The Future of Earth

[star.logic]

What do you think our future holds? As a race, we are changing rapidly now, in the sense that we have much new technology and can do things with information and power that we had no means for before, and these are mostly available to the public, although there are larger and more powerful systems that are kept behind the scenes and reserved for certain groups.

So what do you think is happening?

What do you think will happen to the dual existence of mans' consciousness? Will the paranormal be found to be just a partial understanding of reality? And ultimately abandoned? Or will that happen to science?

Something large would have to happen for science to be abandoned, so is it simply going to take over our belief systems? Because while on this board there are many scientists, there are also many non-scientists all around the world, who believe in a more unseen world just as well as the scientists here believe in only materialism.

What will happen to this duality in the future? Add in that technology is at a peak, and information has never been more readily available to the masses!

[This Guy]

What do you think our future holds? As a race, we are changing rapidly now, in the sense that we have much new technology and can do things with information and power that we had no means for before, and these are mostly available to the public, although there are larger and more powerful systems that are kept behind the scenes and reserved for certain groups.

So what do you think is happening?

What do you think will happen to the dual existence of mans' consciousness? Will the paranormal be found to be just a partial understanding of reality? And ultimately abandoned? Or will that happen to science?

Something large would have to happen for science to be abandoned, so is it simply going to take over our belief systems? Because while on this board there are many scientists, there are also many non-scientists all around the world, who believe in a more unseen world just as well as the scientists here believe in only materialism.

What will happen to this duality in the future? Add in that technology is at a peak, and information has never been more readily available to the masses!

I'll comment on that last part first. Yes, I think you can say technology is at a peak. However, I think it stays at a peak, in that it's always increasing. I forget the year now, but I believe it was in the 1920's, that the head of the US patent office (?) suggested the office be closed, because everything that could be invented had been. Something like that anyway :)

As for this unseen world you speak of, well, I guess I'll have to see it to believe it. I think the key is that (in your words) it's believed in by non-scientist. Now, I'm no scientist, but I don't believe in an unseen world. Not in the sense I understand you to mean.

I guess my answer to your question would be, when there is proof of this unseen world, I'll buy into it. Until then, I think the field of science is pretty safe, and will be around a good while (assuming the fundi's don't get it banned or outlawed;-)

[Yahzi]

What do you think our future holds?
Crispiness.

Eventually our sun will expand so large that Earth will be submerged in a sea of nuclear fusion.

As a race, we are changing rapidly now,
Read this, then tell me how much has changed.

People haven't changed, on either side (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/lucian_alexander.htm)

although there are larger and more powerful systems that are kept behind the scenes and reserved for certain groups.
Conspiracy theory much?

So what do you think is happening?
Lots of self-aware mammals are struggling to maximize their resource allocation?

What do you think will happen to the dual existence of mans' consciousness?
It will die with Descartes. Oh wait, it already has.

Will the paranormal be found to be just a partial understanding of reality?
It already has.

All the explanation the paranormal requires (http://www.amazon.com/Corruption-Reality-Religion-Hypnosis-Psychopathology/dp/0879759356)

And ultimately abandoned?
Not as long as woos prefer pretty imagination to dull reality.

Or will that happen to science?
Only if we're really, really unlucky. Or stupid.

[star.logic]

I guess my answer to your question would be, when there is proof of this unseen world, I'll buy into it. Until then, I think the field of science is pretty safe, and will be around a good while (assuming the fundi's don't get it banned or outlawed;-)

Note: Your idea of proof, may not always be another's idea of proof!

Science is also the "newer" one of the two.

Read this, then tell me how much has changed.

What exactly has or hasn't changed here? We are the same bodies, for the most part, yet the world around us, is what we have altered here.


Conspiracy theory much?


No!


Lots of self-aware mammals are struggling to maximize their resource allocation?


More so, they need to get along with each other!


It will die with Descartes. Oh wait, it already has.


You are awake now, I would hope!


It already has.


Yes! Just as much as science has! As well as any belief that is only one in a sea of many!


Not as long as woos prefer pretty imagination to dull reality.


All have imagination, it's just the extend to which you allow yours to express itself that you are refering to!

Not always a bad thing to have much imagination!

Although it can cause you to live in more of a fantasy and non-productive existence, than a termed: "better" one!


Only if we're really, really unlucky. Or stupid.


Well there are people for both sides, so I guess we're both! As a race!

[Yahzi]

Note: Your idea of proof, may not always be another's idea of proof!
There is only one proof: a baseball bat to the head. All else is speculation.

More so, they need to get along with each other!
Here's a radical thought: maybe people would get along better if they confined themselves to the real and actual. Maybe differences in fantasies cannot be reconciled because there is no way to reconcile them, other than killing or silencing the opposition. Maybe rational proof, empirical fact, and the limitations of reason are what let people resolve their differences peacefully.

You are awake now, I would hope!
You've degenerated into incoherency.

[Starthinker]

I predict that in 40 years or so I will dead. So I only care about the next 40 years or so. What the world will be like 200 years from now will not affect me in any way because, well, I'll be dead.

[Brainache]

Either we continue with science or we go back to the dark ages.

There is no middle ground.

People will still knock on wood and check their horoscopes in the paper, but if engineers start using numerology instead of mathematics we can say goodbye to the modern world we currently enjoy. No more cars, computers, airplanes, skyscrapers, refrigerators, air conditioners, hot and cold running water, telephones, television, CD players, Radio etc etc.

So by all means go on thinking that science is a belief system and next time you want to go to Kansas just click your heels three times and say: "There's no place like home..."

Because if one belief is as good as any other, then that should get you there in no time.

[star.logic]

I predict that in 40 years or so I will dead. So I only care about the next 40 years or so. What the world will be like 200 years from now will not affect me in any way because, well, I'll be dead.

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?

Either we continue with science or we go back to the dark ages.

There is no middle ground.


There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.


People will still knock on wood and check their horoscopes in the paper, but if engineers start using numerology instead of mathematics we can say goodbye to the modern world we currently enjoy. No more cars, computers, airplanes, skyscrapers, refrigerators, air conditioners, hot and cold running water, telephones, television, CD players, Radio etc etc.


Yes, and if we reached the new ground, by keeping mathematics, but also understanding what other systems can be learned using, then we won't lose those capabilities and technologies, we will advance them to a level we've never seen before!

It's a conflict now, that we fight over which side is better, when we could simply combine them and understand much more.

The problem here, is finding out where they contradict and why, and making the necessary amendments.


So by all means go on thinking that science is a belief system and next time you want to go to Kansas just click your heels three times and say: "There's no place like home..."

Because if one belief is as good as any other, then that should get you there in no time.

I do not believe this. We can learn from all beliefs. Yet the beliefs are specialized as long as they have names/labels and can be called "Beliefs".

Otherwise you'd be more likely to use math to decide how something tastes.

And preference to decide whether your car will run on 0 gas, or a full tank.

[This Guy]

There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.



Would you elaborate on these "other beliefs"? Exactly what beliefs are you supporting?

Any supporting evidence for the validity of these "other beliefs" would be nice also.

Thanks :)

[Ladewig]

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing. Beliefs do not help us cure diseases. Homeopathy is nothing but "let's pretend" and does not effect cures. Crystal power is also "let's pretend." Theraputic Touch is also "let's pretend." Combing these beliefs with science does not bring us closer to understanding reality, does not bring us closer to saving lives, and does not bring us closer to new experiences.

[Ladewig]

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing. Beliefs do not help us cure diseases. Homeopathy is nothing but "let's pretend" and does not effect cures. Crystal power is also "let's pretend." Theraputic Touch is also "let's pretend." Combing these beliefs with science does not bring us closer to understanding reality, does not bring us closer to saving lives, and does not bring us closer to new experiences.

[Jeff Corey]

Science can help us understand why people hold beliefs in what Shermer calls "weird things". We know a bit about the mechanism that is responsible for certain sorts of superstition, for example, but know less about what produces confirmation bias. We can define it and point to situations and conditions where it is more or less likely to occur, but the basic mechanisms are not yet clear.
The answer is more scientific research, not a search for a middle ground between scientific thinking and unfounded beliefs.

[fuelair]

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?



There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.



Yes, and if we reached the new ground, by keeping mathematics, but also understanding what other systems can be learned using, then we won't lose those capabilities and technologies, we will advance them to a level we've never seen before!

It's a conflict now, that we fight over which side is better, when we could simply combine them and understand much more.

The problem here, is finding out where they contradict and why, and making the necessary amendments.



I do not believe this. We can learn from all beliefs. Yet the beliefs are specialized as long as they have names/labels and can be called "Beliefs".

Otherwise you'd be more likely to use math to decide how something tastes.

And preference to decide whether your car will run on 0 gas, or a full tank.You are, of course, welcome here to post, but I suspect you will not be a happy camper as you are pretty clearly what we call a woo - since you want to have us accept that there are things that exist that science is not applicable to. If that is the claim, then do not bother asking the JREF supporters to believe it, if it cannot be proven then it is either belief or opinion. We have opinions on things that cannot be proven (primarily that science will develop to prove or disprove them OR this is not subject to proof/disproof therefore it is not real and we do not need to concern ourselves with it - especially if we know how it is faked and/or why certain people NEED to believe in it [and if they don't force us to slam it hard, we are mostly gentle with them].:)

[Starthinker]

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?

No, I will be dead. I will never, never, never return to earth, I won't be watching from a higher plain, nothing that happens after my death will have the slightest effect on me. Since I will be dead I will have no emotions or thoughts or cares about anything. Thinking or worrying about future events I will never ever see or partake in just wastes the present. I will always be more concerned about today than I will be about a day 100 years from now.

[Miss Whiplash]

There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.



Science is not a belief system. Once you get over that hurdle, things will become more clear for you.

[Gurdur]

Science is not a belief system.
Actually, it is.
Or better said, certain ground premises are essential to science, and those premises cannot be proven any further (given the problem of infinite regress etc.).

Trying to smack around belief systems simply because they are belief systems won't earn you a nickel; every POV in life must rest at some point on a belief system, a system of premises.

[This Guy]

Actually, it is.
Or better said, certain ground premises are essential to science, and those premises cannot be proven any further (given the problem of infinite regress etc.).

Trying to smack around belief systems simply because they are belief systems won't earn you a nickel; every POV in life must rest at some point on a belief system, a system of premises.

I'm inclined to disagree, because I don't "believe in" science. I believe the facts that proper science can provide.

But, I'd like to know more about those premises that "cannot be proven any further".

And me not being as sharp as many here, you'll have to go more basic than "the problem of infinite regress etc". :boggled:

Any links/references would be appreciated :)

ETA:From Wiki -

"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite series needed to provide such support could not be completed.

Distinction is made between infinite regresses that are "vicious" and those that are not. One definition given is that a vicious regress is "an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved. Not all regresses, however, are vicious."

Based solely on my understanding of this definition, I'll agree that there are likely things that I believe that have not been absolutely proved. Those things would therefore be based to an extent on faith. However, I'm not sure to what degree those things I personally believe are based on conclusions that involve infinite regressions.

For instance, I believe water freezes at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C. Pretty easy to determine that. I believe the earth is not the center of the universe. Again, easily proved. I believe there are no fairies or ghost. Harder to prove, but until I see evidence to support such things, I'll go on not believing in them.

I think, until shown otherwise, that most of my beliefs are based on fairly solid facts. And it's those facts that I believe in, not science itself. I believe the results of proper science.

So, I see science as a tool, not a belief system.

Still interested in more info on those ground premises that can't be proved any further :)

[RemieV]

Don't you think, thinking about others and other times would be useful?



There would be no middle ground, if science and other beliefs weren't just two aspects of the same reality that we as a race are collectively experiencing.

In this...if we could come to a unified understanding, with both science and other beliefs combined, then there would be not a middle ground, but simply a ground-breaking new ground that was never before experienced.



Yes, and if we reached the new ground, by keeping mathematics, but also understanding what other systems can be learned using, then we won't lose those capabilities and technologies, we will advance them to a level we've never seen before!

It's a conflict now, that we fight over which side is better, when we could simply combine them and understand much more.

The problem here, is finding out where they contradict and why, and making the necessary amendments.



I do not believe this. We can learn from all beliefs. Yet the beliefs are specialized as long as they have names/labels and can be called "Beliefs".

Otherwise you'd be more likely to use math to decide how something tastes.

And preference to decide whether your car will run on 0 gas, or a full tank.

I'm dying to know what the "other beliefs" are. Or are you suggesting that we believe everything to a degree? If we believe in psychics, should we believe in Bigfoot? If we believe in ghosts, should we believe in UFOs?

Even believers cannot reconcile amongst themselves what it is right to believe.

[star.logic]

Would you elaborate on these "other beliefs"? Exactly what beliefs are you supporting?


Just being general here.

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing.

Yes and other ways of viewing reality allow you to find other solutions, and alternative methods of reaching those solutions.

All the while, learning as you go along.


We know a bit about the mechanism that is responsible for certain sorts of superstition, for example, but know less about what produces confirmation bias. We can define it and point to situations and conditions where it is more or less likely to occur, but the basic mechanisms are not yet clear.


Many things are not yet clear, in every aspect, we still have unclarities.


The answer is more scientific research, not a search for a middle ground between scientific thinking and unfounded beliefs.

This would be correct if the beliefs in question are unfounded.

But there are unfounded scientific beliefs, as well as other types of beliefs that are unfounded.

As well as the opposite.

Since you want to have us accept that there are things that exist that science is not applicable to.

Yes, but that's only true because there are things that science *IS* applicable, it just doesn't cover anything, science is highly valuable, knowledge is science.

No, I will be dead. I will never, never, never return to earth.


This may be, but there currently exists a connection to all things human, including the future of humanity.


I won't be watching from a higher plain, nothing that happens after my death will have the slightest effect on me.
Since I will be dead I will have no emotions or thoughts or cares about anything.


You have died before?


Thinking or worrying about future events I will never ever see or partake in just wastes the present.


You may not see them, yet you are impacting their creation, albiet, you could argue in a small way, yet it still counts and you still have a duty to withstand. As a human, you should help create a more positive future for those that ARE going to experience it, even if you believe you aren't.


I will always be more concerned about today than I will be about a day 100 years from now.

Yes, that's good too, but there is only so much about today to worry about, while down the line, things could get pretty ugly if we're not thinking about the future.

I'm dying to know what the "other beliefs" are.


I'm being general, the world is made of many people with different beliefs.


Or are you suggesting that we believe everything to a degree?


Beliefs are applicable to certain situations, if you can decide which situations require which beliefs or methods of viewing reality, then your reality will become very clear. No one belief of this planet has the entirety of our situation held within it, they are all parts of the picture, with billions and billions of parts.


If we believe in psychics, should we believe in Bigfoot? If we believe in ghosts, should we believe in UFOs?


That's more specific, so I'll leave that up to you.


Even believers cannot reconcile amongst themselves what it is right to believe.

Which is why we must find the middle ground.

Imagine if we could realize unity between all our beliefs. Not because they are all TRUE, as we see them. Yet because they all, in their own way, define the same thing. This planet, this reality, this universe.

[Gurdur]

I'm inclined to disagree, because I don't "believe in" science. I believe the facts that proper science can provide.
You've just introduced a value judgment into your very second sentence (there was also one in your first, but the second one is more glaring).

Care to lay out exactly you believe to be "proper science"?

Because as soon as you actually start doing that, it will illustrate many of the problems and the premises you are using.
But, I'd like to know more about those premises that "cannot be proven any further".
Certainly. :) We'll start with your belief as to what constitutes "proper science".
And me not being as sharp as many here,
How about we simply drop the rhetoric and move along?
Any links/references would be appreciated
Bettter still overall is any good postgrad course in the philosophy of science at any good uni, but the essentials are easily covered.

Infinite regress: the problem that all human perception is subjective, meaning that all human judgments and POV's -- all --- are subjective. There is no such thing as truly objective knowledge which stands outside the observed universe. This then means that in any chain of reasoning, in any chain of perception on which reasoning is based, there must eventually come a point either where it degrades to a circular argument, or it goes on in an infinite regress of believed causal progession.

That will be seen, seriously, as you go along the definition of "proper" science here; the endless chain or the circularity of argument will be seen.

Science attempts to get over that problem by intersubjectivity, that is, shared observation, but it is still a problem at times.

For instance, I believe water freezes at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C.
And a paranoid believes there is a conspiracy against him.

Your own belief is more justifiable (where justification rests on value judgments, and value judgments are by their nature not part of science :D) than the paranoid's; but it rests on various beliefs, such as the belief that shared observation is a good thing, and using human-made measurements such as Fahrenheit and Celsus.
I think, until shown otherwise, that most of my beliefs are based on fairly solid facts.
Oddly enough that is something almost everyone believes. And yet they disagree so much.
So, I see science as a tool, not a belief system.
A tool is the result of working premises.

[Ladewig]

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing.


Yes and other ways of viewing reality allow you to find other solutions, and alternative methods of reaching those solutions.

All the while, learning as you go along.

As long as we are talking about medical issues, can you give an example of another way of viewing reality that produces another solution?

[This Guy]

You've just introduced a value judgment into your very second sentence (there was also one in your first, but the second one is more glaring).

Care to lay out exactly you believe to be "proper science"?

Because as soon as you actually start doing that, it will illustrate many of the problems and the premises you are using.

Certainly. :) We'll start with your belief as to what constitutes "proper science".

Pretty straight forward, I believe in science that is based on the Scientific Method -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


How about we simply drop the rhetoric and move along?

Bettter still overall is any good postgrad course in the philosophy of science at any good uni, but the essentials are easily covered.

Infinite regress: the problem that all human perception is subjective, meaning that all human judgments and POV's -- all --- are subjective. There is no such thing as truly objective knowledge which stands outside the observed universe. This then means that in any chain of reasoning, in any chain of perception on which reasoning is based, there must eventually come a point either where it degrades to a circular argument, or it goes on in an infinite regress of believed causal progession.

That will be seen, seriously, as you go along the definition of "proper" science here; the endless chain or the circularity of argument will be seen.

Science attempts to get over that problem by intersubjectivity, that is, shared observation, but it is still a problem at times.


And a paranoid believes there is a conspiracy against him.

Your own belief is more justifiable (where justification rests on value judgments, and value judgments are by their nature not part of science :D) than the paranoid's; but it rests on various beliefs, such as the belief that shared observation is a good thing, and using human-made measurements such as Fahrenheit and Celsus.

Oddly enough that is something almost everyone believes. And yet they disagree so much.

A tool is the result of working premises.

In respect to the bold-ed sentence, I'll do so, to the best of my ability :)

I agree that there are no absolutes as far as we can determine. But I think that for all practical purposes we are able to determine most things to a high enough degree of certainty that to not believe them would be foolish.

Human-made measurements are of course simply another set of tools that aid us in sharing information. While they might not be accurate in reference to some standard from some other world or universe, they allow us earthlings to gain knowledge in terms that we can all understand (well, unless you use the metric system, then I'm lost ;). Until we find some external reference to use, I think they work pretty good at providing a system of information sharing that more than adequately covers all practical applications (how far is it from my house to the store, at what predicted temperature should I bring the dog in, how thick should the uranium rods be in a reactor vessel to generate enough heat to provide enough steam to generate a given amount of electricity, things like that).

Can you provide an example of where your definition of Infinite Regress (which is different from the one in the Wiki) would likely have a practical impact on me, or anyone else not involved in philosophy or theoretical physics?

I guess what I'm getting at is that I consider most of your points, while true, to not be of any practical importance to most of us humans, on earth :)

If I know that water freezes at the human made measurement of 32 degrees F, and the weather man says it's going to get down to 20 degrees F tonight, I know that's cold! That's good enough for me:)

[This Guy]

Yes and other ways of viewing reality allow you to find other solutions, and alternative methods of reaching those solutions.

Examples please.

All the while, learning as you go along.

Many things are not yet clear, in every aspect, we still have unclarities.

This would be correct if the beliefs in question are unfounded.

But there are unfounded scientific beliefs, as well as other types of beliefs that are unfounded.

Examples please.

As well as the opposite.

Yes, but that's only true because there are things that science *IS* applicable, it just doesn't cover anything, science is highly valuable, knowledge is science.

This may be, but there currently exists a connection to all things human, including the future of humanity.

You have died before?

You may not see them, yet you are impacting their creation, albiet, you could argue in a small way, yet it still counts and you still have a duty to withstand. As a human, you should help create a more positive future for those that ARE going to experience it, even if you believe you aren't.

Yes, that's good too, but there is only so much about today to worry about, while down the line, things could get pretty ugly if we're not thinking about the future.

I'm being general, the world is made of many people with different beliefs.

Beliefs are applicable to certain situations, if you can decide which situations require which beliefs or methods of viewing reality, then your reality will become very clear. No one belief of this planet has the entirety of our situation held within it, they are all parts of the picture, with billions and billions of parts.

Please provide some examples for comparison.


That's more specific, so I'll leave that up to you.

Which is why we must find the middle ground.

Imagine if we could realize unity between all our beliefs. Not because they are all TRUE, as we see them. Yet because they all, in their own way, define the same thing. This planet, this reality, this universe.

[Miss Whiplash]

Actually, it is.
Or better said, certain ground premises are essential to science, and those premises cannot be proven any further (given the problem of infinite regress etc.).

Trying to smack around belief systems simply because they are belief systems won't earn you a nickel; every POV in life must rest at some point on a belief system, a system of premises.

Sorry, I disagree. Chemical reactions will happen whether anyone believes in them or not. If everyone stops believing in Christianity tomorrow morning, it will cease to exist and become myth.

There - that earned me a dime.

[fuelair]

Pretty straight forward, I believe in science that is based on the Scientific Method -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method




I guess what I'm getting at is that I consider most of your points, while true, to not be of any practical importance to most of us humans, on earth :)

If I know that water freezes at the human made measurement of 32 degrees F, and the weather man says it's going to get down to 20 degrees F tonight, I know that's cold! That's good enough for me:)

Like all philosophy, what they primarily are are word games and thought tricks
that may be interesting but have no actual validity. Measurements are measurements and whether we are actually in a dream state, an alternate universe, the mind or dreams of god makes not a bit of difference. We can only evaluate what seems real to us and use the tools we have to make those evaluations - and science is our pre-eminent tool for that purpose.:D

[This Guy]

Like all philosophy, what they primarily are are word games and thought tricks
that may be interesting but have no actual validity. Measurements are measurements and whether we are actually in a dream state, an alternate universe, the mind or dreams of god makes not a bit of difference. We can only evaluate what seems real to us and use the tools we have to make those evaluations - and science is our pre-eminent tool for that purpose.:D

:D

Philosophy is fine. We used to have a lot of philosophical discussions while sitting on a mid watch on patrol on the Subs. During some of those 6 hour periods, we solved many of the worlds toughest questions! Of course, by the time we slept and came back on watch, we'd forgotten the answers.

Over the years I've determined that I do better at philosophical discussions after I've had a few drinks ;)


I did make an oops in my reply. I stated I believe in science that is based on the scientific method. I meant I believe in the results of research that follows the scientific method. Of course, peer review is a vital part of that process IMHO.

[Brian Jackson]

What do you think our future holds?

South Park covered it nicely. Just beware the otters:D

[RemieV]

Wow, every time I step into this thread, I swear, I smell patchouli. And illegal substances. Seriously.

What I was saying with my "What should we believe?" post is that there IS no middle ground.

As much as I despise typing about religion, I'm going to take this moment to.

Religion is incredibly important to the religious. Incredibly. It's a defining personality aspect.

So how about this... Christians believe in one God, Hindus believe in many. Muslims believe in prophets that talk to God, but not a son of God. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is the earthly form of the Archangel Michael. They also think Jesus was impaled and not crucified. Muslims recognize Christ, but only as a prophet. Mormons believe that it's possible to become godlike.

If you think anyone is going to reach a middle ground on that, then you are... I won't say crazy. I will say "naive," "unrealistic," and "hoping beyond reason."

[Loss Leader]

What do you think will happen to the dual existence of mans' consciousness?

What dual existence?

[fuelair]

What dual existence?

I think he/she meant dual carburators or dueling pistols, but there must be somes universe where it is correct.:D :jaw-dropp :D

(I certainly hope none of that made sense so logic-star (TM) could follow it!!)

[Jeff Corey]

The alternate universe with the Evil Kirk and the Spock with the fake beard.

[Starthinker]

What dual existence?

Well, in the day I'm Mr. Natural, just as healthy as I can be, but at night I'm a junk food junkie. Oh, lord, have mercy on me.

[luchog]

What do you think our future holds?

Well, I don't know about yours, but my future holds a nice vindaloo and a large glass of Belgian ale. Unfortunately, it also holds a h3ll of a lot more sitting around the office doing more of the same BS i do every day before it gets to the curry and beer.

[star.logic]

As long as we are talking about medical issues, can you give an example of another way of viewing reality that produces another solution?

Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.




Wow, every time I step into this thread, I swear, I smell patchouli. And illegal substances. Seriously.[/b]

Blow your nose maybe????


What I was saying with my "What should we believe?" post is that there IS no middle ground.


The middle ground is a combination of both of the items, a perfect balance so that, as a result, the remaining "whole" composed of the two original aspects is neither one original aspect or the other, but an entirely new aspect. This is the middle ground, and it is reached with an accepting of both direction of views that exist, so that one neither becomes obsessed with one or the other causing them to have an imbalanced view.

Both directions exist, in this case material science and it's opposing views, and they are only parts of the complete understanding. The aspects or belief systems to either end of the "middle ground", overly to one side, will be imbalanced. Both aspects are equally represented by human life and belief, so becoming obsessed with either side will only give one the understanding of half of the experience that, as a whole, man partakes in.

In this case those who believe overly to science, miss what other belief systems hold, while those in these other belief systems, while disregarding science, are missing what science holds.

Both sides are required, not all belief systems.

On of the extremes in this case is represented by science, a highly materialistic belief system, it is not representing the scientific method, but just what science, as a whole, has shaped out of our reality.


As much as I despise typing about religion, I'm going to take this moment to.


This is an example of rejecting one part of the picture, while taking overly to another part.


Religion is incredibly important to the religious. Incredibly. It's a defining personality aspect.


As are the incredibly scientific.


So how about this... Christians believe in one God, Hindus believe in many. Muslims believe in prophets that talk to God, but not a son of God. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is the earthly form of the Archangel Michael. They also think Jesus was impaled and not crucified. Muslims recognize Christ, but only as a prophet. Mormons believe that it's possible to become godlike.


Many beliefs are different.


If you think anyone is going to reach a middle ground on that, then you are... I won't say crazy. I will say "naive," "unrealistic," and "hoping beyond reason."

The middle ground is a representative of all beliefs, not only the sum of religious beliefs, but scientific or otherwise beliefs.

Combing all of religion would be a partial task compared to combining all experiential knowledge currently being expressed on this planet, which would be a much more integrating experience.

What dual existence?

There are many existing ways of experiencing reality on the planet. These are thought of as personalities, or belief systems or usually with one causing the other. All are human created methods of viewing reality, and are thus justified by human experience.

These all have representations which inadvertently show up in our lives.

The reaction you give to the presence of these objects or situations in your life will ultimately determine what you chose to be there, and why, which is most important, and what kind of decision maker you are.

This value on of yourself is devoid of any object, as it is what causes all objects to come into your life, the personality. Now, there are those that treat the personality as if it is an object, and there are those that treat the personality as if it is something else.

So according there are residing objective ways of perceiving reality, and there is an equal but opposite subjective, way.

These are the dualities of man.

Instead of seeing both object and otherwise, or objective and subjective, man as a whole, can only see one or the others. We have a partial ability to fully accept the reality we have created for ourselves. This causes a duality, as well as is the duality, it can be represented physically, as an imblance in one or more systems. The systems may be physical, or mental, digestive, or emotional, or whichever exist, because they will all be affected.

The current state of our race on this planet, as a whole, is represented by this sytsem of duality. As a whole, there is no agreement between either sides of personality. A sort of problematic situation when nuclear devices, food systems, and war gets involved, for the entire species development.

These dualities currently exist in all life on earth, to different degrees.


I think he/she meant dual carburators or dueling pistols, but there must be somes universe where it is correct.:D :jaw-dropp :D


Thank you for attempting translation, but this is not what I meant.

[Ladewig]

As long as we are talking about medical issues, can you give an example of another way of viewing reality that produces another solution?


Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.

Oh, what the heck, I'll ask nicely one more time. Can you provide a specific example of what you mean?

[fuelair]

Why no, no he/she can't.

[This Guy]

Why no, no he/she can't.

Star Logic, if you really want to be taken seriously, and have a worthwhile discussion, you really need to use less generalities, and more specifics.

Give us some actual examples in plain English, that we can discuss. Then we will all be able to form opinions/offer a critique of what your claiming.

Otherwise, I think it's safe to say, most of the posters here will consider you just spinning your wheels, and wasting time.

While many posters here can be blunt and to the point, I've not yet heard of any of them biting anyone for expressing a point of view or belief :)

[Loss Leader]

I asked "What dual existence?" and you answered:

There are many existing ways of experiencing reality on the planet. These are thought of as personalities, or belief systems or usually with one causing the other. All are human created methods of viewing reality, and are thus justified by human experience.

These all have representations which inadvertently show up in our lives.

The reaction you give to the presence of these objects or situations in your life will ultimately determine what you chose to be there, and why, which is most important, and what kind of decision maker you are.

This value on of yourself is devoid of any object, as it is what causes all objects to come into your life, the personality. Now, there are those that treat the personality as if it is an object, and there are those that treat the personality as if it is something else.

So according there are residing objective ways of perceiving reality, and there is an equal but opposite subjective, way.

These are the dualities of man.


So, first of all, most of that made no sense.

Second, you state that objective reality is "equal but opposite" to one's subjective experience. I subjectively experience the sun being the size of a quarter. How is that equal to the sun objectively being 870,000 miles across? How is the objective reality of a Ford Fiesta opposite of the subjective beliefs about a Ford Fiesta?

Assuming that this duality exists, what is the value of reconciling them? Consider this:

I went to Disneyworld when I was 9 and I have a subjective memory of where the different rides were located in the park. If I go back to Disneyworld today, they will have a map that differs significantly from my memory (if only because they've opened some new rides since 1979 but for other reasons as well). Which should I do: 1) Ignore the map and follow my memory; 2) Ignore my memory and follow the map; or 3) sit down and create a new picture that is half-map/half-memory?

If you said I should do anything other than 2, you have doomed me to a very frustrating day at the amusement park.

My point is that we all live our lives according to a map - a construct of how the world works that we store in our head. The more realistic our construct is, the better we will navigate through life. What is the value of giving heed to anything but the most accurate, objective information that exists?

P.S. I hear they opened something called Epcot in 1982. Am I safe just ignoring it?

[star.logic]

I think he/she meant dual carburators or dueling pistols, but there must be somes universe where it is correct.:D :jaw-dropp :D

(I certainly hope none of that made sense so logic-star (TM) could follow it!!)

Why no, no he/she can't.

This is a deception.

[star.logic]

Otherwise, I think it's safe to say, most of the posters here will consider you just spinning your wheels, and wasting time.
[/b]

Please be kind and respect my views, and I will always respect yours.

If you wish to learn from me, you'll have to allow me to time to "speak".

[b]
While many posters here can be blunt and to the point, I've not yet heard of any of them biting anyone for expressing a point of view or belief :)

I would hope no one is harmed for expressing a belief.

[star.logic]

Oh, what the heck, I'll ask nicely one more time. Can you provide a specific example of what you mean?


Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.


Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing.

Yes and other ways of viewing reality allow you to find other solutions, and alternative methods of reaching those solutions.

All the while, learning as you go along.


The efficiencies and dangers of medicine is only an aspect of reality relative to the nature of the objective basis of it. In this case the material world, and the living body itself. Dangers is relative to the body and it's physicality, as well as efficiency, regarding the body.

So the view of medicine and science that you are portraying is relative to the reality or belief system based primarily on the physical, and materialistic aspect.


The nature of a medicine being new, is dependent on the body aging and becoming vulnerable to different things at different times, this is once again based on a physical and materialistic aspect, just one belief system of many, looking a it's cures and practices within that understandings limits, or focuses.

Testing medicine, is yet another aspect of a belief system which entails a changing body, and a changing reality with new solutions required, and a possibility for the solution to do the opposite of what it's supposed to do, as well as do nothing all together.

Primarily the focus of the medicine is placed upon the positive effects that occur, while the negative effects are labeled "side-effects".

This is also possible for this type of medicine because this type of medicine focuses one the entire objective, and physical aspect of healing a body.

While other's focus entirely opposite and focus on a non-physical, or others are a mixture of the two, or otherwise.

All of these belief systems have their own ways of working, which work well for some situations, while not being able to help others.

According to my original post, the combination of every medical application, and the narrowing down of all fields, through a finding of similarity or "middle ground", would indeed break new ground and allow much more to be possible, than previous was in any of the other *single* understandings.

[star.logic]

Second, you state that objective reality is "equal but opposite" to one's subjective experience.


This is only an expression, but may be seen accurate in that sense.


I subjectively experience the sun being the size of a quarter.

How is that equal to the sun objectively being 870,000 miles across?


The sun cannot be a quarter! There are differences, both subjective and objective!


How is the objective reality of a Ford Fiesta opposite of the subjective beliefs about a Ford Fiesta?


The objective reality of a Ford Fiesta is that it may exist!

While the subjective would be *how* it exists, according to one's specific way of describing or experiencing certain aspects of it's existence.


Assuming that this duality exists, what is the value of reconciling them?


Gaining harmony between two conflicting views of reality would effectively bring a solution of conflict into place, which the effects of, would lesson or disappear!

Can you see conflict in humanity's views of reality? Past or present, future?


I went to Disneyworld when I was 9 and I have a subjective memory of where the different rides were located in the park.


Ok.


If I go back to Disneyworld today, they will have a map that differs significantly from my memory (if only because they've opened some new rides since 1979 but for other reasons as well).


Ok.



Which should I do: 1) Ignore the map and follow my memory


Technically the memory is not of the park you would be at, present day, it would be of a different park, constructed differently, no longer existing to you!

The map would be a more likely choice, seeing it's been updated according to the present construct of the location, and your memory hasn't (according to you)!


2) Ignore my memory and follow the map;



If they both contain the truth, seeing as your memory is of the same location, you have recalled accurately, and it's reasonable to believe that not EVERYthing has changed. Then it would be more helpful to ignore neither, but take into consideration that you may remember somethings as they actually are today, and that so many things may have changed.

You would likely remember things as you see them, as well as beforehand, and without other information, you would discover new things as you experience them for the first time.


or 3) sit down and create a new picture that is half-map/half-memory?


This would be impossible, without experiencing first, which parts of your memory are no longer applicable to the park based on the representation on the map, and so doing this without the necessary information would likely result in understanding less about the park than with the map or the memory, only causing you to become confused.


If you said I should do anything other than 2, you have doomed me to a very frustrating day at the amusement park.


I believe, in this case, you would have doomed yourself! Through confused and illogical thinking!


My point is that we all live our lives according to a map - a construct of how the world works that we store in our head.


Although we can always update what's in our head, unlike the map, memory scenario!


The more realistic our construct is, the better we will navigate through life.


This is an opinion!


What is the value of giving heed to anything but the most accurate, objective information that exists?


The value is that you have a balance of information, instead of becoming partial, and biased to one aspect, leaving you to eventually learn or experience less!




P.S. I hear they opened something called Epcot in 1982. Am I safe just ignoring it?

I'm not sure what you mean, so I'm assuming it's irrelevant!

[fuelair]

This is a deception.

No, no examples (concrete) given =no examples known to you OR you know some but are being deliberately obtuse. I assume the former from your limited input and was expressing that assumption. That is not deception though I am fairly uninterested in your opinion at this point as you seem to be another of the Truthtweaker, Light is Bright school of meaningless wordiness masquerading (unsuccessfully) as high level knowledge impartment.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[This Guy]

I agree with Fuelair.

Seeing a lot of words, but no substance.

I'm outa here.

Have a nice day :)

[rats]

Star.logic, how would you define ‘a belief’?

Please could you provide an example of a belief?

[Ladewig]

Oh, what the heck, I'll ask nicely one more time. Can you provide a specific example of what you mean?



Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.

The efficiencies and dangers of medicine is only an aspect of reality relative to the nature of the objective basis of it. In this case the material world, and the living body itself. Dangers is relative to the body and it's physicality, as well as efficiency, regarding the body.

[snipped for brievity]

According to my original post, the combination of every medical application, and the narrowing down of all fields, through a finding of similarity or "middle ground", would indeed break new ground and allow much more to be possible, than previous was in any of the other *single* understandings.


So you either cannot or will not give an example. That's alright. If you ever change your mind and decide to give an example, that would be a wonderful physical and yet non-physical response which combines beliefs and non-beliefs in such a way to promote (yet not promote) a revolutionary breakthrough in the dual nature of everything (or nothing)!

[star.logic]

I agree with Fuelair.

Seeing a lot of words, but no substance.

I'm outa here.

Have a nice day :)

See you soon.

Star.logic, how would you define ‘a belief’?

Please could you provide an example of a belief?



A belief system is the sum total of one's self. (in the case of my description, which is biased towards my experience) One know's certain things to be true and certain things to be untrue, it is currently represented by such a duality in on earth. In this duality an individual belief, within a belief system, must correspond with every other belief in the belief system. If the belief primarily decides whether a certain aspect of life is true or untrue, or one thing or another, and there is another similar belief in the system, which contradicts, one of them must become truncated or removed or both of them compromised.

A simple example of this is when a person gets angry at some part of life because they believe it should be different. Beliefs decide how you will react to a situation, if you would like to react differently you first change your beliefs about the situation, and then your life and actions begin to follow suit. This is the simple and most abstract understanding I could come up with, if you'd to see a more specific and related example, please simply provide some "mental stimulation" to get things moving.

[star.logic]

So you either cannot or will not give an example. That's alright. If you ever change your mind and decide to give an example, that would be a wonderful physical and yet non-physical response which combines beliefs and non-beliefs in such a way to promote (yet not promote) a revolutionary breakthrough in the dual nature of everything (or nothing)!

Example:
I believe that other skeptic boards, skeptic blogs, and science websites are some of the best places to find new-thread topics

[Folly]

Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.

Okay. I have to wait for a few long running tests to finish the next few days, so I'll bite. Here's a nice concrete example of a medical issue: a stab wound puncturing a lung. I know the solution that comes from the standard view of reality. What do alternate views of reality tell us about punctured lungs?

[Loss Leader]

A belief system is the sum total of one's self. (in the case of my description, which is biased towards my experience) One know's certain things to be true and certain things to be untrue, it is currently represented by such a duality in on earth. In this duality an individual belief, within a belief system, must correspond with every other belief in the belief system. If the belief primarily decides whether a certain aspect of life is true or untrue, or one thing or another, and there is another similar belief in the system, which contradicts, one of them must become truncated or removed or both of them compromised.

So, besically, what you're trying to say is, "Save the cheerleader, save the world."

[star.logic]

^ No, I don't believe I've said that anywhere.


Okay. I have to wait for a few long running tests to finish the next few days, so I'll bite. Here's a nice concrete example of a medical issue: a stab wound puncturing a lung. I know the solution that comes from the standard view of reality. What do alternate views of reality tell us about punctured lungs?

Thinking with logic one would assume that when a certain system becomes damaged you use the corresponding knowledge of that system to fix it.

Meaing you don't fix a broken leg, by talking kindly to it and reassuring it that every one loves it, it's not an emotional system instability.

So! With the example you have given me, there is a direct physical alternative (they are all alternatives) for fixing a punctured lung which is simply bounding the body to position the bones correctly if any are broken or otherwise, and limiting mobility, sometimes with the use of a device for air flow emplaced. This may be an outdated, limited, or standard proceedure, I do not know. Although all in a search for good knowledge, if you wish to, please explain more about how it's done.

[Loss Leader]

Thinking with logic one would assume that when a certain system becomes damaged you use the corresponding knowledge of that system to fix it.

But you've said that our scientific knowledge is an incomplete picture of the universe and we must combine it with all sorts of religious beliefs in order to get more accurate information. Now, you say that our scientific understanding of punctured lungs is all that we need to fix punctured lungs and religious and alternative beliefs play no part.

So, how do we know when we need to combine scientific and magical thinking to get better results and when scientific thinking alone is appropriate?

Also, exactly how are your statements different from, "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?

[Folly]

Okay. I have to wait for a few long running tests to finish the next few days, so I'll bite. Here's a nice concrete example of a medical issue: a stab wound puncturing a lung. I know the solution that comes from the standard view of reality. What do alternate views of reality tell us about punctured lungs?

Thinking with logic one would assume that when a certain system becomes damaged you use the corresponding knowledge of that system to fix it.

Meaing you don't fix a broken leg, by talking kindly to it and reassuring it that every one loves it, it's not an emotional system instability.

So! With the example you have given me, there is a direct physical alternative (they are all alternatives) for fixing a punctured lung which is simply bounding the body to position the bones correctly if any are broken or otherwise, and limiting mobility, sometimes with the use of a device for air flow emplaced. This may be an outdated, limited, or standard proceedure, I do not know. Although all in a search for good knowledge, if you wish to, please explain more about how it's done.

So you are not saying that all problems have different solutions from each view of reality? Are you saying that each problem must be solved by the system that defines the problem? There is no "alternate view of reality solution" here because it was an evidence based problem so evidence based medicine must be used to fix it?


As to what you do for a punctured lung, from what I remember from aquatic emergency care courses (sort of like St. John's for pools) the first response action is to not quite seal the wound with something airtight. Once in better hands, depending on whether the lung reinflates on its own, a tube with a valve may be inserted in the chest cavity, and suction may or may not be applied. If that still doesn't do the trick I think they have to glue/staple the lung back in place. I'm sure I got at least something wrong, so please kids, don't start a home medical practice based on this! In any case, it's something like this, and given knowledge about what's going on, the solution is both clear and effective.

[star.logic]

So you are not saying that all problems have different solutions from each view of reality?


I don't believe I'm not saying this.


Are you saying that each problem must be solved by the system that defines the problem?


Either directly or indirectly, if the system cannot perceive of a problem, it cannot solve it.


There is no "alternate view of reality solution" here because it was an evidence based problem so evidence based medicine must be used to fix it?


More or less, this is what I wanted you to understand in responding to your first quote!

There are other solutions, yet how often would you find one massaging a broken leg, or making it feel better?!

There are different solutions, yet there are those which are muc more readily applicable. Note: I believe you have made some misconceptions about the phrase "alternative view of reality solution".

The alternative view of reality solution only represents that there are more than one ways of going about fixing a problem, just as there are different aspects of the problem to be experienced, and thus individually solved.

So science is an alternative view.

Any other is the same.


As to what you do for a punctured lung, from what I remember from aquatic emergency care courses (sort of like St. John's for pools) the first response action is to not quite seal the wound with something airtight. Once in better hands, depending on whether the lung reinflates on its own, a tube with a valve may be inserted in the chest cavity, and suction may or may not be applied. If that still doesn't do the trick I think they have to glue/staple the lung back in place. I'm sure I got at least something wrong, so please kids, don't start a home medical practice based on this! In any case, it's something like this, and given knowledge about what's going on, the solution is both clear and effective.

Interesting, thank you.

[star.logic]

But you've said that our scientific knowledge is an incomplete picture of the universe


All current knowledge is incomplete.


and we must combine it with all sorts of religious beliefs in order to get more accurate information.
Either you're purposely lying, or have made detrimental misconceptions.


Now, you say that our scientific understanding of punctured lungs is all that we need to fix punctured lungs and religious and alternative beliefs play no part.
Refer to the above response.


So, how do we know when we need to combine scientific and magical thinkingThese are just two examples you have given, define all the variables of thought/thinking/belief.


to get better results and when scientific thinking alone is appropriate?
You can get positive results in many ways.


Also, exactly how are your statements different from, "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?You have me confused with another person, I did not say this.

[Folly]

So you are not saying that all problems have different solutions from each view of reality?
I don't believe I'm not saying this.

Terrific. I did understand you correctly the first time then.

More or less, this is what I wanted you to understand in responding to your first quote!

There are other solutions, yet how often would you find one massaging a broken leg, or making it feel better?!

Okay. I agree that massaging a broken leg is not going to help, and massaging someone isn't going to help a punctured lung either. You do say there are other solutions even in this case, so what is another solution for a punctured lung? If you don't know (fair enough - you didn't know what the medical science solution was either) than what is a system I can follow to find another solution for a punctured lung?

There are different solutions, yet there are those which are much more readily applicable. Note: I believe you have made some misconceptions about the phrase "alternative view of reality solution".

The alternative view of reality solution only represents that there are more than one ways of going about fixing a problem, just as there are different aspects of the problem to be experienced, and thus individually solved.

No, I got that. It's just that you said all problems can be approached in different ways, so I presented an example problem we could both work with. Your comments at that point made me think you didn't truly mean "all", you just meant "most".

[star.logic]

If you don't know (fair enough - you didn't know what the medical science solution was either) than what is a system I can follow to find another solution for a punctured lung?

The non-physical methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of a different type of energy being used to heal a wound very quickly. A device can be used for this, which can be biological or artificial. I believe that's all that can be said at this moment. The healing time is within a moment, and there is no other equipment involved, and depending on the state of awareness of the individual there is usually not much pain.

That is a frame work, now, science, not as a belief system, but "science" as the labeling humanity has given to it's foremost understanding of the universe, has yet to fully acknowledge or detect this energy, as well as learn to accept it emotionally/mentally. This causes very big conflicts of war and hatred within the human race, as we and fundamentally all living things are composed of some form of this energy.


Your comments at that point made me think you didn't truly mean "all", you just meant "most".

I did mean all, I don't see why you would think this.

[Loss Leader]

The non-physical methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of a different type of energy being used to heal a wound very quickly.

You do that, then. I'm gonna go with the medical thing.

[Folly]

The non-physical methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of a different type of energy being used to heal a wound very quickly. A device can be used for this, which can be biological or artificial. I believe that's all that can be said at this moment. The healing time is within a moment, and there is no other equipment involved, and depending on the state of awareness of the individual there is usually not much pain.

You didn't answer the question of what the specific solution would be, so I assume you don't know what it is. Do you at least have a general idea of what this alternate energy based solution would be for a punctured lung? If not, how about for a broken leg, since you mentioned it as an example previously? There must be something more specific to say about this.

[CapelDodger]

"The Future of Earth".

It's going to get warmer. The oceans will become more acidic. We, as a species, can do that sort of thing now. We've been unintentionally changing local, then regional environments for a few thousand years but now we've hit global. Unprecedented.

Simple souls might then predict extra-global, but the International Space Station puts that idea in perspective.

Given the unprecedented nature of our starting-point - the world today - the best we can do is extrapolate from previous experience on a smaller scale. Taking into account that there's nowhere new for people to move to these days. It's gonna be ugly.

On the Earth's timescale, of course, it won't even feature.

[Loss Leader]

We've been unintentionally changing local, then regional environments for a few thousand years but now we've hit global. Unprecedented.

Long before history even got started, we burned the forests of Africa to the ground for clear-cut farming and turned much of a continent into a desert. That probably had global effects.

[star.logic]

You didn't answer the question of what the specific solution would be.


Look closer, I did!


So I assume you don't know what it is.


You shouldn't assume things.....!


Do you at least have a general idea of what this alternate energy based solution would be for a punctured lung?


I have more than an idea! I would like a description of what you mean by "alternative energy based solution", if you could, to be sure you understand what I mean.


If not, how about for a broken leg, since you mentioned it as an example previously? There must be something more specific to say about this.

It was said, look closer!

"The Future of Earth".

It's going to get warmer. The oceans will become more acidic. We, as a species, can do that sort of thing now. We've been unintentionally changing local, then regional environments for a few thousand years but now we've hit global. Unprecedented.


This is also taking place as a result of natural changes.


Simple souls might then predict extra-global, but the International Space Station puts that idea in perspective.


They are not the only representations for "space flight"!


Given the unprecedented nature of our starting-point - the world today - the best we can do is extrapolate from previous experience on a smaller scale.


It has been done, from the beginning of the universe to present!


Taking into account that there's nowhere new for people to move to these days. It's gonna be ugly.


Yes, since this was not prepared for, while people were busy tending to their own needs, there is no way to stop it now, and it was cause harsh new environmental changes which will effect society and the world as we know it.

[Folly]

You didn't answer the question of what the specific solution would be.
Look closer, I did!

I'm sorry, no you didn't. You have gone back to generalities. What you said was

The non-physical methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of a different type of energy being used to heal a wound very quickly. A device can be used for this, which can be biological or artificial. I believe that's all that can be said at this moment. The healing time is within a moment, and there is no other equipment involved, and depending on the state of awareness of the individual there is usually not much pain.

To make it specific, how do I deal with a punctured lung, as opposed to a broken leg?

Is someone else doing the healing, or is the person who is injured doing it?

What is the device? What does it look like? Where can I get one? When you say it "can be used for this", do you mean it is optional? What do you mean by a biological device? When you say there is no other equipment involved, do you mean there's no equipment other than this device, or that this can be done without any equipment at all?

If, when you said "I believe that's all that can be said at this moment", you didn't mean can't provide any more specifics, what do you mean?

Without answers to most of these, the answer is as vague as if I had answered your question about what current practices are with respect to a puncture lung with the following: "The traditional methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of physically interacting with the body so that the wound heals. A device can be used for this, which can be biological or artificial. I believe that's all that can be said at this moment." Would you have accepted that as a interesting and informative answer?


I have more than an idea! I would like a description of what you mean by "alternative energy based solution", if you could, to be sure you understand what I mean.

All I mean by alternative energy based solution is a solution other than standard medical procedure, which you yourself said was based on "a different type of energy being used." You have provided no more specific information than that, so that's all I know about it.

[star.logic]

Is someone else doing the healing, or is the person who is injured doing it?


Can be both!


What is the device?
What does it look like?


Depends!


Where can I get one?


You already have access to one! You do not need to "go anwhere" to "get" one.


When you say it "can be used for this", do you mean it is optional?


Depends.


What do you mean by a biological device?


Some devices can be controlled by the mind/body!



When you say there is no other equipment involved, do you mean there's no equipment other than this device, or that this can be done without any equipment at all?


Both, and it depends on the situation!


If, when you said "I believe that's all that can be said at this moment", you didn't mean can't provide any more specifics, what do you mean?


It means I cannot answer that question either while it's in that format, or ever, so ask again!


Without answers to most of these, the answer is as vague as if I had answered your question about what current practices are with respect to a puncture lung with the following: "The traditional methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of physically interacting with the body so that the wound heals. A device can be used for this, which can be biological or artificial. I believe that's all that can be said at this moment." Would you have accepted that as a interesting and informative answer?


You seem to have it now!




All I mean by alternative energy based solution is a solution other than standard medical procedure, which you yourself said was based on "a different type of energy being used." You have provided no more specific information than that, so that's all I know about it.[/quote]

[Jocce]

Some devices can be controlled by the mind/body!

I have to agree with that. My mind controls my body and using my body I can control different devices, like band aids, pills, surgical equipment etc. I never called these items "biological devices" though. Could you make a short dictionary maybe? It'd be a lot easier to understand you then. But actually, I think you're just a troll, a slightly amusing one but still a troll.

[star.logic]

I have to agree with that. My mind controls my body and using my body I can control different devices, like band aids, pills, surgical equipment etc

Yes, much like this! Although, in the fullest sense, the devices in question, would not be physical beyond the body! For the only substance, to go beyond the body, is the quantum field existing in all places, as well as the electromagnetic energies which span in a changing field around the body.


. I never called these items "biological devices" though.


These would not, these would be a biological device, (the brain), controlling a body to control a device. Yet for a true biological device, the controlling force would begin with conscious intention and end with the intention being carried out.


Could you make a short dictionary maybe?

No need, you can understand me.

It'd be a lot easier to understand you then.


We'll/You'll have to try.


But actually, I think you're just a troll, a slightly amusing one but still a troll.

Nope, human.