New watch and consider...is the universe the result of an observer

[pshun2404]

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word (Logos) of God...” – Hebrews 11

Physicist Sir James Jeans writes, “... the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (“The Mental Universe”, Nature 436:29,2005)

That which was of faith is now the indicated reality of physical science.

“things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” – Hebrews 11

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” – Physicist Niels Bohr

Now though none of these got this from reading a Bible, apparently they are getting there albeit more slowly over time....

Watch and consider...

 

[tas8831]

Still waiting for you to come clean on your documented purposeful misrepresentation of the Stern and Susman paper. You should not try to ignore your dishonesty, especially when it has been documented.

 

[SkyWriting]

Still waiting for you to come clean on your documented purposeful misrepresentation of the Stern and Susman paper. You should not try to ignore your dishonesty, especially when it has been documented.

People change very slowly. Eventually...you'll see that.

 

[SkyWriting]

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word (Logos) of God...” – Hebrews 11

Physicist Sir James Jeans writes, “... the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (“The Mental Universe”, Nature 436:29,2005)

That which was of faith is now the indicated reality of physical science.

“things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” – Hebrews 11

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” – Physicist Niels Bohr

Now though none of these got this from reading a Bible, apparently they are getting there albeit more slowly over time....

Watch and consider...

I'm waiting for examples of what he is talking about.

 

[pshun2404]

Noting the similarities between what Hebrews said and these disinterested non-theist Physicists say the video was just something to consider that is all.

Some people must have a target they can attack or destroy, others know how to think even though what they have been taught to think is questioned or challenged.

As usual with all the watch and consider clips it just demonstrates how (Thank God) all scientists are not disabled from thinking outside the box (more and more). What you do with these insights is up to you. I am not trying to say anything.

 

[pshun2404]

Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science? | Matloff | Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research

 

[tas8831]

People change very slowly. Eventually...you'll see that.

Indeed. But he has had years to change his ways - I have found instances of his plagiarism and misrepresentation being called out on other forums going back several years. His current tactic is to just ignore when his dishonesty is documented. Once someone gets locked into protection mode, it seems very difficult for them to be honest even with themselves.

 

[Ophiolite]

Just a heads up to both participants in this thread. I have no idea what either of you are talking about, although there is glimmering of sense in tas8831's first post. I would expect posters in any forum to aim to communicate clearly, both their intent and their opinion, view, thesis, or argument. I suspect this is true of both of you. The problem is that, in this case, it just isn't working.
Perhaps those with a contrary view can post statements to that effect and you can judge how to proceed from that.

 

[pshun2404]

Just a heads up to both participants in this thread. I have no idea what either of you are talking about, although there is glimmering of sense in tas8831's first post. I would expect posters in any forum to aim to communicate clearly, both their intent and their opinion, view, thesis, or argument. I suspect this is true of both of you. The problem is that, in this case, it just isn't working.
Perhaps those with a contrary view can post statements to that effect and you can judge how to proceed from that.

There is no sense to Tas's first or second post. It is his self determined job to start fights and try to get any who disagree with him on the defensive. The simple request with all Watch and Consider threads is to just watch it and consider it in light of the quotes. That is all nothing more...do with that as you will. Take from it what you can. Agree or disagree with the scientists as you wish, not all are as closed minded as Tas.

If you dig into the second tier of his accusation you will see in that I posted almost a whole page of "quotations" directly from the work of that study. For Tas, what some scientists say these things mean = Science itself, as well as permanently established unquestionable fixed immovable truth. He cannot separate the Narrative attached and by nature must deny, reject, or discredit in any way possible ANY who think a different thought, or see a different meaning, or present a question to any of his established unquestionable fixed immovable truths.

But what of 100 years from now when half of it is considered obsolete and incorrect (like what happened to Newtonian Mechanics in light of Relativity or how that was shaped and now seen differently in light of Quantum Physics, and so on)?

Dr. Adam Perkins, of King’s College London recently said, “we need free speech in science because science is not really about microscopes, or pipettes, or test tubes or even Large Hadron Colliders. These are merely tools that help us to accomplish a far greater mission, which is to choose between rival narratives, in the vicious, no-holds-barred battle of ideas that we call ‘science’... we take a bird’s eye view of the facts of the matter and attempt to form an opinion about what they mean.

This allows a lot of room for argument, but as long as both sides are able to speak up, we can at least have a debate: when a researcher disagrees with the findings of an opponent’s study, they traditionally write an open letter to the journal editor critiquing the paper in question and setting out their counter evidence...When one side of a scientific debate is allowed to silence the other side, this is an impediment to scientific progress because it prevents bad theories being replaced by better theories.”

But just like Tas, many there would not allow open minds to hold different views, no matter how well supported, or how reasonable the logic, and subsequently his lecture on the subject of needing free speech in science was shut down and cancelled. Sad how such intelligent but closed minded men can dwarf real progress.

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for your response. It is well after midnight here, so while there are some things I disagree with in your post I shall defer commenting on them until I have a fresh mind available to process them.

What I will say now is that you are, seemingly, working on the erroneous assumption that all of your readers are familiar with the character and intent of a "Watch and Consider" thread. It's true that had I contemplated the possible significance of the title for a while, read and re-read the quotes, looked at the link, then I might - emphasise might - have figured out what I was meant to do with it all. But really, I shouldn't have to do that work. That's work you can do by simply including a sentence or two in each "Watch and Consider" thread you post in future. That would be sensible and courteous approach.

I hope you will find this suggestion helpful.

 

[pshun2404]

Thank you for your response. It is well after midnight here, so while there are some things I disagree with in your post I shall defer commenting on them until I have a fresh mind available to process them.

What I will say now is that you are, seemingly, working on the erroneous assumption that all of your readers are familiar with the character and intent of a "Watch and Consider" thread. It's true that had I contemplated the possible significance of the title for a while, read and re-read the quotes, looked at the link, then I might - emphasis might - have figured out what I was meant to do with it all. But really, I shouldn't have to do that work. That's work you can do by simply including a sentence or two in each "Watch and Consider" thread you post in future. That would be sensible and courteous approach.

I hope you will find this suggestion helpful.

I do, and the truth is anyone can share their opinion on the watch and consider if they want but that is not the purpose. It is to give food for thought, hence Watch....and consider....and each can ponder what it means, and put that information or perspective into their minds however THEY will. There is no right or wrong, and my opinion is meaningless and of no more value (or lack thereof), than anyone's.

 

[Ophiolite]

I do, and the truth is anyone can share their opinion on the watch and consider if they want but that is not the purpose. It is to give food for thought, hence Watch....and consider....and each can ponder what it means, and put that information or perspective into their minds however THEY will. There is no right or wrong, and my opinion is meaningless and of no more value (or lack thereof), than anyone's.

Right.... I'm not explaining myself clearly, which is ironic given that this is the objection I am raising about your Watch and Consider posts. I'll try again.

The succinct phrase "Watch and Consider" does not convey, umabiguously, to those unfamiliar with the phrase or these threads just what is expected of them. Thus, while you may think you are giving necessary guidance, I am letting you know it will not be adequate for all. I am recommending that you include, as an opening paragraph, something of this sort. (I've tried to use your own words, where possible, but certainly to capture the spirit of what you are aiming for.)

This post is one of a series called "Watch and Consider". The idea of these is to watch the video on the link, read the quotations and consider what they mean - philosphically, practically, religiously - in any way that seems relevant to you. The video and quote should give food for thought, thought you can develop from your own perspective. There is no right or wrong in this analysis, but feel free to share your thoughts with the membership.

My aim is not to be controversial or get into a debate over this. Obviously you can ignore this advice if you choose. That will lead to a proportion of new readers simply ignoring such threads. I doubt that would be your wish.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[pshun2404]

No please, that was excellent. This was about the 7th or 8th of these, so I thought "watch and consider" alone would be sufficient since that is all I intended.

 

[tas8831]

There is no sense to Tas's first or second post. It is his self determined job to start fights and try to get any who disagree with him on the defensive.

I am not the one ignoring exposure of my repetitious dishonesty - that is YOU.

It is not starting fights to expect a self-proclaimed Christian to come clean and stop running away as if nothing has been documented.

I cannot see wasting time discussing anything with you - and am not sure why anyone else does - until you fess up and STOP plagiarizing, misrepresenting, re-using refuted arguments, playing dumb when called out, etc.

I understand that these are standard creationist antics, but you try to present yourself as being above all that.

But you're not.

 

[pshun2404]

I am not the one ignoring exposure of my repetitious dishonesty - that is YOU.

It is not starting fights to expect a self-proclaimed Christian to come clean and stop running away as if nothing has been documented.

I cannot see wasting time discussing anything with you - and am not sure why anyone else does - until you fess up and STOP plagiarizing, misrepresenting, re-using refuted arguments, playing dumb when called out, etc.

I understand that these are standard creationist antics, but you try to present yourself as being above all that.

But you're not.

Thank you! Yes you are obviously correct. Thanks for this rant.

 

[tas8831]

Thank you! Yes you are obviously correct. Thanks for this rant.

And there you go again... The martyr act isn't working for you, dude.

I know I am correct. Several times over, that is why you act like this. Where is that 'Christian humility'?


Here is the first time you were caught (as far as I know) re: the Stern and Susman paper:

pshun2404 said: ↑

Stern and Susman (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, Issue 3, March 1983) remarked: “It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees” (1983, pg. 280). They went on to comment: “The AL 333-91 [designation for a specific A. afarensis fossil—BH/BT] pisiform [bone of the hand—BH/BT] is ‘elongate and rod shaped’ and thus resembles the long, projecting pisiform of apes and monkeys”.


