does as-ising actually work?

[Moderator 3375]

Most of the posts discussing other members and derailing this topic have been moved to this thread.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?41951-Derail-posts-from-as-ising-thread

Mod 3375

 

[Gizmo]

Wuz some of us bad . . . . . . again ?

Dang it. We do get carried away

 

[RogerB]

LOL!

Snipped . . .

Sheldrake's most famous and controversial hypotheses were that memories aren't contained in the mind, but outside of it, and are part of a group awareness where memories are inherited through generations. If you know just that much about it, you can debate with anyone about it for hours. I'm sure Rog will fill us in on more details, though.

Snipped . . .

Actually, Sheldrake was a little more precise than that . . . his proposition is that "memories are not stored in the brain" . . . . his proposition is that we are not materialistic, mechanical monsters.

Where he is so far falling short is that he uses/misuses the same language as all of the other science boffins researching "consciousness" . . . they do so interchange and mix up the terms "spirit," "ego" and "mind."

But this is a difficulty and error of all of the current lot researching this area of science in the present time. Also, if one analyses closely what they are actually positing with their writing and grammatical sentence structure; we see they are working from the viewpoint that we are effect of all that is . . . very few have been able to express adequately the proposition that that we personally have any part in its causation.

R

 

[Leon-2]

That last phrase in that last sentence is the one that is ultimately of absolute importance.

 

[Gizmo]

That last phrase in that last sentence is the one that is ultimately of absolute importance.

I'll bite. Your reference to what sentence located where?

These wild generalities are funny.

 

[RogerB]

I'll bite. Your reference to what sentence located where?

These wild generalities are funny.

Giz, I think he meant this sentence:

. . . very few have been able to express adequately the proposition that that we personally have any part in its causation.

I am currently reading Sheldrake's latest book: Science Set Free . . . that's the title in the US. Different title in the UK there it is: The Science Delusion.

For those interested, Sheldrake is so brilliant it is amazing.

What he is doing here is deconstructing the fallacies of the various mechanistic science holdings . . . Oh boy.

It is good.

 

[Leon-2]

I'll bite. Your reference to what sentence located where?

These wild generalities are funny.

Gosh, is this a comm-lag of yours or what? Is this usual?

Whew. OK - last sentence of Roger's post.

There you go.

Happy now? Or is it too tin foily for you?

 

[Gizmo]

Gosh, is this a comm-lag of yours or what? Is this usual?

Whew. OK - last sentence of Roger's post.

There you go.

Happy now? Or is it too tin foily for you?

If I responded to you too quickly Leon minus two then I'd fear you were left too far behind to ever catch up !

Just easier to lollygag around while you try to catch up to this slow thread

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Giz, I think he meant this sentence:



I am currently reading Sheldrake's latest book: Science Set Free . . . that's the title in the US. Different title in the UK there it is: The Science Delusion.

For those interested, Sheldrake is so brilliant it is amazing.

What he is doing here is deconstructing the fallacies of the various mechanistic science holdings . . . Oh boy.

It is good.

I ordered it and the other book, Being Stared at - though the dog esp book looked interesting.....

Mimsey