I don’t doubt that he said that. His contributions to science and the world of electricity are rightly acknowledged, respected and are part of our history. However, that does not mean that all his other remarks on other subjects carry the same weight. Do you think he would express the same thoughts in today’s world?Quote
My reply: Here is what I think is wrong with your conclusions. First off, Thomas Edison said we as human beings only understand 1 millionth of one percent about anything (not a direct quote, but something close to that).
The straightforward answer to that is: everything else beyond our visual field. What you quote here sounds as if it is dealing with focal vision – is the pperipheral area mentioned or included? Remember, I know quite a lot about using the peripheral area.Quote
From the film "What the bleep do we know" - addressing visual perception - "the eye takes in about 400,000 bits of information anytime we look out at the world, but by the time our brain and eyes filter out information (or in my mind, edits out everything we do not understand) only 2000 bits of info are received" (again, not an exact quote). So, what is it we are not seeing
Only if they are still living!Quote
our dead grandparents lingering nearby perhaps,
If someone wants to imagine entities such as guardian angels, good luck to them. Angels are figments of the imagination. The room for doubt is so vanishingly small that it can be rejected absolutely.Quote
There is always more to learn and it’s daft to think otherwise. If you wish to think that the totally subjective evidence (i.e. of any kind of supernatural anything) of those in previous times is better than the objective stuff available today, you have of course the freedom to do so, but to delude yourself into thinking it is real is, in my opinion, a mistake and possibly a waste of valuable living and thinking time.Quote
I'm in the camp with Edison, I think there is so much more to know and the knowledge will change us as a species, hopefully in a way that will keep our home planet healthy.
Why do you think that evolution has a goal? How can something that happens as a result of the material ((chemical, etc) world, not directed by anything, be the result of sX’s ‘goal’? There is no evidence at all for such a goal. If you think there is, what is it?Quote
I pretty much see that as a goal of evolution - to expand our knowledge and learn how to operate in a "kind" way in the universe or multi-verse.
And that is absolute balderdash. I guarantee that I have never said or implied that all is known. I know that to be a statement that cannot be made and I never deliberately tell lies – it is far too difficult to remember what one has said.Quote
But, from what I perceive in the many replies I've seen of yours over many years, is that everything is KNOWN, period,
) Well, that’s nice!!!! You may or may not be interested to know that one thing I have learnt about myself in my 83 years is that people find me comfortable and harmonious to be with. The moment I find myself becoming personally irritated by anything people say on this (or any other) forum is the day I leave it – and since that is not going to happen, you’re stuck with me until I die!!Quote
that's the end of it. I could be wrong about you, of course, and frankly I don't have a problem with your opinions and in no way think you are a bad person.
So give me one objective fact about spirits!! A definition would probably be a good idea too.Quote
My reply: reality is flexible, but you would have to understand something about spirit to understand that.
Define this ‘ethereal’ of which you speak. Science has to start with observation of some sort. Where and how can anything ‘ethereal’ be observed?Quote
Personally, I think Einstein was aware of this. There is plenty of evidence out there that a great deal of science is correct, however, it is always being tweaked with new incoming info and investigations. Thus our understanding is constantly evolving, as are our bodies. Science has to develop ways to test the ethereal,
And you close with a classic NPF (negative proof theory) request. It is not up to scientists to prove something exists, it is up to those who claim it does to provide the observable evidence on which to base a hypothesis.Quote
but as long as they are in denial that it exists