From: Davidf Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 13:51:41 -0700 Archived: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 04:33:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 12:34:12 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast >>From: Kathleen Marde <Kmarden.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:42:26 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Kathleen Marden On Coast To Coast >"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable >from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke >So therefore, if the following are true then they are a result >of technology. >1. Alien telepathy = technology >2. Alien walking through walls, transporting people through >"solid matter" = technology >3. Alien/UFO invisibility = technology >4. Alien mind control, warping of human perceptions = >technology >5. Alien/UFO interference with machinery, power-loss, etc., >= technology >There's no need to throw "Western science", as you put it, out >the window. It only appears like magic but it's technology. >Anytime someone talks about a naturally-evolved ability they >are unknowingly discussing magic. So, Jason, if I were to say that all our sophisticated perceptual and human cognitive abilities like sight, hearing, logical/deductive reasoning, mathematics, language, music, art, etc., etc. are the result of a naturally evolved brain then I am unknowingly discussing "magic"? Now you are sounding like a creationist. Did these abilities evolve or where they artificially and deliberately created by an unknown intelligence, therefore possibly the result of some technological intervention? By logical extension of your argument, you seem to be claiming the latter since we currently don’t fully understand how a complex brain like this is organized or how it evolved. The same is true for something like a single living cell. Contemporary science has gained a lot of insight into how it might have come about, but we still don’t know all the steps. Maybe we will never know. That doesn't mean somebody who says we still don't understand is guilty of "woo-woo" stuff or claiming it is magical. >Anytime someone talks about >science being wrong, not just our current comprehension, but >science being wrong, they are unknowingly discussing magic. But science has often been wrong, because scientific knowledge is always incomplete. Science evolves with new knowledge There are innumerable examples. People who challenged the scientific paradigms of their day were not discussing "magic" but pointing out observed anomalies that didn't fit into contemporary theory. Thus Newtonian gravity is not “wrong”, but it is an incomplete description of gravity that breaks down when pushed to extremes. So does general relativity that replaced it, which doesn’t work in the quantum realm. >Because if it does not fall into the category of science then >it's by definition supernatural, magic. You are contradicting yourself Jason. On the one hand, you are arguing that "they" have technology that we don't comprehend, therefore possibly outside current scientific understanding, which by your just stated definition making it supernatural or magic, but on the other hand you are arguing that it will _someday_ be understood by science (a hidden assumption), therefore it isn't magic, but if somebody says it isn't understood now then you say they are guilty of believing in magic, and around and around we go. This came up when you were arguing that alien telepathy _must_ be a technology, when I said maybe it was, or maybe it was a naturally evolved ability, perhaps enhanced by technology, just as our own natural abilities such as sight or mathematical reasoning can be enhanced by technology. I would probably be skeptical of telepathy/ESP myself except that I've had too many spontaneous experiences of my own where I have known of something unique and highly unusual happening in my near future that came true and other experiences, like a strong impression of viewing something unusual a mile away which turned out to be true. In more modern parlance, these would fall under remote viewing, which was extensively studied by Puthoff and Targ. Their remote viewers did things that shouldn't be possible under current scientific understanding, like locating a crashed plane in the African jungle or a person kidnapped by terrorists. That’s needle in a haystack stuff and hard to write off simply to lucky guesses. I doubt technology has anything to do with this, it is a natural ability, picking up some sort of very weak signal out of the noise. Some people are better at it. Apparently remote viewing can be improved with training. It may be somewhat within our own science, perhaps the result of quantum non-locality and a multidimensional universe or multiverse where our sensory abilities are not totally confined to the 4D space-time universe of our day-to-day experience. This doesn't mean it can't be augmented by technology, which I suspect might be the case, like the difference between a radio receiver and picking up radio stations on a tooth filling. Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp