Marabod wrote:
In practice what you are saying is just a senseless pile of completely undefined terms, pinched from the real scientific articles and used in some unclear absolutely non-scientific meaning. There is no logical (not even trying to say "Mathematical") link between any two neighbouring words in your statement.
I am not even going to try analysing all this wavefuctiousness which you are trying to describe, as there is nothing to analyse there. You are obviously fascinated with some words, which to your ear contain romance of the higher knowledge, but jiggling these words does not bring into their combinations any scientific sense. The impression is that when you work on your concept you really think "with neurons" - but to me the insinuation that I also think with neurons sounds insulting, as I myself do not think with them. To my knowledge they are not for thinking at all, but for the passing of the signals from receptors to CNS. They are not even located in the brain...
You would do a great service to your own theory if you clean it from the irrelevant terms, the usage of which in some specific for your theory non-traditional sense presents the entire concept as a product of the intestinal digesting system, not of a human brain. There is no such scientist in the world who would be able to follow your explanations and understand what you are talking about. Any attempts to present a religious propaganda as a scientific theory may only cause laughing, not anything else. Those who openly talk about Mary being a virgin at least give the things their proper names, while what you talk about remains completely blurry exactly because you do not use a single related to your theory word.
Do you not see the irony in your reply. Of offering no specifics in terms of your criticisms that I lack specifics?
E.g. "senseless pile of completely undefined terms" -- which terms, and in what contexts.
2. "real scientific articles and used in some unclear absolutely non-scientific meaning" - what articles, and how are they "absolutely" unclear, and how are they "non-scientific"
speaking of which, what facts can you cite that are absolute facts that are not reliant upon vague non-scientific assumptions (axioms)?
Just one?
3. "There is no such scientist in the world" - what evidence can you cite that confirms your belief? Any at all? Just a little wee bit of evidence?
4. "as I myself do not think" ... okay, agreed. Since you haven't defined or scientifically explained what it is you do think with, we can all accept your assertion that you "do not think"
-------------------------------------------
Meleagar,
Interesting. a child playing with playdo may be said to have intelligently designed the result. So?
In all my experience of ID, behind the acknowledge of "intent" is the usually explicit, sometimes implicit message that the designer was "God".
I have not ever seen ID proponents suggesting self-organising systems with intent, in which case it would be more appropriately described as Intelligent Co-Design, since it is a sincere, unabashed cooperative result, that includes One and All.
NO, my criticism is sound. Intelligent Design and Evolution are, within the broader context of quantum theory, wrong, in that they are limited, erroneous views of the deeper individual, collective causal mechanisms of our universe, our world and our lives.
No exceptions. TO affirm otherwise is to require an objectified, external causal agent (e.g. God, higher self, soul) that is in some sense "separate" to you, your ego, your immediate sense of self.
Tell me, what is the nature of that disconnect? What's the exact nature of the divide between your ego and your higher self? What's it made of? How do you cross it?
If, for example, you (your ego) is not perfect, but your higher-God-self is, how does one transcend imperfection into perfection?
If you are 99% perfect, is that good enough? How about 99.99999 -> infinite decimal places? Is that perfect?
When does the ego become perfect, and how?
--------------------
But I digress. Meleagar, I have read the webpage your cited. There is nothing in it that I found at all discordant with my work.
I only wonder why co-creation is not acknowledged? And why the author doesn't believe in him or herself sufficiently to announce who they are, to affirm and celebrate their ego, and their individuality.
Fine words indeed. But I generally take more notice of those who walk their talk.
More directly, the lack of courtesy offered by the blogger undermines his (or her) message. I have greatly enjoyed reading the Seth material (by the late Jane Roberts) over the years. In that he affirms, "I am Seth and I speak my name joyfully" or words to that effect. I would usually quote verbatim, but I've loaned all my copies to good friends, so cannot reference the exact text.
I am Steaphen, and I speak my name openly and joyfully.
Correct url:
Q.Is Darwinian Evolution correct, or "Intelligent Design"?
btw, can someone explain in detail exactly how the following fails:
Key Principle of Life, for Life No. 1:
The Interdependence of One and All*
Individuals & groups; parts & wholes; one and all have interdependent validity, reality and purpose. Howsoever any whole (community, company or God) is experienced or perceived, we are necessarily the combinate whole as us.
{Examples, first-person}
I am my family-as-me
I am my community-as-me,
I am this city-as-me
I am this organisation-as-me
I am this planet (Earth)-as-me
I am this universe-as-me
I am god-as-me
Thus, as we learn so too God. As we fail, so too God.