Creative Physics

[DocPtah]

Creative Physics is never (I can't think of exceptions) a thing of groups. Groups do not advance, they create a common ground & then act as self-controlling entities to ensure that anyone trying to alter the group-think is swiftly drawn back into the group.

New thought, creative thought & advancement, comes from not listening to the fairytales of the past, but rather from taking what is known & exploring beyond it all. This can only be done by those who don't bother with the lengthy explanations found by those without a real view of the world & who delve into the structure in a clear & focussed way.

I rather thought that those words of Acolyte needed to be highlighted.

(Apparently, I agree wholeheartedly with his last post.)

[Dorman1]

FORTUNA NON OMNIBUS AEQUE

[Acolyte]

Fate may not be the same for everyone but it may not even be real. It's comforting to many to believe that things are directed but there's no evidence I've ever seen to show it is so. And it makes God a supremely evil being. I've always found those who believe in fate also seem to have a clear idea of what it might be, & almost always, they seem to have a personal belief in the Fate Maker, which of course makes them 'Special.' I'm beginning to wonder if the whole belief thing is about trying to be Special & so to be able to see oneself as better than everyone else.

Why people can't simply have thoughts about things & then put them aside until they get more information, I don't know. This whole thing about being so sure about things they cannot possibly know for sure is kind of creepy - like somebody let the inmates out & now they are the majority of inhabitants of the planet. Discussing thoughts & ideas is creative, fruitful & can lead to new insights; discussing beliefs is a form of mental masturbation that leads to wars & death & never achieves an interaction level that even approaches communication.

If we are here for Creativity & Knowledge, it would seem from the evidence that Groups are anathema to such an endeavour & deciding to believe things that have no concrete reality leads to ossification & a failure of a creative purpose. Once one believes or joins, the thoughts get straightened into a specific track. One takes a world view that allows no deviations, & the 'superiority' that seems to come from such acts would indicate (or even BE an indicator) that one is not thinking creatively & will have great difficulty in learning from others or interacting sociably in any real manner. (except of course with others of like mind - a group mental masturbation)

[Dorman1]

It is quite possible, the assertion stating fate is not the same for all, is due to a lack of dogma. A prime example of why we have an incomprehensible number of laws and powerful governments to enforce them, is confusion. I can only make an assertion concerning what I believe, just one, it is impersonal love. People really don't believe religious dogma, because material science is powerful enough to over-shadow dogma. Yet, the latter is itself simply a whole lot of cool proven things, and a whole lot of theories based upon metaphysical thought. I like science, i may write as if I detest science when I am only trying to shove it back to a proper position of importance.

Many simply have nothing to believe in, but religious dogma and/or science. I already stated what I believe in, and I will not attempt to live 'this one life' as if I will go to an eternal blissful heaven, or an eternal suffering in hell. If this 'one life' is a test toward determining which of the two extremes is my fate, well then, I submit that I was simply inadequately prepared, and refuse to play. I have a certain manner of study involving science, 'all' of the religions, and philosophies. The Sanskrit has been proven superior to this language, and when occupiers of India from the United Kingdom realized this, what they found even more stunning was that the indigeneous people of said nation, could in no way have been the producers of it. This is one hint of many showing something bigger than us existed if we go far enough back. When one submits interesting science and I add my manner of thought to it, I realize that it is a bother. So I will be a positivist in the future. There are other places I can be the real me.

[jolly green lurch]

its an issue of polarity science has the strong negative pull and spirituality has the forever constant positive push as we know frtom history science can be lost for centuries but spirit will allways EXIST

[DocPtah]

Acolyte wrote:

Why people can't simply have thoughts about things & then put them aside until they get more information, I don't know. This whole thing about being so sure about things they cannot possibly know for sure is kind of creepy...

I think it's called the Conservation of Energy. People much prefer to conserve their energy, and never, never, never take the time to think about new information as it arises.

Worse yet, when new information does arise... instead of mentally or physically filing for further thought later on... most seem to prefer to believe absolutely in the new information they've just encountered -- and despite the fact that the "new information" is often intentionally misinformation --- and such people will steadfastly refuse to consider different options. In a case of conflicting views (with each view receiving equal coverage), then the view that is communicated to the recipient first, will be the winning view. And the second view point will not even be considered. (The only exception to this is if the second view gets a LOT more coverage, and from different sources.)

Good stuff, Acolyte. Keep it comin'!

[Acolyte]

We seem to have lost some posts from this thread - did someone do a restore from backup or did it get edited?

[DocPtah]

Restored (by a guardian Angel).

Sorry about the loss. (BTW, we have not been editing... not yet anyway. )

[Acolyte]

OK, my post from 3/12/09

by Acolyte on Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:51 pm
I've spent some time reading & thinking about Edward de Bono's views of the Mind. I've come to think of the Mind as a hologram generated by the field that is generated by the body. The superb complexity of the storage & processing system that is the body, the information paths of the meridian channels & the glow I've seen generated by DNA all seem to be part of the substrate that generates Mind.

I think the shape of the hologram gives us our personality, while the features of the valleys & gullies, the lakes & hills of the terrain provide the complex informational inter-relationships that allow us to perform as we can when we allow our systems to work as they are meant to.

These systems though, do not seem to explain just who 'I' is - to my view there seems to be need for an identity, a Self for whom all the above is vehicle & enabling construct to allow us to partake of a 'Reality' which isn't really there.

All of these components seem to have their own level of skill, & maybe even their own area of operations. Energy fields seem to provide explanation for some events we can't explain with mere physical paradigms, while the unreality of our universe allows for other explanations. But behind it all there is the mystery of Self.

Self has probably brought along more discussion of a philosophical nature than any other aspect of our world. Currently, psychology, the area that should be dealing with this topic, is hamstrung by ideas already being given up by the harder sciences - that everything can be explained by chemicals, molecules & their interactions.

[Acolyte]

DocPTah's response from 4/12/09

by DocPtah on Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:40 am

I think the shape of the hologram gives us our personality, while the features of the valleys & gullies, the lakes & hills of the terrain provide the complex informational inter-relationships that allow us to perform as we can when we allow our systems to work as they are meant to.

This immediately reminded me that it's not just the chemicals in DNA that make us what we are, but the geometry of the DNA and the spatial relationship of the chemicals. Clearly, geometry is just one of those things not being considered by modern psychology as it tries to explain everything "by chemicals, molecules & their interactions."

Meanwhile, that aspect of self (which tends to defy physical explanation, and which suggests a "soul") can be said to have the ability to create or modify the geometry... which in the case of DNA has already been shown to be possible.