Tippaporn

You forgot to add the disclaimer: These beliefs are mine and are not meant as a claim that they are accurate representations of bedrock reality. I am not responsible for the effects upon any other for adopting my beliefs. Subscribe to these beliefs at your own risk.

I'm sorry to have to serve as the messenger who delivers the unwelcome news to you that no one is required to provide anyone else with any proof, especially given in the acceptable terms of another. You've failed to understand my previous post regarding physical proofs in reply to your insistence that everything which exists can be proven with physical evidence. So I'll link to it so that you can reread it. Only within the framework, the paradigm of naturalism, which is a strictly materialistic worldview, can one ask for physical proofs. Physical proofs for what lay outside of that paradigm cannot in all cases be given. It is impossible. And the materialistic view of the world . . . one objective personhood, one objective world, one objective universe, is your present worldview. Hence your stubbornness to continually ask for proof of a kind which does not exist. You simply don't understand the quandary which you have created for yourself. I'll put it to you this way: Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions. That is the hard reality. Your view of a materialistic world is a belief. In the sense that it is a belief it is a belief, then, no different than a belief in God. For neither are accurate representations of reality as it exists apart from beliefs. And it should also be understood that reality does not change what it is or how it functions to conform to anyone's beliefs about it or it's functioning. Reality is supremely consistent, utterly reliable, entirely dependable and makes no exceptions. A belief is an idea considered by the subscriber to the idea of being "true." As long as one considers their belief to be "true" they will not question it. Now that is common knowledge known for ages. You believe that one objective personhood, one objective world, one objective universe is "true." Thus you would never dare question it's validity. As per Wiki from my previous post, naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true. You do not, and will not, consider whether naturalism is true or not. Therefore it seems beyond your imagination, in defiance of your logic, which logic is derived from a limited data set, that anyone could believe other than you do. Cannot see what you do. The very idea that someone can refute what you believe to be true is seen as an assault upon your very intellect and a direct renunciation of your "truths." Now I see what you see. On the other hand you do not see what I see. As long as you are unwilling to question the validity of your beliefs they will blind you to what I see. That is the quandary you've created for yourself. No amount of argument or rationale or logic which you can provide others who see what I see can convince them that they do not know what they know. All I'm telling you, fusion58, is there exists more, much more, than what you are currently aware of. You claim that only that which you are aware of is all that exists. I say, "no." Accept it or reject it. Up to you.

Oh, dear. Since I didn't point out any of Sean Carroll's specific logical flaws then I must be merely making a fraudulent claim since my claim was only in the general. Hence your "gotcha" expressed by your "LOL." And so you now challenge me to point out just one . . . if I can . . . in the hope that I can't and thus, well, you get to rejoice in your "gotcha" moment. "I proved Tippers wrong!!!" So let's have some fun. The Sean Carroll quote you provided clearly identifies his belief in naturalism, as he uses it to contrast it with theism in all of his examples. For the benefit of the audience let's define 'naturalism' so we're all on the same page. The bolded text in all quotes is mine. In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe. In its primary sense it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. This stronger formulation of naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism. On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism. Naturalism makes one basic assumption around which the idea achieves it's singular validity. That assumption is that of a single objective personhood, a single objective world, and a single objective universe . . . all a part of "Nature." Objectivity, or materialism, is all that exists. Stated by Charles Albert Dubray in 1911: "Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines. As the name implies, this tendency consists essentially in looking upon nature as the one original and fundamental source of all that exists, and in attempting to explain everything in terms of nature. Either the limits of nature are also the limits of existing reality, or at least the first cause, if its existence is found necessary, has nothing to do with the working of natural agencies. All events, therefore, find their adequate explanation within nature itself. But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning" Naturalism, therefore, by it's very definition must deny the existence of any phenomenon outside of a single, objective, materialistic reality. I admit that there is another option to outright denial, though. And that is to fit, or squeeze, all unexplained phenomenon into naturalism's narrow confines by explaining it in a way that makes a modicum of rational sense. And logical explanations which are seemingly solid given only naturalism's premises. All mental machinations necessary, of course, to make it fit. But what if naturalism's premise, it's Great Assumption, is in false. Well, dear fusion58, then the rules of this game of life change quite dramatically and radically. That conclusion.is based on deductive logic. It's a priori. Sean Carroll's arguments are logical only within the framework of naturalism. Framework equating to paradigm as given in the first quote. Outside of the framework of naturalism the arguments are illogical. Again refer to the first quote, "Naturalism should be assumed [to be true]. . . without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true." How convenient, eh? Lets' assume it true and not consider whether it is or not. Sheesh!! Which is why I made the general statement that his arguments, all based on the idea of naturalism being true, contain holes in their logic. But again, those holes can only be perceived if his assumption is not taken as Bible (pun intended ). You have to take the "naturalism" blinders off to see them. Which you obviously don't. "You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner." Here Carroll offers a fallacy of argument which exists even within the paradigm of naturalism. For his theistic conclusions do not logically follow. Here he is willing to go to disingenuous lengths to "prove" his point. Now I'll leave you to the one, two, three-liner short posts. As you consider your snippet statements to be overwhelming self-evident and self-explanatory then there's simply no reason for you to provide long-winded rationales and logic which support your self-evidential statements. You assume them to be true, after all. And, according to your logic, so should everyone else. You can leave it to me to provide the verbose rationales and logic necessary for clear understanding that, if nothing else, question your assumptions as true. To your dismayed chagrin, of course.

