New York Times: Science Dismissed Common Sense

[astro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12horgan.html

Scientists' contempt for common sense has two unfortunate implications. One is that preposterousness, far from being a problem for a theory, is a measure of its profundity; hence the appeal, perhaps, of dubious propositions like multiple-personality disorders and multiple-universe theories. The other, even more insidious implication is that only scientists are really qualified to judge the work of other scientists. Needless to say, I reject that position, and not only because I'm a science journalist (who majored in English). I have also found common sense - ordinary, nonspecialized knowledge and judgment - to be indispensable for judging scientists' pronouncements, even, or especially, in the most esoteric fields.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12horgan.html

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Someone, please send the reporter this question; "If there is an exception to every rule, then what is the Exception to that rule, the rule that states 'There is an exception to every rule'?".....it is a "common sense" responce/answer I can assure you....lets see just how well Common Sense works in this person.....and Oh yes, while your at it, PLEASE please-please ask the Reporter to DEFINE what 'Common Sense' IS!

Or, ask them to answer this one, in the Bible God States (through an emissary) "All of the Universe is a Part of Me, but, all of this Universe IS NOT me".....solve.....please.....or 'resolve' the apparent dilema...... :D

[cckeiser]

"All of the Universe is a Part of Me, but, all of this Universe IS NOT me".....solve.....please.....or 'resolve' the apparent dilema......

Actually, that's an easy one.

Translation:
Everything in this Universe is part of god, but god is greater than all the Universe.
All the Universe is only a small part of god and therefore "all the Universe is not god."

I hope this helps?

Chuck

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Actually, that's an easy one. Chuck Yes your right it is an "easy one" when you already Know the Answer.

Fools seemingly Most people easily though, well, actually they fool themselves.

[cckeiser]

Yes, it's all a matter of perspective.
Almost any question is easy to answer if you look at it from the right perceptive.
The hardest part is finding the right question to ask.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The hardest part is finding the right question to ask.
Not if you look at it from the right perceptive.

All Knowledge based at those levels, Ideal, Ideologies, Absolutes, after that Idiosyncratic Human(s) is/are all that is left.

Anthorpism and/or God.

[Alkazar]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Or, ask them to answer this one, in the Bible God States (through an emissary) "All of the Universe is a Part of Me, but, all of this Universe IS NOT me".....solve.....please.....or 'resolve' the apparent dilema...... :D

This is relatively easy. Everything was created by something or from something. Everything is interconnected by the code. This code is present in human mind. So if a person is intelligent enough, he is an emissary of the so called GOD (the code). The universe is a part of the emissary too (man), and the emissary and the universe is all part of GOD. It's like saying that you are connected to the universe, but you are not he universe. Becouse it's something physically different, but belonbgs to the same universal code, and is all started fro mthe same source. Considering that when the person was saying this, he let the GOD talking trough him. Not the GOD who made him talk on purpose. All this makes sense if we aknowledge that GOD has not brains, and everything was created automatically. And at the end human brains were created to understand and explain everything. It's like when you do something without thinking, nad after try to explain what exactly happened and why.

That's why I always say that psychiatry is the first sciense that is the base for explainig everything. First you know what exactly the brains are and how they work. After you can understand what surrounds you and how it works.

[Epsilon=One]

...Everything was created by something or from something. Everything is interconnected...It's like saying that you are connected to the universe...this makes sense if we aknowledge that GOD has not brains, and everything was created automatically. And at the end human brains were created to understand and explain everything.

...I always say that psychiatry is the first sciense that is the base for explainig everything.Your introspection is commendable, but hardly persuasive.

You tend to put the horse before the cart when you consider the purpose of humans and their brains.

Also, you confuse an anthropic god that can think, etc. with both: 1.) a GOD that "has not brains"; and, 2.) everything being "created automatically."

You are correct concerning your theory of entanglement. The remainder of your thoughts have little logical consistency.

It is important to first of all: know yourself; thus the importance of psychiatry. However, psychiatry is far from the fundamental importance that you give it. There is much in the Universe that would exist without psychiatry or the human mind. You do not look deep or simply enough for the "code" that interconnects everything.

Keep trying to understand. I wish that more would make the attempt.

[Alkazar]

Your introspection is commendable, but hardly persuasive.

English is not mine first language, it's the best I can do.

You tend to put the horse before the cart when you consider the purpose of humans and their brains.

Actually putting the horse before the chart sometimes might help, especially if you have to reason about something that is way beoyond normal human imagination pattrens.

Also, you confuse an anthropic god that can think, etc. with both: 1.) a GOD that "has not brains"; and, 2.) everything being "created automatically."

Sorry I never menat to say a God, I always mean GOD as the whole materia and thougths produced by materia. Never believed that there could be a biblical God above everything that can think.

You are correct concerning your theory of entanglement. The remainder of your thoughts have little logical consistency.

I allready said that this is the best I can do, unfortunately I can't explain my thoughts better in this language.

It is important to first of all: know yourself; thus the importance of psychiatry. However, psychiatry is far from the fundamental importance that you give it. There is much in the Universe that would exist without psychiatry or the human mind. You do not look deep or simply enough for the "code" that interconnects everything.

You might have misuderstud what I rewally meant to say. I do not say that I consider psychology being the most important science as my personla preference. I was simply making a logical point, tha tsonce you are born, you must know exactly that you do have a brain and how exactly it is working, plus being sure thta your brain is working perfectly allowing you to percieve everything else outside your brain in correct way and amking you understand in correct way.

It is a mistake that physicists might be doing, considering only the universe worth exploring, and not giving the brains the importance thye deserve. Once you know that your brains are made by number and are part of the code that is everything conncted, you might understand something you might be missing from the beginning. If you consider that Jesus was a poet who tried to explain science, you will understand that if only he was aware that he was just a brain, we would be allowed to save a lot of pain in our existence, and save a lot of intelligent people who tried to fix his fundamntal mistakes. If you know exctly what brains are, is not like knowing your body. By logic you better know the soucre of where your thoughts are coming from, before you make an attempt to understnad something outside your brain.

I only can suggest you that if a psychiatrist would team up wit ha physicist(what I was able to try once), thay would malke the same theory that ecverything was created without brains, that we might be the brains that were missing i nwhole universe created not on purpose, but only by natural logic ,that if something was created it needs brains to observe and understand it. which is basically the same code based on cold brainless logic tha tallowed the universe, our planet, and finally us beinfg created. So the whole thing s tha texists is GOD, and we are simply the brains of GOD. Of course only the people that posses natural -neitral brains and are able to understand obvious things like right and wrong, can be considered to be part of the universal code. I never finished reading the bible, but if you do, you will find a lot of elelments, like sins and truth that are elementary keys to the code. Plus you might be aware that a lot of intelligent people left a lot of hints that are abviously a prat of a code that probbaly everybody was accessing without even knowing it.

P.S. I'm sorry my english is not perfect, but I will be happy to try explain with you what might be the uiversal code.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Actually, that's an easy one.

Translation:
Everything in this Universe is part of god, but god is greater than all the Universe.
All the Universe is only a small part of god and therefore "all the Universe is not god."

I hope this helps?

Chuck
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

God is greater then all of the Universe, (physical) including everything we all know.

That is the answer! as far as (I) know it.(intellectual/knowledge)

[OfficeShredder]

It is a mistake that physicists might be doing, considering only the universe worth exploring, and not giving the brains the importance thye deserve. Once you know that your brains are made by number and are part of the code that is everything conncted, you might understand something you might be missing from the beginning. If you consider that Jesus was a poet who tried to explain science, you will understand that if only he was aware that he was just a brain, we would be allowed to save a lot of pain in our existence, and save a lot of intelligent people who tried to fix his fundamntal mistakes. If you know exctly what brains are, is not like knowing your body. By logic you better know the soucre of where your thoughts are coming from, before you make an attempt to understnad something outside your brain.

