BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:09 AM

*deep sigh*....I used to have a professor of philosophy, Dr. Gerald Paske, by name.....who was the best I have ever known at looking at arguments such as "Devil's Advocate" puts forth above and showing explicitly where they break down and fall into logical error. I wish I could succinctly do half as well.

In many of the claims and arguments I take issue with, the problem is that there are simply fallacies of logic employed. One of these is equivocation. (Or see here more fallacies). "Devil's Advocate" does this in his critique of the 'scientific method'. The scientific method is NOT arrogant. The scientific method does NOT "...assume that Humans are the most powerful beings in the universe"...the scientific method does not "do" anything...it is merely a tool for examining data and hypotheses and trying to get closer to truth. Properly used, it NEVER makes absolute claims about reality, but only tries to approach it.

The point is, I am not claiming that I can prove all claims for 'estoteric' experiences false, but merely that most people make more claims for their 'truth' than is reasonable. It often resembles throwing the dart, then drawing the bulleye around it....that is, finding a comfortable explanation for what is already believed. "I'm sure saw a figure that looked like my deceased Aunt Clara, therefore......" If I saw such an apparition, I would like to think I'd look VERY carefully at whether it was 'real', or an internal projection of my own mind...(a waking dream, perhaps...I have dreamed some very strange things. Have been seeing my parents in my dreams a lot recently...*smile*)

I wish I had more time to type a detailed analysis of why giant squid and palentology are quite different issues than ghosts and souls, but let me suggest that for some of us, they should all be subjected to the same rigors of proof, and for for some us they get special dispensation BECAUSE they can't be tested the same way. We HAVE specimens of giant squid and dinosaur bones....we do NOT have any ghosts or souls in bottles, nor any photos of them, nor any reasonable explication of what a ghost of soul might be. Some of us just see the usual explanations as rhetorical constructs which depend on language and metaphor to help make sense of experiences which confuse or upset.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:28 AM

and while I was typing, Amos posted:
"the repeatability of psychological or spiritual states is not the same at all as the repeatability of physical ones. "

This is quite true on the face of it...but it assumes the premise that there IS a 'spiritual' state....and that a spiritual state is different from a psychological state.

as to:

Re the existence of 'soul' - from Webster's Deluxe Dictionary:

SOUL: 1. the immatierial essence, animating principle, or
         actuating cause of an individual life
      2. the spiritual principle embodied in human beings,
         all rational and spiritual beings, and the universe .

....yes, that's what I understand 'soul' to mean, we just differ in thinking that a definition means there is a reality to that which is defined.

We have 'definitions' of Unicorns and werewolves and elves (and Hobbits), but all that means is that there are generally agreed on images, concepts and attitudes about them.....and some people still LITERALLLY believe in werewolves and such....the images are so powerful that it is easy to succumb to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:42 AM

Bill - I have the nature and inclinations of a philosopher too, and have likewise frustrated many Jehovah's witnesses on my doorstep (with a certain amount of glee, I can assure you).

But I'll tell you what's wrong with philosophers. They are in the grip of the tiny little insecure yet proud human mind...and the human mind is a very limited tool. There is an omnipresent Spirit beyond it that the mind is a mere extension or byproduct of...and a servant unto. The mind denies that, because it's AFRAID of the implications, and it's afraid of its impending death. Terrified, in fact.

But I am NOT going to consume any more of my time trying to convince you of that. Be happy in what you are. I'm happy in what I am.

I Am That I Am. I am Love. I am Existence itself. I am Eternity. I am you. I am what is not you. I am merely masquerading for a time as Little Hawk. I don't mind if you neither understand nor believe some of the things I say. It's not a problem. I don't need to convince you of anything. You are exactly what you choose to be, and you have the right to be, same as Little Hawk does.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: MMario
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 10:53 AM

*gasp* There are no werewolves?

BTW - ever seen any of the articles in which the werewolf legends are attributed to hydrophobia?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 11:15 AM

Consciousness creates all reality. It is the fact that I am conscious which has allowed me to say that...and it is the fact that you are conscious which is allowing you to read it right now...and agree or disagree with the basic premise.

"Soul" is that consciousness, and your soul creates your reality.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 11:52 AM

Bill, you mentioned dreaming, so at the risk of appearing flaky/crazy/deluded I'll share this experience here. (BTW it was mostly my lifelong experiences with vivid, 'astonishing' dreams that motivated me to explore spiritual matters. Not even my studies of psychology could explain satisfactorily to me such questions as - HOW THE H*** COULD I HAVE KNOWN THAT!!)

A couple years ago I woke up from a particularly vivid dream. In the dream I was sitting on the floor in my studio (I teach music privately at home). I was dismayed to see that the carpet was covered with muddy boot-prints and littered with piles of paperwork strewn about all over. In front of me on the floor was a large black wooden club. Although I couldn't see anyone else there was loud angry shouting all around me - don't remember the words. Now I was getting angry - who are these people and what are they doing making such a huge mess in my workplace?!? And my anger woke me up.

I couldn't make sense of the dream at all until I sat down to watch the 6:00 news that night. Lo and behold, the very worst riot in the history of Ontario had happened that very afternoon at Queen's Park (the seat of the provincial gov't in Toronto). Thousands of people had violently protested the changes to the social welfare laws just implemented by the Davis gov't, and the angry clashes with the police and riot squads had been ongoing all day.

Now although I was aware of the unpopular changes made by the Davis gov't it hadn't been on my mind much at all. I don't watch the news or read the paper every day either, only occasionally. So why did I have the dream? Was it just a coincidence? Don't think so! Does it make me some sort of prophet or 'mystic'? I doubt that VERY much! Was it a message from 'God' that I should go down there on some sort of 'holy mission' and try to straighten things out myself? That's ridiculous!

No, the only reason I could see is that at the time, adn for a few years before that, I had been actively engaged in studying dreaming, in my own nature as a dreamer, in discovering my 'spiritual' abilities. I still am! Learning to trust my dreams as a source of truth, learning that there is a part of me - call it 'soul' if you like - that is NOT bound by the laws of the physical universe and that is aware of MUCH more than my physical self is capable of knowing. My dream was a tool for self-discovery. And that's all!

Of course, I can't prove to you that any of this is true, and I sure can't demonstrate or replicate it for anyone else! But it IS the truth!!!

Now, if YOU chose to seriously reflect on the meaning of YOUR own dreams ... ok, ok I'll stop now!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:06 PM

A sceptic would ask how often a day goes by without something similar on the news. That's Bill D's point about working out what the target is after throwing the dart.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:18 PM

Skepticism is a VERY USEFUL AND NECESSARY attribute for any spiritual 'seeker'! Without it we'd all be vulnerable to the David Koreshes of the world ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Ed.
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:34 PM

Daylia, I'm curious to know why you discount coincidence so quickly?

I'll quote something from this page:
"you might say that the odds of something happening are a million to one. Such odds might strike you as being so large as to rule out chance or coincidence. However, with over 6 billion people on earth, a million to one shot will occur frequently. Say the odds are a million to one that when a person has a dream of an airplane crash, there is an airplane crash the next day. With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50), there should be about 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant. The number is actually likely to be larger, since we tend to dream about things that legitimately concern or worry us, and the data of dreams is usually vague or ambiguous, allowing a wide range of events to count as fulfilling our dreams."

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:43 PM

"Paleontology- theory- no fact"
As a paleontologist for a major oil company with world-wide operations, my colleagues and I were employed to put the fossil organisms preserfved in ancient sediments in order, both as to stratigraphic position (age) and ecological setting. These studies contribute to the location of sediments likely to contain oil and gas deposits.
The results are reproducible- from well-to-well and from region to region, hence are more than "theory" as defined in a previous posting. Evolution is the basis for much of the work.
Environment must be taken into account, e. g., life in the Arctic of today is much different from that of the southeastern states, but during the Paleocene era of about 60 million years age, major plant groups in the Arctic of North America show ancestral similarities to those of the present day American southeast, suggesting similar climates. The Paleocene floras of the southeast during Paleocene time were much more tropical than they are now.
It is possible to correlate fossils of that age on a world-wide basis, especially through the use of marine fossils. Thousands of paleontologists, and their work of the past 150 years, has provided us with a picture of life as it has evolved over the past one billion years.
A theory in the scientific sense is one that relates observed facts to each other and provides a basis for applications. It is not speculation.
Bach to the subject:
Clones will be more on the order of identical twins. They may be similar but that doesn't mean that they will do identical things. One might end up as a musician, while the other might do something useful, become a lawyer, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 12:45 PM

You should never have your mind so open that your brain falls out. Breath of fresh air from Bill D, Ed and others.
But it doesn't mater how much, those of us who think reason has some value in human affairs sigh rather resignedly; there is no point in reasoning with the unreasonable.

All the best for the New Year everyone.

Klatoo Borada Nicto

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 01:35 PM

***sigh*** ok I just checked the floor - no slimy gobs of grey matter - guess my brain is still in there - and my mind is remaining open ...

Very interesting link, Ed! Thank you! I hope this thread doens't die too quickly so I can go over it a few more times.

But to answer your question about why I dismissed coincidence so quickly - it's because I've had SO MANY similiar experiences ALL of my life that it's become just foolish for me to write them all off as some kind of coincidence! And I don't think presenting more of them here as some kind of 'evidence' is going to convince anyone - they are NOT 'evidence' in the conventional sense! I don't have any desire to convince anyone of anything anyway! People are more convinced by reasons they have discovered themselves than by anything they are told by someone else. I shared that story only because a few people above seemed genuinely interested in my point of view.

But to quote Ted Andrews from his book 'Psychic Protection' again (a little volume that I've found most helpful - although certainly not the 'last word' in these matters by any means) - in my explorations:

"If something happens once or twice, you are still in the realm of coincidence. When it starts happening more than that, something else is at work".

I'm still in the process of discovering what that "something else" might be regarding my dreams and other experiences. And keeping active tabs on the state of my brain is one of my TOP priorities, believe me!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From:
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 01:35 PM

The comment about incest reminded me of this old song:

Clone Song, The (Home On the Range)
W: Randall Garrett & Isaac Asimov
M: Traditional cowboy song
©1982 Randall Garrett and Isaac Asimov

1.
Oh, give me a clone of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown, then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex


CHORUS:   Clone, clone of my own
          With its Y-chromosome changed to X
          And when i'm alone with my own little clone
          We will both think of nothing but sex

2.
Oh, give me a clone, is my sorrowful moan
A clone that is wholly my own
And if she's an X of the feminie sex
Oh, what fun we will have when we're prone    (CHORUS)

3.
My heart's not of stone, as I've frequently shown
When alone with my dear little X
And after we've dined, I'm sure we will find
Better incest than Oedipus Rex    (CHORUS)

4.
Why should such sex vex, or disturb or perplex
Or induce a disparaging tone
After all, don't you see, since we're both of us me
When we're making love, I'm alone.    (CHORUS)

5.
After my sands have run, she will still have her fun
For I'll clone myself twice 'ere I die.
And this time without fail, they'll be both of them male
And they'll each ravish her by and by.    (CHORUS)

RESOURCES:

_________.    Clone Song (WS) Photocopy.

Internet.   Clone Song, The.   URL: http://members.tripod.com/~bardic_circle/aclone.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 02:46 PM

ah, daylia...my dreams are pretty easy to interpret these days....full of frustration, struggle and tension due to 'life'...I have no doubt that my unconcious is throwing all sorts of images and memories into a vain attempt to sort out the complexities I feel while awake. I 'think' I have only once in my life had an intense dream about something I felt like checking on, but it was not about 'news', and I never did discover if there was any truth to it....It could very easily have been just random firing of neurons....but though I still wonder, I ascribe NO weight to it.

(It is interesting to have a couple of well phrased statements of support for what I was trying to say...at least my point was not lost!)

and to Little Hawk and others who 'see' things differently...yes, we will just have to continue being what we are. We can all be decent, happy, caring people no matter how we feel about the nature of existence, and I'd hope, able to have discussions like this in a mostly congenial manner. This is a most interesting and refreshing thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 03:06 PM

Bill it IS a most interesting and refreshing thread! And thank you for the links re philosophy above - I read them with MUCH interest. My oldest son just graduated from the University of Toronto with an Honours degree in Philosophy, and I intend to go over them with him when he comes to visit tonight. It's been years since I've studied Philosophy - I majored in Psych and Soc - and I need his expertise to help understand the terms again...

"We can all be decent, happy, caring people no matter how we feel about the nature of existence..." Hear hear!!!! :-)

Just can't help asking though - do you think there's really any such thing as "random firing of the neurons?" Gads I love pondering stuff like that ....

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 03:33 PM

well, my 1/3 finished masters thesis in philosophy many years ago was to have been on "Free Will and whether it really exists" and was to have argued that ONLY a system like that of A.N. Whitehead in "Process & Reality" could provide any explanation of how "free will" might work.

I used to argue in favor of free will against a friend who claimed that everything was just laws of nature expressing themselves in complex ways. Durn thing is, some of the newest data in genetics and such make me wonder if he might have been closer to the truth than I like to think!

So...'random firing of neurons'?...perhaps...and perhaps randomness is only our inability to SEE the patterns and causes...*shrug*....the thing is, we all 'feel' like we are free, and like we can make a concious choice about what to believe and accept. I'd like to think that is true, but the fact is, that is one VERY hard item to test & prove, and there are so many bits of evidence on both sides that it may never be settled.

What we end up with in practical applications of such issues is U.S. Supreme Court decisions which implicitly favor one belief system over another, according to just who is on the court that day! What a system huh? "Abortion is murder" ..."No it isn't, it is just choice"....wow, lets VOTE about the truth!

Can you see how a sceptic such as I MUST feel about such an issue? The answer is easy, for me, but the explanation takes hours....and I am sleepy...........

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,daylia
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 04:04 PM

Me too Bill - gotta give those neurons a break now! Thanks for trying to clarify that - and free will or not I'm choosing to GET OFF THIS COMPUTER before my eyes burn out ... gonna put on some Mozart and lie back ... I've heard he's good for the soul (whatever that might or might not be!!)

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 09:30 PM

yup...he is...so are several other....

I don't know why I'm still here, except that I am trying to stay awake until I can sleep 8 hrs without waking up at 5AM....(catching up from last night's 4 hrs..)

And I too, use 'soul' in that sense...*smile*,,,it is a perfectly good metaphor/model for one's 'internal churnin's'...now, I think I shall retire to some good 'soul music' myself...perhaps Jean Redpath...

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's A
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:53 AM

Ha! Now we've gotten on to the McGuffin of whether something is a theory or a fact. That's a fallacious dichotomy, and one that creationists use to claim that Evolution should not be taught without creationism also being taught. The grand ideas of science will always remain theories, not because they're wrong, but because it's always possible to explain observations in more than one way. So Evolution IS a theory, and at the moment the only coherent one that makes any sense of the evidence. Newtonian descriptions of motion, on the other hand, are part of a theory that has been superseded by the theory of relativity. Newtonian laws are still useful, because unless you're moving close to the speed of light they produce the same results as Einsteinian and Lorentzian laws. But most Physicists agree that Newtonian explanations are no longer the best ones we have.

Q, you're precisely right, Paleontologists can make predictions about new digs that can either prove true or false. The final explanation of what it all means, however, will remain a theory, in the non-stigmatized sense of "the best explanation we have at the moment."

BillD, you accuse me of equivocation, and I will agree with you so far as the wording of my critique of scientism goes. Obviously a method canot be arrogant, but the people who apply it promiscuously can. In other words, the Scientific Method is not an arrogant approach to take when you are examining insects, electrons, compounds or fluid dynamics. However, it is arrogant to apply the scientific method to certain things, principally those things that are or may be more intelligent and capable than we are.   THAT's why I said it was arrogant; the presumption being made in applying it to, for example, the Soul, is that a Soul may not wish us to study him/her and may be able to avoid it. If he/she can, then using the Scientific Method to claim, as Bill D did in his original post, that souls do not exist, is arrogant. Doing so is making the tacit assumption that the only reason scientists can't find something is because it's not there, which is based on the potentially false premise that anything that is there can be found by scientists. Those were the flaws I saw in YOUR logic in your original post.

By the way, you engaged in the same sort of cryptic metaphor I did when you said that the "Laws of Physics would end all this." Just as I personified the Scientific Method, you personified our explanations of the universe's development. The laws of physics won't do anything, only bodies and forces will.

So in the end, Bill D...maybe I worded my original critique poorly because I was trying to avoid the impoliteness of saying that YOU were being arrogant. But I shouldn't have, because you are obviously not being personally arrogant, just arrogant on behalf of our common species. seriously, I think the only non-arrogant way to approach questions of powers greater than ours is to say "Until I get evidence, I don't know if we have souls," which is only subtly different from Bill D's "Until I get evidence, I will say we have NO souls."   

Here's another thought: in science, it is standard to posit the existence of things that explain some of our observations, even if we have never seen those things. Many types of particles, such as positrons and neutrinos, were first posited as theoretical explanations of observations, then found in the real world. While they're in the "posited but not found" stages, they're often taught to high school and college students as though they almost certainly exist. But modern science will never posit the existence of souls or demons no matter how well they explain (for example) the cross-cultural occurrence of Mara attacks or out of body experiences. Scientists will for the most part continue to argue (in public) that demons and souls don't exist, or that they have no scientific basis. This is not because the demon is any less likely than the positron, It's because of the ideology of scientific people and especially institutions, which easily accept some forms of speculation but frown upon others.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's A again
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:59 AM

Oops! When I wrote above:

"the presumption being made in applying it to, for example, the Soul, is that a Soul may not wish us to study him/her and may be able to avoid it"

I meant

"it is presumptuous to apply it to, for example, the Soul, because a Soul may not wish us to study him/her and may be able to avoid it."

Sorry to be confusing...

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 07:57 AM

Re "SOUL: the immaterial essence, animating principle or actuating cause of an individual life."

Bill D said "yes, that's what I understand soul to mean, we just differ in thinking that a definition means there is reality to that which is defined." And DMcG said "That's Bill D's point about working out what the target is after throwing the dart".

Hmmm - I'm wondering what is so difficut to understand/accept about the definition. Is it the very notion that anything 'immaterial' exists at all? Let's see - the alternative would be something like
'Only that which is physical exists' or 'That which is immaterial cannot exist'.

I agree with Devil's Advocate - that IS arrogant! ie - if it takes a different form than 'I' do (at least the part of 'me' that I'm conscious of in my waking reality), if it lies beyond the perceptive range of my physical senses and I cannot force it to comply with my rules of logic and reason then *bg* it doesn't exist! What a limited view of the Universe!

Or do you disagree that there is an 'animating cause' or 'actuating principle' of individual life? Let's see - the alternative is "There is no animating cause of individual life" or "Life has no animating source, or actuating principle". Why would any thinking person entertain such an absurd notion? Just because YOU cannot explain/demonstrate/control it, it cannot exist? Arrogance borders on the moronic now! Especially since the evidence that it DOES exist is all around and inside you every day of your life! You are alive, and you are aware that you are alive, aren't you?

I'm GRATEFUL we can't explain or demonstrate or replicate or bottle or control or dissect or buy and sell 'soul'! Look at the horrific mess we've made of the planet we live on only because we've learned, with our primitive limited logic and science and technology, how to bend it to our will? Certainly we won't get into first grade until we're out of nursery school - for our own good!! I trust that the processes of life will bring us what we really need.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 09:00 AM

I just re-read my message above and want to apologize for the statement "Arrogance borders on the moronic now!" The word 'moronic' is insulting and inflammatory and has no useful purpose in this discussion, and I'm sorry I used it. That's what I get for posting messages BEFORE I do my morning meditations! I'm off to do them now, feeling a little 'moronic' ... :-( ....

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 10:57 AM

no offense taken...*smile*...but I am frustrated. I had just take 15-20 minutes to compose a post when it became MY turn to lose the the whole thing! Maybe them spirits were reading over my shoulder and decided to censor my sceptical ramblings!

Anyway, I'll out wit 'em yet....later.....*grin*...need to recompose my thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 11:36 AM

DA
The Universe does not dissemble.
People do.
When you ask a question of the Nature it always gives truth. Wither what you construe from the answer is relevant or not is much more problematic.
The tricky bit is asking pertinent questions.
I think your view of the way science works is inaccurate.
1 The idea that studying sciences and mathematics involves learning lots of facts and ideas which you must take at face value without evidence is nonsense. Science and mathematics a practical skills that you must learn by doing. Obviously building a practical accelerator isn't a practical possibility for most people so you have to take the word of the participants that results from experiments that have been repeated are correct. The point is that your results must be testable and repeatable.
When I studied for A levels in Chemistry, Physics and Biology I actually did practical experiments to test the postulates of science.
I wonder how many people that studied A level Sociology actually did any practical experiments, rather than site other peoples results in essays.
a joke
Physicist goes to the funding department of his university and asks for £1Billion (10 to the power 9) to build a high energy particle accelerator.
Funding Manager says- You Physicists are so expensive. Why can't you be like the Mathematicians? All they need is pencils, paper and wastepaper baskets. Better still be like the Philosophers, all they need is pencils and paper.
A bit hard on the Philosophers but you get my drift.
IF IT AIN'T TESTABLE ITS USELESS.
2 The idea that all scientists do is construct experiments, analyse the results and come up with theories is inaccurate. In fact the process usually goes the other way around the scientist uses all the resources of the human mind, intuition, dreams, visual reasoning, mental model building, and play to come up with a "theory" about a certain problem that the Scientist thinks is a TRUE description of what is going on. He then constructs an experiment that will prove the theory correct, but more importantly disprove it if it is wrong.

Now if the Mudcat Mystics would adopt some rigorous process by which there postulates can be tested by everyone not inside there heads, may be reasonable people might find something of interest in there.

I am not saying that insights gained in altered states of consciousness cannot be true, merely that if they are not testable they are useless.
All the best PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 11:38 AM

DA
The Universe does not dissemble.
People do.
When you ask a question of the Nature it always gives truth. Wither what you construe from the answer is relevant or not is much more problematic.
The tricky bit is asking pertinent questions.
I think your view of the way science works is inaccurate.
1 The idea that studying sciences and mathematics involves learning lots of facts and ideas which you must take at face value without evidence is nonsense. Science and mathematics a practical skills that you must learn by doing. Obviously building a practical accelerator isn't a practical possibility for most people so you have to take the word of the participants that results from experiments that have been repeated are correct. The point is that your results must be testable and repeatable.
When I studied for A levels in Chemistry, Physics and Biology I actually did practical experiments to test the postulates of science.
I wonder how many people that studied A level Sociology actually did any practical experiments, rather than site other peoples results in essays.
a joke
Physicist goes to the funding department of his university and asks for £1Billion (10 to the power 9) to build a high energy particle accelerator.
Funding Manager says- You Physicists are so expensive. Why can't you be like the Mathematicians? All they need is pencils, paper and wastepaper baskets. Better still be like the Philosophers, all they need is pencils and paper.
A bit hard on the Philosophers but you get my drift.
IF IT AIN'T TESTABLE ITS USELESS.
2 The idea that all scientists do is construct experiments, analyse the results and come up with theories is inaccurate. In fact the process usually goes the other way around the scientist uses all the resources of the human mind, intuition, dreams, visual reasoning, mental model building, and play to come up with a "theory" about a certain problem that the Scientist thinks is a TRUE description of what is going on. He then constructs an experiment that will prove the theory correct, but more importantly disprove it if it is wrong.

Now if the Mudcat Mystics would adopt some rigorous process by which there postulates can be tested by everyone not inside there heads, may be reasonable people might find something of interest in there.

I am not saying that insights gained in altered states of consciousness cannot be true, merely that if they are not testable they are useless.
All the best PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 12:50 PM

Pied Piper you ever had one? I suspect not!! If you haven't, then what are you basing your conclusions on?   Seems to me you need at least a LITTLE first-hand practical experience in order to draw any USEFUL conclusions about it at all! Is that not the first rule of "science"?

You can't teach what you don't know. So you'd best not preach it either.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,Devil's A
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:14 PM

PP,

I notice your statement that "the universe does not dissemble, only people do" draws a dividing line between people and the Universe. Remember, we are the universe, or part of it. And i would further argue that many other things besides people dissemble. Angler fish have lures resembling small fish which bring in larger fish for them to eat. My cat pretends I have not fed her so that my wife will feed her again. In other words, all consciousness, at whatever level, is capable of dissembling, including souls, Demons and God, if indeed they exist.

actually I agree with everything else you've said, with some reservations. I notice, for example, thay you say:

"The idea that studying sciences and mathematics involves learning lots of facts and ideas which you must take at face value without evidence is nonsense. "

but follow it up immediately with:

"Obviously building a practical accelerator isn't a practical possibility for most people so you have to take the word of the participants that results from experiments that have been repeated are correct."

In other words, your only real evidence is the word of someone else.

Please understand, I don't mean to be anti-science! I was NOT saying that scientists are unjustified in taking someone's word that repeated experiments have yielded results. My point was that, to the majority of people, including scientists, the process by which we come to believe that atoms exist is the same process by which we come to believe that souls exist: a combination of personal experiences that we feel intuitively support those hypotheses (if we're lucky), and the word of people with intellectual authority.

This hasn't been a bad thing for the human race; after all, one of our big advantages over most other species is language, and it acts as an advantage precisely because we can communicate our observations to others so that they don't have to make all those observations themselves. Science, like all other areas of advanced human endeavor, needs to build on what has gone before. So "taking people's word for it" is a big part of science as it is in other areas of life. That's not a knock on science. But it challenges the notion that "scientific knowledge" is somehow different from other kinds of knowledge.

My biggest point about science hinges on your capitalized credo: "IF IT AIN'T TESTABLE ITS USELESS." I would disagree with that in some cases. Things may be useless for certain purposes. But they can be life savers in others. The obvious relevant example, given the foregoing: I cannot test whether God or souls exist, but this is not a useless proposition.

This is where the arrogance of people comes in. Why is it useless? If it really IS useless, why do the vast majority of people make it part of their lives to explore this idea? If it is scientifically useless, moreover, why do so many scientists, including for example Einstein, claim that their involvement with the scientific exploration of the nature of the universe makes them MORE convinced that God and souls exist?

Hmmm....maybe I shold have called myself "God's Advocate" :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:17 PM

For you scientific types - can they tell just from Eve's DNA if she's a clone, or do they have to compare alleged mother and alleged child to see if they are identical twins?

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 02:54 PM

Alice, I was interested to read what you said about the Washington Times being owned by the Moonies. Do you have links to any good sources of information about that? I'd love to see them if you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 02:57 PM

Mrrzy

The DNA would need to be compared

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Haruo
Date: 01 Jan 03 - 08:25 PM

The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies, but that's not necessarily to say that it ain't a good rag. The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Eddyites, and it's generally highly regarded.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 07:47 AM

Cloning is certainly going to be a medical reality in a few years; there will be tragedies, as there were with the first heart transplants, but people want their own babies, so cloning will find a market.

I don't know about souls; it doesn't matter a lot to me. But the idea of an information dump from my brain into what would effectively be my daughter/twin is kind of revolting - does she really need all that distress? And the idea that she'd then be 'me' - well, it's not too logical, is it?

The really creepy science going on at the moment, to my mind, is that which grows foetuses so that the stem cells can be used to mend disease in existing people. It just seems so sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Pied Piper
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 09:01 AM

Happy New Year DA/GA
I don't think that scientific knowledge is different from other forms of knowledge. I think science is just a more organised method based on the way human beings have always acquired knowledge. What we all did as Babies is very similar to the way science works. Babies are the best most dedicated scientists (perhaps Empiricists is more appropriate) around; they are completely, single-mindedly obsessed with the acquisition of knowledge by observation and experiment on the physical and social worlds.
They come into the world with some basic assumptions (given them by terrestrial Evolutions 4 billion year experiment), Consciousness, and proceed over a period of 4 years or so to build themselves into well functioning little people with a good control of there bodies and a profound understanding of the way the world works. If that was not enough they also learn vast amounts of cultural and social information such as gender roles.
There is even some evidence that the visual system use hypothesis and experiment to analyse what we see.      
Testability means just that. If I say I've got invisible Pink Fairies at the bottom of my garden that nobody except me can see; that is a useless piece of information to any one else because it cannot (even in principle) be tested.
I can't see that my belief that the speed of light is approximately 300000000 m/s is the same as someone else's belief in God (whatever that means).
All the best PP

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Stewart
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 06:46 PM

The latest from Robert Parks (What's New - http://www.aps.org/WN)

"STOP CLONING AROUND: CLONAID HAS STARTED BACKPEDALING. Last week we reported that the company, founded by Raelians, picked gullible physicist Michael Guillen to oversee verification of the cloning of baby Eve (WN 27 Dec 02). He says he's not being paid to do this, but it is generally believed that he is working on a book or film deal. But it now seems that the parents (parent?) of Eve are resisting such a test. We are, of course, shocked, but apparently a Florida lawyer has filed a suit claiming that Eve is being abused or exploited and asking the court to take custody. Meanwhile, the vice president of Clonaid will explain the new cloning technology and discuss investment opportunities at the Broward County Convention Center on 11 Jan 03 www.money- expo.com . The workshop is free, but you're gonna need $99 to reserve a seat. Clonaid is a commercial company, and it's not embarrassed about its goals: it expects to make a lot of money. Immortality, after all, should be an easy sell. "

Even more skeptical, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:24 PM

Here is an excellent web site on the Moonies and their long list of front groups. Steve Hassan is a former Moonie who has been writing and lecturing for many years about the phenomenon of cult influence. I can vouch for his credibility. His book titled "Combatting Cult Mind Control" was one of the first books I read on the subject about ten years ago. It is very clear and easy to understand from Hassan's perspective of a person who has been through the experience of recruitment, total involvement, and then returning to the freedom of his non-cult self.
http://www.freedomofmind.com/groups/moonies/moonies.htm

James Randi, another good source of info on fraud and deception, was interviewed tonight on NPR news regarding the verification of baby Eve's cloning. Being a magician, he knows the ways people use to create fraud. http://www.randi.org/

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:36 PM

Here is the January 3 NPR story by Joe Palca on verifying Eve as a clone and interview with James Randi on what would be necessary to have DNA sample results verified.

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/20030103.atc.clone.ram

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:47 PM

An quote from an article at the link I gave previously regarding the Washington Times, owned my the Moonies (who also purchased United Press International).

"On Tuesday, May 21st 2002, controversial religious figurehead, alleged cult leader and
                                    self-proclaimed Messiah Sun Myung Moon, is to sponsoring a banquet celebrating the newspaper's
                                    20th anniversary. A substantial list of host Senators, Representatives and other politicians think they
                                    are supporting just a conservative newspaper, but are unwittingly endorsing the Moon agenda. Mr.
                                    Moon has used the newspaper along with U.P.I. to develop his power base for his ambitions–to
                                    establish an "automatic theocracy" in which he runs the world. Despite a politically conservative
                                    pro-family slant, the Times has also been the paper of choice for several Christian groups who are
                                    apparently unaware of Moon's true theology.

                                    "The public thinks that the Moonies have gone away. They haven't. They have been quite busy in
                                    recent years, focusing their recruitment efforts to politicians, business people and even Christian
                                    clergy," says Steven Hassan, former Moonie, author, licensed counselor and mind control expert.
                                    "They are still deceptive and quite dangerous," Hassan says, "Back in 1974-1976, Moon talked
                                    about setting up a global infrastructure so that when the world economy faltered, we would be there
                                    to feed people and give them jobs."

                                    Moon's stated ambitions include the establishment of a one-world government run as an automatic
                                    theocracy by Moon and his leaders. "Bush's faith-based initiative seems to be ideal to help them in
                                    their quest for a one world theocratic government," Hassan says, "I am sure President Bush is not
                                    aware that Moon has repeatedly said that America (and democracy) is Satanic." Moon's vision of the
                                    Kingdom of Heaven on Earth includes the absorption of all the world religions into Unificationism as
                                    well as the abolishment of all languages except Korean. Core Moonie members do a ritual pledge
                                    service every Sunday morning, bowing before an altar with Moon's picture on it and promising to
                                    fight for the Fatherland (Korea)..."

Subject: RE: BS: Here come the 'Raelian' clones
From: Alice
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 09:48 PM

Sorry for the typos in my previous message... typing too fast. Should by "A quote" and "owned by".