Stern and Susman’s research detailed the fact that the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities assigned to hands and feet. Instead, their research demonstrated that these creatures had long, curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates.

Gene2memE:
Dishonest quote mining, in the extreme (not sure why I expected anything else, really).

Here's the full abstract:

The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.
Abstract
The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.

So, A. afarensis is a transitional species - displaying characteristics of BOTH arboreal and terrestrial bipedalism.

And, on the very first page of the paper:

Today the overwhelming preponderance of researchers view the short broad ilium and valgus knee of australopithecines as adaptations for terrestrial bipedal locomotion. That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute. Rather, controversy has centered on the following questions:
1. Did forms of posture and locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality comprise a sufficiently large component of the australopithecine behavioral repertaire to be reflected in their anatomy?
2. Was the terrestrial bipedality practiced by australopithecines in any significant way (re joint excursions, speed, or cost) different from that of modern humans?

If you're going to quote mine, at least actually read the paper, so you don't look so silly.

Amazingly, despite replying 8 times in that thread after that post was made, you did not even respond. Imagine that...

I reminded you of this here:
Does science actually admit "design"?

and you ignored it there, too.

This is documented for all to see.

But a simple search shows that you have been misrepresenting this paper since at least 2015!
You very carefully avoided quotes from the S&S paper that undermined your position - that clever use of ellipses creationists are so well known for!

And totally awesome (I love searching on here - always so many gems!) - someone called 'DaisyDay' catches you quote-mining! Poor fellow!

Everyone is just so mean to you... when you get caught doing dishonest things!

And dismissing the accusation of quote mining because the evidence showing you did was from the google books version of the book you quote mined - pure class!

Then you used the S&S misrepresentations AGAIN in 2017!



You can dismiss it all you want, but it is an issue. And I do not care how indignant and dismissive and sarcastic you get trying to save face - if you cannot be trusted to accurately and honestly provide information, why should your arguments be taken seriously at all?

And it is not just you - I have caught several other creationist/ID types on this very forum doing the same things you have been caught doing. It is a creationist issue.

 

[pshun2404]

And there you go again... The martyr act isn't working for you, dude.

I know I am correct. Several times over, that is why you act like this. Where is that 'Christian humility'?

Here is the first time you were caught (as far as I know) re: the Stern and Susman paper:

Amazingly, despite replying 8 times in that thread after that post was made, you did not even respond. Imagine that...

I reminded you of this here:
Does science actually admit "design"?

and you ignored it there, too.

This is documented for all to see.

But a simple search shows that you have been misrepresenting this paper since at least 2015!
You very carefully avoided quotes from the S&S paper that undermined your position - that clever use of ellipses creationists are so well known for!

And totally awesome (I love searching on here - always so many gems!) - someone called 'DaisyDay' catches you quote-mining! Poor fellow!

Everyone is just so mean to you... when you get caught doing dishonest things!

And dismissing the accusation of quote mining because the evidence showing you did was from the google books version of the book you quote mined - pure class!

Then you used the S&S misrepresentations AGAIN in 2017!

You can dismiss it all you want, but it is an issue. And I do not care how indignant and dismissive and sarcastic you get trying to save face - if you cannot be trusted to accurately and honestly provide information, why should your arguments be taken seriously at all?

And it is not just you - I have caught several other creationist/ID types on this very forum doing the same things you have been caught doing. It is a creationist issue.

Thank you, that was excellent, sorry I cannot be perfect like you...now back to the thread....

 

[Ophiolite]

No please, that was excellent. This was about the 7th or 8th of these, so I thought "watch and consider" alone would be sufficient since that is all I intended.

Yes, the problem is that new members will not likely have seen earlier threads and established members, such as myself, may be encountering one of them for the first time. Cheers.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, the problem is that new members will not likely have seen earlier threads and established members, such as myself, may be encountering one of them for the first time. Cheers.

Yes, thank you...I will be more specific when I post these (assuming newbies have not seen the others). In addition it would have been a better Subtitle to ask "Could the Universe be" rather than "Is the Universe" allowing for different perspectives on plausibility. I found it interesting that some scientists are considering this possibility.

It reminds me of a quotation from Astronomer and Physicist Robert Jastrow which says "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

 

[Ophiolite]

It reminds me of a quotation from Astronomer and Physicist Robert Jastrow which says "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

I regret the rejection of philosophy and metaphysics, in varying degrees, by some scientists and scientifically inclined laypersons. However, readiness to contemplate alternatives, which should be a natural desire of any scientists, does not automatically confer a high level of plausibility on those alternatives.