Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Joeknows » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:59 am

Everybody in this world is spending too much time focused either on survival or having fun, that no one is spending enough time bringing into recognition the truest knowledge that will preserve the freedom for us to be happy and also direct our survival as a humanity to a place that is both sound and rationally achieved.

Being in the position of teacher, is comparable to a religious practitioner in its expression. A religious person would attend church, contribute a monetary offering, and pray before dinner. All these things put into practice, will cause a balance between what we want to believe, and how we enact those beliefs. But this balance isn't a natural balance; it would be equivalent to drinking 5 monster energy drinks and junk food to keep your energy up, when maintaining a proper balanced diet would create a more stable balance.

After spending your time, effort, and money towards being a religious person. According to all the energy you have put towards upholding those religious doctrines, you will have very little willpower left to actually consider the legitimacy of it in light and with respect to other systems of belief.

And just as a teacher devotes so much time towards presenting this information, creating an outline for the course, grading homework/tests, etc... They will have very little willpower left to actually devote towards considering information that relates to what they feel they have already devoted so much towards. Basically a "I already gave at the office," stance towards looking at it or any comparable versions.

This isn't a choice, it is natural that if you spend a lot of something, that you won't have as much of it to give away. So it is going to take literally TWICE as much effort for someone calling themselves a teacher to look at how information should be organized. Just like it would take twice as much effort to get a Christian to recognize and accept what morality is outside of the Bible. (Try asking a religious person about morality, and they can't use any names, and have to actually be specific about it. They probably won't even give you the time.)

So this is your battle to overcome. You have to overcome your self barriers before you can even join me on this intellectual field of discourse. Because I have worked hard to "figure it all out" as one might put it. I spent 6 years looking at everything "negative;" alien abductions, conspiracy theories, Illuminati, following the money, etc... But it didn't really lead me to an answer, so I spent roughly 6 years looking at everything that was "positive" or claimed to be good; religions, the new age movement, energetic healing, holistic medicine, etc... And I learned a ton, but I still didn't have a whole picture yet, just a whole bunch of individual pieces.

Then I learned about Mark Passio, who also seemed to have all these individual pieces. But he was able to put them in an order that actually made sense, and didn't contradict in any way. A truly INTEGRAL theory of the universe. Mark seemed to have all the answers, but his main point to stress wasn't how we could connect these seemingly opposing theories smoothly. His main point was just to understand what MORALITY meant, and how we achieved or failed at it in any everyday situation. This is really the only thing that he will claim to be the mission of his presentation, despite all the other entertaining avenues that he has begun to take it.

I don't understand why you can't stand to hear about him, when you haven't done any effort to see if his work is legit. The most you have done is skim over some chapter headings, without actually digging in to any of them. He has just as much right to claim legitimacy to his information that you do. And many others with as good or better status than you have recognized him or just some of the ideas he is willing to talk about.

But thanks to Mark teaching me about "morality," all the pieces of information started to make sense in a higher order. That is why I think that morality is a precursor towards higher thought. Because if morality is the wisest course of action, recognizing this and completely understanding it, would also set our minds in a similar "most optimal" formation for thinking to take place. So even if you disagree with it, you could profit exponentially by spending some time to get an unwavering definition of how morality operates, definitively and applicably to every possible situation!

At the very most heart of what I am presenting, I would like to convey this idea of how a particle and wave differ. Just like the difference in the Spanish language in "es/esta." We have to differentiate between the properties of an individual object, and the properties of objects combined. As we have to do consider the state of individual objects in action, and actions that involve multiple objects. We have to consider these 4 directions, which is the quadrivium, and refine all of them until we can connect them further.

Science is meant to be the culmination of these four areas of study, as science usually ignores the trivium, leaving it for religions to fight over. But you could do well to understand how arithmetic, geometry, music, and astrology; are all just a symbolic practice to get you to start seeing these four qualities in reality. Here is a good description on this website, about how they have SYMBOLIC meaning.
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Quadrivium.html

When I'm talking about energy, I'm talking about the same thing that you know it as. I just need you to be sure of how you are using it, and make sure it remains valid on other levels that it is applied to. As I do this, I also learn about the proper way to use it, and finding a definition that will contain it's usage in every situation. So stop thinking that I am trying to get you to abandon everything you know in form of some thing "new."

I am talking about the same laws that have governed this universe since before mankind even arrived here, regardless of whatever way we arrived here. And since these fundamental truths can be found in every natural system, I don't think it beyond past civilizations of humanity to have figured out how all these pieces connect. They might have even been popularly more educated than we are today as a humanity. But understanding these Truths, isn't just limited to our fancy technology today, or an idea that we have evolved to a better point to grasp it with. There is real evidence that many past civilizations recognized, not only symbolic information, but the SAME symbolic information. Whether it was legitimately understood, or dumbly passed down like some ark of the covenant relic, I don't know and it would be difficult to differentiate. But for it to be there at all shows that at least one of our past civilizations went much further in science than we are willing to give them credit for. Some of these examples are mentioned in Thrive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s

You don't have to abandon your hard earned scientific knowledge to grasp the basics presented here. Just listen to it, and consider each part piece by piece, then take the "weight" of these individual pieces, and compare their rationality against the parts of the presentation. There might be a lot right, and there might be a lot wrong. But don't just say, "It's ALL bad," like a Christian would say about Islam, or Buddhism, or even atheism. To react and say the whole thing is bad, is just the same as admitting that you CAN'T differentiate between the rational and the irrational.

If you are confused, don't be afraid. We can talk about it, figure out what is truly legit, and what establishes itself as false, after repeatedly verifying it across different environments. There is a lot of legitimate claims to some conspiracies, but they are usually made by an individual that doesn't have a full grasp on HOW/WHY that would have happened, or don't possess a legitimate answer to what we should do about fixing these problems that nobody wants to look at. And there is also a lot of good information in the new age movement, but they will only be able to talk about it from a limited perspective that doesn't really bring it to a fully realizable prospect. But if we start letting our emotions decide for us, we will begin "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

I only pieced all this together about two years ago, so I am still kinda new to enlightenment, which I WILL admit to possessing, but not as a claim of the validity of my information, not at all. So I can get some pieces wrong, but I'm willing to be wrong in order to be certain. And it doesn't seem like you all have that "gusto." In fact you seem quite settled in what you WANT to believe. But I don't think that is the mindset of a freethinker. At least it shouldn't be.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Savonarola » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:25 pm

Joeknows wrote:just as a teacher devotes so much time towards presenting this information, creating an outline for the course, grading homework/tests, etc... They will have very little willpower left to actually devote towards considering information that relates to what they feel they have already devoted so much towards. Basically a "I already gave at the office," stance towards looking at it or any comparable versions.
So Joe thinks that I will not spend any time dealing with other information, yet I spend time responding to Joe's blather. Joe isn't too bright.
But to further show that he's wrong using specific examples: subsequent to the completion of my formal education, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has redefined the hydrogen bond, and we've now learned that there is strong evidence against d-orbital hybridization and more evidence for the "three-center, four-electron" bond to explain hypervalent atoms within molecules.
Of course, Joe has no idea what any of this means (and he could find out -- but won't -- by looking it up in numerous scholarly journals supported by peer-review, which can't be done for any of his own bullshit), but I do know exactly what this means and am not frightened or slighted in any way by this change in our understanding. More to the point: I know about these updates precisely because I keep up with changing information, which is the exact opposite of what Joe repeatedly accuses me of.

Joeknows wrote:I don't understand why you can't stand to hear about him [Passio]
Joe, you've never mentioned Passio before. I did a string search of every single post on the entire board for this name. This is the first time you've mentioned it. How can we be refusing to hear about someone you've never mentioned?
You have something wrong with you.

Did we mention that nobody takes you seriously? As moderator, I typically read everything that everyone posts to make sure that it's not laced with invective, but I barely skim your completely mindless self-indulgence because virtually everything you say is either unintelligible babble or completely wrong (probably often both, but if it's the former, we can't tell). I just pick a line or two pretty much at random and beat the tar out of it. We know that you will never post evidence. We know that you will never listen. We know that you will never bother to educate yourself. We sit at brunch wondering just how brain damaged you are. And when you post, we're just being further convinced that it's pretty damn damaged.

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Doug » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:20 am

Savonarola wrote:We know that you will never post evidence.


JoeKnoows doesn't know what evidence is, at least as far as science is concerned. He has shown this repeatedly. He thinks terminology can serve as conclusive evidence for empirical claims independently of any connection to the empirical world.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Joeknows » Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:34 am

It is stressed, the Trivium forms a habitual and methodological pattern-of-mind of how to think effectively, not what to think. It gives one's mind an ever-improving map, which corresponds to the terrain, and is always improving itself; for the purposes of your survival and satisfaction in life. As an added bonus, this is a serene pursuit. Because this is a method devoted to the "how" of thinking, it is not controversial. It is in the topics of "what" to think - religion, literature, philosophy, and modern science - where controversy reigns.

The problem is, "General Education" has not been the focus of the contemporary schooling establishment but, rather, social engineering . . . it is a vile and protracted form of mis-education.

After adopting the Prussian Education Method (see addendum) in America in the middle to late-19thcentury, this fault in educating our nation, from the perspective of the general citizenry, was compounded by applying the dangerous tenets of the Pragmatic Philosophy devised by William James and John Dewey (I recommend an internet word search on each of italicized terms in this paragraph). The "party line" is that children need to be surrounded by their peers in order to socialize properly in preparing them for life. Socialization is a natural process to people, it need not be taught to them; or, more to the point,programmed in them.


This is a quote from "The Trivium Method of Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving" hosted by Tragedy and Hope. You can read more at http://www.scribd.com/doc/59477946/Trivium-Method-of-Critical-Thinking-and-Creative-Problem-Solving

He also includes this quote:
"For if you [the rulers] suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves [outlaws] and then punish them.´ - Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), Utopia, Book 1

He is talking about "false" teachers being a part of the problem, instead of part of a more concerted solution. That the method they are using to teach, isn't right. I sure hope there aren't any "false teachers" like this around, they would not be able to recognize these pieces of how our minds CAN hold information, and would probably just attempt to derail the presentation of it.

When I read the summary of your group, getting together to have intelligent conversation sounds truly amazing as I am quite starved for one. But then you start mentioning all the labels that you claim represent your beliefs. If you recognize that reality is something objective and knowable, then you should naturally be able to pull all your "belief systems" together, de-emphasizing the contradicting parts and escalating the correlating parts (just like when two waves in a body of water combine to form a "sum" frequency). And then you wouldn't have a "title" for yourself such as: "atheist, christian, gnostic, nondenominational, etc" Gnostic is the only valid title as far as I'm concerned, because it simply means one who is "trying to know" things. It isn't anything to brag about, but it's a good thing. To claim that you are an "atheist" is simply a reactionary response. Why do you even have to justify the response of "which method of religious thinking do you put yourself under?" Shouldn't you recognize that it is an unimportant question, if that is really how you feel? And so a true atheist wouldn't be proud of being "under a religious denomination," wouldn't ascribe to being named as one, and wouldn't even consider such limited a limited and boxed-in view of the information? It's like they think that they are the "best" of all religionists, but if you are under ANY religion that is keeping you from considering things further, then you are suffering from a sickness that is blocking the information that you are capable of receiving.

I have come to realize, that the biggest problem in the world, is that people's perception of reality are compulsively filtered through the screening mesh of what they want and do not want "to be true."
Travis Walton (UFO abudctee, from which the movie Fire in the Sky was based)


Titles mean absolutely nothing. As many would simply discredit the above quote because he claims to have been abducted by aliens. But I don't care about something unprovable, all I care about is what is knowable. Namely, the information that he conveys about the world, and how it is completely accurate. If we don't put effort towards recognizing our systems of belief, we won't develop it into anything with the capacity to accurately determine information from which to base the evidence upon. And mistaking our human conscious capability, for the hierarchy of titles and accreditation that we worked so hard to earn. You are not a teacher, not a scientist, not a christian, not an atheist... You are just a human, first and foremost. If you skipped understanding how THAT role should be dictating your current course, then all the things you've built on top of it will fall like a house of cards.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Joeknows » Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:08 am

And you mention that you won't consider any information without "peer review." This sounds like a great excuse to avoid whatever you feel like on that day. But do you understand what those words even mean? "Peer": similar as you, of the same type, in the same group, etc... "Review": to literally look again. YOU are the peers that you are referring to, so get off your bottom and start looking again. Otherwise, are you saying that your review isn't as valid as a more qualified individual? Then I would ask, would you withdraw information that you were certain was true, just because someone "more qualified" said you were wrong? Because I doubt you would, or at least you shouldn't if you understand WHY it is true. And this proves that we can't accept any information as true, unless we know it for ourselves to be true. (Any third example would be a subjective view of reality, or a squirming around and avoiding defining information, something professional philosophy teachers are probably really good at!) Either you can know information, and YOU must define it. Or you can't know anything, and must rely on OTHERS to grant it to you when they feel pleased with your devotion to them. And thus we should only take it and use it, without questioning it further. This formula EXACTLY parallels the modern system of education.

As I always love to look at anything through the framework of Mathematics, lets increase the variable value in order to test the limits of the function described. The limits of this function of education to "use" instead of education to "learn" could be seen in someone training a soldier. If the teacher does a good job, that soldier will fight and kill whoever it is ordered to attack. But without questioning it from a self conscious perspective against morality, then we will be committing any number of atrocities just to perpetuate our daily routine. So in effect, incorrect teaching is leading directly to immorality, as the quote by Sir Thomas More so eloquently stated. We need to stop allowing for "ill-education," otherwise these false teachers are the predominant reason for our crippled global human effort.

I would love to consider many of these varied points of reflection, but I doubt anyone will actually do that here. Because you all claim to be "freethinkers" instead of just "hardworkers" towards knowing the truth. I can't fathom what unenlightened humans would consider legitimate information. In fact, I almost want to hide behind a fake tree in the corner and watch your group and study the unconscious animal behavior and try to classify you all by your directives. There should be a reality television show about people that think they are smart, trying to act smart and pretend to develop their minds further, but it is all just an act to try to look like you are the "alpha male" that gets to decide what information really is or isn't.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Savonarola » Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:01 pm

Joeknows wrote:[quoting some tripe]
It is stressed, the Trivium forms a habitual and methodological pattern-of-mind of how to think effectively, not what to think.
But we've already shown this to be ludicrous. Remember, Joe already tried to associate some special meaning of the number 7 with the seven colors of the rainbow. But there aren't seven colors of the rainbow. When Joe had this explained to him, he decided that the seventh color must be white, but white isn't a color at all.

If this Trivium thing tells Joe "how to think effectively," then Joe would have known that his argument based on seven colors was doomed. Instead, he shrugged off his boneheaded mistake and tried to salvage the flawed idea by presenting an even less plausible alternative. This is not "thinking effectively." This is "making shit up as you go along."

Joeknows wrote:... getting together to have intelligent conversation sounds truly amazing as I am quite starved for one.
Of this I have no doubt, Joe. You are incapable of participating in an intelligent conversation.

Joeknows wrote:He is talking about "false" teachers being a part of the problem
Then perhaps you should finally shut up, Joe, because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and you never have.

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Dardedar » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:15 pm

Savonarola wrote:perhaps you should finally shut up, Joe, because you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, and you never have.


Image
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Joeknows » Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:29 pm

I want to be sure that anyone wanting free-thinking understands the difference between science as a method and science as an institution. On his radio show, Mark Passio was recently discussing "scientism." I think it fits perfectly as an example of how looking outside the trivium/quadrivium for truth creates a blockage in both it's fundamental operation and quality of the results.

Rigid Skeptics (Debunkers usually fall into this category) and worshipers of "scientism." Their "tagline" would be:

"I'm skeptical about everything. Unless the government, or government funded scientists say it's true; THEN, I'm a true believer!"

"So let's start with the worshipers of scientism. The super, super left-brained individuals out there. What I would call the rigid skeptics; the rigidly skeptical. And in many cases this is just a belief.

I want to say something about pure skeptics, rigid skeptics. I have healthy skepticism. Skepticism is very important, and I would never discourage it. I'm not talking about normal healthy skepticism: asking questions, wanting to get answers, going to where the truth leads. That's real skepticism. That means you're not believing anything. I don't "believe" anything. People keep asking me; what's your belief, what's your beliefs? I don't have any beliefs. I don't have a religious belief system. I don't need one. The only system that I pursue is truth, which leads to knowledge, and then belief is not required.

I said at the beginning of this podcast there is only one belief that is ever required: the belief that truth exists and that you can come to know it. Because no creator would put an unsolvable puzzle before humanity, and torment them with it endlessly. About what our purpose is, our reason for being, the nature of reality, how good and evil are at work in the world, how natural law works; it's all knowable! It's all knowable; if you don't accept that those things are knowable then you ARE a believer. You're a believer that: the universe was created to endlessly torture people by never having anything that can be known. And that's called SOLIPSISM.

And that's essentially what rigid skeptics really are, they don't believe there is any such thing as truth ultimately. When they are pressed, when you get down to it with these people, they are solipsists. The word "truth" is a dirty word to them, it's the devil. The very word truth is the devil to them. Because they want to be in a position of continuous relativity with everything else. They want to see everything as shades of grey, and that means they're never actually truly responsible. That's what a solipsist wants. They want haziness and fuzziness in everything. They want everything to be able to be dis-proven not to be true. Because they don't want the associated responsibility that comes with definitive knowledge."


Mark goes on to explain how these types of people are in a state of spiritual immaturity, always needing somebody to be "god" for them, and willing to let some external entity choose for them instead of choosing for themselves. This unwillingness to look outside the "safe box" provided them is just an inability to overcome the fear of looking at the rest of reality. He talks a bit about how and why "science" today only goes where the money takes it, and nowhere else. How this isn't a devotion to science, it is a devotion to the money it can provide. And therefore we haven't been doing much real scientific progress lately. He calls modern scientists "paradigm protectors," who are still trying to hold up the views of an out-dated, incomplete, and unreliable system of information. Not because they understand it, or have proven it, but because it is easier for them to hide behind it, and not risk the scorn of other immature thinkers that commonly attack anything that seems different.

Here is another quote from a recent radio broadcast on Red Ice Radio out of Sweden talking about the modern state of education and science and it's inability to find truth. Marty Leeds said:
"I kinda went into all this stuff with a scientific background. But then understanding also that science was SO boxed in. Their thinking, it's critical thinking that has gone to an extreme. That's not even critical thinking anymore, it's just thinking that criticizes, if you will. And I realized that that was very arrogant. And that there was so many things that that wasn't covering. And that allowed me some freedom to go into this. And that freedom allowed me to see that there was meaning to this stuff."


The host Henrik then asks the guest:
"Even looking at what we are physically. That we are built on the same template from the origin/creation, from the number of bones in our body to the phalanges of our hands. There is a system here that is repetitive throughout everything that we see in nature, and to a certain degree of course, what we create as human beings as well, because since we are part of the system we are going to replicate the same numerology."


And Marty Leeds replies:
"Pythagoras said that 'man is the measure of all things.' In Genesis it says that 'God made man in his own image.' It's the idea that we are a reflection of this creator. And that by understanding the selves, therefore we can understand the cosmological principles, the attributes, the laws of nature that created us.

Think about it this way, after 13.75 billion years of cosmic evolution, and then 4.6 years of earthly evolution, we were the last thing that the universe decided to do. It is really saying that we are an expression of the universe, and that understanding the self will help us understand this intelligent force that lies beneath the creation."


I could list quotes all day that were attributed to the founders of your science, that queerly agree more with me than with a "professional" scientist. Do you not see the common element when a majority of the great minds of Earth are saying the opposite of what you want to hear? All that these great minds, or even simple minded people like me or Mark, can understand everything about the world comes from simple rational logic. You go astray when you try to put a religion, or an institution, or a group of people AHEAD of your willingness to look at the simple logical answers that can be discovered.

Like how scientists today spend a large part of the time just lobbying for the money from the government to do the research. In order to get that research grant, they have to tell the government what they are going to do and what they are going to achieve as a result from it. Does that sound like real science to you? If you already know the answer before you ask the question, then you are putting your system of beliefs in front of reality, and not allowing the results of the tests to have any bearing on the answer. But if you don't have a predetermined answer, you won't get the money to do it. That is how science works today. And true scientists are few and far between...
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Doug » Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:54 pm

Joeknows wrote:I want to be sure that anyone wanting free-thinking understands the difference between science as a method and science as an institution.


We know all about it.

Thanks for the red herring.

Image

If you want to show that your views are true, you're going to have to provide evidence for them, not complain about how others are so closed-minded that they won't accept your claims without evidence.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."

User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby David Franks » Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:23 pm

Joeknows wrote:Like how scientists today spend a large part of the time just lobbying for the money from the government to do the research.
Are you saying that this is new-- that scientists in the past never had to depend on patronage of some sort? Isaac Newton, whose experiments with prisms provide the basis for one of your failures to understand basic science, had patrons.

In order to get that research grant, they have to tell the government what they are going to do and what they are going to achieve as a result from it.
Everybody who gets money has to explain what they're going to do with it. How is that a problem? When we built our house, I had to supply a site plan, building plan, detail drawings and specifications in order to get a construction loan. Are you annoyed that Kennedy declared, "we choose to go to the Moon in this decade" before billions of dollars were spent on the project?

Also, your wording, "what they are going to achieve", is a misrepresentation. No surprise there.

Does that sound like real science to you?
Scientists start with a hypothesis. The ones who don't aren't scientists; they're tinkerers.

If you already know the answer before you ask the question, then you are putting your system of beliefs in front of reality
Scientists don't know what they will find out, and I challenge you to show five government research grant proposals to support your assertion that this is what scientists claim.

and not allowing the results of the tests to have any bearing on the answer.
I challenge you to show five publications of results of research paid for by the government that show this to be the case. You might have a case for research paid for by climate change deniers, the tobacco industry and the like, but for every study they paid for that show this to be true, there will be multiple-- even hundreds-- of studies that show you to be wrong.

But if you don't have a predetermined answer, you won't get the money to do it.
I challenge you to show five unsuccessful government science grant applications that show this to be true.

That is how science works today.
I'm not taking your word for it. Show the evidence.

And true scientists are few and far between...
Other than yourself, can you offer any other examples of scientists who aren't real?
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Joeknows » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:02 pm

I want to show you all what a more genuine teacher actually sounds like. Since your group is so starved for serious minded thinkers, you would probably think "rumpology," was a legitimate science if it came with a degree that looked pretty and professional in its frame. But here is another teacher whom is saying the very opposite of what your group members claim. They are a teacher with all (and possibly more) of the type of official credit that you claim justifies your own responses. So why would two different teachers, both legitimately working and accredited, be unable to come to any sort of agreement on the matter? I suggest that this is exactly the same as you and I disagreeing, and that you claiming "my information conflicts" is really just a lack of effort on your part. Teacher Mr Brown doesn't tell us "what to learn," he only shows us HOW to learn:
Matt, I’m glad you pointed out this hashtag! I hope you are well.
My students and I looked at this trend to discuss how juxtaposing two “opposites” can question and perhaps collapse a duality. Basically, we get to see how two very different people (me as a party animal and me as a scholar) are actually one, inseparable amalgam of dualistic opposites.

This kind of juxtaposition acts like a metaphor. After comparing two very different, even oppositional realities, a third element arises from the comparison that unites the two. A good example would be Socrates’ idea of “Wisdom”, which is a realization of the joint nature of ignorance and knowledge. i.e. “All I know is that I know nothing”.

This third metaphoric element, as I name it, is reflection. So, when a duality is represented as one coin with two faces, the audience is offered a new way of symbolizing the so-called differences that once seemed very separate. Being able to reflect on the “lie” of the leaf that Nietzche famously pointed out really means lining all the leaves next to all the non-leaves and making some hard decisions about the truth and worth of our metaphors.


I think the difference between them being a teacher, and you being a teacher is that they have taken the time to look at, learn from, and try to understand the worth of these ancient modalities. Instead of making the bold assumption that what you've got is already good enough to get you through it.

So in the end, it seems to just come down to the fact that one tried to keep learning. And meanwhile the other got complacent with his position and decided it would be easier to stop looking.

Here was my response to them, but it is also the response I would give to you.

We’ve all done bad things, because most of our learning comes from making a mistake and seeing the results of it. We can’t change things we didn’t know, so we can only look forward from this present moment into the future, and let our past mistakes guide and inspire us. It’s when we try to get by on feeling what is right instead of knowing, that gets us into trouble every time. Rhetoric isn’t something decided or awarded, it can only be recognized by an individual humble enough to fully receive its worth. We have to gain understanding of how consciousness operates, how morality works in all our social situations, and the difference between our imagined feelings and objective reality. To become an individual is to recognize that freedom only comes from independence; therefore, you can depend on nobody else to understand for you. You do not have the right to believe in anything you don’t fully understand, or else you are depending on others to uphold your understanding. Let their path guide you, but never emulate it blindly. If we do not seek out our greatest weaknesses and improve upon them, then our greatest strengths will become the walls of a prison that are only protecting us from learning the rest of the story. While I dislike most teachers because they think they know what is right, this Mr Chris Brown actually does a good job of explaining these “thought exercises” that will develop your ability to process information on higher levels, so you can eventually become a conscious individual. Thank you for doing more good than harm (but the road to hell is paved with good intentions; so while you educate others, keep educating yourself and let the information itself be the final teacher).


You call yourselves freethinkers, but you have no concept of independence. You think that other people can hold information for you. And that some officially created group can be ANY authority on information. You are still trying to teach by forced memorization, instead of conscious recognition of patterns.

Short-Term Memorization versus Long-Term Recognition

This can be easily seen when you break down the word "educate." From the Latin "educar," the word means literally "to draw out from/of." Like pouring water out of a jug. There is nothing in the word about "putting things in" as forced memorization learning encourages. People smarter than you or I recognized that we are born into ignorance, and we have to work hard to get out of it. Memorizing information instead of recognizing it, will only help you pass a test and then it's forgotten to make room for new stuff. Instead of recognizing how the pattern of one subject corresponds to the pattern of another subject and building an integrated understanding, you encourage your students to learn something that they will need to throw away in order to move on.

Encouraging this type of education, is why I think that you don't really care about learning. And rather just do it as a job, or to meet people. Because it's popular, or because it's too difficult to change or even discuss.

David Franks made a response saying "How is that a problem?" And I thank you for a little more effort than any of your earlier posts. You are saying that you don't see the problem in this. And I agree completely, you DON'T see the problem in it. SEEING the problem IS the problem in our conversation concurrently. So you are going to have to take extra effort to develop a full and unbiased awareness. Sadly that does not begin with seeking fault in each part singularly before you've even considered the parts as a whole. You say the pieces won't fit together, but you haven't tried to put it together yet. You all say there is no evidence, but you haven't even looked for it. So keep posting "non-responses" that say far less than the colorful pictures you also like to spam these posts with. It shows your mettle for everyone to see.

[I thought an example of a real teacher, an explanation of true education, and a short response was enough for this time. You all do a great job of driving me away with your insecurity and immaturity, so I only drop by infrequently. But I have to do what I can to bring a real education to people in the area, especially after teachers, preachers, and politicians have tarnished real information with their personal opinions they can't get past. I will be back to explain further about some extremely basic "thought exorcizes" like Teacher Mr Brown was pointing out above, and how they work to develop an understanding of the importance in the trivium and quadrivium. As a method of connecting by pattern, instead of looking at things ONLY separately (such as by degree).]

Disclaimer: Regardless if you are wrong or right about a few small things that you are trying to argue are true, you continually ignore looking at the more important issues that I discuss. I make claims about what your group is doing, and you neither agree nor disagree. You just ignore it like the plague and hope it goes away. Because if you actually DID give a response to the important things, you would be held accountable for whatever opinion you voiced. Because you don't wish to be held accountable, you will ignore anything to avoid that responsibility of coming to a ["hard decision about the truth]" as teacher Mr Brown quotes from Nietzche. But go on and post again about not having any evidence to consider. Because it gets funnier each time.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Savonarola » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:31 pm

Joe, you insisted that there are seven colors because seven is a special number.

When I explained that there aren't seven colors, you decided that white is a color.

You have a special level of stupid in you.

We asked, over and over and over again, for you to provide evidence. You didn't. And evidence is key. It's more important than sitting on your ass and trying to pull shit out of that ass at the same time, which is something you've become quite adept at.

Nobody could have used principles of Newtonian physics and -- sitting in a chair and thinking -- come up with the intricacies of quantum mechanics. In fact, there is still a logical disconnect between quantum events and Newtonian effects. Nevertheless, evidence shows that the connection exists. Evidence shows that the craziness of quantum mechanics is correct. The fact that QM principles do not follow from Newtonian principles shows that you are going about this the wrong way: the only way to be sure that an idea is correct requires evidence.
That's why we ask for evidence.

Claiming to have found somebody who speaks the same non-language that you do is not evidence. You have no evidence. You've never had evidence.

User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby David Franks » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:16 am

Joeknows wrote:you would probably think "rumpology," was a legitimate science if it came with a degree that looked pretty and professional in its frame.
You could test that hypothesis by printing up everything you say on a pretty, professional certificate and framing it. My hypothesis is that framing everything you say will never make "rumpology" a legitimate science, and you will never be a legitimate scientist.

Teacher Mr Brown doesn't tell us "what to learn," he only shows us HOW to learn:
Apparently you don't understand that looking for, providing and considering evidence is part of how one learns. Does Teacher Mr. Brown know that you are addled by overuse of marijuana?

Teacher Mr. Brown wrote:Matt, I’m glad you pointed out this hashtag! I hope you are well.
(Sounds like he suspects.)

I think the difference between them being a teacher, and you being a teacher is that they have taken the time to look at, learn from, and try to understand the worth of these ancient modalities.
That sounds dangerously like considering evidence.

Instead of making the bold assumption that what you've got is already good enough to get you through it.
Other than you, who does that?

So in the end, it seems to just come down to the fact that one tried to keep learning.
It doesn't seem that way at all, however much you want it to.

And meanwhile the other got complacent with his position and decided it would be easier to stop looking.
Because when one continues to look for evidence to support (or disprove) hypotheses, one has stopped looking?

Joeknows wrote:We’ve all done bad things, because most of our learning comes from making a mistake and seeing the results of it.
Yet your learning curve is not commensurate with the number of mistakes you have made here.

You call yourselves freethinkers, but you have no concept of independence.
You make the common mistake of seeing the "free" part and forgetting about the "thinkers" part.

You think that other people can hold information for you.
Where is it held, then? Or should we just make it up as we go along?

And that some officially created group can be ANY authority on information.
I'll take an officially-created group over your unsupported assertions.

