Learn with Steaphen

mentoring with Steaphen

July 2012

Points about points

Submitted by The Belief Doctor on

I was recently contacted regarding my work -- primarily concerning materials on the Belief Institute website.

The person (supportive of my work) sent me a list of 'points' by another critic who argues good articles, or beliefs should comply to various conditions:

Here's my reply to those 'points'.

  1. should not contain tautologies;

    English is a rich language, and while tautologies are a useful concept, the fact that one can frame an idea or concept (there's one now) differently using different words/approaches, reveals greater nuance to the concept or idea. Pun intended. So I wouldn't get too concerned about grammatical correctness.

  2. should not contain notion-metaphor transmutations (e.g., "power" it is a concept in Physics, but being used in Psychology, say, as "power of imagination", it becomes a metaphor);

    Well, this is a poor point. We don't know what causes 'power' in physics.

    We know now with around 30 years of research data from Princeton's PEAR that our minds have the power (physical) to move objects.

    The enormous databases produced by PEAR provide clear evidence that human thought and emotion can produce measureable influences on physical reality. The researchers have also developed several theoretical models that attempt to accommodate the empirical results, which cannot be explained by any currently recognized scientific model.
    So psychological power is related to physical power. To say otherwise would require certain (incorrect) assumptions to be correct. Which they aren't. E.g. the power to collapse the wave-function.


    Better that you don't get me started on this one ...

    :){C}

Category: 

Accidental reflections

Submitted by The Belief Doctor on

Chatting with a friend about a mutual accquaintenance ("dangerous-tree man"), and how it must be a living hell to not feel the benefits and ease of knowing that we are safe.

Of how we can't not be 'plugged in', and how we can't not be getting the signals of impending events.

My friend then inquired why I accidently cut through the power cord of a circular saw that I was using to cut some timber.

Wasn't I plugged in? Why then the accident?

Category: 

Most superstitious era in history?

Submitted by The Belief Doctor on

In view of my awkward question concerning the deeper nature of physical movement, in various forums I've received what appears to be unanimous negative responses. Some quite vitriolic and abusive.

It seems then that there is an argument to be made that we're living through one of, or perhaps THE most superstitious era in history.

Many scientists often lambast the church for what they did to Galileo, and prior to him Giordana Bruno. Many argue the demonstrated 'closed-mindedness' of the church held back scientific advancement to a considerable degree.

Category: 

Unfettered scientific inquiry? Hardly.

Submitted by The Belief Doctor on

I recently posted a genuine question on a scientific forum website and was told to ... well, piss off, basically. I believe it has validity, and would help scientists resolve the issue of the "missing dark matter" that is one of the key problems in cosmology, and astrophysics.

I suspect the account suspension was motivated by the fear the question invokes, in a similar but lesser degree to the highly-superstitious and incoherent responses to this question.

Throughout the ages, asking questions has been shown to be the root tool by which human culture has advanced. Unfortunately, the shutting down of the ability to ask questions by a culture usually heralds that culture's demise.

Back to that scientific forum ... here's the rather interesting reply I got, and the question hat caused my account to be suspended:

Hello,
Your ____________ account has been suspended due to incorrect use. You posted the following question in Astronomy and Astrophysics:

"It seems I asked the following question on the wrong forum (particle physics). It was deleted. Perhaps before being deleted here, someone might suggest an appropriate forum?

According to David Deutsch of Oxford, "single-particle interference phenomena unequivocally rule out the possibility that the tangible universe around is all that exists."

According to some interpretations, the double-slit results occur due to the influence of what Deutsch calls "shadow particles". (Paraphrasing Deutsch, superpositions have to be 'made' of something that is, in some sense, tangibly real, or sufficiently real to cause real interference effects in said experiments).

Why doesn't that interpretation 'scale up' and account for "Dark Matter" (ie. shadow galaxies etc.), which in turn would account for how the distribution of galaxies would be, and has been found to be fractal ("studies we have done show that the distribution of matter is fractal, just like a tree or a cloud." [Francesco Sylos Labini]).

If it's a 'dumb question' perhaps someone would be so courteous to explain why, rather than simply delete it, as was done elsewhere."

ps

Category: 

Recent content