@GammaGlobulin Well, fusion58 decided to resurrect this dead thread as he's replied to me, and being a polite fellow I tend not to ignore posters, and so will give him his answer. This then gives me the opportunity to respond to your non response of my quoted post, GammaGlobulin. So to recap that post: I offered you an olive branch, complimented you with sincerity, wisely pointed out that differences between people's ideas always exist and also wisely suggested to not make such Everest-sized mountains of that molehill, wisely suggested that there always exist enough enjoyable commonalities to focus on that more than offset any differences, and wisely suggested it is better to have a friend than an enemy. Now you can ignore this post as well, and in truth I'm not even looking for a reply to it. Rather, my purpose here is simply to comment on your non reply. To say that I'm a bit shocked, given the impression of you which I had built up via your many interesting and highly creative posts, in that I didn't think it was in your character to ignore such a gracious offering, whether from me or anyone else whom you might have disagreement with on, really, trivial matters. Correction: It was the Why does God >insert your grievance here<....? thread which fusion58 revived, not this one. My mistake. But no matter.

Don't do it guys. It's just clickbait that takes you to the Seth cult website! Where everyone gets as many of her as they like. Forget the 99 virgins the Muslims are offering. This is unlimited!! And . . . you get to create 'em just the way you want 'em. Think Burger King . . . "have it your way!" Viagra not supplied with this offer.

Come on. baby. I need one more reaction to achieve a Popular Post. Who is gonna do it? Don't do it for me. Do it for her. Look at those beggin' eyes. Forget what Sunmaster said about not indulging in egotistical corporeal excesses from you lower self. Go for her!!

Sorry I hadn't read your entire post and didn't realise that you had already cleared your cache, NE1. Well, perhaps I'm wrong. I used CCleaner and that did more than clear the cache. So maybe it was something else which CCleaner did that solved the problem. I'm no expert so I can at best say what worked for me. If you don't have CCleaner you can download the free version and run it. Maybe that would work for you. Now I have AN opened on Firefox. I just checked Chrome and the emoticons are working fine with that browser, too, now that I ran CCleaner.

Nothing PC or gobbledygook about it. As long as we experience ourselves as male and female then sexual beliefs will be formed. And a lot of those beliefs about our sexual natures are highly distorted. The degree of distortions varying between cultures. In other terms we are neither male nor female. Do you really think God is an old man? Or is that simply due to our personification of God in which we paint an image of him using the sexual qualities prevalent in our male dominated society? Why isn't God a woman? Seth is simply speaking to the prevalent beliefs we have about feminine and masculine qualities, which have an effect on us, and applying those beliefs as they exist in western culture to Einstein. He's showing how those sexual beliefs affected Einstein in particular. Scientists, especially back in those days, were mainly males. Females in science were frowned upon. That's due to the culture distortions of male and female aspects. We each have both aspects within us but generally the one that takes dominance is determined by our biology. Gays are evidence of what happens when the opposite sexual aspects of our biological sex are given more play.

I wonder what you looked like in the early 2000s versus today.

Clear your browser's cache. I had the identical problem as you. Looks like you're using Chrome.

Hanging around you guys it was bound to happen sooner than later.

Oh ,the irony. Well, it's an all girl band so credit where credit is due. At least they're not misogynistic.

You can close this thread out, thank you. It dawned on me that perhaps I needed to clear my browser caches. That did the trick!

All's well in my world again. Looks like I needed to clear my browser's cache. But now I have another problem. When I type the number 3 as text it comes out as threee - with an extra 'e'. Are you guys seeing this, too?

Testing . . . testing . . . one, two threee . . .

Hi All, Just yesterday I experienced the emoticons all of a sudden becoming mixed (Firefox browser). Some appear as images and some as text code. But only mine. Emoticons in others' post appear fine. Same when I choose an emoticon. The menu is a mix of images and text code. I tried using Chrome but then all emoticons, mine and those in other posts, weren't working. I've had one poster confirm that the emoticons in my posts were fine on his end and other poster who said that the emoticons in my posts were also showing as text code. Rebooting did not solve the issue. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance for your help in solving this annoying issue. Cheers, Tippers

Maybe this will get me Popular Post status. If not then I'm going to have some serious reservations about the posters here . . .

Okay. let's rewind this movie . . . The original . . . "What I'm clumsily trying to say, is that maybe we shouldn't isolate intuition and view it as something separate, because it's a byproduct of that link strengthening that emerges naturally through meditation." After removing the ads and fillers . . . ". . . as something separate . . . it's a byproduct . . . that emerges . . . through meditation." Maybe my reading comprehension skills aren't that good. You'd be surprised to know that I have four legs to stand on. Resting my arm on my wife's shoulder she then gives me support, too. Kidding aside, I do get your point, Sunmaster. (one of the few emoticons that work) Despite your clumsiness in expressing it at the end.

Wow, Vince. You just got Popular Post status. I never get that. I got on Sunmaster's case to not be a cheap Charlie on handing out reactions in the hope that with his help I might have more than a snowball's chance in hell of having one of my posts become popular.

One moment, please, whilst I switch over to my intellect so that I can make use of it's reasoning function. [great noise of machinery at work] If the intuition is not separate but only a byproduct of meditation, and yet I've never meditated, then why do I possess intuition? [sound of Sunmaster raising himself off the floor after clumsily falling down]

It easily comes off by scrubbing vigorously with a 50-50 solution of lye and battery acid. No worries.

You've sent me off on a tangent, Sunmaster. These are comments Seth has made about Einstein, perhaps one of the greatest scientific minds we are aware of. Seth confirms that Einstein used his intuitions remarkably well. Note to Sunmaster: One of the excerpts makes mention of psychological time (you had mistakenly called it subjective time but had got it right when you first asked me). Of course one of my posts of this morning gave you a link for you to explore psychological time in greater detail at your leisure. I'm sure at least some of your questions will be answered. Though any answers may raise the specter in the form of a whole set of other questions. @VincentRJ You may be interested as well here. Interesting reading, though. Seth covers quiet a bit of science. A number of scientists were so intrigued that they held sessions with Seth on various scientific matters which they personally were involved with. Just a general comment. We have religion, which is primarily intuition oriented. Then we have science, which is primarily oriented around the intellect. Neither has been successful in bringing us to a much more ideal version of the world. (Proof being in the pudding. ) Ideally, the intellect and the intuitions need to be blended. Once either one or the other is shunted aside then an ideal world is not possible. At least that's my opinion. If Einstein had been a better mathematician,7 he would not have made the breakthroughs that he did. He would have been too cowed. Yet even then his mathematics did hold him back, and put a kink in his intuitions. Often you take it for granted that intuitive knowledge is not practical, will not work, or will not give you diagrams. Those same diagrams of which science is so proud, however, can also be barriers, giving you a dead instead of a living knowledge. Therefore, they can be quite impractical. —The "Unknown" Reality: Volume One; Section 3: Session 701 June 3, 1974 In the 45th session for April 20, 1964, I find Seth saying: “Einstein traveled within and trusted his own intuitions, and used his inner senses. He would have discovered much more had he been able to trust his intuitions even more, and able to leave more of the so-called scientific proof of his theories to lesser men, to give himself more inner freedom.” —The "Unknown" Reality: Volume One; Section 3: Session 701 June 3, 1974 The view is truly astounding. I’m glad you live on such a nice corner; and as far as Einstein is concerned, he saw more than he knew he saw, and he was more than he knew he was. We will go into this thoroughly when we return to our discussion of time. —The Early Sessions: Book 1 of The Seth Material; Session 15 January 13, 1964 Einstein was such a person in the sciences. While he was tainted to some extent by conventional sexual beliefs, he still felt his own personhood in such a way that he gladly took advantage of characteristics considered feminine. As a youngster particularly, he rebelled against male-oriented learning and orientation. This rebellion was psychological — that is, he maintained an acceptable male orientation in terms of sexual activity, but he would not restrain his mind and soul with such nonsense. The world felt the result of his great intuitive abilities, and of his devotion. —The Nature of the Psyche: Its Human Expression; Chapter 5: Session 772, April 19, 1976 (In our reality, the first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy [matter] can be changed from one form to another but that it can’t be created or destroyed. Although a chemical change results in a new substance the total weight of the ingredients involved remains practically the same; in such ordinary reactions the amount of matter converted into heat is infinitesimal. In mathematical terms Einstein revealed that mass and energy are equivalent to each other — when one is “destroyed” the other is “created.” —The Nature of Personal Reality; Part One: Chapter 7: Session 632, January 15, 1973 Some of this material will take some getting used to but I wanted to give it to you now; and perhaps you will see how important the use of psychological time can be to you. It comes very close to allowing you the freedom of the spacious present. There is more I will say later along these lines, but your experience with psychological time will to some degree help you to see through the walls of past and future. I realize you will find the statement, there is no beginning or end, almost incomprehensible, because of your own situation on your own plane, and yet this has been known for centuries; and your own Einstein’s theories will help to give the idea scientific respectability. —The Early Sessions: Book 1 of The Seth Material; Session 41 April 6, 1964 Your scientific fields of endeavor may stumble upon the mathematical probabilities involved in such other fields within perhaps a 60-year period, but they will not recognize the significance of the discovery—which will probably be made in an attempt to obtain more data concerning an idea related to Einstein’s special field theory. —The Early Sessions: Book 8 of The Seth Material; Session 410 May 8, 1968 Einstein used the miraculous aspects of his mind. Parts of the mind are almost completely undistorted. The mind is distributed throughout the whole physical body. The mind builds up about it the physical camouflages necessary for existence on your physical plane. The mind receives data from the inner senses and forms the camouflage necessary. The mind unconsciously or unself-consciously deals with the basic laws according to the camouflage effect that is vital for survival on your physical plane. The mind is the tool which must be used. —The Early Sessions: Book 1 of The Seth Material; Session 19 January 27, 1964

Well, you're not saying it very well then. You see, Vince, I can't help but poke fun at my friend the Sunmaster. He's got that big, red "X" painted on his back but doesn't know it.

"Don't bogart that joint, my friend, and pass it over to me." I assume you've read some of the previous posts in which, at least a few of us, agreed that to prevent any discussion of this subject matter from sliding into too much seriousness and/or even pissing contests that the cure would be to remember that there's a humourous side to everything and so an injection of laughter via poking fun at another is one aspect of the cure. I have to say yours is a remarkable post, and a welcome one. Your points are well taken and appreciated. At least by me. (The heart reaction is indeed mine in case you want to accuse someone. ) It's just that you science types . . . . Old habits die hard.

Well, since I don't meditate I cannot comment for I lack any reference. But I will say that intuition, at least as I experience it, doesn't always come in spurts of flashes. It can last all morning for me in great blocks of time. I have no doubt, and would never argue against, meditation being an avenue and having it's unique benefits. But then again, there is no one road that leads to a destination. And I would not believe anyone if they were to tell me that there is only a single road, whether it be meditation or some other process. Or, put differently, as it is commonly said in the U.S., there's more than one way to skin a cat. I would not be one to tell others that the only way to "know" is via meditation. It's one path of many and each path affords it's unique advantages. But to claim that meditation is the only path it then, by implication, unfairly discounts any other path.