You are still trying to teach by forced memorization, instead of conscious recognition of patterns.
Evidence has no direct relationship with forced memorization. If you associate evidence with forced memorization, then that is the fault of the way you learned, not of evidence itself.

Memorizing information instead of recognizing it, will only help you pass a test and then it's forgotten to make room for new stuff.
Okay, I'll humor your phobia for a moment. Support your assertions with evidence you've recognized, not evidence you've memorized.

Instead of recognizing how the pattern of one subject corresponds to the pattern of another subject and building an integrated understanding, you encourage your students to learn something that they will need to throw away in order to move on.
Are you saying you've thrown away everything that might be construed as evidence? If so, then that's your own fault, not the fault of evidence or of some mode of education. But note that recognizing patterns is a result of looking at evidence. Which we would do if you provided some.

Encouraging this type of education, is why I think that you don't really care about learning.
Assuming you refer to forced memorization, when has anybody here encouraged "this type of education"?

Because it's popular
Going by the evidence you provide, education isn't popular at all.

David Franks made a response saying "How is that a problem?"
Question: Why do I have the feeling that my question is about to be taken completely out of context?

And I thank you for a little more effort than any of your earlier posts.
You're welcome, I guess. I wish I could say the same.

You are saying that you don't see the problem in this. And I agree completely, you DON'T see the problem in it. SEEING the problem IS the problem in our conversation concurrently.
Answer: Because I knew you would take it out of context. That question pertains specifically to your complaint that people who give money to researchers want to know how it is spent. By the way-- you never did provide the examples I asked for, which would be evidence that, at best, you might know what you are talking about in a few cases. And by the way-- I don't expect you to have a bibliography memorized. Use the Internet. I'm a real teacher.

So you are going to have to take extra effort to develop a full and unbiased awareness.
As an unbiased awareness depends upon facts rather than wishes, hopes or prejudices, I have to have evidence before my awareness is free of bias. That's why I am taking extra effort-- a lot of extra effort, in this case-- to get you to provide evidence.

Sadly that does not begin with seeking fault in each part singularly before you've even considered the parts as a whole.
Sadly, indeed. It also does not begin without evidence.

You say the pieces won't fit together, but you haven't tried to put it together yet.
I study the whole before I look at the parts. I already know that the pieces fit together; I want to know how they fit together, not whether they fit together.

You all say there is no evidence, but you haven't even looked for it.
Our insistence that you provide evidence (such as the examples I requested in a previous comment) is the opposite of claiming that there is no evidence. We say, correctly, that you do not provide evidence. When you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it. It is not the responsibility of the other party to do your work for you.

So keep posting "non-responses" that say far less than the colorful pictures you also like to spam these posts with.
As opposed to non-responses that are redolent of weed and contain no supporting evidence, despite specific requests for supporting evidence? When you have been asked for something and you don't provide it, you have not responded to the request. That is the very soul of non-response. (Note: as only registered users can post here, colorful pictures are by definition not spam.)

It shows your mettle for everyone to see.
Point to ponder: it also shows yours.

Disclaimer: Regardless if you are wrong or right about a few small things that you are trying to argue are true, you continually ignore looking at the more important issues that I discuss.
We can only look at what you say, and apparently we are so distracted by your basic errors in fact that we can't concentrate on the important issues. That's why we keep asking for evidence. Go ahead-- pretend we're not very bright and make it easier for us. Provide some evidence.

I make claims about what your group is doing, and you neither agree nor disagree.
But we do ask for evidence.

You just ignore it like the plague and hope it goes away.
Au contraire! We check it for evidence and find none. And we want it to stay here forever. We want posterity to see your mettle.

Because if you actually DID give a response to the important things, you would be held accountable for whatever opinion you voiced.
If you'd provide evidence for your important things, then we could respond. As it is, you've just written a lot of claptrap. Where should we start? How should we begin? Again, pretend we're not very bright and make it easier for us. Provide some evidence.

Because you don't wish to be held accountable, you will ignore anything to avoid that responsibility of coming to a ["hard decision about the truth]" as teacher Mr Brown quotes from Nietzche.
"Nietzche says, 'Out of chaos comes order.'"
"Oh, blow it out your ass, Howard."

But go on and post again about not having any evidence to consider. Because it gets funnier each time.
Marijuana does make people prone to giggling. Warning: I've seen Blazing Saddles so many times, it no longer gets funnier each time I've seen it. Spare yourself this regrettable eventuality. Provide some evidence so we can stop asking for it. Before it's too late.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Dardedar » Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:18 pm

Joe doesn't believe in rumpology? So he does draw the line somewhere. Such a skeptic!
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

Joeknows
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:19 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Joeknows » Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:05 pm

@savonarola
You have no evidence. You've never had evidence.

It is pretty much impossible to show evidence to someone that doesn't want to listen. Doesn't want to recognize what is being said. Doesn't want to know about things they don't understand. And doesn't even want to spend any time talking about it.

Your continued attacks and nothing but narrow criticisms that avoid the point of discussion, is the BIGGEST EVIDENCE that I have seen yet! And since you don't have the awareness or recognition to receive information from others without pre-judging it, you don't have the ability to even recognize evidence. This would be completely expected of someone in your condition, I won't hold it against you. Is evidence still evidence if nobody can see it? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise? These are stupid questions that ignore logic, and attempt to shift the focus from the topic of debate. But trying to obscure the point by muddling it in your own philosophy of what is properly accepted as evidence or not.

