charles brough

We all know we day dream ourselves to sleep at night visualizing scenes. For example, if you drive all day, at night, you will still see road ahead.

 

I find the same thing happens with cards. In my case, if I play ten games of Freecell in the afternoon, it will take seven hours before I can go to bed that night, close my eyes, and not see the game in front of me;

 

I can even play the game---somewhat. It is not vivid enough to be sure of any single card and when I am looking for the best place to put it, it is apt to change so that when I put it down, it no longer goes there! Rather than fight that, I stop playing Freecell seven hours before bedtime.

 

Anyone else have "mind's eye" experiences?

i belive that nor good nor evil exists , its just a thing that we invented so every1 would feel ''good''

my definition ofgood is- something that is best for the man ( that is wondering what is good) in that moment of time

the evil also

for instance - u hit a man , is that good or evil? well u hit him because u were mad so to u that is good, but for him its bad ( because he is hurt )

and who r u to tell them that they r good or bad

its all relatyve

Are you serious? What an illegible pile of nonsense!

My question here is whether the Western and Eastern way of thinking really so much different? Do we hold different opinions and ideology on ethical matters such as death, war, disease, population control, the use of natural resourses, and consequences of preventing such things? Are our societies ultimately evolving to include eachothers ways of thought and feelings on these matters? And is it right to have a certain amount of prejudice towards another society if our thoughts are different because of a general difference in the experiences of a society? I know that generally everyone has a certain amount of prejudice towards one thing or another. But are we as world coming closer to a point where these prejudices are no longer valid? I couldn't form my thoughts to anything specific on this topic, so I wanted to get the forums opinion on some of these things.

 

Prejudices? Its normal for people to prefer their own religion and ideology! After all, we evolved through millions of years as small group primates. We feel a sense of community mostly when our group is threatened by another group. The "praising of diversity" is one of our secular ideology's most recent doctrines and it defies human nature. No wonder it isn't working! The world is becoming more divided and its mainstream religion-based societies are becoming more hositile towards each other. That's why the West is becoming less and less able to solve growing world problems. Its all simple matter of cause and effect.

 

 

brough,

http://civilization-overview.com

Thank you very much! You have a reason - the term "sociology of science" appears scientific, but is not really understandable. that s why i am interested in real meaning of this term. can somebody explain it?

 

for the history etc of science - there are a lot of such books in our library...

and you, which books about the sociology, real sociology do you recommend?

Well, sociology is the study of groups. Science is the effort to understand what happens in the world and universe. While it is true that some groups are better at science than the others, I find it hard to attach any significant meaning to the"sociology of science" term. This is not unusual. Often meaningless terms and usages appear in sociological papers. These "buzzwords" are regarded as "cool." But we mustn't be too critical of sociologists because they are working in the only field where they are forced to be subjective. You cannot, for example, expect them to come up with anything that reflects on our Christian faith or our secular ideals. So, we hire sociologists to pretend to do science for us. They take on the onus for all the subjective rationalizing so the rest of the scientists don't have to.

 

If you want to better understand how the rationalizing in sociology and social theory is done, check out "The Last Civilization" at my website URL below. I have twenty-one of them listed and described in the Appendix.

 

If you want a good education to get a career, why pick a dead end? There is an immense shortage of highly trained graduate engineering experts in chemical, compter, mechanical engineering. Too many students pick a useless "liberal arts" education---thinking it will enable them to think---and end up deep in debt and without a job.

That clears up and settles that question, post and thread!

I just have one simple question to you; do you think the Homo Sapien species will ever come to an end?

 

Note: I don't mean ending as the result of a catastrophe.

 

It seems, to me, that this wouldn't happen. Humans are just so advanced in all fields that I can't see it happening.

 

Also, if you feel like answering more; do you think there will be any major evolution's in the Human race? It seems as if we have it all...

 

If you are seriously interested in this subject, I suggest you take a look at "The Last Civilization." In it, I make the point that the long term survival of human civilization depends upon our eventual expansion out and colonizing of space. When and if we do manage that, there is no end to human destiny. If not, we are heading for the same over-crowding crisis that characterizes all life if it cannot expand its territory. The result would be the end of civilization and a much smaller world population hand tilling the soil and restricted, probably, only to parts of it not contaminated by nuclear war radiation.

 

It is a big subject and there is a lot more to it than that . . .

The rats are loaded with diseases some no cure if person gets rat bite.The rats for sone reason do not seem to get sick and immuned to most diseases .Yat the carry the diseases .

 

Yet on the other hand insects do not seem to really carry diseases it is mostly insect venom that is problem to people.

Are you sure that rodents carry more diseases dangerous to us than other wild animals or are you just associating them with the Midieval Plague?

 

Also, flies, mosquitos and some other insects do carry diseases dangerous to us.

 

Do you read over and check your posts before you post them? You should . . .

 

Peace

Theist. Who is your Lord and Monarch? Satan or Jesus?

 

Dogma says that God evicted Satan from heaven because he would not bow to man.

 

God also gave man dominion in Eden and this sovereignty was somehow given to Satan. We know this because he used it to tempt Jesus. His dominion thus had to be real or the temptation is a lie.

 

Dogma also says that through Jesus is now the only way for man to reach heaven. The hierarchy of powers over man seems to thus be God at the top, if allowed by Jesus. Second would be Satan as man's rightful sovereign. Third would be Jesus who usurped the position of the Trinity as the final judge for our admittance to heaven.

 

The various position of the three mentioned can be argued but regardless of who is where, it still means that there are three invisible supernatural entities above man.

 

John 8 4Th4

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

 

If Satan is our earthly King and father as scripture says, are you to serve Satan with deep respect and fear, or Jesus, who has no authority or dominion on earth? Regards DL

While the quote from st. Paul uses "ye" to represent a supposedly "bad" person (it is not entended to mean man in general), there is much evidence in the Bible that Satan is regarded as a god and is even refered to as such in one part of the scriptures. Also, the so-called "Last Days" in Revelations depicts a desperate God in a titanic end-times struggle to the death with Satan, a god who was so powerful in the mythology that he could change Adam and Eve and force God to banish them "cursed forever" as sinful beings.

 

To me, the whole point here is not that the Bible infers Christians should worship Satan but that the religion actually has four gods, that is God, Jesus, Satan and Mary. Even the Pope offers prayers to her . . . In my book, I refer to Christianity is "a near-monotheism" because it at least has fewer gods than the ancient polytheisms which listed literally thousands of gods.

In all this long discussion, has anything of use materialized, anything new understood?

 

"To me, modern philosophers are the history-of-philosophy-loving professional students and academics who enjoy building up ivory tower edifaces of abstractions for the sole intent of carrying on a tradition that is now obsolete.

 

Ontology is the study of the nature of things, but each thing or entity has its own nature. What is important is the cause and effect process that has led to that nature and, hence, what comes next.

To me, the subject of philosophy is a study of the history of theory until the about the last century when theory became more specialized to particular sciences. Astrophysics is more theory than physics, for example, and the social sciences build a data base which is interpreted by social theorists to concoct their theory of the world which is thought of as being our secularized way of thinking.

 

To me, modern philosophers are the history-of-philosophy-loving professional students and academics who enjoy building up ivory tower edifaces of abstractions for the sole intent of carrying on a tradition that is now obsolete.

 

I'm sorry about that but I just left another forum where someone claimed the social sciences are not science but philosophy. I guess I lost my tempter. . .

 

brough

http://civilization-overview.com

The Bible explains a condensed version of evolution when God says "Let there be light," that could mean actual light from a big bang scenario. The Bible does not get into science detail, but you can read between the lines and say oh heres where 4 billion years of natural selection created life, The Bible is a spiritual history book and one cannot easily bridge the gap between science and history involved. Technically, it's like asking a mathematician why two plus two cannot fix a broken arm. The subjects are non sequitor fore the most part...

Certainly, you could interpret it that way, but if some people interpret "let there be light" to

mean "4 billion years of evolution," they are inferring that God over-symplifies and might actually mean something else entirely. And if most people don't take the scriptures literally and instead, enterprect them so freely (and conveniently), which version of the faith is "true"?

 

You use the word "spiritual." I have never been able to find any meaning in that word other than "belief in spirits." Is that the what you meant?

"Brainwashing," in the form that people usually take the term to mean, does not exist.

