Tim Freke & Richard Cox, UFOs, 9-11, Climate And Truth |391|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Oct 2, 2018.

  1. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Well you don't need to theorise, because I can tell you why - at least as regards 'climate change'. We used to have some vigorous debates about this subject, but these sucked in new members who just wanted to campaign about CC. They would produce huge posts with endless quotes and links, but not actually discuss them at all. One guy discovered he could cause problems by pressing the report button on anything he disagreed with. This caused me a great deal of trouble to clean up.
    Beyond that, the whole forum seemed to shift away from its core questions.

    With 9/11 my position is slightly different from how you portray it. In truth I am not that interested in the subject! I suspect the Neocons may have helped it to occur, but honestly I am more interested in political forces that may lesson the grip of the Neocons - for the sake of the planet. I don't try to stifle 9/11 debate on the forum.

    I guess I am not a history nerd! On the other hand, I am fairly green, and I hate to see a false green campaign eclipse all the really pressing green issues.

    David
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Steve likes this.
  2. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,483
    Wow. I find so much that I could say about the bolded sentence, but I’ll leave it.

    Can I join the PM group? I won’t start wrecking the place - I promise ! ;)

    I see I have been invited, thanks. ;;/?
     
  3. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Perhaps I should add, that the Neocons have made trouble and war by exploiting the religious extremists in the Middle East for many decades. They also seem to have a penchant for false flag attacks, so it would not surprise me if they let that happen.

    You should have an alert to join the PM group.

    David
     
    Richard Cox and Steve like this.
  4. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Home Page:
    Hey Richard I will be happy to, but please bear with me as I will have to listen to the show again. I hope you did say something more nuanced than that - but that was what I heard and responded to. Be patient, I will come back with a a transcript of your words and I will be happy to confess to error if that proves me wrong.
     
    Richard Cox likes this.
  5. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Home Page:
    Well I did listen to the whole show. Tim's POV still leaves me a touch bewildered. I can't see the point of his arguments, at least in the context of the content on Skeptiko - and to be fair, we all need a balanced diet of other shows as well. It was a long show I found myself struggling to recall the content. His arguments about time I kind of got, but I immediately recall White (That's Stewart Edward and not Gordon) on time and sequentiality (The Unobstructed Universe) - sequentiality is the essence and time is sequentiality with significant intervals between events. At its metaphysical core an event sequence is timeless. If Tim sees time and sequentiality as the same thing then he has point only because he skips a distinction made by others. For me sequentiality of events is fundamental to ordered structure/coherence/consciousness - probably best articulated in mathematics. Time, for me, is what happens when that sequentiality is expressed in material form. But what is fundamental to sequentiality is intention or will.

    In some respects this is the basis for magic - an intention that is realised without the drawn out path of expressing in material media. There is no rule that demands that a chocolate cake can be assembled only by baking. It can, with the right will/imagination arrive fully formed in an instant (allegedly). In a sense time is an aspect of sequentiality in which we are aware of the stages of expression or manifestation. This is why White (Stewart Edward, not Gordon) distinguishes between the 'obstructed' (physical) and the 'unobstructed' (metaphysical). Our perception of time is produced by the 'obstructed' nature of the physical world.

    We in physical form can't know timelessness (unless we are having fun). In astral form we are still attuned to the habits of material perception. Beyond that we have immense difficulty in getting non spatial and non temporal consciousness. White (yes, SE, Not G) demonstrated that and DeMarco does the same thing. In fact we have immense difficulty thinking outside spatial and temporal contexts because, as beings in physical form, that is where our consciousness is at - for essential and pragmatic reasons.

    I struggle to get Tim's insistence on coming up with ideas that are not as good as others - and which do not seem to fit a need beyond his belief they do. Of course I am the first to admit that the same criticisms have been thrown at pioneers. but they have also, more often, been thrown at people who turn out not to be pioneers.

    I was also struck by the degree to which Tim seemed not to be comfortable with a bunch of things that Alex raised. The nature of the reality of ET (by whatever name) is pretty bloody serious. It fucks with all of our heads in various ways, and for Tim to seem to place himself outside that community suggests to me that he is probably better off dealing with an entirely different audience.

    I do not want to appear to dismiss or belittle Tim. The marketplace, like the cosmos, is big enough for all of us to live happily in our own bubbles. I just don't think that Tim's marketplace embraces the denizens of the Skeptiko forum to the degree that he might like, or we might like (we are such an inclusive bunch).

    Tim struck me as having quite an intellectual focus - thinking that reality follows a linear structure. It doesn't and probably nothing demonstrates that better than metaphysics - which moves from either/or to both/and with annoying ease. Post temporal and spatial logic does not obey spatial and temporal rules.
     
    Richard Cox and Wormwood like this.
  6. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Sorry to too down on Tim, but right at the start we had this:

    (The 'it' refers to time)
    When I heard him say that, my heart sank because surely he knows that a proportion of people who have NDE's report that time stops for them, and even more report that they can see their whole life in a glance - sometimes including the rest of their lives that they have yet to live?

    Something similar happens to some who take entheogens , and timelessness also features in some mystical experienc

    He didn't even mention that evidence! I once read a book about how to write a good science fiction story. Among all the good advice, the author (Sorry I forget who it was, except that he was himself an SF writer) pointed out that if you want your fictitious spacecraft to exceed the speed of light, that poses no problem provided you make some glancing reference to Relativity, such as:

    Without such a reference the reader would assume the author was just ignorant, and not enjoy his book. With the SX762t, the reader would happily continue reading.

    David
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,483
    This is how daft we are.
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  8. Richard Cox

    Richard Cox Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    29
    I'd be very happy to join the climate change group David, thank you. I have vague intention to do something around it on my podcast one day, but it won't be for a long while. I am more drawn to 9/11 and issues of war and terror and am just getting what will hopefully be a 9/11 series of the ground now.
     
    David Bailey and Steve like this.
  9. Richard Cox

    Richard Cox Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    29
    That's why they have 'Heisenberg Compensators' in Star Trek, to explain how the teleporters can work. Apparently it's a running joke at conventions, someone will ask 'How do the Heisenberg compensators work?' and always be answered 'Very well thank you.'

    I wrote a little poem about what I experience as the paradox of time:

    GRASPING TIME

    That we move through time
    Is the most apparent of all things
    Like Flowing down a river
    We move from past, through present to future

    But try and grasp it

    Try and capture time
    Like dust, between your hands
    It slips away

    Smaller and smaller units
    Until we are left with just...

    Now

    Time is something that exists
    Only when we don't look at it

    Was time ever really there at all?
     
    Mishelle and dpdownsouth like this.
  10. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Well.....not really, if you are reading fiction you want it to hang together. Imagine reading a detective story where the victim was called James Jones, and then for no obvious reason everyone started calling him Sam Smith!

    David
     
    Steve likes this.
  11. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    I think when you spend many years pondering alternate views on reality and listening to other people talk about them, then eventually the ordinary naive realism view of reality starts to seem a little refreshing. I've experienced this same thing myself.
     
  12. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Super - I'd encourage newcomers to read all (or at least some!) of the stuff that has accumulated there, before posting.

    David
     
    Richard Cox likes this.
  13. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,483
    Yeah I suppose daft wasn’t the right word to use. ‘How easily fooled’ might have been more accurate. We sweep aside unanswerable questions with a meaningless phrase, blinkers firmly in place. Still, it is better that at least there is the meaningless phrase there to remind us of our ignorance.

    And by ‘ignorance’ I’m not trying to put a downer on human beings, I think that even with all our flaws we’re awesome. Just that the mysteries of life are truly amazing/awesome too, and they don’t appear to have flaws.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  14. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,483
    Maybe we’re being nudged toward something. Not to worry too much about metaphysics but to consider more down to earth things, like being kind to each other.

    I’m sure you’re a kind guy Hurm. ;)
     
    malf and Hurmanetar like this.
  15. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,598
    I know what you mean (at least I think I do)... it's like we're constantly drawing and then redrawing lines in the sand.
     
    Mishelle likes this.
  16. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,110
    I like the way that Donald Hoffman punctures the idea of a world really being out there and exactly as we perceive it:



    I know he talks about Darwinism in a loose sense, and I don't agree that Darwinism is a satisfactory explanation for evolution, but one could take it that he's not really talking about Darwinism so much as fitness and selection and those words are (unfortunately in my view) usually associated with Darwinism. There are no objects upon which Darwinism can operate; It's just a narrative Darwin came up with that is based on the (wrong) assumption that objects exist. I think he's really talking about elements in consciousness ("things-in-themselves"), being iconised as realities that we perceive, and label, as "objects".
     
    Wormwood and Steve like this.
  17. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Thanks for finding that, Michael! Every time I listen to that guy speak I feel as if my head might explode!

    I'd love to hear Alex interview him!

    I think his point about evolution - which he more or less explained at some point - is that we are not talking about evolution operating on DNA, but on some other structure entirely - possibly a structure that is more amenable to being tweaked - i.e. a structure where the fitness function is a fairly smooth function of the tweakable variables. I wonder if he realises that conventional evolution is impossible - I suspect he does. However, I guess there is no reason why the evolution need be driven by random numbers - it might be intelligence driven. I often try to tweak software into shape - it is called debugging!

    David
     
  18. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    386
    It would be nice if guys like you and I (who are highly skeptical of Neo-Darwinism, yet not remotely religious) could use a term other than “I.D.” It causes confusion and draws inaccurate and unecassary correlation to fundamentalism and poisons the well before a conversation can even be held, as we saw (sort of) in Malfs post earlier. I’d prefer something like (off the top of my head) “conscious/subconscious progression.” Now that I’ve put that term out there, I’ll give it a .0000001 percent chance of it taking hold and being put into the general vernacular of the masses.This is still a higher probability than a creature has it accidentally growing a useful arm and passing it onto future generations thousands and thousands of times over and over. I can’t see something like that happening even once, let alone millions of times over. The thought is seriously totally ridiculous when you consider it long and hard. And then you view the math and data on the probability of the genetics involved and learn that your intuition isn’t just a misguided feeling.

    But here’s the problem with the materialist mainstream. Since they already KNOW that we are just meat robots and living in a meaningless universe with no other extended consciousness realms (my new favorite term stolen from Alex), then OF COURSE Neo-Darwinism MUST be true. It’s true not because the evidence is conclusive. Rather it is true since there is no other possibility given their beliefs concerning the nature of reality. And I would think the same thing if I had the same beliefs. There would be no other possibility.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  19. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    386
    Those are my thoughts, though I’m obviously not a scholar or important thinker on the topic.

    1) Quantum mechanics seem to suggest that our thoughts/consciousness has an affect on matter

    2) The placebo effect demonstrates the same thing. This also shows how consciousness may effect matter, as does the psi research.

    3) It does seem that there has been a progression of sorts of organic physical form on this planet.

    4) The genetic mutation idea fails the mathematical probability test, and it fails the intuition test (in my opinion). It seems totally outlandish, I cannot accept that things like that “just happen” on accident. “Lucky us! These mindless particles have an affinity for lumping together aimlessly to form cells then (on a macro level) accidentally growing appendages and creating us!” Lol really? That’s quite an “accident” wouldn’t you say? But the most striking thing is that this “accident” really cannot help itself. It goes “oops” time and time and time again. An extraordinary flow of useful, lucky, and absurdly improbable events.

    5) The NDE, Medium, Astral travel data etc all strongly suggest that this existence serves a purpose in our spiritual evolution. I think that the progression of physical form helps to serve this purpose in some way, partly as it allows us to operate through them as they create artifical constraints upon us through which we may learn and grow. This idea of purpose along with the ability of consciousness to manipulate matter, along with the astounding improbability of evolution through accidental mutation, combined with the apparent evolution of form on Earth leads me to conclude that form has indeed evolved, but certainly not on accident, but rather though consciousness purpose. I won’t even begin to attempt to explain or propose how this might look or work. But I reject the idea that these acts had to be the will of “The Lord” or “the ultimate source”etc. think many many many conscious entities, ourselves included have shaped the form of living matter here on Earth.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  20. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    I am never sure whether it is quite decent to reply to one's own post, but I thought a bit more about Don Hoffman's ideas, and it seems to me that they are all predicated on the idea of evolution by natural selection. If evolution by NS is false then his whole - splendid but incredible story may be wrong.

    Therefore another way to look at Don Hoffman's ideas is as a reductio ad absurdum argument against evolution.

    David
     

Share This Page