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

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

  1. Jack Ward

    Jack Ward New

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Home Page:
    I get Alex's broad definition of Conspiracies, I do. But, I don't think it's accurate to say that you either agree with the Paris Climate Accord or you don't agree with the Climate data. There's a multiple number of responses. Regardless, we can say that there will always people making money in a crisis. After all, America has made money on being an arms munition factory for years.
    But to ignore the data about Climate Change is going to be a nasty outcome for us all.
     
    Larry likes this.
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Well the data shows a rise in the Earth's temperature of 0.8 C since 1880, and those temperature increases have levelled off to nearly nothing in the last 2 decades despite increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore the increase was known about before CC was invented, and was explained as a residual rebound from the lase ice age, and nobody cared about it!

    It is not so much the data as the computer models which are in doubt.

    David
     
    Michael Larkin likes this.
  3. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    I would need to see his book numbers. My guess is Freke is pulling in around minimum $200,000 per year on his books, conferences, "online learning", and retreats.

    On Twitter he seems to be doing about two conferences per month. https://twitter.com/timfreke

    Speakers usually get $2,000 or $3,000 each for those. That's Ten Times more than he would earn writing about 9/11 Truth, Global Warming Fraud, or Rupert Sheldrake's research, I guarantee.

    Not bad for an Atheist Materialist pretending to be Spiritual.

    Freke is smart, successful, and A-level sharp at selling his high-fructose word salad to the disenchanted old Boomers seeking end-of-life excuses for a wasted existence.

    [​IMG]

    http://timfreke.com/UserFiles/group summer 2013 v2.jpg

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  4. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    373
    Right. So you've got nothing substantive that would meet any definition of evidence or proof. Would have been much easier to just say that Charlie and move on to your next unfounded claim.
     
    Larry, Wormwood and dpdownsouth like this.
  5. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,110
    Yeah, his mathematical arguments rely on selection for fitness to survive. I think he's quite probably got that wrong as an evolutionary mechanism, and his maths, whilst probably impeccable in and of itself, is quite likely modelling the wrong idea. I can forgive him that, however, because his central hypothesis is that for him consciousness is primary. He's challenging materialism, but still hanging on to more or less conventional notions of evolution. It's probably only that which allows his work to be entertained seriously by the scientific community.

    My view is that natural selection is a real force, but only applies to organisms once they have eventuated, accounting for microevolutionary changes (at most at the level of species). So we could have many species of frog through natural selection and, for example, the effects of geographical dispersion on their speciation, but there's no way a complete new body plan could arise through a combination of random change and natural selection. Just look at the fossil record: there are gaps everywhere, and those gaps should be filled with fossils intermediate between fishes and reptiles, reptiles and mammals and so on.

    But that's not the way it is: instead we have the sudden appearance of new body plans with no evidence of intermediaries between those and their assumed progenitors. Conventional evolutionists are tearing their hair out trying to fill in the gaps with all sorts of unlikely stories. It'd be a slam dunk if it weren't for the fact that the pesky fossils to back it up have all inconveniently failed to materialise!

    It's my belief that evolution has occurred, but that the only way to explain the gaps is that much of the evolutionary process occurs in the consciousness of MAL. Putting it in very simple terms (I have to, not because I could put it in a more complex way, but because of the limitations of my intellect), MAL instantiates itself as alters at any given time; at one time, let's say the most advanced of those alters were reptiles. MAL experienced itself at best as reptiles doing reptile things, and all the while went on developing ideas of something beyond reptiles, but not yet instantiating them. It only does that when it feels sure that they will survive and (maybe) to some extent diversify as they adapt to various environments. That's where random mutation and natural selection might come into play, but only at the species level. It's done the major work in formulating the next body plan, and leaves it up to natural processes to exploit their potential.

    One might almost characterise those processes as being reliant on the "unconscious" aspects of MAL, viz. its inherent orderliness -- its inherent tendency to produce patterns and regularities. "Unconscious" is the wrong word, as, for that matter, is "conscious" for the work it does in "imagining" the next body plan before it instantiates it. However, I have little choice but to use the conventions of ordinary language here. They are only approximations based on the way I experience my existence. I can work "consciously" on developing an idea for eventual instantiation, and "unconsciously" through intuition. Also, of course there's an element of serendipity in all my ventures as a human being.

    As an inventor, I'd be continually learning from my experiences and continually instantiating fresh ideas. In fact, the history of human development is one long story of this, but maybe it only occurs at the level of "speciation". Human beings exploit their potential by adapting to their environment -- which is both "natural", and also "unnatural" in the sense of the shape their communities come to form. Both accident and intentionality play into the process of the development of human societies.

    It'd take me ages to try to firm up my notion of evolution, and I'd be hampered all the way by the vagaries of human language and the unavoidable tendency to analogise based on my own experience. But maybe it's not an entirely hopeless cause: It's long been hypothesised that we were "created in God's image and likeness", and it could be that our approximations to truth aren't totally useless in modelling what's actually going on.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    Trancestate and David Bailey like this.
  6. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,110
    BTW, what do I mean by "instantiation"?

    Well, one interpretation of QM is that things don't exist in a definite way until observed. "Observation" means that at least one sentient being/alter has observed a thing in a definite form; thereafter, it has that definite form to all other observers/alters (provided it lasts long enough, of course -- otherwise only indirect evidence for it may exist, such as in photographs or other forms of more permanent record).

    Nothing seems to exist for alters except what they can perceive. Perception is the key to instantiation. If they can't perceive the next body plan, extant organisms can't interact with it; can't, for example, eat or be eaten by it. What I'm postulating is that only at a certain stage of the development of an "idea" in the mind of MAL does it become perceptible and capable of interaction.

    In its instantiation, it incorporates all the knowledge and understanding that preceded it; of cells and of cellular processes such as those involved in survival and propagation, for example. IOW, there isn't a direct continuity of propagation between a given body plan and a succeeding one; there isn't a direct tree of life, and so there can be no intermediate stages between different body plans in the world (as those are apparent to extant alters).

    This doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen, only that part of how it happens isn't directly perceptible to extant alters. I'm with Tim Freke's idea of "emergence" in that sense as opposed to the more usual materialistic, hand-waving sense of emergence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
  7. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,110
    And taking the speculation a little further, it's maybe possible to catch glimpses of ideas evolving in the mind of MAL which haven't yet been fully instantiated, and, who knows, may never be instantiated. It's even possible that some of the ideas that have long been discarded by MAL may be "glimpsed" and these too could account for all sorts of strange observations.

    As human beings, we may have capacities that some of us can develop further than others. It's all about how people interpret the apparent perceptions these capacities generate; they may be taken at face value and come to assume as much reality for some people as coffee cups and battleships. It may -- at least in some cases -- not be so much that they are deluded, as that they are prone to misinterpretation of the evidence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  8. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Home Page:
    So, Richard, as promised, I went back and listened again. At 35+ mins you said:

    I think materialism is a beautiful philosophy, okay, to be able to look out of your windows of the eyes and think there are these things around me are made of actual atoms, whatever they are, and they are outside the mind and giving rise to consciousness in some way. There is a beauty in that too, and… [interrupted by Alex] ... I don’t know that it is naïve to look at, to slip into that way of seeing the world. I think the naivete is to be stuck in it and say that this is theway to see the world. Beauty is being able to switch between them. It is only when you become locked in a paradigm, locked in a particular position, that it becomes [unclear].

    My understanding of materialism is that it is exclusive, permitting no alternative – it is “theway to see the world”. So, in effect you are agreeing with Alex’s objection that materialism is naïve – because this other state you can switch into out of materialism does not exist in materialism – except as an error.

    To be clear here, here is Wikipedia’s definition [in part] of materialism: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

    In Idealism, mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and secondary. In philosophical materialism the converse is true. Here mind and consciousness are by- products or epiphenomena of material processes (the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, for example) without which they cannot exist. According to this doctrine the material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa. Materialists consider Matter and the physical laws that govern it to be the most reliable guide to the nature of mind and consciousness.

    I interpreted your comment to mean that you had mistaken materiality (which can accommodate the materialistic POV) for materialism. You seem to allow that that materialism can cohabit with another way of thinking, but you did not actually specific it in this phase of the interview. That said, I emphatically disagree with your characterisation of materialism as a “beautiful philosophy”.

    The idea that matter may be the ground of objective reality does not mean that any perception of that objective reality reflects its ‘true nature’. All we can know is our experience of that objective reality, which is finally in our consciousness. It is simply not feasible to assert that our consciousness is an emergent property of that objective reality any more than it is possible to argue that that objective reality is an emergent attribute of consciousness. The two are the primary duality of manifest existence that we find in all the great mystical systems.

    I don’t know why you want to mess with this. Far greater minds than you, me or Tim have done the hard yards on this for at least 5 millennia. But then maybe I am being an old conservative resisting necessary change. So be it. This grumpy old fart says it ain’t broken and don’t need fixing.
     
    Richard Cox likes this.
  9. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
  10. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Home Page:
    Honestly Charlie that's a bit cruel. Boomers define a generation - calling us old is really unnecessary :). Its a bit tautological really. We don't use the O word anymore. We are just Boomers who have woken up to that fact that a Bust is coming.

    There is a point when marketing to a vulnerable, desperate and gullible customer base becomes a bit predatory. Selling spiritual 'wisdom' for profit should always be suspect. Occam's Razor proposes that "When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions." I think Tim has violated this in order to assert his status as a philosopher by coming up with ideas we don't need - a kind of commercial vision of a new model of philosophy because the old one is unfashionable (read no longer commercial).
     
    Charlie Primero likes this.
  11. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    Agreed - and Charlie, you seem to be aping the 'Left' in the US, who talk about "middle aged white men" as a term of abuse! I oppose that horrible way of thinking, as does President Trump!

    David
     
  12. Wormwood

    Wormwood Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    386
    Or...maybe.....JUST MAYBE.....he sees the the world a little differently than you. You can say that this view seems particularly silly to you, as I think that some of his views are strange. But to (out of nowhere) make the baseless and absurd claim that he’s bullshitting to make money (in the most insulting way possible) probably says more about you than it does him.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
    Steve likes this.
  13. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    373
    Probably?
     
  14. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Indeed. I believe it is disingenuous and morally wrong for an Atheist Materialist like Tim Freke to conceal that fact in order to profit from selling Spirituality.

    Pretending nothing is wrong with the Official 9/11 Narrative, and that it's okay to carbon tax the shit out of poor people in order to transfer that wealth to Bankers only adds to Freke's scumbaggery.
     
  15. Richard Cox

    Richard Cox Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    29

    I relate to these philosophical paradigms the way a good philanderer relates to women. When he's with one he'll stare deeply into her eyes becoming fully engrossed in her soul and swearing she's the only one. Then the next night he's in the bed of another, performing the same trick.

    So it is with Materialism for me, when I contemplate her I attempt to dive all the way in, convincing myself that she alone offers the answers - there could be no other. But in a corner of my mind I know I'm lying, the next night I'll be back in Idealism's bed. ;)

    I don't suggest that Materialism and Idealism can cohabit, they of course contradict each other. Rather I suggest that we can shift between opposing and contradictory world views and that our lives will be richer and more humane for it. I am influenced by the science philosopher Paul Feyerabend in this regard.



    As for the beauty of Materialism, this is of course subjective, so rather then argue for it I shall just describe where my sense of it arises from. I recall being sixteen and an ardent Materialist with a passion for physics. When I would look at the world I would take the material as being 'real' and be utterly fascinated by it, finding profound beauty in the physics. Later, when I embraced a more Idealist paradigm, I lost this to an extent. If we take the world to be a dream, then the thing that will most draw our attention is the dreamer.

    I would contend that we cannot fully embrace a paradigm unless we immerse ourselves in it – and even allow ourselves to believe it is true. It is a pet theory of mine that science, at least at a certain stage of development, requires a Materialistic underpinning. If we didn't believe it was real we simply wouldn't give it so much of our attention.

    I found sentiment I could relate to reading Victor Stenger's book, God and the Atom (after hearing him on Skaptiko). Philosophically, Stenger is a barbarian, most likely incapable of embracing any world view other than his default setting. He also mischaracterises Idealism and spuriously links it with all sorts of moral deviances. Credit where it's due though, he does write about Materialism with great beauty - In my subjective opinion.

    With regard to the last two paragraphs Michael I'm not sure I follow. I don't see that I'm messing with any existing philosophy (I leave that sort of thing to Tim), I'm simply interested in the variety of ways we can perceive the world and the effects they have on us. I need some clarification there.
     
    Michael Patterson and Steve like this.
  16. Richard Cox

    Richard Cox Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    29
    For anyone who believes there's hundreds of thousands of dollars to be made through writing books and spiritual teaching, I could only implore you to give it a go! Not only will you enrich yourselves but though the magic of market economics you'll be contributing to bringing the cost down for everyone! It's a win win – I wonder why everyone isn't doing it!

    I will suggest you're going to be in for a very rude awakening, but please don't let my naysaying stop you.
     
    Steve and malf like this.
  17. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,410
    People can do things for all sorts of reasons, and I'd rather we didn't accuse our guests of lying/cheating/being motivated by commercial gain. However, Tim does seem to skate over a lot of the issues, whatever his motivation - I wish he was posting here to answer directly.
    Hmmmm Bertrand Russel was successful with lots of women too - I didn't realise it was a professional trait, otherwise I might have been tempted down that road:)
    I do know what you mean, I was totally materialist from dropping Christianity as an undergraduate, through my PhD, and on several years more. My leaning towards the non-material has grown slowly over time - particularly while I have participated here.

    A big part of my viewpoint is that while science has a lot of solid achievements behind it, it has become too moulded by politics in recent years. Thus while it was OK for the likes of Pauli (to name but one quantum physicist) to speculate about psychic forces, nowadays this is considered taboo. Science seems to have coalesced around a set of ideas, some of which are limited, and some of which are downright wrong.

    It is very true that science needed materialism in order to get off the ground, and one of my pet themes(!!) is that science only thrives with an ordered sequence of concepts and theories. It is possible to 'poison' science by introducing something out of sequence. For example, if Newton had stared deeply into his crystal ball and come up with Newtonian General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravity, this would have put back science massively. Until physicists had become confident calculating in a flat space with time separated out, they couldn't tackle something as complex as GR.

    Now I suspect Idealism is ultimately true, but horribly poisonous for the same sort of reason. At first sight it simply permits anything to happen if consciousness as a whole permits it -so it is utterly untestable. Part of the role of a scientific theory is to help order evidence. Without a theory that explains a phenomenon, that phenomenon is likely to be ridiculed or ignored. The best theory to help science advance would probably be some sort of Dualism. Whenever someone points out that Dualism is broken because there must be some interaction between the physical and the mental, remind them that science manages rather well with General Relativity and GR, even though it is universally accepted that these two theories are incompatible!

    David
     
    Richard Cox likes this.
  18. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    Messages:
    216
    Home Page:
    Hi Richard

    I got raised in a culture absolutely saturated in materialism, and I bought utterly until I started having experiences that it didn't like. My parent's religion (Protestantism) was a materialistic religion. So I had a choice - be labelled as bad by materialistic religion or mad by materialistic science - or try to transcend both mentalities.

    I want to dispute your pet theory. Science, as a systematic and empirical search for knowledge has been around probably as long as we have. The science that has come to us via the yogic and hermetic routes has not focused on the purely material. What we call science these days is no more than a name appropriated by knowledge inquiries with a certain philosophical, moral and political bent. In fact we tend to track the 'beginning' of science to the advent of materialism.

    I am unapologetically an animistic and I draw a clear distinction between animistic science and materialistic science. The metaphysical assumptions made by each fundamentally shape the mentality, and the ethics. From my perspective a denial of spirit permits thoughts and actions that would not otherwise be permissible. So what we see in our science and technology is not so much the pure product of intellect but the product of metaphysical assumptions and moral values. And because they are normal to us they are okay to us. Our culture is materialistic, so we embrace what it produces as normal (well, up to the point of moral outrage).

    If we had had 500 years of science informed by animism and not materialism who knows where we would be. What is clear to me is that materialism is a peculiarly human thing. ET seems to be more animistic (impressions drawn from considerable reading over many years -not from any flat assertion).

    The considerable, and still baffling, engineering attainments of our distant ancestors were performed by animists, not materialists. Careful examination of Egyptian and other artefacts shows evidence of tech even better than our own. But we look at what we can learn about those ancestors and assume that their apparent naturalism reflects low tech. Perhaps they got the balance right? We look back on Egyptian, Sumerian and other cultures from a self-assumed position of superiority. But we have had modern science and materialism around for about 500 years and we are in very deep shit. What is getting us out of it is quitting materialism. Its the spiritual equivalent of quitting smoking (which I used to do).

    What we see today is not the product of science or technology, but of culture - of metaphysical assumptions, moral values and politics. Science is not a standalone thing. It is an expression of culture. In our case a culture made loopy by Christianity. Do you think there would be the kind of full on materialism we have had without a fucked up religion? Christianity made a strong point about setting itself apart from paganism (animism really) - and then lost its mojo. Materialism is essentially what followed - a faith without God - the humanist folly that we humans stood at the apex of creation (as homo sapiens sapiens).

    I can half agree with you in the spirit that maybe the pagan world needed a cleansing and a refresh. Perhaps materialism has been that, after Christianity's purging. But I see materialistic science as a kind of antibiotic (or maybe radiotherapy would be more apt?), rather than a colonic irrigation - and it has been touch and go whether, in the long run, the cure is worse than the disease. It is certainly clear that we have to repopulate our collective psychic gut with 'good' bugs. We have to get our hearts working properly again. And we have to shrink our brains a bit - back into natural proportions with our whole being.

    I think modern science has brought disciplines of inquiry that are new. But are they better than they disciplines of the yogi, shaman or magician? No, I think they have disciplined the way physical things are dealt with to a finer degree, but only because that has become the singular focus. From a materialistic perspective they are fine disciplines. But, as we know, the pesky 'observer effect' messed that up really badly.

    Years ago, as I was struggling to write my thesis for my Masters Honours in Social Ecology, I came across a book called 'Faces in the Clouds'. The author, Stewart Guthrie, said (and I may paraphrase a little here) 'because there are no spirits... How did he know there were no spirits? He wrote an elaborate theory in a book based on this proposition. He's wrong, so the book is nonsense - clever nonsense, but nonsense nevertheless. How do I know? I know there are spirits from very direct and repeated experience. I am neither bad nor mad.

    So I boldly conclude that materialism, like Guthrie, is wrong. Reality isn't as asserted. Why do you think science needs to be wrong?
     
  19. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    Why 'conspiracy culture' is the only place for a modern woman with a great sense of humor and even greater sense of integrity:

    https://outline.com/r2tZ6W

    Fluffy's '#me too' moment!

    "The author admits that “my own anthropocentric frame” makes it difficult to judge animal consent. Still, the paper claims dog parks are “petri dishes for canine ‘rape culture’ ” and issues “a call for awareness into the different ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors, and the chronic and perennial rape emergency dog parks pose to female dogs.”"

    Coming soon to my next blog post! :)
     
    Alex and Reece like this.
  20. Mishelle

    Mishelle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Home Page:
    I understand there's a PM for climate change talk? Sorry if I've missed loads of good arguments already and am repeating b/c I'm not privy to the PM!

    But, you can't have a conversation about climate change without talking about the two huge (conspiracy) elephants in the room: Geoengineering and Smart Cities (Agenda 21/Agenda 2030).

    This is how/why they are skewing the data and the data can't be trusted. Smart Cities are a Rockefeller mission and well underway. They will not solve any climate issues and that is just the usual B.S to get the peons to play along.
     
    Richard Cox likes this.

Share This Page