 

Hypnosis is a social exchange. It cannot do anything to people that people won't do when simply asked to pretend they're hypnotized--decades of empirical work show us so. It is not "mental surgery" any more than, suppose, an intense conversation might be. It cannot cause any more "mental damage" than an intense conversation might. There is no magic about it, and it is about as dangerous as a Ouija Board.

 

PTSD, by the way, stems from a traumatic event involving threat to life or bodily integrity. Hypnosis does not cause it. Schizoaffective disorder appears to be solidly on the schizophrenia spectrum, and seems to be a largely organic illness. Hypnosis is not going to cause it.

 

If you have some kind of citation from a modern, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific source about the great dangers of hypnosis, I'd love to see it. Showmen, religious zealots, and quacks are all too ready to tell you about its dangers, which should probably tell you something about how dangerous it is.

 

To give you the briefest of overviews, hypnosis:

1) mildly entertaining

2) of limited clinical utility

3) not magic

4) not dangerous

I'll accept your assessment of clinical studies. However, my experience is not consistent with that. I have seen and experienced what the focussing of one's concentration can achieve, a feat specific to hypnosis. I make no claim it achieves anything functionally or mentally or physiologically impossible.

 

In a field requiring a certain type of awesome personality to master the technique, a field dominated by showmanship, and a heritage of "animal magnatism," no research academics could further their career by demonstrating what it can and does do.

It seems not many here are able to come up with anything original. . . .

 

 

For example Newtonian mechanics agrees with nature to a high degree of accuracy, provided you are not at the atomic scale (or smaller) and/or none of the bodies move at speeds comparable to the speed of light. At about the atomic scale quantum mechanical effects become important. For fast moving bodies one needs special relativity.

 

Thus we can say that Newtonian mechanics is a good framework, but with the above proviso.

 

In general saying a theory is good or bad, or agrees well with nature or not is quite subtle. There will be some arbitrariness in how well a theory agrees with nature before we say it is good. It is far clearer when a theory greatly disagrees, say predicts some phenomena that has been ruled out by experiment/observation. Then we have to think carefully about the range of parameters in the theory for which we expect it to hold well. Newtonian mechanics is a great example, the theory is very good for not too small and not too fast objects.

 

I see your point. I would then modify my version in this way:

 

 

"One usually talks about a theory being more accurate or less accurate than previous or other explanations for a specific natural phenonenon."

Hypnosis is a very dangerous thing to experiment with...only experts can hypnotize people correctly, and even they make mistakes which can damage a person psychologically. Hypnosis is a mild form of brainwashing, and brainwashing can damage people if they are programmed outside thier normal behavoral pattern...such BAD programming can result in several disorders from PTSD to Schizo Affective Disorder...Hypnosis is a psychiatric mental surgery and can cause mental damage if done imprecisely.

Yes, like anything useful, it can also be very dangerous.

Are those two mutually exclusive?

If you had answered my question, I would have been in a position to answer this one of yours.

I had an insurance adjuster tell me one time that there are no such thing as accidents. He explained that 'accident' is just a label for an event that has occurred as the result of an unsafe act or an unsafe condition.

 

Two of my own:

Draw no conclusions before their time.

 

It is not enough the things we give others but what we give of ourselves.

 

 

Good ones. Its like "no snap judgements." And the 2nd is also good. I think everyone could devise at least one if they think about it.

 

I was in the Forces and the wisest saying I heard was "Never volunteer".

Not original - but very wise!

 

well, that is the safest way to go in the military, but in real life. . . ?

Brandysails, please let me try to sum it up. It has a lot to do with what you WANT to believe. If you have to believe in Creation in order to fit into your church and you abhor the thought of not conforming, you may be better to keep your belief in that ancient, over three thousand year parchemented myth or concept. Then, it was advanced; now it lingers on only as a source of unity and hence a sense of community.

 

If you have had a desent science education, however, you might be willing to accept that hundreds of thousands of dedicated scientists across the world who devote their lives to finding the most accurate explanation possible for everything around us, past, present and into the future. Our whole civilization depends now upon them and the continuation of their work. Do not be pursuaded by the few scholars who try to believe both.

I checked the website you listed. You need to keep in mind that much of science is devoted to finding natural cause explanations for things. The whales in the desert, for example, were found near a port and could have been part of a sunami. The scientists are figuring out what explains it. They do not dismiss the finding of vast numbers of milllions of years old dynasour bones across the world and say they were the result of the Bible Story world-wide flood.

One usually talks about a theory being good or bad via how close the theory matches nature. One has to also think about domains of applicability rather than a theory being correct or not.

 

Yes, but I would change your choice of words a little: "One sually talks about a theory being more accurate or less accurate than previous or other explanations for a particular natural phenonenon."

 

Can we improve upon that?

 

What do you mean in your second sentence?

That is just a form of Yoga. There is the more mundane stretching exercises that can be functional, but much yoga is used to achieve mental/physical/emotional states that are not functional. Yes, with yoga techniques and a vast amount of time and auto-suggestion, one can remove feeling from parts of the body, exercise some control over the heartbeat rate, even achieve a delusion of "becoming one with the world." You can achieve an ability to fall unconscious. You might have developed a blood clot in the brain as a result. Who wants that?

 

The so-called explanation for the techniques are mired in ancient Hindu "science" of between 500 to 1500 AD. It can all be better explained scientifically as self-hypnosis. Other than the stretching exercises, little of any of it is really useful. We need to feel pain, we need to feel distinct from the rest of the world, we need to let body-need determine the heart rate, and we do not need to have the ability to collapse as if we were experiencing an epileptic seizure.

That was helpful .

 

The fact that it was a complete success , with someone extremely susceptible to hypnosis ;

Does this not point at a ' mystery zone ' which is still beyond the grasp of science ?

 

Whatever caused this , had to do with the power of suggestion !

So perhaps a lot more is possible with the Psyche than we are aware of ..

As a tecnique, hypnosis should not be judged just on whether or not it is safe in surgery as seens to be the case in this thread. I have experience with hypnosis and consider it possible in the right type of patient but extremely impractical as it has to be preceeded by staged sessions in preparation and only with susceptable patients.

 

But is it impossible? No, there are people who can eliminate all pain themselves. This takes years of study and self-suggestion.

 

I feel it is important to know the subject because it leads to the individual having a better awareness of propaganda techniques, advertising tricks, etc.

This is what I learned:

 

There is the early period of the night's sleep when you sleep "deeply." This is the most important part in getting the needed rest. Later, the sleep is "lighter" and dreaming serves to keep us asleep as long as possible to satisfy mind and body need. Sometime we wake up gradually as the dream becomes less and less bazzar and fades into conscious worry or we wake up because the dreaming has been unpleasant and stirred up the hormones.

Why do you associate what you feel with the sympathetic nervous system?

 

My personal belief is that you would find the study of hypnosis and auto-suggestion interesting and enlightening. I did.

 

Also, I would think you could do a better job of explaining just what you are experiencing and thinking when you think.

Your ability to "paint as you sleep" is not something I have ever heard of before. I would consider it either a "gift" or an abnormality. That includes you ability to or pathology of associating individuals with certain colors. Do you believe you can tell the mood of an individual by the color you associate with him or is that color a permanent feature to you of the other individual?

 

My only personal experience with something like this is that if I play many free-cell games within eight hours of bedtime, getting to sleep is burdened by a vision of the cards when I close my eyes. I see a mass of black and red cards alligned indistinctly, almost chaotically, but I am somewhat self-propelled to try to match them up as in the game. However, they invariably defeat me by changing at the very time I move them!

Can the human notion of "pride" be defined as the "recognization of the ability to live"? The human need for continuity of existence of self, country, race, etc seem to be predominant in our daily decisions.

Never mind the definition. What counts is what it really is:

 

Pride, ego, status, self-respect, etc. are sought instinctively by not only people but all mammals. We compete with each other for attention and status in life. That is the Alpha character in us. Two bulls fighting for dominance is characteristic and women also compete for status among themselves---but for men, it is for women as well as other men. A man who has achieved what others call "success" feels better and has confidence which others detect. Because of it, they tend to differ to him. All service people are grilled in how to give that feeling to the customer whether he or she has status or not.

 

Men who have testosterone Alpha levels but who meet what to them are overpowering obstacles to success (or what we call there in the US, "the American Dream,") tend to beat their wives and children as well as bully others and, in some cases, go out determined just to kill people.