Would I be too forward if I asked you to describe you credentials and how you demonstrated your competence?
I mean, how does one even go about demonstrating competence in such a situation, short of presenting a peer reviewed publication?
I mentioned that I had a short conversation on the phone. The person at the other end was a super star in brain science and could tell what I knew and did not know from my ability to hold a good conversation. I learned this way of talking from a lifetime of experiences in the tech world.
Another factor that I forgot to mention is that Universities are often trying to include the local community in a lot of it's activities. It looks good at times when applying for grants if the University can demonstrate local community participation. This was another reason I was invited to join. In the next 7 years I had lots of opportunities to demonstrate that I understood what was going on and could contribute at times.
Well basic research scientists DO allow un-credentialed participants if they can demonstrate competence, which I did. This is especially true for frontier science where breakthroughs are rare and eagerly sought. They really are looking out of the box thinking, and un-credentialed interested parties can be of great assistance here.
I am not inclined at all to tell all the details of all my stories. I only brought up my UCSD experiences to back up my claim that neuroscience these days sees human consciousness as a bit of a confabulation.
I’m not buying it. The two foundations you listed show activity in Neuroscience and 100% of what is going on is disorder related.
I think you are not inclined to tell your stories because it is hard to keep straight the truth from the stated exaggeration you post here.
I will give you one thing.
In 20 years of studying VP table scraps you seem to have picked up the ability to spin up a story from your fodder in da verd.
I mentioned that I had a short conversation on the phone. The person at the other end was a super star in brain science and could tell what I knew and did not know from my ability to hold a good conversation. I learned this way of talking from a lifetime of experiences in the tech world.
Another factor that I forgot to mention is that Universities are often trying to include the local community in a lot of it's activities. It looks good at times when applying for grants if the University can demonstrate local community participation. This was another reason I was invited to join. In the next 7 years I had lots of opportunities to demonstrate that I understood what was going on and could contribute at times.
Hmmm. So unlike the conversations you are involved in here, true brain scientist superstars can see from a brief conversation that you have an intellect they really want to engage with? And include in on their informal research groups for a 7 year period of time?
It must be that all of us just don’t quite have a high enough IQ to understand you.
Except I have asked you repeatedly for any example of what you contributed and you have ducked those questions.
Here is how it works, issue by issue. I am not talking about a universally closed mind.
We need to have an open mind while we are searching for the truth on an issue.
HOWEVER, once we find the truth on that issue, we need to close our mind and stop the searching, so we can use the truth we found. An open mind can let in error. This is tolerated in the search phase, but not necessary to tolerate once the truth (on that issue) is found.
Most scholars do not believe the truth can be found, so they always want an open mind, and can see no use for a closed one, one closed and containing the truth.
So for you, an open and closed mind works like a faucet with an on / off switch?
Wow that is real black and white. How is that working for you in a gray world?
I tend to view my open mind more like a crucible. I put an idea in there and turn up the heat.
Here is how it works, issue by issue. I am not talking about a universally closed mind.
We need to have an open mind while we are searching for the truth on an issue.
HOWEVER, once we find the truth on that issue, we need to close our mind and stop the searching, so we can use the truth we found. An open mind can let in error. This is tolerated in the search phase, but not necessary to tolerate once the truth (on that issue) is found.
Most scholars do not believe the truth can be found, so they always want an open mind, and can see no use for a closed one, one closed and containing the truth.
The first flaw in your theory: how would you know you have the truth?
And spare me the you have the Word bull. Catholics have the Word and they claim the have the truth. So do Presbyterians. So do Baptists. So does any one of 2500 Christian religions, all claiming they--and only they--have the one true truth. So how do you know when you have the truth?
I mentioned that I had a short conversation on the phone. The person at the other end was a super star in brain science and could tell what I knew and did not know from my ability to hold a good conversation. I learned this way of talking from a lifetime of experiences in the tech world.
Another factor that I forgot to mention is that Universities are often trying to include the local community in a lot of it's activities. It looks good at times when applying for grants if the University can demonstrate local community participation. This was another reason I was invited to join. In the next 7 years I had lots of opportunities to demonstrate that I understood what was going on and could contribute at times.
So, it's your contention that after a short conversation on the phone this superstar brain scientist decided you were worthy to join there group.
Did you converse with him the way you converse with us? Did you try to teach him anything? Did you withhold information that would have contributing to your postulate making sense (you remember you were asked if the original was written in Aramaic, your answer, no, failing to mention there are Aramaic manuscripts)?
If you didn't why are you communicating differently with us then you did with them?
Here is how it works, issue by issue. I am not talking about a universally closed mind.
We need to have an open mind while we are searching for the truth on an issue.
HOWEVER, once we find the truth on that issue, we need to close our mind and stop the searching, so we can use the truth we found. An open mind can let in error. This is tolerated in the search phase, but not necessary to tolerate once the truth (on that issue) is found.
Most scholars do not believe the truth can be found, so they always want an open mind, and can see no use for a closed one, one closed and containing the truth.
Being open minded just means willing to consider new ideas. It does NOT mean you will automatically accept them or even be easily swayed by them.
Perhaps the more confident one is in their own analytic skills they’re more likely to discover more options and have the ability to improve on their own belief system as they self-correct areas that they re-examined.
In my opinion PFAL tended to erode one’s self confidence in their own thinking skills for fear of the boogie man - it feels safer to be tucked in under wierwille’s security blanket of the PFAL-mindset. It’s all figured out for you. No guesswork. Accepting PFAL as the truth-or-error detector takes all the worry out of thinking.
Over time the TWI-mindset tends to eat away at one’s self-confidence.
Most scholars do not believe the truth can be found, so they always want an open mind, and can see no use for a closed one, one closed and containing the truth.
I wanted to devote an entire post to that.
I believe we all have an innate desire to make sense of the world. Realistically speaking no one has all the answers – and so we occasionally find ourselves making allowances for shortcomings, failures, the mysterious, etc.
Our beliefs help us make sense of the world. From what I’ve read online, some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self, and others. And our beliefs - along with experience, observations, and reason even attempt to predict the future: “If I play at the beach all day, I’ll probably get sunburned.”
Bertrand Russell once said, “believing is the most mental thing we do”. It has also been said that our thoughts, feelings, actions, and reactions, respond not to the world as it actually is (for we never know reality directly) but to the world as we believe it to be. Our beliefs tell us who we think we are, mark our place in the world and are essentially an ongoing personal narrative that anchors us to various places, situations, and events across our lifetime…Our brains have no direct contact with the outside world.
Our only information about what is going on outside of our bodies comes to us from our five senses.
Perception in psychology is defined as the analysis of sensory information within the brain.
Through perception we obtain a description of our surroundings and what they mean.
Because of that, we can’t always assume that our perceptions are reality – if anything they just might be our own interpretation of reality.
That’s why it’s important to respect the perceptions of others – they might be more accurate than ours.
It takes real courage to admit we’re wrong and let go of certain perceptions. Sometimes it’s advantageous to seek out validation from experts or at least from other credible people who are outside of our circle of friends or religious group.
In trying to make sense of it all, I often had to ask myself the question “Am I open to modifying my perception if the evidence is strong and logic demands it?”
Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong.
We tend to base our beliefs on trusted sources…I started this thread for a number of reasons, one of which was to show why PFAL CANNOTand SHOULD NOTbe trusted.
~ ~ ~ ~
My narrative on Grease Spot Café of how and whyI left TWI is almost like an amateur trying to write a detective novel. I was a victimized through crimes against logic, faith, and self-confidence – and like an amateur sleuth I am making note of suspicious items, revisiting "crime scenes", and talking to other witnesses intent on unraveling the convoluted mess of a cult’s doctrine, practice and control tactics...if you're guessing the butler did it - you might be right - the butler's name was wierwille. "Kool-Aid is now being served in the break room"... ...sorry for another long post - it might be helpful to learn to speed-read like Johnny 5
Jean Shinoda Bolen's insightful book The Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Selfmade reference to Agatha Christie's novels about her detective characters often using an intuitive approach asking what is the meaning of this event, what were the circumstances surrounding it, and what are the possibilities implicit within the event ? But in order to see the whole picture Bolen says intuition's counterpart is also necessary - which is a straight forward logical approach of the situation - what details of the circumstances do the five senses take in?
~ ~ ~ ~
Overall. we need a way to distinguish our internal thoughts, feelings and ideas from external events - we need to see a situation for what it really is, rather than what we hope - or fear - it might be – so we can distinguish between what is real and what isn’t.
This is a very important aspect of dealing with the fantastic claims and hype of PFAL. This also gets into what’s probably one of the most basic issues of Christianity – how to relate faith to reason.