Except that even with our profound understanding of things outside the brain, we are unable to conclude (scientifically) where thoughts come from with rigor. If mankind had spent the past 2,000 years simply studying the brain, we probably wouldn't be much farther along either way (and a whole lot farther back most likely).

At any rate, it's biology, not psychiatry, that really understands the brain's fundamentals.... psychiatry attempts to generalize the brain into patterns of thought

[Epsilon=One]

Alkazar and OfficeShredder make some points of interest.

In general, I agree with most all that Alkazar and OfficeShredder are trying to say; and, I would expect that after some mutual discussion that they would be able to arrive at a consensus. I realize that for Alkazar it is difficult to communicate subtle thoughts outside one's native language.

cckeiser seems confused; and, I doubt if I could ever agree with any part of Mr. Robin Parson's concept of god.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) cckeiser seems confused; and, I doubt if I could ever agree with any part of Mr. Robin Parson's concept of god. (SNoP)

Given that you are a God-less man, (& "Prone to Insult" as cckeiser's comments were clear enough to/for me, then again, Gods' Grace (I) can, and DO R-E-A-D- what other people type) ......what else is new?

(A rhetorical Question)

[Epsilon=One]

Given that you are a God-less man...Please stop stating what I am, think, write, etc... The practice is both deceptive and deceitful.

I am not "God-less"; atheists feel just the opposite about me.

Please see:
Proof of God (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoG) and

Atheists, Enlightenment, and Intelligent Inquiry (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/AEI)

.....what else is new?"

(A rhetorical Question)So much for intelligent inquiry.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Please stop stating what I am, think, write, etc... The practice is both deceptive and deceitful.
I am not "God-less"; atheists feel just the opposite about me.
Please see:
Proof of God (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PoG) and
Atheists, Enlightenment, and Intelligent Inquiry (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/AEI)
So much for intelligent inquiry.

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Epislo=nOne, Your assertion is exactly what you, thereafter, accuse me of "Deceptive & Deceitful" & By Your Practise, Completely False inasmuch as that is MY OPINON (I) have stated there,

This one:
(SNIP) YOU are a God-LESS man! (SNoP)
(I) have every right to My Opinion(s) and to express them


Your "Proof Of God" (Fraud??) Serves to Prove that, YUP! a Human Being can be Sooooo 'capable' (intellectually verbally adept) as to Completely! decieve! themselves! with there own (il)-logic and, resultantly believe it to be 'True'

As (I) had said about you before, your method of Operation/(Il)-logic as to "knowing" God is so Befuddled and Muddling that it results in a 'Truth' of 'it' that Well, you are really the only person who 'knows' therefore 'knows' this 'God' of Yours, seemingly no one else can.

That is what (I) had stated from the outset, about you, your setting yourself up to be that God, as there is NO conscientious (acting!) God, in/within you, watching/helping you ....well, other then 'YOU' and/or 'yourself' and/or your "I" AKA E.GO. (Everybodies Got One)

After that, well Inconsistent Logic, your rife with it on verbal Planes, probably why 'Doing the Math' would be Good for you as that would be what would help to force you to stick to the the Straight and Narrow of Logic.

You Know, where you state the you are growing in the 'Knowledge' of the Un-knowable' What? can't see the oxymoronishness of that statement?

If something can be Known, it can be described, however inadequately that description might suffice, 'it' (the 'thing' being called 'known') none the less can be described.

In My own life (I) once had a Chance to experience a 'Feeling' from another, a Beautiful Sensation/feeling (Yes it was probably more of a Feeely then (I) knew, then) in My heart, that was not The 'Sensation of Beauty', But the Beauty of Sensation, it was a Sensation that was Born of Beauty, Beauty as at its' core and all the Love that surrounds that....

(Sorta like it wasn't the Sensation of 'Beauty' as exterior presence, but The 'Beauty of/in Sensation' present, as from 'within' the sensation itself ...sorta ....Hey, (I)'m a Guy/Male/Man, (I)'d never felt anything like that, so emotively strongly before)

But take Clear Note, (I) Cannot reproduce that sensation, within myself, Never have been able to, (So Far) Felt it/that ....Once, Know that By The Grace of God (I) am an Exceedingly Priviledged Man for having had that experience, (Might have it again in my life, .....don't know .....yet) And that (I) can, in 'no other manner' then by (Inadequacy of) 'Word' describe it....transmitting the sensation itself is ....well, since (I) haven't ever been able to 'reproduce' (feel that again) what had occurred Quite Spontaneously & Completely Innocently, (Unbeknowst to the One who shared that with me (I) suspect, so Pssst Don't tell them O.K.?) there is NO other manner of Communicating It.

Clearly though, (I) do 'know' it, and also, Clearly, However Inadequately (I) can Still tell you something about What it is That (I) had Gained 'Knowledge' In/Of .....And can still Associate Descriptors (Use words) with 'it' as to prove that it is "Knowledge" at it's minimium/least.


Epsilo=nOne Has, simply, fooled Himself into the Belief that a 'Singularity' is Acceptable as representation of 'Infinite' ...Now "The {proverbial} Rub" Ideally/Idealistically/(mathematicallydefined) Sure!! "No Problemo" BUT that is NOT "Reality" Because in Reality, you CANNOT "DRAW"/Picture Infinite/Infinity.

Thereafter, suggesting that you can "Imagine it! in your mind" is simply to try to get you to move your 'Example' (Now Imagined Singularity ...."So Small!! You can't even See it!! But you can Imagine it in your mind") from Paper to Mindspace and, thereafter, pretend that ??some!!how?? the Rules work Differently therein

...As In, "In your mind you can 'picture' (Imagine) what cannot be 'pictured' (Drawn) in Reality!" Which is Completely FALSE 'logic'

Most of the rest of that Posting is simply your usual (Boring....? .....for me....!) Blathering(S) ....on, ...and on, ....and on, ....and on, ....and on yourself, and your "links" and your 'never got anywheres' with it, cause it "re-titles" all/lotsapresentlyknown 'Science' need-less-ly.

Heck! aren't you the one who started that thread about Gravity being a Hoax Cheese! Hey! Have you Heard? Gravity is Just a HOAX! .....Hey Fooled me! All that work for nothing!! (Sarc = Tee Hee ?)

....but, by Gods' Grace, your not.

[Epsilon=One]

…Your assertion is exactly what you, thereafter, accuse me of "Deceptive & Deceitful" & By Your Practise, Completely False inasmuch as that is MY OPINON (I) have stated there,As so often happens, you have made my point. As usually is the situation, your statement is deceptive and not quite true. You originally started your supposed opinion with the word “Given” (See Post # 13, first word). I take this to mean a fixed hypothesis which is an unarguable fact.

Even your quotation of your own words is dishonest in that you have biased the meaning by neglecting to include the entire statement. Your usual behavior towards the posts of others is shameless.

(I) have every right to My Opinion(s) and to express themYes, in most cases this is true; however, when you agreed to participate on this forum, you agreed to a set of rules that you egregiously ignore.

Your "Proof Of God" (Fraud??) Serves to Prove that, YUP! a Human Being can be Sooooo 'capable' (intellectually verbally adept) as to Completely! decieve! themselves! with there own (il)-logic and, resultantly believe it to be 'True'I know of no one that is more skeptical with logic than I; and, I am most skeptical of my own. I have spent most of my adult life attempting to disprove my logic wherever possible.

If only others would be more skeptical of their own logic there would not be the usual impediments to knowledge, wisdom, and understanding (tolerance) that are such a large part of our obnoxious cultural behavior that is dangerous to one’s existence.

As (I) had said about you before, your method of Operation/(Il)-logic as to "knowing" God is so Befuddled and Muddling that it results in a 'Truth' of 'it' that Well, you are really the only person who 'knows' therefore 'knows' this 'God' of Yours, seemingly no one else can.With little effort, before the mind is impressed otherwise, most any layperson can understand my logic. I do not insist upon acceptance; only Intelligent Inquiry (http://www.Brunardot.com/g-ini.htm) (II (http://www.Brunardot.com/g-ii.htm)).

That is what (I) had stated from the outset, about you, your setting yourself up to be that God, as there is NO conscientious (acting!) God, in/within you, watching/helping you ....well, other then 'YOU' and/or 'yourself' and/or your "I" AKA E.GO. (Everybodies Got One)I detect some blatant inconsistencies within your above quoted statement.

After that, well Inconsistent Logic, your rife with it on verbal Planes, probably why 'Doing the Math' would be Good for you as that would be what would help to force you to stick to the the Straight and Narrow of Logic.You argue in generalities; and, you never offer a specific point of logic that you dispute. Am I to assume that my logic can possibly be so overwhelming that you have never chosen to argue or cite a specific point.

You Know, where you state the you are growing in the 'Knowledge' of the Un-knowable' What? can't see the oxymoronishness of that statement?Where have I ever made such a statement? Until you include citations, your twitting arguments are worse than false.

If something can be Known, it can be described, however inadequately that description might suffice, 'it' (the 'thing' being called 'known') none the less can be described.Yes. And, if you knew a smidgen about General Semantics you would know that such a description must include a string of et ceteras. (See: Anna and the King of Siam)

In My own life (I) once had a Chance to experience a 'Feeling' from another, a Beautiful Sensation/feeling (Yes it was probably more of a Feeely then (I) knew, then) in My heart, that was not The 'Sensation of Beauty', But the Beauty of Sensation, it was a Sensation that was Born of Beauty, Beauty as at its' core and all the Love that surrounds that....

(Sorta like it wasn't the Sensation of 'Beauty' as exterior presence, but The 'Beauty of/in Sensation' present, as from 'within' the sensation itself ...sorta ....Hey, (I)'m a Guy/Male/Man, (I)'d never felt anything like that, so emotively strongly before)

But take Clear Note, (I) Cannot reproduce that sensation, within myself, Never have been able to, (So Far) Felt it/that ....Once, Know that By The Grace of God (I) am an Exceedingly Priviledged Man for having had that experience, (Might have it again in my life, .....don't know .....yet) And that (I) can, in 'no other manner' then by (Inadequacy of) 'Word' describe it....transmitting the sensation itself is ....well, since (I) haven't ever been able to 'reproduce' (feel that again) what had occurred Quite Spontaneously & Completely Innocently, (Unbeknowst to the One who shared that with me (I) suspect, so Pssst Don't tell them O.K.?) there is NO other manner of Communicating It.

Clearly though, (I) do 'know' it, and also, Clearly, However Inadequately (I) can Still tell you something about What it is That (I) had Gained 'Knowledge' In/Of .....And can still Associate Descriptors (Use words) with 'it' as to prove that it is "Knowledge" at it's minimium/least.The above quote is a fine example of how you stay “on topic.” For many persons, apparently unlike yourself, time is of the essence. When in doubt, respect another’s time; make your point, move on.

Epsilo=nOne Has, simply, fooled Himself into the Belief that a 'Singularity' is Acceptable as representation of 'Infinite' ...Now "The {proverbial} Rub" Ideally/Idealistically/(mathematicallydefined) Sure!! "No Problemo" BUT that is NOT "Reality" Because in Reality, you CANNOT "DRAW"/Picture Infinite/Infinity.

