rstevew at deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) wrote in message news:<3e127e34$0$79557$8eec23a at newsreader.tycho.net>...
> In article <6dd87c5d.0212311648.1c61ed2a at posting.google.com>,
> geakazoid <azedia at dolfina.org> wrote:
> >Dennis Clark <dlc at io.frii.com> wrote in message
> >news:<3e11e730$0$181$75868355 at news.frii.net>...
> >> In comp.robotics.misc geakazoid <azedia at dolfina.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Your definitions are useful to the discussion, however...
> >>
> >> Those stating that belief is the same for science as for religion miss a
> >> key point.
> >>
> >> SOMEONE proved a scientific theory.
> >
> >No, you Believe that SOMEONE proved a theory. In FACT, noone can prove
> >anything outside one's Belief.
> ----------------------------
> No, you're confusing a thought with a belief.
> The thought that something has occurred is NOT the same as an irrational
> belief.
>>> > To them it is not belief, to those for
> >> whom the science is explained, and they also do the experiments,
> >
> >Yes, and those experiments are Subjective, proving Nothing to those
> >who are not Observing.
> -------------------------------
> Whatever observation occurs, it results in thought, not belief.
> Belief is the adoption of preferred notions over experiential ones.
> There is a significant difference between merely preferring to
> believe vs recognizing that events have led you to a knowledge.
> In other words, the mind and the perceptual field are two totally
> different things. Only psychotics don't grasp the difference.
>>> >> not simple belief. It is knowledge.
> >
> >Knowledge is not Evidenced by Proof and may itself not be Proven.
> ------------------------------------
> Proof is a mathematical construct that depends on others of its own
> kind, that is, mental.
>> Physical perceptive occurrences result in inferences about the rules
> of the perceptual world we share, which is different. We can demonstrate
> physical knowledge, whereas mathematical proof is merely rule-based,
> where rules are agreed upon, like a board game or card game, a virtuality.
>>> >> Anyone can gain that knowledge with
> >> enough work and effort, no faith or groundless belief is required.
> >>
> >> The pope himself believes in god without a single piece of objective proof.
> >
> >Actually that is not true. What you are stating is out of ignorance of
> >what the Pope. You are positing the assumption that
> >
> >A. You know what the Pope Thinks
> >B. Since you know what the Pope Thinks
> >______________________________________
> >C. You know what the Pope Believes
> >
> >That is false logic and there is no evidence of proof in it.
> -------------------------------------
> We have seen that kind of belief before,and we can read it in church
> liturgy and literature.
>>> >What you do not realize is that there is Evidence in Religion and it
> >is Logical.
> ------------------------------------------
> No, there is no such thing. Evidence does NOT lead us any particular way
> toward anything "unseen", and it is NOT "logical".
>>> >> IOW, science == science whether you believe it or not.
> >
> >I know for a Fact that Science Evolved out of Religion.
> -----------------------------------
> You know no such thing.
>>> >You may assume that Logic came from Science but it came from Religion.
> ------------------------------------------
> Who trained you in this repeated re-entrant form of idiocy?
>>> >The separation between Logic and Belief came merely at a Time when
> >Sorcerors were losing their Heads for working with the Invisible
> >Forces - Alchemy, Magnetism, Star Gazing... etc...
> -----------------------------------------
> No, their persecution came at a time when the church was feeling threatened
> by people investigating its fraudulent claims about the world. It had
> become sufficiently cocky that it expressed phony assertions about the
> physical world and rested its reliability upon them in a way that could be
> tested, t's BIG MISTAKE! Monolithic religions always fall into such a
> trap.
>> >Even Guass who invented the Sum of Squares and used it to predict the
> >sighting of a Planet knew that he was a Heretict and would not publish
> >his own Formulas.
> ------------------------------------
> The church proved wrong.
>>> >Prior to the Renaissance Period, Freely thinking about the Forces of
> >Nature was no longer Dictated by the Church. However, the Church had
> >always contained the Logic of the Ancient Civilizations and was afraid
> >to release it else it would lose Political Power. The discovery of the
> >Ancient Language systems of previous civilization demonstrates that
> >the knowledge was always evolving. Atomic Theory began in 500 B.C.
> ----------------------------------------
> If the church had remained in the virtual realm it would have had no
> trouble, but Science was threatening it by disporving old beliefs that the
> church had wed to itself and couldn't relinquish for reputational reasons.
>>> >Now, the Scientists are the Ones who Hold the Knowledge as if it were
> >Their Secret; they have created an Elitist Band of Priests who Act
> >like they Are Mightier via their Words, use of Language, when in fact
> >All Language is Logical. Language itself is Logic and there would no
> >Sensible Communication if it was not. So, Logic is inherant to the
> >Nature of Communication. Just as the Bees communicate their patterns
> >of flight to the flower, so do we communicate.
> -----------------------------------------
> You're a moron and an idiot.
>>> >If Scientists are so Egotistical to Believe that Science somehow
> >proves anything and that prior to Science as a Academic Discipline
> >everyone else was living in a Day Dream, then it is those Scientists
> >who are living in a Day Dream, or Self-delusion that Science is
> >somehow separate from Human Thinking and Experiencing of the World.
> -------------------------------------------
> Your take on reality is an absurdity that requires a lot of work.
> You're unable to distinguish between the personal mind and the
> perceptual world we share. Both may be virtualities in the final
> analysis, but they are different in qualities and rational nature.
> If you don't realize this then yo're psychotic. Unfortunately you
> seem to simply be stupid.
>>> >The idea that one can prove that Religion is not tested by experience
> >is a false assumption. How can you know that there is no Truth or
> >Reality in the Religous Experience if you have not Tested it? A Real
> >Scientist would set a Laboratory Experiment that would test Precepts
> >of Religion. The Ideal of Science is to isolate the phenomena from the
> >nuemenon. However, there is no phenomena without nuemena. That is the
> >meaning of the Tao. Yang is the Phenomena and Yin is the Nuemnena.
> ------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing unseen that can be merely inferred accurately from the
> seen, for the simply obvious logic that there is no way to test its
> accuracy. Thus the inaccuracy about strictly unseen things is absolute,
> they cannot BE determined. So you're speaking stupid gibberish that you're
> using here to posture, without any ability to actually reason.
>>> >According the Ancient Taoists, phenomena continually changes its
> >properties. Thus Yang is constantly becoming Yin and Yin becomes Yang.
> >The rules of the Yin/Yang are that there is no Stable Yin or Yang but
> >an ever transformation process of movement. This actually is not all
> >that different than the Scientific properties of Quatum Physics. And,
> >hum... the Modern Quantum Physicists borrow their ideas from the
> >knowledge that is more than 4,000 years old.
> --------------------------------------
> That isn't "knowledge", that is belief, perhaps poetry, perhaps useful
> to real life, but it is NOT itself "knowledge".
>>> >Rene Descartes, one of the Fathers of Sciences, was a Jesuit Jew. And,
> >he worked on combing Hebrew Religious Ideals with Ancient Greek
> >Philosophies (the roots of Christianity). It is in his Belief that
> >Science would Prove the Existence of God.
> -------------------------------------
> Yes, he was wrong. He failed to properly separate belief and knowledge.
>>> >Descartes, was explaining the the Role of the Scientist was to
> >discover the operative forces of God's Creation. Thus, Science was
> >originated to become closer or to commune with the Creator not to
> >Replace the Creator. The Catholic Church lator sanctified Science when
> >it realized that it could no longer suppress it.
> -----------------------------------------
> Descartes was a mathematician, NOT a Scientist.
>>> >The mythical story of Lucifer is that of an Angel of God, who fell
> >from being withing the Domain of the Creator to desiring to be the
> >Creator.
> ---------------------------------
> You're just full of meaninless little fragments, aren't you?
>>> >Einstein left many writings about his fear of discovering the
> >Wormholes in the Cosmos. He realized that once Science had explored
> >the Forces that underlie the Universe, we might in our Knowledge
> >Destroy It.
> --------------------------------------
> Einstein couldn't accept QM either. He had limits, as we now understand.
>>> >Who would have the wisdom of wielding the Power of the Atoms?
> ----------------------------------
> You're blathering. You just keep rattling on and on without meaning or
> point. You don't grasp what the subject matter is.
> Steve
I guess you are right!!!
The evidence is that you have proven your point in a labaoratory.
Let me know when the Data is Published in your Thesis.
Happy New Year!!!
geakazoid