~ ~ ~ ~
Faith deals with revelation – some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the powers of our 5 senses or reason….Reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover a truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane or launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – there are ways to work around it. Science is practical – if it works, it’s true.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s calledthe correspondence theory of truth- - “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.”FromWikipedia: correspondence theory of truth
Briefly relating this to another topic - what does inspirationof the Bible mean? I lean toward the Bible being a co-authored book – it has divine and human “elements” in it.
In the Bible we are presented with metaphysical truths – like God is transcendent, He is the Creator, faith, hope, love, etc., in the narrative of the human condition enveloped in the worldviews and cultures of those times. If one chooses to view the Bible as a textbook in a branch of study or like a perfect user manual – inerrant – even when it addresses matters of science – the correspondence theory of truth will clash with that.
I don’t think of the Bible as the end of the journey. It’s a useful companion on the journey. And it shouldn’t be our only companion on the journey. InJohn 16:13Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit will guide us into all the truth – I’ll leave you will an excerpt from one commentary on John 16:13:
“He will guide you into all truth.—Better, . . . into all the truth. The words do not mean that the Holy Spirit will fully guide them into truth, but that He will be their guide into the fulness of truth. The word rendered “guide,” occurs again in Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39; Revelation 7:17; and metaphorically, as here, in Acts 8:31. A comparison of these passages will show that its meaning is “to point out the way,” “to lead one on his way.” The fulness of truth is for the disciples an unknown territory. They are spiritually as blind men, feeling after the truth, but not able to see it. The Spirit of Truth will take them by the hand, and, step by step, as they have strength to follow, will guide them into the territory, and unfold to them the treasures it contains. The promise has a special meaning for the disciples to whom it was spoken; but it holds good for every disciple who seeks to know the truth. We may pray,—without doubt that the prayer is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and without doubt that it will be answered”
I simply saw an inte3resting article in Scientific American and that the author lived in San Diego, whom I telephoned and was lucky to have a pick-up. I said I was interested in the article and the topic for many years, and we batted it around a bit. Next thing I hear is "We're starting a new club to brainstorm on research techniques. Please feel free to attend." From that I became a charter member of the EPL group. That stood for Experimental Philosophical Laboratory. We met in the Philosophy Department, and later moved it to the Cog Sci Dept.
God opened massive doors and I got to hang out with the world's most top flight brain scientists, with occasional medical people chiming in.
When I say that modern neuroscience has come around to agree with the Bible that the mind of man is not all it is cracked up to be, I know what I am talking about.
Here is how it works, issue by issue. I am not talking about a universally closed mind.
We need to have an open mind while we are searching for the truth on an issue.
HOWEVER, once we find the truth on that issue, we need to close our mind and stop the searching, so we can use the truth we found. An open mind can let in error. This is tolerated in the search phase, but not necessary to tolerate once the truth (on that issue) is found.
Most scholars do not believe the truth can be found, so they always want an open mind, and can see no use for a closed one, one closed and containing the truth.
A) Most scholars are actively looking for the truth. That's why researchers research and experimenters experiment- they're looking for some form of the truth.
B) This black/white thinking you laud is incredibly harmful, and is obvious in moments like this.
If one has "found the truth on an issue", one must maintain the POSSIBILITY that one is wrong, and that a greater truth is out there. Otherwise, when greater truth arrives, one will actively SUPPRESS it and be HOSTILE to it. I've changed my mind when greater information overrode what I previously believed- and wanted to believe.
When they discovered the atom, they believed it was insplittable, and named it so- "atom", uncuttable. Then someone figured out how to split the atom.
Were they taken out and beaten to death with a rock?
No- tentatively, scientists looked to see if he was right. When he demonstrated he was correct, they changed their thinking.
Scientists used to be Lamarckians. They used to think that DNA or whatever was simple, and easy to change. They believed the agent of change was activity. When a proto-giraffe stretched its neck to reach leaves, its offspring would have a slightly longer neck. When a bird needed a sharper beak or a harder beak, his offspring would inherit it. And so on. (Charles Darwin was a Lamarckian.) Since then, they've discarded Lamarckianism because DNA is FAR more complicated, and does not work like that.
So, for the rest of us, it's possible to change our minds- even if it will take a lot. This keeps us from missing something greater, more fundamental. You're proud nothing can change your mind. I wouldn't brag about that.
I mentioned that I had a short conversation on the phone. The person at the other end was a super star in brain science and could tell what I knew and did not know from my ability to hold a good conversation. I learned this way of talking from a lifetime of experiences in the tech world.[/quote]
["These men were the tops in their fields..." This sounds familiar.
"I learned this way of talking from..." Ok, this makes sense to me. You used the same lingo, so he concluded you weren't a crank.]
Another factor that I forgot to mention is that Universities are often trying to include the local community in a lot of it's activities. It looks good at times when applying for grants if the University can demonstrate local community participation. This was another reason I was invited to join. In the next 7 years I had lots of opportunities to demonstrate that I understood what was going on and could contribute at times.
[NOW I think we hit upon why you were invited. You were in the community, you were interested, and you were not an academic in that field. So, having you in the room looked good when they asked for grants. Just don't cause trouble in the room, and there you go. Exactly how much you understood was debatable, but that wasn't the point for them. Naturally, from your POV, you're confident you got it all.]
[NOW I think we hit upon why you were invited. You were in the community, you were interested, and you were not an academic in that field. So, having you in the room looked good when they asked for grants. Just don't cause trouble in the room, and there you go. Exactly how much you understood was debatable, but that wasn't the point for them. Naturally, from your POV, you're confident you got it all.]
Im thinking this is the case. Even on the lab link I posted the following invitation is sitting there like a diamond on a velvet pillow...lolshonta
Ever go to the beach out there in California? Ever play in the ocean? Ever scoop and hold the water with your hands? What is in your hands? Is the ocean in your hands?
No. That looks too formal. What I joined was very informal. I never signed anything.
One of the reasons for it was for graduate students to have a chance presenting their work, and to cross pollinate ideas around the different departments. It was very informal. There were two years when the meetings became an accredited class for a semester for those grad students who registered for it, but that is as formal as it got.
The whole ides was for ideas to flow unfettered by formal structures of any sort. My being allowed to attend was part of that informality.
The very first time I posted here included some of the material that I contributed. It was on compulsive lying.
We often studied cases involving brain damage. In a wide variety of different injuries to the brain, a common symptom can emerge: confabulation. That is a nice medical term for profuse lying, ridiculous lying.
That confabulation would show up from all different sorts of different injuries was odd. I remember the group leader often wondering out loud "So, what about confabulation in normals?" That sounded Biblical to me so I did a study on lying for the group around 1996, and in 2002 I posted a bunch of the results here. The name of the thread was "Innies and Outies - All Men Are Liars."
I don't know if that thread still exists. I can dredge it up from my archives if it was deleted in the band-width wars.
It must be that all of us just don’t quite have a high enough IQ to understand you.
Actually there is something to that. I have seen how previously smart men of God turned to be quite stupid when they no longer had an assist from holy spirit. I also see that IQ can be distracted by hate, and that happens a lot here.
But I have no need to convince skeptics of my past informal educations. I have the ideas to swing here, and need not have any pat on the back from people. None of you were able to believe me before I mentioned UCSD, and none can believe me now: no big deal to me.
So for you, an open and closed mind works like a faucet with an on / off switch?
Wow that is real black and white. How is that working for you in a gray world?
I tend to view my open mind more like a crucible. I put an idea in there and turn up the heat.
I think we ALL have the ability to turn on and off our critical thinking skills. Every time we watch a science fiction or comedy movie we turn off our critical thinking skills, and then turn them back on during the commercial, or after the movie is over.
The first flaw in your theory: how would you know you have the truth?
And spare me the you have the Word bull. Catholics have the Word and they claim the have the truth. So do Presbyterians. So do Baptists. So does any one of 2500 Christian religions, all claiming they--and only they--have the one true truth. So how do you know when you have the truth?
You sound like academia here. Sorry, you don't get spared. If God can't verify to you when you got the truth then maybe you got the wrong god. If you got the god of academia, you are NOT ALLOWED to have truth or to know if if it lands in your lap.
How many of the 24 pages (so far) of this thread have revolved around Mike?
Has he REALLY not taken over/dominated/changed the topic of discussion on the thread?
Not really. My posts here are mostly responding to others. My few posts generate LOTS of interest. I see how dead it is in here during the months I am not posting.
Rocky, why do you think you not heard here on this. If you were correct, and all I do is post blather, they why do others want to talk about my blather so much? Why do you run away from it and scream "Turn Mike OFF" to the others? What is bothering you? Why can't you tolerate other opinions to be near to you. Does what I post threaten your viability?
Actually there is something to that. I have seen how previously smart men of God turned to be quite stupid when they no longer had an assist from holy spirit. I also see that IQ can be distracted by hate, and that happens a lot here.
But I have no need to convince skeptics of my past informal educations. I have the ideas to swing here, and need not have any pat on the back from people. None of you were able to believe me before I mentioned UCSD, and none can believe me now: no big deal to me.
Your narcissistQ seems to be very high, I’m sure though that doesn’t affect IQ
I have seen previously smart men rendered quite stupid when continuing discourse with fools. That’s probably happening here according to proverbs.
Rocky is correct we bear responsibility for feeding the trolls.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
Mike
I mentioned that I had a short conversation on the phone. The person at the other end was a super star in brain science and could tell what I knew and did not know from my ability to hold a good conversation. I learned this way of talking from a lifetime of experiences in the tech world.
Another factor that I forgot to mention is that Universities are often trying to include the local community in a lot of it's activities. It looks good at times when applying for grants if the University can demonstrate local community participation. This was another reason I was invited to join. In the next 7 years I had lots of opportunities to demonstrate that I understood what was going on and could contribute at times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I’m not buying it. The two foundations you listed show activity in Neuroscience and 100% of what is going on is disorder related.
I think you are not inclined to tell your stories because it is hard to keep straight the truth from the stated exaggeration you post here.
I will give you one thing.
In 20 years of studying VP table scraps you seem to have picked up the ability to spin up a story from your fodder in da verd.
Trollshonta!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hmmm. So unlike the conversations you are involved in here, true brain scientist superstars can see from a brief conversation that you have an intellect they really want to engage with? And include in on their informal research groups for a 7 year period of time?
It must be that all of us just don’t quite have a high enough IQ to understand you.
Except I have asked you repeatedly for any example of what you contributed and you have ducked those questions.
Surely you have more than that trollshonta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So for you, an open and closed mind works like a faucet with an on / off switch?
Wow that is real black and white. How is that working for you in a gray world?
I tend to view my open mind more like a crucible. I put an idea in there and turn up the heat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What were some of your contributions to the discussion group and how were they received?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The first flaw in your theory: how would you know you have the truth?
And spare me the you have the Word bull. Catholics have the Word and they claim the have the truth. So do Presbyterians. So do Baptists. So does any one of 2500 Christian religions, all claiming they--and only they--have the one true truth. So how do you know when you have the truth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You simply write to :
The Teacher
P.O. Box 328
New Knockwurst, Ahia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, it's your contention that after a short conversation on the phone this superstar brain scientist decided you were worthy to join there group.
Did you converse with him the way you converse with us? Did you try to teach him anything? Did you withhold information that would have contributing to your postulate making sense (you remember you were asked if the original was written in Aramaic, your answer, no, failing to mention there are Aramaic manuscripts)?
If you didn't why are you communicating differently with us then you did with them?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Being open minded just means willing to consider new ideas. It does NOT mean you will automatically accept them or even be easily swayed by them.
Perhaps the more confident one is in their own analytic skills they’re more likely to discover more options and have the ability to improve on their own belief system as they self-correct areas that they re-examined.
In my opinion PFAL tended to erode one’s self confidence in their own thinking skills for fear of the boogie man - it feels safer to be tucked in under wierwille’s security blanket of the PFAL-mindset. It’s all figured out for you. No guesswork. Accepting PFAL as the truth-or-error detector takes all the worry out of thinking.
Over time the TWI-mindset tends to eat away at one’s self-confidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I wanted to devote an entire post to that.
I believe we all have an innate desire to make sense of the world. Realistically speaking no one has all the answers – and so we occasionally find ourselves making allowances for shortcomings, failures, the mysterious, etc.
Our beliefs help us make sense of the world. From what I’ve read online, some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self, and others. And our beliefs - along with experience, observations, and reason even attempt to predict the future: “If I play at the beach all day, I’ll probably get sunburned.”
Bertrand Russell once said, “believing is the most mental thing we do”. It has also been said that our thoughts, feelings, actions, and reactions, respond not to the world as it actually is (for we never know reality directly) but to the world as we believe it to be. Our beliefs tell us who we think we are, mark our place in the world and are essentially an ongoing personal narrative that anchors us to various places, situations, and events across our lifetime…Our brains have no direct contact with the outside world.
Our only information about what is going on outside of our bodies comes to us from our five senses.
Perception in psychology is defined as the analysis of sensory information within the brain.
Through perception we obtain a description of our surroundings and what they mean.
Because of that, we can’t always assume that our perceptions are reality – if anything they just might be our own interpretation of reality.
That’s why it’s important to respect the perceptions of others – they might be more accurate than ours.
It takes real courage to admit we’re wrong and let go of certain perceptions. Sometimes it’s advantageous to seek out validation from experts or at least from other credible people who are outside of our circle of friends or religious group.
In trying to make sense of it all, I often had to ask myself the question “Am I open to modifying my perception if the evidence is strong and logic demands it?”
Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong.
We tend to base our beliefs on trusted sources…I started this thread for a number of reasons, one of which was to show why PFAL CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be trusted.
~ ~ ~ ~
My narrative on Grease Spot Café of how and why I left TWI is almost like an amateur trying to write a detective novel. I was a victimized through crimes against logic, faith, and self-confidence – and like an amateur sleuth I am making note of suspicious items, revisiting "crime scenes", and talking to other witnesses intent on unraveling the convoluted mess of a cult’s doctrine, practice and control tactics...if you're guessing the butler did it - you might be right - the butler's name was wierwille. "Kool-Aid is now being served in the break room"...
...sorry for another long post - it might be helpful to learn to speed-read like Johnny 5
Jean Shinoda Bolen's insightful book The Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Self made reference to Agatha Christie's novels about her detective characters often using an intuitive approach asking what is the meaning of this event, what were the circumstances surrounding it, and what are the possibilities implicit within the event ? But in order to see the whole picture Bolen says intuition's counterpart is also necessary - which is a straight forward logical approach of the situation - what details of the circumstances do the five senses take in?
~ ~ ~ ~
Overall. we need a way to distinguish our internal thoughts, feelings and ideas from external events - we need to see a situation for what it really is, rather than what we hope - or fear - it might be – so we can distinguish between what is real and what isn’t.
This is a very important aspect of dealing with the fantastic claims and hype of PFAL. This also gets into what’s probably one of the most basic issues of Christianity – how to relate faith to reason.
~ ~ ~ ~
Faith deals with revelation – some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the powers of our 5 senses or reason….Reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover a truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane or launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – there are ways to work around it. Science is practical – if it works, it’s true.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth - - “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” From Wikipedia: correspondence theory of truth
Briefly relating this to another topic - what does inspiration of the Bible mean? I lean toward the Bible being a co-authored book – it has divine and human “elements” in it.
In the Bible we are presented with metaphysical truths – like God is transcendent, He is the Creator, faith, hope, love, etc., in the narrative of the human condition enveloped in the worldviews and cultures of those times. If one chooses to view the Bible as a textbook in a branch of study or like a perfect user manual – inerrant – even when it addresses matters of science – the correspondence theory of truth will clash with that.
I don’t think of the Bible as the end of the journey. It’s a useful companion on the journey. And it shouldn’t be our only companion on the journey. In John 16:13 Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit will guide us into all the truth – I’ll leave you will an excerpt from one commentary on John 16:13:
“He will guide you into all truth.—Better, . . . into all the truth. The words do not mean that the Holy Spirit will fully guide them into truth, but that He will be their guide into the fulness of truth. The word rendered “guide,” occurs again in Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39; Revelation 7:17; and metaphorically, as here, in Acts 8:31. A comparison of these passages will show that its meaning is “to point out the way,” “to lead one on his way.” The fulness of truth is for the disciples an unknown territory. They are spiritually as blind men, feeling after the truth, but not able to see it. The Spirit of Truth will take them by the hand, and, step by step, as they have strength to follow, will guide them into the territory, and unfold to them the treasures it contains. The promise has a special meaning for the disciples to whom it was spoken; but it holds good for every disciple who seeks to know the truth. We may pray,—without doubt that the prayer is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and without doubt that it will be answered”
from : Bible Hub: commentaries on John 16:13
End of excerpt
Edited by T-Boneyour correspondent on Grease Spot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
This the sort of thing you were involved in?
http://sayginlab.ucsd.edu/joining-the-lab/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I can buy that you knew the lingo and that you spoke on the telephone for 10 minutes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) Most scholars are actively looking for the truth. That's why researchers research and experimenters experiment- they're looking for some form of the truth.
B) This black/white thinking you laud is incredibly harmful, and is obvious in moments like this.
If one has "found the truth on an issue", one must maintain the POSSIBILITY that one is wrong, and that a greater truth is out there. Otherwise, when greater truth arrives, one will actively SUPPRESS it and be HOSTILE to it. I've changed my mind when greater information overrode what I previously believed- and wanted to believe.
When they discovered the atom, they believed it was insplittable, and named it so- "atom", uncuttable. Then someone figured out how to split the atom.
Were they taken out and beaten to death with a rock?
No- tentatively, scientists looked to see if he was right. When he demonstrated he was correct, they changed their thinking.
Scientists used to be Lamarckians. They used to think that DNA or whatever was simple, and easy to change. They believed the agent of change was activity. When a proto-giraffe stretched its neck to reach leaves, its offspring would have a slightly longer neck. When a bird needed a sharper beak or a harder beak, his offspring would inherit it. And so on. (Charles Darwin was a Lamarckian.) Since then, they've discarded Lamarckianism because DNA is FAR more complicated, and does not work like that.
So, for the rest of us, it's possible to change our minds- even if it will take a lot. This keeps us from missing something greater, more fundamental. You're proud nothing can change your mind. I wouldn't brag about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im thinking this is the case. Even on the lab link I posted the following invitation is sitting there like a diamond on a velvet pillow...lolshonta
http://sayginlab.ucsd.edu/joining-the-lab/
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Ever go to the beach out there in California? Ever play in the ocean? Ever scoop and hold the water with your hands? What is in your hands? Is the ocean in your hands?
Now, is Truth something to be possessed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How many of the 24 pages (so far) of this thread have revolved around Mike?
Has he REALLY not taken over/dominated/changed the topic of discussion on the thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. That looks too formal. What I joined was very informal. I never signed anything.
One of the reasons for it was for graduate students to have a chance presenting their work, and to cross pollinate ideas around the different departments. It was very informal. There were two years when the meetings became an accredited class for a semester for those grad students who registered for it, but that is as formal as it got.
The whole ides was for ideas to flow unfettered by formal structures of any sort. My being allowed to attend was part of that informality.
The very first time I posted here included some of the material that I contributed. It was on compulsive lying.
We often studied cases involving brain damage. In a wide variety of different injuries to the brain, a common symptom can emerge: confabulation. That is a nice medical term for profuse lying, ridiculous lying.
That confabulation would show up from all different sorts of different injuries was odd. I remember the group leader often wondering out loud "So, what about confabulation in normals?" That sounded Biblical to me so I did a study on lying for the group around 1996, and in 2002 I posted a bunch of the results here. The name of the thread was "Innies and Outies - All Men Are Liars."
Edited by MikeI don't know if that thread still exists. I can dredge it up from my archives if it was deleted in the band-width wars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually there is something to that. I have seen how previously smart men of God turned to be quite stupid when they no longer had an assist from holy spirit. I also see that IQ can be distracted by hate, and that happens a lot here.
But I have no need to convince skeptics of my past informal educations. I have the ideas to swing here, and need not have any pat on the back from people. None of you were able to believe me before I mentioned UCSD, and none can believe me now: no big deal to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think we ALL have the ability to turn on and off our critical thinking skills. Every time we watch a science fiction or comedy movie we turn off our critical thinking skills, and then turn them back on during the commercial, or after the movie is over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I mentioned in another response that I did some work on confabulation, and posted much of it here in 2002.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You sound like academia here. Sorry, you don't get spared. If God can't verify to you when you got the truth then maybe you got the wrong god. If you got the god of academia, you are NOT ALLOWED to have truth or to know if if it lands in your lap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not really. My posts here are mostly responding to others. My few posts generate LOTS of interest. I see how dead it is in here during the months I am not posting.
Rocky, why do you think you not heard here on this. If you were correct, and all I do is post blather, they why do others want to talk about my blather so much? Why do you run away from it and scream "Turn Mike OFF" to the others? What is bothering you? Why can't you tolerate other opinions to be near to you. Does what I post threaten your viability?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Your narcissistQ seems to be very high, I’m sure though that doesn’t affect IQ
I have seen previously smart men rendered quite stupid when continuing discourse with fools. That’s probably happening here according to proverbs.
Rocky is correct we bear responsibility for feeding the trolls.
what you have need of is attention
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.