Your information always comes from something officially certified by a popular organization. Specifically, it always comes from somewhere outside of your own recognition of it. You haven't become educated enough to recognize truth in the form/function of a system; you have to wait for it to become popular enough that you can pretend like you understand what they told you to learn, and how they told you to learn it.

Let's look at your criticisms over colors. You said:
When I explained that there aren't seven colors, you decided that white is a color.

First off, nothing you said made me decide anything. Sadly you've lacked any sort of participating role in having an intelligent conversation.

Second, your own explanation was that there is an infinite number (again, confusing form with function). Rationalizing not giving it any effort, because it is too big to fathom. And then like a broken record saying that the "official" story about 6 colors is the correct way of it, even though the official story used to be "7 colors."(lol!)

Third, 7 colors is the simplest way to describe the system to its fullest function. At 7 discernible colors the ratio of primary colors that make up each color, is equal distances from one another. We could force this to happen again at 14, 28, 56, etc; but the most simplified description of its function is 7 colors. The most simplified description of its form is 3 colors, equidistant apart with respect to the acceleration of the frequency in visible light.

Fourth, so this question could be answered in many ways, if you are willing to fully explain your perspective and why you know it exists that way. But you are unwilling to look at the question from any but the predetermined rightness of your own perspective. And this is why in math classes, you get points for showing your work. What I've seen from you all has been mostly guesses, without any willingness to show WHY. And if this was a math class, you would be consistently failed for not showing your work.

@Davidfakes
Are you having a conversation with yourself? If this was my forum, I would have removed you from it. Why do you think you can participate while disregarding the information? I'm pretty sure that what you are doing is considered spam, or trolling/griefing someone because they upset you, or forced you to look at some aspect of yourself that you want to deny. Personally I love fiction, it would be truest instructor for an actual free thinker. So keep on making up elaborate nonsense about how you feel in an attempt at wasting others time. If it will make you feel better, I might even read some of it. I want to see 5 more posts just like the previous one. Come on and really show us what the common caliber of your group is! Tell me more about what I do in my free time that has nothing to do with topic again...

I just think this deserves another repost because it was very funny. Only someone that has no clue what these words mean, would put them together in a statement like this:
Support your assertions with evidence you've recognized, not evidence you've memorized.

Evidence you've memorized naturally becomes wisdom, or a "pattern" of knowledge. But this takes "willingness." It takes willpower and control over your feelings (instead of them controlling you), in order to successfully turn evidence into conscious recognition of it. This is the part you skipped, dummy. Because you can't show someone a pattern by any ONE piece of evidence.

This is the disconnect that you seem to have with any information I present. I submit no specific information as evidence, BECAUSE ALL the evidence needed to fully understand it comes simply from common sense, recognizable and expressed in any system or situation that we can possibly talk about. You say that I present no evidence, only because I present SO MUCH evidence that you aren't willing to look at it. And don't have the tools to compare across seemingly unrelated fields, that might fall outside your proper specialization.

You need no special degree or certificate to recognize the common pattern of how the universe operates. In fact getting an overly specialized degree, and being rewarded for it, can be the biggest detriment towards achieving a common human awareness where we can agree on what is right, instead of bickering about our feelings.

The difference between a smart and wise person, is that you can always fool a smart person that is only concerned with analytical/scientific knowledge of "forms." You just set out only the information that strengthens your predetermined theory, and it seems obvious to assume that it adds up to what you believe. In fact a smart person will trick themselves, just to feel good about what they know. It just means that you know a whole lot about nothing, or in effect, wasted your time.

But a wise person that understands function, will never be tricked by a seemingly connected but also limited slice of the spectrum of information. They will choose not to decide, before believing in something unsupported. The institution of modern science has become an assembly of specific facts, that criticizes and attacks anyone that tries on their own to make sense of it. They only keep their concerted power within the institution by denying others, and that is the same thing that your group tries to do over and over. Ignore and attack. Defend and preserve your status quo, so that you don't have to spend any time on something you don't understand yet. It is easier to tell yourself that you are smart, than to actually compare systems of information outside of the popular trend. But information isn't a quantity that you have to hoard like money, in fact it is better used by spreading it around, and building it together with others. You think that hoarding information is a way to preserve your own survival, but it isn't. It is just an excuse to remain an ignorant animal.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Trivium and Quadrium, particle/wave

Postby Savonarola » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:18 am

Joeknows wrote:Your continued attacks and nothing but narrow criticisms that avoid the point of discussion, is the BIGGEST EVIDENCE that I have seen yet!
Thank you for admitting that your best evidence is neither something you've presented nor something that actually has happened. I have exposed specific gaping holes in your "justifications," the presence of which show that you do not know what you're talking about, and that your specific brand of ballyhooed "common sense" is neither common nor sense. You think that it is sensical for there to be seven colors ROYGBIV-- no, wait, you totally meant six colors, plus white, which isn't a color. If it was all "common sense," you wouldn't have to keep changing your story.

Joe faux-complaining about me "not showing work" right after he misrepresents my explanation of colors is particularly illuminating.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest