Just what Salt Creek always wanted
Posted: 23 November 2008 09:03 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

Mined from the spam filter…,

Here you are Salt Creek, a book just for you written by a fellow materials physicist.  I just know you will rush out and buy a copy, it’s just sooooo you.


Spiritual Awareness said:
> It is with pleasure that we inform you of a new book about spirituality.
>  The First Principles:  A Scientist’s Guide to the Spiritual by Dr.
> John Joseph Petrovic has now become available on Amazon.com.  This new
> book presents a thought-provoking, scientifically intuitive assessment
> of the nature of spirituality and it’s guiding axioms. The First
> Principles:  A Scientist’s Guide to the Spiritual offers a rare and
> invaluable perspective on the philosophy of science, spirituality, and
> the ever increasing, blurred boundary between the two.  The author
> grapples with big ideas and weighty concepts, but brings them down to
> earth in the form of three basic axioms, elegant in their simplicity,
> and profound in their implications.  The book does not take a purely
> intellectual approach to science and spirituality, far from it.  Rather,
> scientist-author Petrovic expands his well formed and scrupulously
> shaped arguments into a personal and actionable philosophy, that if
> applied to daily life, can deepen one’s relationship with the
> “Wholeness” that so many call God. Told with compassion and written with
> the non-scientist in mind, The First Principles:  A Scientist’s Guide to
> the Spiritual teaches a new way to understand the beauty and elegance of
> science and spirituality.  It is a must-read for those seeking a path
> towards spiritual truth.  The book is available on Amazon.com and may be
> accessed at the following website:
> http://www.amazon.com/First-Principles-Scientists-Guide-Spiritual/dp/1439204713/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224712269&sr=1-1

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2008 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10
burt - 23 November 2008 02:03 PM

  A Scientist’s Guide to the Spiritual offers a rare and
invaluable perspective on the philosophy of science, spirituality, and the ever increasing, blurred boundary between the two.

Let me guess. Mr. Petrovic is one of those who encourages the blurring.

Isn’t ‘the philosophy of science’ like speaking of the alchemy of chemistry?

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2008 05:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

It is a must-read for those seeking a path
towards spiritual truth.

Yeah burt, Salty’s a fuckwit seeking a path towards spiritual truth. confused Do you even read his posts?
Sounds like a book for those who like to bathe in oxymorons: spiritual truth rolleyes

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2008 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5704146433

This is an interview with a notorious fuckwit, Andrew (“Why won’t God go away?”) Newberg.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
About 25 minutes in he makes a startling claim. That the reality of the Zen is more real than the reality of the scientist. I think this the kind of claim that reporters snip for a sound bite so they can get it all wrong in the news.

I used 40 minutes of my life to watch that video. It wasn’t a total waste for me, since the interviewer actually tried to challenge Newberg at several points, rather than just helping with a publicity stunt or book promotion.

Newberg is interested in, among other things, the persistence of people’s desire for “religious experience”. I think that it is probably valuable to investigate this from various angles, particularly if tolerance is one’s goal.

Nevertheless, by the end of the interview, Newberg was in a bit of a panic of equivocation, summing up the analysis by saying that individuals have to figure out what works for them. Newberg is treading a very fine line to try not to piss off religious people who take their religious experiences very seriously (“Zen is more real than the reality of the scientist”) and admitting the intersubjective value of saying “that table over there is real, and you will tend to agree with me if you’re not psychotic”.

Understanding how people desire to have religious experiences is also a matter of what works for one personally. It probably feeds into one’s stance with respect to conflict. Conflict-averse individuals adopt a stance of tolerance almost as a matter of course.

The process of parietal lobe isolation, or whatever it is, helps to explain the reported experience of “loss of self” by people who have ecstatic, mystical, or other kinds of religious experiences. In that sense, those experiences are real. When Newberg speculates about Absolute Unitary Being, or that there is some sort of creative primality that precedes consciousness, who knows what he really means by it. Having an understanding of vector calculus works for me. It’s not that a knowledge of vector calculus solves all my problems, but it does give me a sense that something is going on that’s greater than my own paltry individuality.

LucidFlight wrote:
Being outdoors and away from the internet gives one an enhanced sense of reality. It’s virtually full of reality “out there”. It could all just be in my mind, but I imagine it’s not.

Yep. Works for me, too.

People who need to lose themselves once in awhile can have lots of motivations for wanting to do so. In many cases, it appears simply because most of the time it is just unpleasant being “themselves”. This can have to do with events in life as various as their parents’ missteps during toilet training.

There’s a gem from the trusty old Unix fortune program that sums up the “what it is like” of subjective experience:

A gleekzorp without a tornpee is like a quop without a fertsneet (sort of).

REF: Reality

[ Edited: 23 November 2008 06:10 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2008 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
Salt Creek - 23 November 2008 11:05 PM

. Having an understanding of vector calculus works for me. It’s not that a knowledge of vector calculus solves all my problems, but it does give me a sense that something is going on that’s greater than my own paltry individuality.

Damn, SC, you almost sound theistic here. Change “something” to “someone” and you have it. Math is personal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2008 06:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Bruce Burleson - 23 November 2008 11:15 PM

Math is personal.

New Math is personal. Vector calculus is Old Math.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2008 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1632
Joined  2006-09-23
Salt Creek - 23 November 2008 11:05 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5704146433

This is an interview with a notorious fuckwit, Andrew (“Why won’t God go away?”) Newberg.

That link doesn’t work, but if you go to Google video and search on “andrew newberg”, it’s the first thing that comes up.

 Signature 

“I will tell you with the utmost impudence that I esteem much more his Person, than his Works.”

  (Dryden, St. Euremont’s Essays, 1692.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2008 11:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

REF: Reality

WoW.
How about that Lifegazer aye? Just goes to show, every forum has its Champ… and unwitting (?)  bad philosophical plagiarist. It was like reading “mind of God” George Berkeley on nitrous oxide.

Reality? Methinks LG mislabeled his thread. Meta-reality would have been more appropriate. Even if it is a philosophy “board.”

What a farting nightmare that guy is.

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 November 2008 04:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2006-06-15
Bruce Burleson - 23 November 2008 11:15 PM

Damn, SC, you almost sound theistic here. Change “something” to “someone” and you have it. Math is personal.

I think what Salt Creek is telling us, as if we hadn’t already guessed, is that underneath all the verbal savagery lies a gentle and receptive soul. His slash-and-burn communication technique is just a way of ensuring that he himself is never ridiculed. (Oscar Wilde’s ‘Selfish Giant’ to a T - but that story has a beautiful ending.)

 Signature 

Affiliation creates division. Friendship is better than membership.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2008 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

Schopenhauer on Hegel: “Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be,… was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense.  This nonsense has been noisely proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools.  …The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation.”

Boltzmann on Schopenhauer: “...a stupid, ignorant philosopher, scribbling nonsense and dispensing hollow verbiage that fundamentally and forever rots peoples brains.”

Worthy of you Salty!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2009 09:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Salt Creek - 23 November 2008 11:05 PM

People who need to lose themselves once in awhile can have lots of motivations for wanting to do so. In many cases, it appears simply because most of the time it is just unpleasant being “themselves”. This can have to do with events in life as various as their parents’ missteps during toilet training.

Philosophy! What a playground!

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2009 04:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Sander - 23 November 2008 05:33 PM

Isn’t ‘the philosophy of science’ like speaking of the alchemy of chemistry?

Where’d you get that idea!?

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2009 04:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
Salt Creek - 06 January 2009 02:19 AM
Salt Creek - 23 November 2008 11:05 PM

People who need to lose themselves once in awhile can have lots of motivations for wanting to do so. In many cases, it appears simply because most of the time it is just unpleasant being “themselves”. This can have to do with events in life as various as their parents’ missteps during toilet training.

Philosophy! What a playground!

You are talking to yourself again. Time to see Dennis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2009 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Philosophy is pretty much inescapable, like ideologies and world views. You can have absolutely solid, sound philosophy or utterly arbitrary bullshit philosophy, and of course anything and everything in-between, but because there’s bad philosophy (and a lot of it) doesn’t mean the whole paradigm is the same, nor does it make us any more capable of stepping outside of it. I’m all for criticizing the bullshit, but let’s also maintain our own grip on reality at the same time—eh?

BTW, the more theoretical a given science the more likely a given scientist in that field will be all about the woo (though the number of such will still be much lower than in the general population). I’m certainly not disparaging theoretical sciences, just pointing out that good and bad philosophy is what good and bad science boils down to. Still, with science the data are available and repeatable, so a boneheaded piece of science will be corrected as long as it is actually science to a sufficient degree. Once it’s no longer correctable it’s well outside of the parameters of actual science.

NOTE:
This post and this thread are 100% philosophy of science.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed