Reality Is Produced Mental Projection

[Ostronomos]

Michael Anteski said: ↑

"God, cosmic universe, creation?" - My source of info gives the description as being that a mentally-produced etheric projection, or propulsion, of the smallest, and fastest, etheric units (which I referred to as "electronics") set off a self-replicating self-propagating process in the ether which, following the "judicious directions" in the mental projection, led, in a series of programmed steps, to the universe we have now.

Reality is produced mental projection?

- We will be discussing on both forums: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/using-a...st-3324980

[Yazata]

What does this thread have to do with chemistry, physics or mathematics?

It looks like some kind of speculative idealistic metaphysics to me.

[Ostronomos]

What does this thread have to do with  chemistry, physics or mathematics?

It looks like some kind of speculative idealistic metaphysics to me.

It's very possible that it hits the nail on the head. See: http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

[Ostronomos]

Also see this: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/16/pr...ciousness/

[C C]

Stryder seems to have disappeared lately, but based on this, he might move this thread to the "Junk Science" sub-forum if it has too speculative a metaphysical aura about it as Yazata suggests. That's why I would again suggest (when he returns) that you ask Stryder if he could create a new forum like "Alternate Theories / Paradigms" or something (if Junk Science seems too pejorative sounding). Heck, he might even specifically add a CTMU sub-forum for you (or include it in the description), since as an owner/mod he's a far cry from the messy, militant situation often transpiring in SciForums.

[C C]

It's very possible that it hits the nail on the head. See: http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

The days of the philosophical-minded physicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries [or the ones who stood out in that manner] are supposedly over. So I suspect most of either today's scientists or the science-writers that formulate titles like "Experiment suggests that reality doesn't exist until it is measured" had given much critical examination to what was meant by "real" even beforehand.

Robert P. Crease: Everybody, including scientists, makes seat-of-the-pants practical judgements about what's real and what's not. The common-sense assumptions underlying these judgements can be unrecognized, inconsistent and even untenable; they can be home-grown, inherited and absorbed from others. But when someone is engaged in an activity as complex as science, it is almost impossible to avoid making such practical judgements. No matter how implicit and readily revised these judgements may be, they are based on preconceptions of what the world consists of and what the world's most important distinctions and categories are - in other words of how it all hangs together.

[...] I therefore carried out a survey in which I listed a number of different items and asked readers [physicists, scientists] to say whether or not they considered them to be real things, or whether they were unsure. [...] I'd like to thank all of the 534 people who replied to the poll, some of whom wrote lengthy accompanying letters.

[...] Some people said that they changed their minds, or grew more uncertain [...] while doing the poll. (It made them think!) A handful of people even stopped in despair partway through. [...] And to those who complained that "it depends": precisely! The philosopher's task is to discover the variables and how they affect the outcome. The results reveal a full spectrum of positions.

[...] Still more significantly, a large fraction of respondents cannot be classified as critical realists because they recognized, while answering the poll, that their answers were philosophically indeterminate. Indeed, the most heart-warming letter I received said: "At the end of [your original] article, you said that a low response will indicate either that you have no readership or that scientists don't care about the issues raised. After 48 hours of discussions we have to suggest a third category - those who would like to reply but in attempting to answer the questionnaire have found their 'gut' philosophical position to be wholly inadequate and inconsistent." Her poll, too, was blank - but it seemed a product of a sensitivity to the seriousness and significance of philosophical issues rather than a repudiation of them. --This is your philosophy; physicsweb.org

[Ostronomos]

Stryder seems to have disappeared lately, but based on this, he might move this thread to the "Junk Science" sub-forum if it has too speculative a metaphysical aura about it as Yazata suggests. That's why I would again suggest (when he returns) that you ask Stryder if he could create a new forum like "Alternate Theories / Paradigms" or something (if Junk Science seems too pejorative sounding). Heck, he might even specifically add a CTMU sub-forum for you (or include it in the description), since as an owner/mod he's a far cry from the messy, militant situation often transpiring in SciForums.

Ooh, that would be great!

[Yazata]

Stryder seems to have disappeared lately, but based on this, he might move this thread to the "Junk Science" sub-forum if it has too speculative a metaphysical aura about it as Yazata suggests. That's why I would again suggest (when he returns) that you ask Stryder if he could create a new forum like "Alternate Theories / Paradigms" or something (if Junk Science seems too pejorative sounding). Heck, he might even specifically add a CTMU sub-forum for you (or include it in the description), since as an owner/mod he's a far cry from the messy, militant situation often transpiring in SciForums.

I just reported this thread to Stryder in hopes that he will move it elsewhere. (It's the first time I've reported anything on Scivillage.)

[Ostronomos]

[quote pid='2880' dateline='1441060258']
[...] Some people said that they changed their minds, or grew more uncertain [...] while doing the poll. (It made them think!) A handful of people even stopped in despair partway through. [...] And to those who complained that "it depends": precisely! The philosopher's task is to discover the variables and how they affect the outcome. The results reveal a full spectrum of positions.

[/quote]
It is through the strategic thought processes of Philosophers that science can gain clear vision of what is real and what is not.

---

Stryder seems to have disappeared lately, but based on this, he might move this thread to the "Junk Science" sub-forum if it has too speculative a metaphysical aura about it as Yazata suggests. That's why I would again suggest (when he returns) that you ask Stryder if he could create a new forum like "Alternate Theories / Paradigms" or something (if Junk Science seems too pejorative sounding). Heck, he might even specifically add a CTMU sub-forum for you (or include it in the description), since as an owner/mod he's a far cry from the messy, militant situation often transpiring in SciForums.

I just reported this thread to Stryder in hopes that he will move it elsewhere. (It's the first time I've reported anything on Scivillage.)

Have you ever reported anything on sciforums? And if so how many times?

[C C]

I just reported this thread to Stryder in hopes that he will move it elsewhere. (It's the first time I've reported anything on Scivillage.)

Have you ever reported anything on sciforums? And if so how many times?

At SciForums Yazata would rarely (if ever) have much need to do so because of the ton of militant science enthusiasts residing there that will promptly do so. Here in underpopulated and accordingly either tolerant or vulnerable SciVillage, Yazata probably feels the place needs somebody to step up as a Neighborhood Watchman when Stryder might be preoccupied elsewhere.

In contrast to busy SciForums (where mis-categorized topics happen all the time), SciVillage hasn't had enough opinionated, thread-starting people at SciVillage for the statistical probability of this happening much yet. That is, of a topic that belongs in the culture-section or philosophy to be mis-posted in one of the science-only groups along with the additional element of attention being stirred to it.

Which is not to say that this topic is definitely mis-categorized (that's still open to debate and Stryder's judgement). But in science-specific forums, words like "God [...] creation?" and "mentally-produced etheric projection, or propulsion, of the smallest, and fastest, etheric units" can become buzz slash trigger words that garner such controversy over whether or not a topic has been submitted to the wrong group.

Again, if a new group like "Alternate ____" can be added to the cultural section (with maybe even CTMU mentioned among the welcome examples in its description), then potential mishaps can be remedied in the future (regardless of whether this is a legitimate instance of such or not).

Otherwise, the only available slots seem to be the rather pejorative "Junk Science" and "Logic and Philosophy". Yazata has already elsewhere expressed alarm at the possibility of the latter becoming as much a repository for numerous CTMU and "Reality is..." threads as in General Philosophy (etc) at SciForums. And "Weird and Beyond" is MR's turf for anomalous occurrences, etc. That is, it's highly questionable that such would be a good fit for CTMU and "Reality is..." subjects, anyway. Not to mention MR maybe feeling as skittish about diminishing topic diversity in the future of that sub-forum as Yazata was about it in Philosophy.