How do we know what is true?

[airclean33]

Again, quoted because it needs to be read. There is no magic solution. Solar creates power when it is sunny. Windmills need wind. Look outside right now - look windy to you? Are there clouds in the sky? Is it, say, night time at least once per day where you live? All are enemies of these forms of power generation.

So, store the energy, right? Where? Batteries? Nickel mining is extremely harmful to the environment.

I mean, there just isn't a magic solution. Not yet. I agree with wind and solar and geothermal and all sorts of power generation techniques, but they all have their drawbacks


.

--Hi Chansen --I did expect you and others here would come out with a bit longer list . Of were Man can look for power.
Solar -- Which by the way the Americans have been using for years.
Wind-- " " " " " "
OIL--That we are kind of short of.
Gas-- That again we are short of
Nuke--Which can blow up. an rods that are hot for 2000 years.Ask Russia much ground do you Lose when one blows up?
-Heat pump--- . You see are ground always has heat . That "s whats in earths center
Tidal power---We have Oceans all over the earth.Tide comes in and goes out I believe 4 times a day.
Then one that GOD said wile I was writing this--Achieved Velocity--Perhaps one of you would like to tell me the meaning?By the way I know what GODS meaning was.He told me. And I know really nothing about where Mankind" should look for his power. But there are a few. airclean33

 

[Lastpointe]

I can't see a world without conflict. Ever. We are tribal beings. We covet what our neighbours have.

We feel injustice and want retribution

The "lets all just get along" idea is a fallacy

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Again, quoted because it needs to be read. There is no magic solution. Solar creates power when it is sunny. Windmills need wind. Look outside right now - look windy to you? Are there clouds in the sky? Is it, say, night time at least once per day where you live? All are enemies of these forms of power generation.

So, store the energy, right? Where? Batteries? Nickel mining is extremely harmful to the environment.

I mean, there just isn't a magic solution. Not yet. I agree with wind and solar and geothermal and all sorts of power generation techniques, but they all have their drawbacks.

I don't agree with Mendalla. Too dangerous. If the earthquake and tsunami in Japan was any indication...and if it wasn't it should've been a wake up call to the world. That reactor is still leaking into the ocean 3 years later. Land in the area is uninhabitable for many years.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I can't see a world without conflict. Ever. We are tribal beings. We covet what our neighbours have.

We feel injustice and want retribution

The "lets all just get along" idea is a fallacy

It's people who say that that, collectively, stop it from happening. Very unfortunate.

 

[chansen]

I don't agree with Mendalla. Too dangerous. If the earthquake and tsunami in Japan was any indication...and if it wasn't it should've been a wake up call to the world. That reactor is still leaking into the ocean 3 years later. Land in the area is uninhabitable for many years.

How much do you understand about nuclear power, waste byproducts, handling, design, etc? What do you know about Fukushima? Are you aware that there was another nuclear power plant closer to the epicentre that received larger waves, but was not damaged?

How do you know so much about so many things that you can make damning, blanket statements about them, while maintaining an appearance of ignorance about almost all of them?

All I wrote above, is that there are advantages and disadvantages for all forms of energy production. These have to be weighed against many factors, including population density, climate, geology, air pollution, byproducts, cost, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. I'm not trying to convince anyone to jump on board or abandon any of these forms of energy, partly, because I don't know enough. I've read about Fukushima. I've read about Chernobyl. I have a basic understanding of how these disasters happened, and I know we can't design out all possibilities. Terrorist attack, for example. I know more than the average person about all these forms of energy production, but I don't think I'm qualified to dismiss any of them. I'm interested in expert opinions. We have to weigh the pros and cons. You just list the worst cons, and sound the alarm.

What you're doing is irresponsible, and I know you're going to dismiss that argument immediately. It's becoming increasingly impossible to have a conversation with you where you don't sound like your anxiety level is going through the roof. Further, every time you're proven wrong, you just start attacking from another angle.

I'm seriously considering just putting you on ignore. No conversation with you goes anywhere. All it does is raise the post count on the forum.

 

[Delightful Life]

I can't see a world without conflict. Ever. We are tribal beings. We covet what our neighbours have.

We feel injustice and want retribution

The "lets all just get along" idea is a fallacy

Check out Howard Bloom's book The Lucifer Principle for a holistic, systems-level view of this :3

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

How much do you understand about nuclear power, waste byproducts, handling, design, etc? What do you know about Fukushima? Are you aware that there was another nuclear power plant closer to the epicentre that received larger waves, but was not damaged?

How do you know so much about so many things that you can make damning, blanket statements about them, while maintaining an appearance of ignorance about almost all of them?

All I wrote above, is that there are advantages and disadvantages for all forms of energy production. These have to be weighed against many factors, including population density, climate, geology, air pollution, byproducts, cost, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. I'm not trying to convince anyone to jump on board or abandon any of these forms of energy, partly, because I don't know enough. I've read about Fukushima. I've read about Chernobyl. I have a basic understanding of how these disasters happened, and I know we can't design out all possibilities. Terrorist attack, for example. I know more than the average person about all these forms of energy production, but I don't think I'm qualified to dismiss any of them. I'm interested in expert opinions. We have to weigh the pros and cons. You just list the worst cons, and sound the alarm.

What you're doing is irresponsible, and I know you're going to dismiss that argument immediately. It's becoming increasingly impossible to have a conversation with you where you don't sound like your anxiety level is going through the roof. Further, every time you're proven wrong, you just start attacking from another angle.

I'm seriously considering just putting you on ignore. No conversation with you goes anywhere. All it does is raise the post count on the forum.

It points out that human error possibility is too high. They could make it 'safer' but someone always f'ks up and the price to pay is too high. There are certain things, certain 'progression' humans have invented that have screwed ourselves when we would've done well just to live more modestly and die of natural causes - a decent lifespan with quality of life and caring for one another - instead of trying to cheat fate every chance we get. I am an idealist - I think in concepts, big picture stuff, not technical details. I don't imagine I'll change the world but I'll keep talking in case somebody listens. Ignore me if you want. I was thinking of doing the same yesterday but I figured that's rude because you're a decent person and I didn't want to offend you even if you do drive me up the wall at times.

 

[chansen]

You don't think about the "big picture", because you ignore anything that you don't agree with or doesn't fuel your alarmist attitude. That isn't "big picture" thinking, that's holding a narrow view of the world.

The way to get listened to, is to make sense. Almost nobody listens to unsafe because she is a religious nutcase. Her theological points are picked apart by ministers here with degrees in theology, but she keeps ranting on. A similar thing is happening to you lately, where your rants about science and technology are being picked apart by scientists and engineers, but you don't slow down or even acknowledge where you're wrong or what the limits of your knowledge are.

I'm happy to talk about technology, or discuss ways to make the world a safer place, or any of that. Not knowing is fine. If you want to ask questions, I'd be inclined to look them up with you. But ill-informed opinions and rants don't get you an audience - they get you ignored.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'm not very good at understanding technical details, math, physics, equations. I lack there. Severely.

With everything else the last psych voc assessment I had put me at Grade 18 level, or past Masters level...when I only have a college diploma that was related to social sciences and humanities, plus other general random 1st and second year courses in journalism, philosophy, psychology, English, sociology - because I didn't know what I was most interested in and had trouble focusing on one area, plus other challenges...if you would like to know how 'stupid' I am, I could fax you proof.

I am interested in long term, ethical thinking, not just what's best for right now and ten years from now... I don't know how to do anything about it, but maybe the technical minds and the philosophical and the artistic minds can work together?

I think - it's ridiculous knowing that we 'are tribal and we covet each others' possessions' - we need to try to change that underlying fact makes sense before delving full speed ahead into progress. Fix some of the mistakes that threaten us first - a different way of looking at 'progress'.

 

[chansen]

I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you don't know everything. Neither do I. Certainly not enough to pass the judgments on science and technology that you are. You're just ranting in random directions with the peace stuff. You have no plan to discuss beyond disarming. And because that won't happen, or at least isn't the first step on any ladder to peace, no one is taking you seriously. I tried to discuss a plan to reduce the global desire for joining militias and appetite for war, and you didn't even want to talk about it. That means you aren't really interested in "long term," either. You will only discuss immediate actions. Which will never happen. It's even more certain that they won't be first steps.

I really have to stop replying to you. You'll just rant over this reply as well, I'm sure. Better for both of us that I simply don't see your posts any more.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I agree with reducing the desire to join militias - eventually armies. One day when the hawks with dinasaur blood in their veins die off maybe that's possible. I am not disagreeing. But to talk general peace - to keep that at the forefront, from every angle makes sense - not just the technicalities.

 

[Delightful Life]

Susan Blackmore, after having an out-of-body experience, started a lifelong quest to find out the Truth. Which meant that she had to learn the language of reality & experience it. She became a scientist.

Her cutting edge ideas

 

[Delightful Life]

I really have to stop replying to you. You'll just rant over this reply as well, I'm sure. Better for both of us that I simply don't see your posts any more.

That's one way of handling your anxiety & feelings in regards to this -- it might be the easiest as well

WC should be fun and not be like pulling teeth -- real life is more important than this easily-apprehended electronic world

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

(chansen ignore what I am about to write because it'll drive you batty)

@InnanaWhimsey: I watched most of the first vid until the two guys were chatting on the sun deck - I will watch more with free wifi later. Cool woman! What I like about her is that because she's experienced an OBE she doesn't write people off or dismiss them as crazy or illogical.

My question is - why is scientific methodology the only means of coming up with proof of 'reality'? I ask this again...and nobody has answered or wrapped their head around what I mean or they just think it's a stupid question. We understand things in earthly dimensions that we are limited to - we cannot go inside and explore a black hole for example, and look around and process it using our present senses and faculties - not in our physical dimensions anyway - we would die. So our view of what is reality is limited and not everything can be tested using scientific methodology? Does my line of questioning make sense? But then, even with what has been tested (that I barely understand at all) like quantuum theory - is it possible that people had out of body experiences that travelled to parallel dimensions - somewhere else but otherwise everything looks the same? Or that those people DID travel to an exact copy of her house - or the same house at a different point in 'time' other than the time she existed in and was measuring? Thing is there is no known way to test that scientifically is there?) The scientist who envisioned the double helix structure on LSD - maybe he saw something in a different dimension. I am just making imaginative suggestions. I had a similar experience in my younger days...ahem.... where I was standing behind myself looking at myself and a couple of other experiences that were OBE like and they certainly 'seem' real - the memory of them is as real as any other, too. In a subjective sense they are 'real' experiences - and seeing as so many have had them they're a universal phenomenon.

 

[ChemGal]

@Kimmio what other method do you suggest?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

@Kimmio what other method do you suggest?

Does there have to be one other than collective personal experience? If so...I have no idea. Can science accept that scientific methodology, and understanding of it is limited to human faculties in our 3 dimensional world? Observational science, observing people's experiences as they have them can only be done here now in our present state. Eg. You can't (intentionally) go into a black whole (Freudian slip - meant 'hole') with a bunch of people you're experimenting on and observe them from there - or through a wormhole, etc. and come back and record the data accurately in 3 dimensions...that's impossible to 'prove'.

I find it more interesting hearing about her experience than I would looking at the data though. I have no desire to take that experience away from her with scientific logic. I find it makes people interesting.

 

[ChemGal]

You can listen to someone, but you don't know if what they are saying is true. There's nothing wrong to listening to someone's experience but even if they are being completely honest, how do you separate the reality from a hallucination, as an example?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think if someone says 'they' experienced something we take their experience for what it is - their experience. It's 'true' for them and shapes how the view their existance. And respect that it was 'real' for them. The problem with hallucinations is the safety of the person and others in the present 'here and now' - because we have morals and ethics and we care about that - we need to. So we want to control those types of experiences here and now so no one gets hurt. We can be careful of that, maybe, without writing off people who have harmless experiences - that maybe there's something subconscious - a latent idea that will lead somewhere (such as the double helix ...maybe even how to achieve world peace? I believe Jesus was a mystic like that and we should not write these things off) - that can be learned by listening to them? As for whether they are telling the truth - if they are trying to make money off of it with a gimmick would be my first red flag probably. If they are trying to help others understand them, and that others have unique experiences of reality - so be it. Just my thoughts about it in the moment (chansen warning).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Jesus would be considered a whackadoodle these days probably - and yet our much of our judeo-christian western world has been built - our morality and institutions - human rights laws - has been built because of his teaching and understanding. Ironic isn't it?

 

[Hermann]

Susan Blackmore, after having an out-of-body experience, started a lifelong quest to find out the Truth. Which meant that she had to learn the language of reality & experience it. She became a scientist.

Is she after capital T Truth?

If capital T Truth can only be experienced, then the pursuit of science may not get her there. Experience is well, experiential, but science is the best way to logically explain experience.

Capital T Truth, as I define it, is the experience of the cosmos as a unified whole, as a synthesis. But science can only give us the analyses of the whole. The wholistic whole, as it really is, in its wholeness, can only be experienced.

We can crack the cosmic nut. Then we no longer have a whole nut, but a fragmented one. And we can analyse the nut fragments right down to the finest detail, and then we have a thoroughly fragmented nut, but still not the whole nut. The whole nut, as it really is, in its divine wholeness, can only be experienced. And we experience IT in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality, as in meditation. This is experiencing capital T Truth.

The two truths do, of course, complement each other. The analytical small t truth complements the wholistic capital T Truth, and vice versa. Delving deeply into both will enhance both. So it did make a lot of sense for Susan Blackmore to become a scientist to find capital T Truth -- but only if she also delves deeply into the pure experience. It appears that she is a mystic, and did and does pursue both.

What we need more of is scientific mystics, or mystical scientists, like her.


Your Cosmic Nut,

Hermann