Carlos Castaneda

[Brant Gaede]

I can agree with you about (the importance of) love while wondering if you know what you are talking about aside from that.

--Brant

God "as a reality" needs some sort of corporeality if only experienced through instruments, but isn't He outside this universe looking in (if He's even still around)? Could you be delusional?

I don't think your God belief can withstand, except a a belief, the science you seem to try to expend on your DNA belief

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eric (Serapis Bey),

I'm not comfortable about you being restricted, since I believe you have a good mind.

I'm pulling the restriction.

Can ya' feel me where I'm coming from?

That's a serious question.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

There are two views on the design of DNA.

1. highly intelligent sublimely executed living biological design unfolding according to well ordered physical laws

2. just blind dumb stupid illogical irrational mindless random chance

You've smuggled something in with the word "design," a word that wouldn't make sense combined with your alternative 2.

Changing "design" to "structure," you'd nevertheless be wrong in limiting alternatives to the two you state. Neither of those is my view, for instance.

I can't off-hand think of any person I'd classify as a scientist, reputable imo or not, whom I've read or spoken with who subscribes to your 2. Can you name someone you consider a scientist, reputable or not, who does?

I know a handful of persons whom I consider to be reputable scientists who subscribe to your 1, but, unlike you, on the basis of some decent reasoning, albeit reasoning I consider erroneous.

And those "big numbers" are honest truthfully accurate rational descriptions of physical reality.

The length you gave might be accurate, but so what? No consequence for an argument for intelligent design. The use to which you put the length is a snow-job stunt. Plus you smuggled in an assumption that all the DNA is "code," a term you're apparently taking literally. (That DNA is literal code is a crucial premise to arguments for intelligent design.)

Ellen

[Serapis Bey]

Eric (Serapis Bey),

I'm not comfortable about you being restricted, since I believe you have a good mind.

I'm pulling the restriction.

<evil laugh>

Woe to you, O earth and sea...

Can ya' feel me where I'm coming from?

That's a serious question.

My Googling while reading the book led me to Craig Weinberg, who has been treading the same ground as Lanza but with more passion and thoroughness, it seems. He's just a hobbyist, but as I am no professional myself, I have been enjoying his thoughts.

He has a blog here and a website here.

The usual guerilla skeptics "debunked" Lanza's book here. The comment section is interesting because Weinberg mixes it up with the mob there (under the name "multisenserealism"). Here we see him sounding a lot like our very own Greg:

That’s not what I said. I DO have evidence for an Absolute inertial frame of awareness – it is evident to me. I cannot export my understanding to you however because you are projecting powerfully hostile biases against it. This doesn’t work. It doesn’t bother me, I understand completely. I would have reacted the same way only a few years ago had I heard someone yammering on about absolute inertial frames of self-nesting sensory-motor relativity. All that I said is that if you want to progress to this understanding, you will have to change your mind first, because it is only within your mind, your personal awareness, that any kind of understanding of consciousness, local or universal, is possible. Again – not because its maaagic, but because privacy is actually the root of publicity. You’ve got it switched around the wrong way (as does all of Western science). It’s like one of those ambiguous images. All I can do is to explain to you that the vase in the middle is not the only image that’s there, there are also two faces in profile flanking the vase, but you have to stop looking at the vase to see them. Many people like yourself, who are very knowledgeable and talented in left brain STEM disciplines and steeped in Western conditioning are not neurologically capable of doing this. It’s not your fault. You might be able to see the other side if you experimented with meditation, psychedelics, or have a brain trauma, etc. Your lens is so clear that you won’t know its there until it cracks. It’s up to you. Remain in your cognitive Kansas and harvest the wheat of the status quo, or invite the cyclone and have a look at Oz.

Something I've been chewing on for the past couple weeks is the issue Weinberg raises here (from the comment section):

“We have? Why do you say that? Evolution has selected for consciousness because it does increase chances of reproduction.”

I say that because we have not found any function in nature which would work better as a conscious experience than an unconscious process. If it is not necessary for our immune system to develop consciousness to perform the survival-critical function of identifying and neutralizing billions of pathogens, then it doesn’t make sense that the modest wanderings of an unremarkable hominid would demand the construction of a hallucinatory inner universe.

Human consciousness is a human quality of experience. Evolution has certainly shaped those qualities but experience itself is not something that relates to evolution at all. If you look at the efficiency of the unconscious processes which are assumed to run everything else in the universe, including those processes which generate human consciousness itself, it should be obvious that no important task would be improved by this kind of imaginary aesthetic presentation which consciousness is (wrongly) assumed to be.

Hmmmm....

(Ok Bob, let's have it)

[moralist]

I see people getting wound up because he repeats his beliefs a lot. But I don't see him fishing for converts. I think he's talking more to himself than others when he does that.

That's a perceptive assessment, Michael. I've been repeatedly expressing ideas as practice to refine their verbal expression.

And you're also correct about "converts" being a moot point, as I've stated (also more than once) we each take our chosen view along with all of its consequences that we have already chosen, with us to our graves. That fact alone renders words on a computer monitor completely impotent to alter a chosen view. Only our real life direct personal experience of the consequences of our own actions possesses the power to do that.

Greg

I don't agree. I have had my mind changed by the words on a computer monitor before.

Oh sure... you can shuffle the details that already lie within your view... but not your basic view itself. No one changes from denying God to affirming God without the reality of actual personal life altering experience. Barring that experience, you'll carry to your grave exactly what you chose along with all of its baggage.

And I have certainly had my mind changed by the words on the written page, which are in principle no different than a computer monitor (e.g., The Fountainhead can be bought on one's Ipad, for instance).

Same room... rearranged furniture.

Greg: I am quite certain you are a good man, but you are a slippery one, and overly fond of asseverations that only you seem to have special knowledge of.

There is certainly nothing special or esoteric about simply affirming What created me. The freaking rocks cry out. Whether or not anyone bothers to listen has absolutely nothing to do with me. That's your own personal business what you already chose to do about it.

Following up on MSK's point about trying to "figure out" why some on this board are getting annoyed with you, you might be giving yourself a smidgen too much credit if you think it is the substance of your argument.

It is actually, in my personal opinion, the wobbly "good faith" of your argument, which seems to shift and change whenever you run into trouble.*

If you look closer you'll see that it's not an argument, it's just my own view. So I describe it in words as best I can. Note that no one is ever convinced by words to change their chosen view. This is because the criteria of their original choice was actual experience and not the words of others which is just about the most shallow of influences. To assume that your words possess the power to change the view of others can only invite frustration into your life, because that assumption is not in harmony with reality.

*As just one point, is there really a philosophical difference between one quarter inch of DNA and 27 billion miles of it?

"For the jaded, there are no marvels."

-- Greg

[Selene]

"For the jaded, there are no marvels."

Just green with envy?

[moralist]

Greg, Have you noticed how - after you or anybody has made a particular purchase, say a new car or a camera - you tend to be aware of and seek out every advert, write-up and personal criticism of that product?

I don't doubt that what you're saying is true, but what you're describing is outside my experience. I anally read every negative product critique I can get my hands on before I decide which one to buy. And once I buy, the "research" is over, and I make the best use of it.

Even more after buying it, than before, which is strange, but very human behaviour. We put it down to substantiation or positive reinforcement and whatever else - but it all apparently has one purpose: to 'prove' we made "the right choice". This reminds me a little of religious folk.

Not meant to be critical, but have you noticed how often you say "choice"? As in THE choice, your choice, my choice? Always singular.

Yes, I do... because I'm referring to the basic choice upon which all of the others rest. If the basic choice was between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, all of the other choices are like choosing nuts, sprinkles, or syrup. We're just deciding which topping to put on our original choice.

"Choices" to me are like opening a door and finding a hall-way with dozens of more closed doors. Select one, and it leads to another hall-way of closed doors .Open one...etc,etc...ad infinitum.

A lot of dead ends and a lot of back-tracking - but eventually you begin narrowing down the options and your route. IOW, all endless choices (plural).

There won't ever be that single final answer - but a gradual refinement of truth, with the law of diminishing returns ensuring one never quite completely arrives there. This I can believe in, whole-heartedly. It gels with reality as I know it.

Yes. Truth is the North Star by which we guide our lives... but never touch.

Instant Grace and bestowed Revelation is a man-made construct as the result of man's fearful defiance of that basic reality, I think.

I agree... and only experience one kind of personal Revelation: "You're wrong."

Greg

[moralist]

"For the jaded, there are no marvels."

Just green with envy?

Hardly.

If any choice is an emotional reaction to the choices of others... you can be sure that it was the wrong choice.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg,

There's a core Brant hit on that aligns with my thinking.

You offer a dichotomy: either God explains the origin of order, or chaos does.

Yes.

The order of creation arose either as the result of the preexisting well ordered laws which govern it... or it arose from random chaos. There's nothing else except order or chaos.

I offer a third alternative. We don't know the origin of order and, using conceptual reference to observed reality as our core epistemology, there is no way we can know. Not yet at this stage of human evolution, anyway.

Your third alternative is not knowing whether the universe in which you live arose from order, or chaos. Not knowing which one is the truth and which one is false doesn't effect those two choices.

I say I don't know. I have a druther and that's about all.

Having a druther is everything, Michael.

For every druther will be answered.

Greg

[Ellen Stuttle]

*As just one point, is there really a philosophical difference between one quarter inch of DNA and 27 billion miles of it?

"For the jaded, there are no marvels."

Greg implied that the total length of the uncoiled DNA in an "average" human body is somehow impressive as an indication of intelligent design. However, the base figure is that in one cell. The rest is ditto, ditto, ditto..., except for errors which might be occurring which can eventuate in malfunction (e.g., in cancer).

The misapplied-big-figure technique is used by a lot of ID advocates. Remember Darren? His arguments were typical ones (until he got into the issue of entropy, where he added some spins of his own).

Also, uncoiled DNA isn't going to function. The shape of the molecule is requisite to its functioning.

Ellen

[Mikee]

Greg is not trying to win an argument. He is "refining" his sermons. He's testing his blinders to make sure not even a photon of light gets through. I surmise is target audience is not here but OL is a perfect test bed. He passes the Turing test but that's about it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The order of creation arose either as the result of the preexisting well ordered laws which govern it... or it arose from random chaos. There's nothing else except order or chaos.

Does the concept "identity" appear anywhere in your scheme?

Your wording indicates that you think that first either there were laws or there was chaos, and then there was "creation." Is that in fact what you think, i.e., that something had to precede "creation"? If yes, why?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

The order of creation arose either as the result of the preexisting well ordered laws which govern it... or it arose from random chaos. There's nothing else except order or chaos.

Does the concept "identity" appear anywhere in your scheme?

Your wording indicates that you think that first either there were laws or there was chaos, and then there was "creation." Is that in fact what you think, i.e., that something had to precede "creation"? If yes, why?

Ellen

The whole thing is the "what about God?" argument. We're supposed to explain DNA but he doesn't have to explain God. Intelligent design is an infinite regress into greater and greater intelligence and infinitely long DNAs. We have the universe but God made it from the outside, or at least put that DNA together, but who put God's DNA together? Intelligent design or blind, stupid chaos?

--Brant

my DNA was made by my Mom and my Dad using the kind of high school chemistry set they don't sell any more (but who made theirs?)--I think it was a night of chaos in bed in late June or early July 1943 (if you love me prove it?) with the Bunsen burners all lit up

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your third alternative is not knowing whether the universe in which you live arose from order, or chaos. Not knowing which one is the truth and which one is false doesn't effect those two choices.

Greg,

Sure it does. In order for a choice to exist, there has to be a chooser. In my case, there is no chooser. The concept of choice is meaningless in that context.

Besides, leaving epistemology out and speaking only ontology-wise, there is even another alternative to your two--that the universe always existed, meaning causality flows from it and cannot be applied to it. In other words, the alternatives are:

1. The universe arose out of intelligent design.

2. The universe arose out of chaos.

3. The universe did not arise. It is that it is.

In fact, you do something like this third with your conception of God. The people who do this with the universe merely keep it one step closer instead of using the universe as a middleman.

I'm fundamentally ignorant on all three. I exist. That I know. But I am not the universe.

I will grant you this. You know about the universe what I do not and cannot know.

That's impressive.

Michael

[Serapis Bey]

I'm somewhat disappointed Greg chose not to respond to me, given that the ideas I am throwing out there so closely parallel his own. But...on second attention (see what I did there?), I think I understand.

I wonder if this reviewer of Lanza's book resonates with him on some level.

What I am sensing here is a tension between worldviews: those who extol the power of the individual versus those who value the harmonious functioning of a community. And this tension can reside in the same individual.

This is something which has been bubbling underneath the surface of Objectivism for some time now: how does one preach personal power and individualism without degenerating into sociopathic opportunism? Spare me the "rationality" rhetoric -- "reason" all to often devolves into self-serving rationalization.

My instinct tells me it was Greg's involvement with the Castaneda bunch which soured him on absolute personal power. You tell a bunch a people that they are all Gods and they invariably turn into Lord of the Flies. Only in Greg's case, the problem was compounded by the fact that those folks had an understanding of Esoteric truths. How to reconcile this? "Find Jesus" is my best guess. It makes sense and I don't begrudge it. It is no wonder he chose "moralist" as his nom de plume here. His witnessing is sincere. He senses the small seed of danger contained in certain aspects of Objectivism.

So this is where we are at. If Lanza is really on to something, we just might be seeing the convergence of "science" with what has traditionally been the domain of ritual magick or the Occult.

Man's attraction to ritual magick and science is the belief that he can "discover the Truth" AND "manipulate it according to his Will". One of these is a lie. -- C.S.Hyatt

Hence, the distinction between "Black" and "White" magick, or talk of the "Left-Handed Path", which is another way of distinguishing between monotheism (Christianity) and chaotic "polytheism" (individual empowerment bereft of tradition or morality).

In a world of feral cats, the only way of having a functioning society is to have the cats understand that any sins they commit against each other are a sin against God. This is the evolution of "moral technology." It binds people together. I am partial to this view. I take no sides....yet.

Both Satanic cults and Christian fundamentalists are closer to seeing the truth than most normal people. Something is going on, but it's not what they think. The Beast is staring out from each pair of eyes you see. Each glance in the mirror is the story of this world... -- C.S. Hyatt

One can observe the Tension in our host himself -- MSK. He is an atheist and individualist who comes down squarely on the side of personal empowerment. Yet he has a sentimental attachment to good-old-boy Americana and folks like Sarah Palin. Perplexing to most Objectivists I imagine, but I understand it. America in the 20th century was something special and represented an anamoly in history. Perhaps never to be repeated(?) But what made it special was the interpersonal communitarian values as against any greedy, individual grasping for money. This tradition honored organic, human values pertaining to family and trust and preservation of cultural inheritance. But this view is so at odds with a strain in Objectivism which emphasizes a dead-matter universe, a world of impersonal forces (and though MSK denies it), a lack of free-will or autonomy. I commend MSK for honoring his instincts and bucking certain forces in the "movement."

System building (organized lying) applies to all groups which spring up around dead men. Once the leader is gone his spirit does not remain for long. Sooner or later the group becomes simply "form." For example, look at the groups which have followed in the footsteps of Nietzsche or Crowley [or Rand -- SB]. They are shallow and academic, worshipping petty rules and regulations. They lack power and inspiration. Like a coffin they contain only the withering remains. -- C.S. Hyatt

In the final analysis, what I like about Weinberg's POV is that it obviates the need for most of these fruitless discussions about the "rationality" or "propriety" of this or that social arrangement. What most of us here on this particular board are responding to (whether we admit it or not) is a fundamentally aesthetic sense-of-life which is not amenable to a "rational" deconstruction. Perhaps this dovetails with Greg's "love", but I might just be drunk and overly charitable at the moment.

Consider one of Weinberg's graphics:

What this tells me is that Jonathan is the most highly-evolved member of this board. ;)

* I make no claims regarding my sanity

** If anyone wishes to understand how this all relates to The Jews, I can explain

[moralist]

There are two views on the design of DNA.

1. highly intelligent sublimely executed living biological design unfolding according to well ordered physical laws

2. just blind dumb stupid illogical irrational mindless random chance

You've smuggled something in with the word "design," a word that wouldn't make sense combined with your alternative 2.

Changing "design" to "structure," you'd nevertheless be wrong in limiting alternatives to the two you state. Neither of those is my view, for instance.

I can't off-hand think of any person I'd classify as a scientist, reputable imo or not, whom I've read or spoken with who subscribes to your 2. Can you name someone you consider a scientist, reputable or not, who does?

I know a handful of persons whom I consider to be reputable scientists who subscribe to your 1, but, unlike you, on the basis of some decent reasoning, albeit reasoning I consider erroneous.

And those "big numbers" are honest truthfully accurate rational descriptions of physical reality.

The length you gave might be accurate, but so what?

Ellen... I believe that no matter how hard I tried, I could never come close to being that jaded. However, your response does at least demonstrate that two people can each be looking at exactly the same physical evidence, and yet hold two completely opposite views. This is proof that physical evidence lacks the power to change a chosen view. Only the objective reality of our own life experience possesses that power.

Greg

[moralist]

I'm somewhat disappointed Greg chose not to respond to me, given that the ideas I am throwing out there so closely parallel his own.

Sorry Bey... So much discussion has been generated that I'm having some difficulty keeping up with the conversations that are already in progress. But I'll be happy to respond to the interesting ideas you've offered when I can.

Regards,

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I'm somewhat disappointed Greg chose not to respond to me, given that the ideas I am throwing out there so closely parallel his own.

Sorry Bey... So much discussion has been generated that I'm having some difficulty keeping up with the conversations that are already in progress. But I'll be happy to respond to the interesting ideas you've offered when I can.

Regards,

Greg

Stop being so polite while we beat you up.

--Brant

irritating

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He is an atheist...

Eric,

I am not. Nor am I a believer.

I am ignorant of this topic.

The more I study it and reflect on it, the less I know. With even more study and reflection, the more I know this less I know.

(And please, give "The Jews" a rest. They're kinda busy with Iran and a boiling Middle East right now...)

Michael

[Serapis Bey]

Still a fan of Eben Pagan, Mike?

tsk tsk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eric,

Eben rocks.

You try to profit all those millions with a company of about 5 people--mostly online at that.

Eben has almost no overhead.

Be dismissive if you want, but try it, sometime. You have to work your ass off and do it right.

In your case, I bet you would flop.

Michael

[Serapis Bey]

I don't doubt what you say Mike. I truly am a slacker. Guily as charged.

But you should know that David DeAnushole is not well regarded these days in the seduction community. He sold a false bill of goods to a lot of angry men.

http://www.puafraud.com/david-deangelo-aka-eben-pagan-loses-his-balls-admits-to-only-two-relationships-in-his-life/

http://puahate.com/showthread.php?t=73407

http://www.puahate.com/showthread.php?t=47970

Point being, he convinced a lot of nerds that they could become studs through "clever" talk alone. This idea rests on the premise that who you are, or what you have accomplished in your life is of no importance. What really matters, in his view, is how well you can market yourself. The problem is, marketing always melts in the face of reality eventually.

He did mange to make a lot of money from fleecing the desperate, however. He was a Good Jew.

I guess that makes him a good Objectivist in certain quarters...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Eric,

What in hell is a "Good Jew" Is it like a Good Muslim or a Good Christian or maybe a Good Objectivist? A Good American? A Good Vegetarian? A Good Tennis Player? A Good Effete Pretentious Intellectual-Wannabe?

Is this shit going to start again? I will not condone antisemitism on this forum or any other kind of bigoted hate speech, not direct nor indirect.

I want to be able to talk to you, but that is a deal-killer.

I'm flexible. We've been around this bend before, though, so cool it.

Apropos Eben, you speak of him in the past tense. His David DeAngelo material still sells in the tens of millions of dollars every year, drip drip drip, and for every detractor you mention, he has 100's of supporters. Even PUA buffs like yourself know that if you don't have detractors, you ain't scoring.

I don't like the PUA stuff except where the techniques transmute into business (see Oren Klaff for an example--he lived near the dudes in The Game, so he picked up a lot by chitchat with them and applied it to venture capitalism), but I have skimmed over the PUA literature to become familiar with the persuasion and storytelling techniques. Like it or not, they developed a practical and effective body of techniques and easy training routines.

And Eben-wise, I am more interested in his marketing, learning, leadership, and mind control stuff. He has many more products in that line than DeAngelo products (which, from what I have seen on skimming, is warmed over Ross Jeffries, his original mentor, with some extra research from modern psychology thrown in). Unfortunately, the market is what it is and he profits more from the latter than the former. I especially like the human behavior material he did in conjunction with Wyatt Woodsmall.

btw - Eben is the reason I believe Nathaniel Branden has a good-sized nest egg in the sunset of his life. He got a bunch of top direct-response guru-type marketers to sell a Self-Esteem package of several products to their email lists, some of which have millions of subscribers, and those that don't have hundreds of thousands, at $600 a pop. He made it so NB received the money as owner (minus affiliate fees, taxes, etc.). This was amazing because several of these dudes contributed bonus courses to the package for free, simply because they wanted to honor NB. Even at 1% conversion and 50% affiliate fee (which was not for all affiliates), do the math...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It begins again.

--Brant

and will end again, probably the same way

(Good Goy)

good grief

[PDS]

"For the jaded, there are no marvels."

Just green with envy?

Greg fails to understand that--as with so many things in life--size doesn't matter.