Thereafter, suggesting that you can "Imagine it! in your mind" is simply to try to get you to move your 'Example' (Now Imagined Singularity ...."So Small!! You can't even See it!! But you can Imagine it in your mind") from Paper to Mindspace and, thereafter, pretend that ??some!!how?? the Rules work Differently therein

...As In, "In your mind you can 'picture' (Imagine) what cannot be 'pictured' (Drawn) in Reality!" Which is Completely FALSE 'logic'

Most of the rest of that Posting is simply your usual (Boring....? .....for me....!) Blathering(S) ....on, ...and on, ....and on, ....and on, ....and on yourself, and your "links" and your 'never got anywheres' with it, cause it "re-titles" all/lotsapresentlyknown 'Science' need-less-ly.

Heck! aren't you the one who started that thread about Gravity being a Hoax Cheese! Hey! Have you Heard? Gravity is Just a HOAX! .....Hey Fooled me! All that work for nothing!! (Sarc = Tee Hee ?)It is amazing how one can read so much and expend such effort while completely misunderstanding and misconstruing. Apparently I have succeeded quite well in attracting your interest; now, I can only hope that eventually there may be some understanding.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


I detect some blatant inconsistencies. Where?? you never said ....Oh! (I) "get it!" Inside you....so...

So Do (I).

(SNIP) As so often happens, you have made my point. As usually is the situation, your statement is deceptive and not quite true. You originally started your supposed opinion with the word “Given” (See Post # 13, first word). I take this to mean a fixed hypothesis which is an unarguable fact. (SNoP) ....And, in MY Opinon, IT IS

(SNIP) Even your quotation of your own words is dishonest in that you have biased the meaning by neglecting to include the entire statement. Your usual behavior towards the posts of others is shameless.(SNoP)Firstly, that is Logically Inconsitent inasmuch as your faulting me for my quotation of MY words, by Context, then somehow threading that Purported fault into "Shameless actions" towards 'other' posters ....and No evidence of it....

At Minimium (I) use the (SNIP)(SNoP) INDICATORS as to Ensure that ANYONE reading would know that it is an "Excerption" But, you BLATANTLY & Egregiously Ignore that which Does NOT "please" you and/or support your own self-i-mage....

P.S. A Person Only needs be Ashamed if they have acted in a Shameful manner but, as USUAL your accusations bear NO support, bear no Evidence, and are probably just as a result of your {Highly} Inconsistent (Faulty) Logic.

(Don't bother with the "I use IPSO" Link O.K.? SVP respect MY time)

(SNIP) Yes, in most cases this is true; however, when you agreed to participate on this forum, you agreed to a set of rules that you egregiously ignore. (SNoP) As (I) have requested, Examples! Please ...as you make far too Many an UNSUPPORTED accusation, You Know, Your 'Ad Hominem' Nature.

(SNIP)I know of no one that is more skeptical with logic than I; and, I am most skeptical of my own. I have spent most of my adult life attempting to disprove my logic wherever possible. (SNoP)
See my explanation of your "perfect man" syndrome...and you've supported it, by your above statement, "No One more skeptical of you logic then you" gaurantees that even if another finds Illogic, well, you are more skeptical then them ...so your still 'Right' ....if only in your mind.

(SNIP) If only others would be more skeptical of their own logic there would not be the usual impediments to knowledge, wisdom, and understanding (tolerance) that are such a large part of our obnoxious cultural behavior that is dangerous to one’s existence. (SNoP) So the Missing key to humanities Continueing Survival is the Dangerous LACK of Skepticism? Funny? (ironic?) ....(I) don't believe that.

(SNIP) With little effort, before the mind is impressed otherwise, most any layperson can understand my logic. I do not insist upon acceptance; only Intelligent Inquiry (II). (SNoP) Well, in my life (I) have been tagged as a "Lay Person" so MY opinon on it should count.....and anyone reading me V you (Over time) would know that (I) find your logic "Self-deceptive" Ergo: It would therefore be, Deceptive to the Un-trained in Logical Thought Progression(s) Readers.

