spirituality' contain some useful things but all of those useful things (as well as the things that are not) are all of human origin and have little or no relevance to anything but human beings themselves.

Peace