GG> to: gxkambic@csslc10.cs.hh.ab.com (George Kambic)

 GG> |> Oh but some people who _believe_ what scientists say, it is
 GG> |> those people who say that they _know_ the thing. ....
 GG> |> Thats the problem.  They dont _know_ this through their own
 GG> |> personal experience, they simply _believe_ what scientists
 GG> |> say.  ...  In a sense Science is their God, who gives them
 GG> |> the Absolute Truth.

 GG> I would say that you are setting up a strawman.  Notice that
 GG> you have put faith in people again.  This says nothing about
 GG> examining evidence.

I dont mean to set up a straw man.  Examining evidence is fine for
me, if it is _me_ who examines it.  Otherwise, if others tell me
what to know as truth, based on their examination of evidence, all I
can do it believe their conclusions.  I cannot know it to be true
for myself.

Before we get too far off into semantics, the point that I am
bringing out, is that we are so prone to look for, then accept,
truth/knowing from an external source.  We look in approved
publications, conclusions of so-called experts, popular consensus
opinion, and other external sources, for our own personal knowledge.
Then, we in turn, spout it off as some eternal truth, that can in no
possible way be challenged.

When something comes along to contradict our cherished _beliefs_, we
cast the new ideas out of hand, for all intents and purposes.

I am saying that we need to consider returning to doing our _own_
thinking.  It seems obvious, but there are plenty of indications
that thinking is not what everyone does.  Many are like proverbial
robots, receiving and transmitting data, with no attempt to ponder
and correlate it with their experience, understanding, reasoning,
and against other stored data.

For example, I have read that there are parts of our DNA that we are
not presently using.  What does this mean? You have to think about
it.

 GG> Scientists have evidence that most other scientists try to
 GG> present the evidence fairly and honestly, and that their
 GG> results are reproducible - one of the bases of science.

 GG> |> Oh yes, and this repeatability is like the key to the
 GG> |> "Science alone has the absolute truth" religion.  But when
 GG> |> science itself, has discovered that the consciousness of
 GG> |> the observer affects the experiment, what happens to the
 GG> |> repeatability doctrine?

 GG> I dunno.  This has not been demonstrated conclusively yet.  If
 GG> it does, I personally see nothing here that is not tenable
 GG> within the scientific method.  Can we study the effect of
 GG> observers on experiments?  Yes, not perfectly, but yes.

Sure.  And I also feel that with the admission that the observer
effects perceived phenomenon, we can now place a more important
emphasis on _experiential_ data.

 GG> |> Belief to me, means, you are _tentatively_ holding it to be
 GG> |> true, based on circumstancial evidence, but not at all on
 GG> |> personal experience.  I believe that the earth is round.  I
 GG> |> do not know it from my personal experience.

 GG> You believe that people are telling you that they have
 GG> evidence to support the statement that the earth is round and
 GG> have no reason to be skeptical of their statements.

I may not have reason to be skeptical, but if I have a personal
experience that contradicts the current popular consensus, then I
will weigh my personal experience heavily.  For example, if I have
an OOBE and look at the earth from the 4th dimension, the earth may
not look like a sphere.  I will then have additional info about the
shape of the earth, from a _different_ perspective, that need not
contradict the spherical notion from the 3-D perspective, hence may
be just as _true_ for me that the earth is a _torus_.  Now, if I can
perceive energetic structures from the 4th dimension, shadowing into
3rd dimensional reality, I could come back from the OOBE with info
to tell people.  Now, the people, so sure in their truth that the
earth is a sphere, cannot even _begin_ to _hear_ what I have to tell
them about tori and 4-D energy, _because_ they are afraid it will
undo their cherished truths.  In this example, it only enhances
their truths.

This whole earth shape question, can point to our evolution of
consciousness.  When the earth was thought to be flat, we were
working from a consciousness based on the square/cube.  Now that we
consent that earth is round, we are working from circle/sphere.  Our
next consciousness evolution may have us see earth as Torus where we
will be working from triangle/tetrahedron.  Funny how all may be
true.  When you stand on a wide plain, and look in all directions,
the earth _is_ flat from that perception.  When you go out in a
rocket ship and orbit the earth, it _is_ a sphere from that
perception.  When your mind goes into 4-D consciousness, you can
perceive the shape of the earth as a Torus.  All can be true at the
same, as it is the perspective or perception is different, and,
these different perceptions increase our knowledge of what is.

All I am really saying, is that it is time to dethrone the
mythological god of Science, where it excludes the willingness to
learn more.

 GG> |> Know to me, means I know it to be true, for me, based on my
 GG> |> personal experience.  I know that coffee is a diuretic,
 GG> |> based on my personal experience.

 GG> Evidence so far suggests that coffee is a reliable diuretic
 GG> for you, but it could change tomorrow.

Sure could.

 GG> |> But, I will say, that I have noticed quite a lot af vicious
 GG> |> arguments (not here), based on misunderstanding that folks
 GG> |> who espouse, so greatly, the scientific_method et al, for
 GG> |> the most part, are themselves only _believers_.

 GG> Examples please? And again, I suspect that the word believer
 GG> here is not being interpreted the same way by scientists.
 GG> Also, what do they believe in - in your sense of the word?

If someone says that a person can receive communication from a
distinct other being, within themselves (channelling), the other
person says "science has not proved that possible".  The other
person 'believes' what science says, de-facto, with no consideration
of the conveyed personal experience of the channeller.  What science
says is _also_ conveyed personal experience of scientists.  The
other person calls the person who believes in channelling, a
believer.  I am saying that the person who believes the scientists,
are believers too.  there is _No_ difference.

A scientist who has actually experienced the work that found a
conclusion, _knows_ the conclusion.  The people who hear his report,
choose to _believe_ the conclusion, they do not _know_.

 GG> |> A person might _believe_ that there are parts within an
 GG> |> atom that can be labled, electron, proton, and neutron.
 GG> |> This person may _never_ have viewed this phenomenon in his
 GG> |> personal experience.  Therefore, he does not _know_ this to
 GG> |> be true for him.  Instead, he simply believes it, based on
 GG> |> reports by others who have _experienced_ it.

 GG> It is not experienced.  It is a model that allows pretty darn
 GG> good predictions.

I dont understand what you mean by, 'it is not experienced'.  I
assume, that _someone_ has looked into these microscopes and has
_experienced_ these sub-atomic phenomenon.  That is what I mean by
experiencing it, firsthand.  Then they write of their discovery,
others try it, they get a nobel prize, and it becomes a widespread
_belief_.  Dont misunderstand me, as I am not saying that it is
wrong.

 GG> |> This difference between _belief_ and _knowing_ does not
 GG> |> mean that beliefs are false, or that they are not useful.
 GG> |> In a way, it is like a safety-valve of skepticism, just in
 GG> |> case, the popular belief of the majority of people, turns
 GG> |> out to be, simply false.

 GG> Don't understand this.

Beliefs are useful, as they become the basis from which we conduct
our lives.  For example, if we get an ailment that is treatable by
anti-biotics, then we will, based on that belief, goto the doctor
and get the medications.  We have not personally experienced the
research that went into discovering the effectiveness of the
medication against the germ/virus.  We _believe_ the other people
who have had the experiences.  We take the meds and get well.  This
is what I mean about beliefs being useful.  Now, here is what I mean
about safety-valve skepticism.  In the same hypothetical situation,
a friend tells you that he knows of a treatment for your illness
that involves using certain _frequencies_ against the germ.  Here is
where, whether you understand that you believe what you have been
told by science about using anti-biotics against germs, or you
rather think that it is an indisputable, undeniable truth, so much,
that you are not even open to the idea that other methods could
eradicate the germ.... yes, even methods that are not condoned by
yoru precious scientists, perhaps even ridiculed by the lords of
science.  Yet, perhaps using specific frequencies of energy can
eradicate a germ, without side effects.  So, then if you actually
experience the relief from the frequency technology, you then know
that it works.  And, it doesnt mean that anti-biotics dont work,
either.  It does mean that your scientists were wrong.  You cannot
rely on someone or something external to you, to tell you what you
_know_.  You can choose to believe things, and thats fine, as long
as you know the difference.  If you treat something that you believe
as though you know it, you set yourself up to being closed to new
knowledge about that subject.

 GG> |> So that, for example, if a scientist were to discover some
 GG> |> other _part_ in the atom, that has not been named, THEN,
 GG> |> other scientists who understand that they have been
 GG> |> _believing_ what they hold to be true about parts of atoms,
 GG> |> could then be more likely to check out this new claim,
 GG> |> instead of dismissing it out of hand, for _fear_ of the
 GG> |> possible implications to their reality paradigm, which they
 GG> |> erroneously filled with many beliefs, that they held to be
 GG> |> known, and experienced truths.

 GG> This is extremely complex, and I think that you are getting
 GG> confused, constantly using truth, where you mean compliance
 GG> with a model.

I am not confused at all.  You seem to be able to extricate the
_model_ from human experience.  It is we who devised the model and
apply it to perceived phenomenon.  And, again, it is we who then
replace what is being perceived, with the model itself, as though
they were one and the same.  So, that when someone perceives
something, that is different than the model, we tell them that it
cannot be so, because it does not fit the model; as though the model
itself was the universe.  Do you see what I mean?  The model will
not allow the new perception.  The perception was not on the model!
The perception was on the universe, which our model _describes_!

 GG> |> In this model, _even_ your personal truths, are subject to
 GG> |> change, with the addition of new experiential evidence.
 GG> |> Why?  Because the universe is in constant motion, hence
 GG> |> change, and with this, your consciousness may change to
 GG> |> where a personal truth you hold now, can be understood
 GG> |> consciously in a new more expanding way, and thus that
 GG> |> truth could be altered.

 GG> Again, I think that the T-word is confusing the issue.

that T-word, truth, can indeed confuse everything.  I feel that the
truth, CHANGES.  That is the problem.  Then when we hold beliefs as
though they were truths, that we feel cannot change; it is then that
we lock ourselves up!  We're all screwed up over this.  Look at this
example.  You use a computer monitor.  You know somethings about
computer monitors.  Your experiences with computer monitors have
resulted in you actually _knowing_ somethings about it.  If someone
tells you something about electrons firing onto phosphors inside the
monitor, all you can do is believe it, until you go in there and
experience it for yourself.  So, lets say that you do.  Now, your
previous truths, have been _expanded_ to include, lets say, _deeper_
knowledge about computer monitors.  But, if you had said, "dont come
talking to me about stuff inside monitors, because it doesnt fit my
model of what a computer monitor is", then you are closed minded,
thinking that all there is to know about monitors is all contained
in your model about monitors.  You leave no room for someone to
experience the monitor itself from other perceptions and
perspectives.  To you, the _model_ of the monitor is more reality,
than the monitor itself.

 GG> |> They use this belief as a shield against any other ideas
 GG> |> that even hint at _touching_ their belief. this includes
 GG> |> _new_ scientific ideas that merely _expand_ on their
 GG> |> beliefs. They close themselves off, from _thinking_.

 GG> |>  GG> Sounds to me like you are talking about religion.

Now, you got it!  Thats is _exactly_ what I am saying, the way folks
_believe_ science, makes science a religion.  Science is a religion.
It doesnt matter that someone, somewhere, examined the physical
evidence, nor that subsequently someone else, tried it, and
experienced the same conclusion.  They _know_.  But, if _you_ have
not experienced it, all you can do is _believe_ it.  The point I am
making is, that we need to understand that we are _believing_ these
things, that we have not personally experienced.  When we know that
we are believing them, then we are open enough to learn more about
them, from our own personal experience and from new info from others
who relay their experiences.  If we understand that it is a belief,
then we can continue to work with it.  But, if we misunderstand, and
think that we know it, then it is ironclad and we cannot allow any
other info to be integrated into it.  I mean, what about when our
govts. lie to us?  Or when they withhold info?  Or tell half of what
they know about something?  They can get a scientist to stand up
there on TV and tell you.  They can get articles published in
prestigious scientific publications, to reinforce something that
_they_ want you to _believe_; and if you end up thinking that you
_know_ it, the brainwashing is all the more complete!


Time to go!
Glenda