....Oh yes, your typical Style, Self Linked, so tell me, How many of your posts DO NOT contain a Link to Self?? you?

(SNIP) I detect some blatant inconsistencies within your above quoted statement. (SNoP) You Mean this one?

That is what (I) had stated from the outset, about you, your setting yourself up to be that God, as there is NO conscientious (acting!) God, in/within you, watching/helping you ....well, other then 'YOU' and/or 'yourself' and/or your "I" AKA E.GO. (Everybodies Got One) So would you like to point out the Blatant Inconsistencies in that Quote of Myself (above) Please, so that the rest of us will know, too! what YOU are talking about...

It is your usual Style of Unsupported generalized 'Ad Hominem' Accusation(s)

(SNIP) You argue in generalities; and, you never offer a specific point of logic that you dispute. Am I to assume that my logic can possibly be so overwhelming that you have never chosen to argue or cite a specific point. Isn't there supposed to be a Question Mark Here >> like these >> ?? << ?? ...a 'Syntactical' error? ...on your part? (SNoP) 'Overwhelming' isn't the Right Word, Erroneous is, and Therefore Difficult to 'Ferret/dig out' just where it is that you have, sooooo successfully decieved yourself.

So, (I) said.....

You Know, where you state the you are growing in the 'Knowledge' of the Un-knowable' What? can't see the oxymoronishness of that statement?

Then You said......
(SNIP) Where have I ever made such a statement? Until you include citations, your twitting arguments are worse than false. (SNoP) And your Continued/continueing Ad Hominems are Obvious!


Where? Recognize this one? From this thread of yours Here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=150)


(SNIP) The argument to prove Oneness is, of necessity, circular. Only indirectly, by going around, and around, in great detail, can that which cannot be proven give up some of its identity. By knowing more of what something is not, is knowing ever more about what something unknowable is. (SNoP)

you call that LOGIC???

(or In 'lay' terms ...."HUH??? What????? that doesn't make ANY sense, none what-so-ever ....no sense at all!!)

Your going "around and around" allright just 'chasing your own tail' and you still don't know that yet, at your AGE!

YIKES!!

(SNIP) Yes. And, if you knew a smidgen about General Semantics you would know that such a description must include a string of et ceteras. (See: Anna and the King of Siam) (SNoP) That's your reference?? "Anna and the King of Siam"

....aside from which, it is clear enough that, ZOOoooooooM that one went right over your head, cause part of the point (I) was making the Adequacy/In-adequacy of words .....to describe experience(s)/feeling(s)


(SNIP) The above quote is a fine example of how you stay “on topic.” For many persons, apparently unlike yourself, time is of the essence. When in doubt, respect another’s time; make your point, move on. (SNoP) And your ALWAYS right on Topic (sarc) as the TOPIC is always You!! proven by ...well, link here and link here and link here as everything posted herein, this forum, by anyone >> anywhere ALWAYS refers back to ....YOU, & your theory/theories.

Aside from that, all (I) had done was to explain How it was that (I) had come upon such 'knowledge' for myself but, apparently you don't think it is appropriate that (I) express a Personal Experience as demonstrative of the Sourcing of MY Knowledge, Even if It clearly supports what is being Discussed

As for respecting anothers/others 'time' when writting, well, the time factor is their choice, as it is up to them to choose whether, or not, to use their time ....to read it.

(SNIP) It is amazing how one can read so much and expend such effort while completely misunderstanding and misconstruing. Apparently I have succeeded quite well in attracting your interest; now, I can only hope that eventually there may be some understanding. (SNoP) Now, i-f y-o-u e-v-e-r need 'proof(!!)' of just how well, you decieve yourself re-ead this one ....till you've "GOT IT"

Me too! (you of yourself)