]]>
The Shakespeare aspect of my persona is an actor and poet. Rationality is not key to these endeavors. If it is remotely plausible, I tweak or twist charactors I play into atheist or iconoclast, but mostly, in my experience of being characters, my observations of humans, and anecdotal evidence, rationality is "not important" to most people. As the Hindus noticed, philosophers of any sort are rare.
Craig, I have seen, touched, and felt things that, as I said, can only be accounted for by the pseudo-skeptics by assuming I fall in one of Hume's three categories. Unfortunately, what I am lacking is a favored theory for “macro-level quantum flux” ( a phrase that explains no better then “mass hallucination”). All I have is a lot of hypotheses.
Certainly didn't mean to criticize. You seem to be when who can admit error, which, if it doesn't make one a fool, at least gives one the salutary experience of feeling like one. Nor have you made the errors of denying your experience, or clinging to a hypotheses without justification.
Craig, it seems, as a good researcher, you consider the facts more important than the (failure to have) a "complete" theory (I mean “complete” in something like the sense the pseudoskeptics use the term, or as Dawkins might refer to the Neo-Darwinian paradigm) I commend that, and envy you your chance to work your hypothesis.
So, two unrelated questions and a request
1.What do you think of the morphogenic theory of the real existence and evolution of "information"?
2. Do you know of any research in your field going on within a 100 miles of El Paso, TX, in which I could participate?
The request, if you ever come within a hundred miles of El Paso, please let me know!
Peace
Statistics: Posted by Twain Shakespeare — 18 Oct 2010, 04:36
]]>
wow... sounds a lot like how rationalist try to deal with the paranormal, doesn't it 
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 18 Oct 2010, 02:21
]]>
Craig, thanx for an explanation that can account for everything from how it all could be subliminal signals controlling our subconscious to the Akashic record doing the same!
I mean that seriously. Explaining a how is an important step in figuring out a what.Statistics: Posted by Twain Shakespeare — 17 Oct 2010, 02:49
]]>
My beta is that people often tell a core of experiential truth, so I accept your account at face value since I have experienced porportional improbable results with I Ching and Tarot. My x wife also made me break my ouija board in half, since she was convinced it was possessed, and I was convinced it was best to humor her.
And yes, why dead people. Twenty years ago my hypothesis was non-hman intelligence, possibly malevolent, but most likely as drunk and waster as the people on this side. Garbage in, garbage out.
Two hypotheses I am entertaining now my be classed as non-theist "morphogenic field theories" (Rupert Sheldrake) and the Theist "Akashic field" theories. Peace
Statistics: Posted by Twain Shakespeare — 17 Oct 2010, 02:39
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Ellie — 17 Aug 2010, 20:48
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>