Tippaporn

Okay!! Shall we begin with a headbanger? I've watched the Sheldrake video and can now put him to bed. Here are my comments and observations. My apologies for another long read but I simply cannot find a way to shorten it up. I vigorously applaud Sheldrake for realizing that the world is not mechanistic, according to the view of physicalism, which is sometimes known as materialism. He subscribes instead to the idea of panpsychism, which ascribes a primitive form of mentality to entities at the fundamental level of physics but does not ascribe mentality to most aggregate things, such as rocks or buildings. the truth that everything is conscious. Overall, though, it is my view that he's missing much. From the video description: The sciences are pointing toward a new sense of a living world. The cosmos is like a developing organism, and so is our planet, Gaia. The laws of Nature may be more like habits. Partly as a result of the ‘hard problem’ of finding space for human consciousness in the materialist worldview, there is a renewed interest in panpsychist philosophies, according to which some form of mind, experience or consciousness is associated with all self-organizing systems, including atoms, molecules and plants. Maybe the sun is conscious, and so are other stars, and entire galaxies. If so, what about the mind of the universe as a whole? Rupert Sheldrake will explore some of the implications of this idea. The entire talk basically revolves around the attempt to explain the working model of the world and universe based on panpsychist theory. Since so much is yet unknown then any proposed working model must therefore make assumptions to fill in the gaps. And the assumptions made are precisely what needs to be the focus of anyone considering the overall validity of the model being constructed. For wherever those assumptions are erroneous that is where you will find the flaws in the model. Or where the model is faulty either in whole or in part. I would caution anyone to first examine the assumptions made as to their validity and not just assume that the assumptions are correct lest you end up believing in a faulty model. What I found oddly missing from his talk was any direct mention of objective and subjective reality. Perhaps because panpsychism ultimately recognizes only the objective world? Subjectivity appears to be nothing more than an aspect of consciousness per the article I read on panpsychism. All in all panpsychism is simply one scientific theory, as opposed to materialism/physicalism, which is meant to explain our reality and provide us with a working model. My assessment is that it is inaccurate in many respects and falls short for many reasons. For one, consciousness is not an attribute of mind. Consciousness is what we are. The mind is that portion of consciousness which deals with physical reality. Consciousness creates the mind. The reverse of what panpsychism assumes. For another, they are stuck on the idea that there exists only one reality, the only one which they have any awareness of . . . the physical one. And since they think only in terms of an objective universe then subjectivity is stripped of it's reality. As per panpsychism's relegation of subjectivity to be no more than an appendage of consciousness. I find within panpsychism no firm definition as to what consciousness is, other than consciousness being an attribute of mind. And neither is there a definition or explanation of what mind is. Or mentality, for that matter. These seem to be words which have no meaning, no definition, and no explanation of what they are. And so I come away thinking that these scientists don't quite know what they're talking about. From where I come from there is a definite and very real objective reality. There is also a definite and very real subjective reality. The source of objective reality is subjective reality. It's the other way around from the accepted view. Subjective reality creates objective reality. Without subjective reality objective reality would not exist. Consciousness creates form. Again, not the other way around as is supposed. With any philosophy or any world view here is what I look for above all else. Cohesion. When the individual components of most all world views, scientific or otherwise, are put together you will find that they are extremely ill fitting. For instance, the conclusions of one branch of science are contradictory to the conclusions of another branch of science. Here's a quote from the source of information that I've adopted: "The sciences still keep secrets from each other. The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after the other, while the physicists realize that time is not only relative to the perceiver, but that all events are simultaneous. The archeologists merrily continue to date the remains of “past” civilizations, never asking themselves what the past means - or saying: “This is the past relative (underlined) to my point of perception.”" —NotP Chapter 1: Session 752, July 28, 1975 What I find humorous and ironic is that I often get laughed at and derided for the unconventional ideas I express for they fly in the face of conventional thought. I am told that my ideas are so far out in left field, run counter to mass accepted ideas, and thus can't be true. And then I am assailed by all of the conventional ideas of how the world works, all of which I am thoroughly familiar with since they've all been taught to me throughout my life as well. Yet when I drill down on their beliefs and ask them to explain how their world views actually work in practical detail not a one can provide even a partial rational explanation. The devil is always in the details and ultimately they have none. A true explanation of who we are and what this world is must account for every aspect of reality, every phenomenon, and be able to rationally and logically explain every experience. And every aspect, phenomenon and explanation must fit together seamlessly. I've come across only one source which has thus far been capable of fulfilling that very tall order. And that source is not of this world. At least no longer. But only in our terms. Kudos to anyone who is able to stay awake for the entirety of the talk. Get ready to reference Wiki so you can understand the jargon.

And my dear Norwegian friend.

I see a familiar face lurking below. Someone with the keen eyes of an owl.

Then I can return to my sabbatical! Good work all around, fellas!!

I've been on sabbatical these past months. Would someone quickly fill me in on what I've missed?

What's so funny @landtrout? Where's you're disagreement with what I wrote? Share it.

I call it principles. You either live by them or not. They're not something you waver on for light and transient causes. ". . . regardless of what the Thai people all around you on the BTS are doing . . . " I'm not a sheep. I'm not in the habit of doing as everyone else does without questioning whether it's a good idea or not. Wearing masks is not a good idea in my estimation. "it is the right thing to do . . . " What's right is relative, as is what's wrong. You should know that. Taking the (your) moral high ground doesn't in and of itself make your point of view correct. People often take moral high grounds as false argumentative tactics. I don't fall for that trick. BTW, the act of respect is the recognition of a person's worth. It has naught to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the ideas they hold or live by. I may or may not respect someone's wishes. But that's not the same as having respect for the person. I have respect for you because you have innate worth as a human being. As much as I do. But I don't agree with the ideas you're presenting here. Does my disagreement constitute disrespect towards you? Hardly. And so neither is my choice of not wearing a mask in a train full of mask wearers an act of disrespecting them as people. I simply don't agree with their ideas for wearing a mask. And in that sense also I'm respecting my principles. I'm respecting myself.

So you're dropping the wearing of masks as a 'cultural' thing? The goal posts change and now it's about respecting their sense of politeness. Now here's where you make a huge erroneous assumption: ". . . that is what the Thai people have decided is something that is important to them." It wasn't until mask wearing became mandatory that most Thais complied. Before the mandate went into effect there were some that did and a lot that didn't. I'd be careful before I claimed to know what all Thai people think (as if they all think the same, too).

You know, that's a point that I noticed back then, too. Tons of videos showing people collapsing everywhere. But I can't recall seeing a single similar video outside of China. Things that make you go, "Hmmmm."

Whose science and whose credible studies?

Since when did wearing a face mask become a Thai cultural norm? Thais didn't wear them before 2020. Or is this a new, modern Thai cultural norm you've just invented? When I don't wear a mask amongst Thais who wear masks I teach them to not be afraid. Otherwise, I fully agree with the adage "when in Rome, do as the Romans" and I practice it.

No. The cough spit circulates inside your mask.

When you find out that governments and media are not the truth tellers you thought they were then the game changes.

Whose scientific data? And how do you know the scientific data that you do go by is any good? Is it only good because you've been told it's good. Likely. Still, how do you account for opposing scientific data other that to perhaps call it pseudo-science and dismiss it? Would you, on your own, be able to tell the difference? Not likely. The above questions are for all of those here who think they know what's what because they "go with the science." In truth, they go with what they go with only because they trust they're not being lied to. In other words, they go on faith. That's about it.

Did you ever consider that we have facts which you are ignorant of? The MSM keeps you in the dark. Not only that, they work to discredit the truth. The truth is everywhere if you look for it. But you'll never look outside your self created paradigm since you've been so indoctrinated to believe everything outside of that paradigm is a lie. There's a great big world out there if you've the courage to step outside of your safe space. Give DeSantis and Dr. Ladapo huge credit for possessing the courage to face the oncoming onslaught that the media and big pharma will most assuredly attempt to wreak on them.

‘Paramount importance’: Judge orders FDA to hasten release of Pfizer vaccine docs https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ There's an army of mostly volunteer experts and lawyers going through those documents and are finding extremely damning information. They've also begun filing lawsuits based on the information they've uncovered. Unfortunately the MSM doesn't cover that type of news so for most posters here that information is denied to them as the only sources that do report on any of those findings are labeled "conspiratorial sites." How convenient if you want to hide the truth, eh? If the NYT, WaPo, et al don't report on it then it didn't really happen, right?

"You claim that any media source that reports information you disagree with is extremely biased." Your putting words in my mouth. I never said any of what you wrote. I only said that Axios is extreme far left and that is a fact. Such strong bias can never arrive at any truth. "I can't find the link to any article posted by you." Not true. You found the link to the BBC article without a hitch. "And as I've pointed out, Ron Johnson clearly doesnt even understand why it's invalid to use the VAERS the way he did. Link me to something he or his "experts" put in writing so I can debunk it." Educate yourself. Or is that a problem? You refuse to watch the video but claim it's all "conspiracy theory" (. . . "so I can debunk it . . . " - conspiracy theory implied with that statement) without ever knowing the facts they present? Am I dealing with a serious person here?

"This actually establishes the contrary of what you believe." Read your own writing. They have no proof, as I don't have proof. But to you their "possibilities" "establish" that the vax is NOT the cause. You honestly know neither but attempt to argue for your narrative anyway. BTW, I never stated my beliefs either way. There is most definitely a great number of deaths and adverse events taking place and I'm all for getting to the bottom of the causes. Which is what DeSantis aims to do. In heaven's name, why would you be so adamantly opposed to discovering the real truth about why we are experiencing so many unexplained deaths and destroyed lives? Do you care?

This is to appease @Bkk Brian> ". . . conspiracy theory . . . " Is that all you've got, placeholder? Call everyone who disagrees with you a conspiracy theorist? In essence, any opinion, any at all, which counters yours is automatically a conspiracy theory? I hope you understand that I see right through that tactic. Why don't you counter, in an intellectual, rational fashion, the other article I posted? Or perhaps counter what's in the video I presented? Or is it easier to use bully-boy schoolyard tactics of name calling? Sen. Ron Johnson's panel provides a great deal of expert data and findings, and I hope DeSantis works with him. Is there anything presented there that you disagree with, and over which we can have a rational debate? Or aren't those allowed in your world?

I believe the CDC will be investigated by DeSantis. Don't quote me on that because I can't find the source. If/when I do I'll post it. The CDC doesn't sport a halo above it's official insignia. Of course any government official who supports the narrative of the left is beyond corruption. That's a given assumption that's plain as fact. Right?

Sources pending review. Now I've been told that if a source is not confirmed as reliable it can't be used. Let's play by your rules. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fortunejournals.com

I did read the article. Yes, it's from the BBC. Do you expect the BBC to take an anti-vax position? Now that would be laughable. Of course they are going to address the facts and then come up with any doctor or other expert to provide other "possibilities" as explanations. That's like, duh! And so it doesn't "establish" anything. Or did you read anything which absolutely confirms the cause? You didn't because it's not there. But you're likely to believe anything, even the most remotest possibility they offer, as long as it fits your narrative. Let's not fool each other. The point of my posting that article was to highlight the headline, which fact can't be completely ignored. I believe the problem exists in the U.S. as well. Which is why I'm applauding DeSantis' efforts. What objection do you have for finding the real cause?

Nope. None. Censorship.

We're still in the process of getting all the documentation together (no hurries) but I did have a few excellent finds that are worth sharing as they would be very helpful (and cost saving) to future readers. Getting a certified translation to English for the girl's Thai birth certificate was done at the Thai Department of Consular Affairs on Ram Inthra Rd. in Lak Si, Bangkok. For recent births (can't remember the cut-off year) these are easily obtained. Price - free. You must, though, make an appointment first. Since the mum was born before the cut-off year we had to look elsewhere for a translation. I ran across an excellent and helpfui educational and resource site called ExpatDen which covered all types of translation needs in minutiae. We originally had our target set on First Choice Translation Co., Ltd. located in Samsen Nai, Bangkok but I found their price of ฿11,500 to be outrageously steep. Lead time is 6 days and travel to their office is required. So I went to a recommended certified translator site provided by ExpatDen. Bangkok Translation and Interpretation Service Quotes can easily and conveniently be done on-line without the need to travel to their office. The Thai document can be sent electronically either via their website or by email. Replies for quotes are rather immediate. Translated documents can be return sent either by email or both email and post, if the original is required. Lead time is 2 working days, whilst the delivery time for the original translated document is excluded. Translations are certified, review and proofreading is done by 2 linguists, and they offer unlimited revisions in case of errors. The price was an absolute shocker. ฿550 for the translation and ฿50 for the postal fee. We are going to our favourite Italian restaurant this late afternoon to pig out for free thanks to the savings.

Simon & Garfunkel with the title track off of their '64 Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M. debut LP. But again I'm getting ahead of myself.