Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Go to: Forum HomeBoardNew Topic

Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 33
Results 1 - 30 of 969
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Shando shando wrote: > Thanks Chris for your excellent response. > > I am not sure that I am happy with what I think of as 'time' > consisting of a series of ' movie frames' which provide the > illusion of a continuous phenomena, but if it works as a useful > model in science, then so be it. > I'd extend that analogy even further n point toward quadrillions of single f
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Steve Corpuscles wrote: > Hi Chris > > Yeah it probably wasn't the best site to link to express the > point. > > > The point perhaps is many greats ( even ostensibly. Stoic > empirical materialists ;-) were attracted to and benefited from > reading and pondering such and their endeavours probably > enhanced by the big picture of considering Vedic philosophy a
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas & Shando Thomas Razzeto wrote: > Is time an illusion? Yes. Is it real? Yes, as an experience. > > Chris: “Despite time being a key part of virtually every > scientific equation, I think its just an illusion.” > > Shando responded with this question: “Should I take that to > mean you believe that time does not exist?” > > In a previous po
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas As for the rest of your OP, these are really desperate attempts to ingratiate old texts n philosophies with NEW modern knowledge. The irritating habit of borrowing dead genii to help in this endeavour is just embarrassing. Have u read that page? Tesla lived like a monk instead of sex drugs n rock n roll don't make the Vedas any better. Christian monks live the same way does that mean
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas I don't know why I'm the only one biting on your opening posts, Not many people can explain quantum physics to lay people and it is good that this is not really the focus of the webpage. The reason for this is because quantum physics applies to so many fields of study n its best to bite off chewable mouthfuls. QM has been very very successful in atomic studies hence physicists have a
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Steve Corpuscles wrote: > Hi Chris > > Chris Jordan wrote: > > > It is just pointless discussing the concept rationally. > > > > Thanks Chris I have enjoyed our discussion , you too, have > been a welcome valuable catalyst for thought. > > I well understand your view point. > > Many are in the camp that consider the g word unfathomable
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Shan shando wrote: > Hmmmm ... your very name must torment the hell out of you, > Chris. > Not really, its just a name :-) Christopher Jordan
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Steve I do of course totally sympathise with your aversion to that bloody word and its creepy connotations - "God" Yes I just lose all respect for any comment that comes with the g word regardless of how smart they were in any field. I can't bare the rephrasing of it for modern consumption either. Pantheism is just a desperate attempt to keep the g word alive for the sophists IMO
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Steve If you replace the term god with aggregate energy it does not remain the same. The energy is immediately measurable and observable given certain devices. This becomes testable. The oneness or god is not. Are you pointing toward the Dawkins model that the mind of god is embodied in the laws of nature. I noticed he got an award from the catholic church for that comfortable spin. I'll bet
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Thomas Razzeto wrote: > Chris: "I get why the ideas have appeal when the modern world > and the tenets on which it was built are so complicated its > hard for ppl to grasp for the explanations." > > I just think that there is more than what can be proven with > science. You choose to believe that! Science doesn't actually prove much Science is not about certainty.
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Thomas Thomas Razzeto wrote: > Chris: "Why don't you just say it straight, you have faith in > there being something more that can't be tested." > > I have done that many times in this forum. > > Chris: "Do you really think the intelligent thinkers of the > past would retain such simple ideas as sky gods with all this > additional information? Clearly yo
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
shando wrote: > > > Hmmmm ... Chris, as a deep realist, did you ever think about > "where does time come from"? If so, would you share your > thoughts with us? Despite time being a key part of virtually every scientific equation, I think its just an illusion. The way we currently think of it is a construct of the human mind past present n future, there's just now. Che
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi CK You might like this definition of science better. Its not the pop version but how scientists should view their theoretical product. I know the institutions and mainstream mouthpieces are not saying this, they've become overcome by the amazing successes. The problem is this sort of statement doesn't sit well in the public domain, in particular the popular end "Science is not about cer
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Thomas Razzeto wrote: > Not that I am fully enlightened, but even a fully enlightened > person is not a "know it all." And as far as I know, they can't > even answer all questions about "consciousness," especially if > those answers are expected to satisfy the scientific community. > I would say an insect is a sentient being but I will pass on > even offerin
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas Why don't you just say it straight, you have faith in there being something more that can't be tested, experimented with or rationalised into reality. All this anecdotal n ancient writings is just subjective n plenty of ppl want to believe it. The scientists n technologists on the other hand are being practical n dull. As you are more than aware the mysticism which underpinned most in
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Thomas What about Amoeba Viruses Plants Nematode worm Insects Just trying to get a handle on how basic u think these higher functions can be? Chris
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Corpuscles wrote: > > Just thinking on the run... > Yep.... thumping bass, howling guitars , smashing drums, nasal > whining vocals to some ( similar environment upbringing to > another sibling) can either be bliss or bloody irritating! > Choice is certainly not the product of a bland machine even > if their dna has a few "letters" in different places! &
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Thomas Maybe you could help clarify by explaining what you think is conscious n what is aware. What's the crossover point. Is a rock aware or conscious? How about an amoeba or virus. What about a nematode worm. A plant? A rat? An ape? A dolphin? A human? Or is it only yourself u can be sure of? Chris
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas I agree with your last comment on just because someone is successful in certain fields we should not necessarily take their comments in other areas as given. I never get why anyone cares what a pop star, film star or poet thinks on anything outside of their particular disciplines. However I guess we all have an opinion. As for Voltaire, I'm sure you'd agree that in more religious time
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Thomas Razzeto wrote: > If they touch it or examine it in any other way, they can only > say it seems like such and such. They cannot prove that it is * > actually a real object in an objective world *. Yet in this > case, it would seem like a train. And common sense would > dictate that you not jump in front of it when it is heading > your way. > > Again I will note tha
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
shando wrote: > >> the guy who says it 'seems' like a train will pay with his > life. > > Of the other nine, not 1 can provide objective "proof" that the > man lived, let alone that he died. > Three outta ten thought he was a table, too stupid to get outta the way of the train :-) Deductive reasoning
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas You don't half make things complicated. If ten people are standing on a rail track n nine of them agree that the big steamy thing bearing down on them is a train and they get off the track, the guy who says it 'seems' like a train will pay with his life. I guess that could be construed as objective. Of course the guy that didn't realise the answer to that ancient question of objectivi
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Susan Susan Doris wrote: > Too many words! One comment only: I am an evolved, living > being with senses which perceiv and store their experiences in > my brain. > > Indeed, I think that's a great starting point, clear and concise. This can be built upon toward the higher functions. The senses constantly send info that gets stored, we have auto recognition and responses
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi MG MGrant wrote: > "You might be surprised but I agree with u for the most part." > > Actually Chris, I'm not. The posts I've read of yours suggest > to me that we're quite a bit on the same page, in terms of how > we approach the unknown. > I can see we agree on many things and approach the unknown in a particular way. Its the nice thing about this forum, a
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Steve Corpuscles wrote: > Hi Chris > > Thanks I was not expecting a reply especially such a > comprehensive one. > > I must say I really enjoyed a LOL at the subtle great sense of > humour you put in the reply. Great . BUT I am surprised that > such a scientific good thinker like you would say some of that > stuff ;-( > > Glad you get the humour, its n
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi CK cladking wrote: > Chris Jordan wrote: > > > The main mistake you are making is considering science purely > > materialistic. It is far from that except in the testing n > even > > there things are moving on. For a start science is the > > abstraction n modelling of concepts. Math is abstract in the > > purest form. > > I've been avoiding the
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas Thomas Razzeto wrote: > Hi Chris, > > It seems like the dictionary definition that I offered did not > fit your definition. That's why I mentioned it. > Thomas u defined materialism and tried to equate it to science, which is not a sound link IMO. > Yet some people would look for the general meaning of what is > being offered (on all sides of the discussion),
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi MG You might be surprised but I agree with u for the most part. I think these criticisms can be made of any institution. Its one of the reasons I like to see for myself or show others. Its clear why institutions operate like this u touch on the reasons I don't have to spell it out. Today its easy to go outside of these flawed groups, bypass them straight to video. U have to put up with the d
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas Thomas Razzeto wrote: > "The main mistake you (Thomas) are making is considering > science purely materialistic." > > > > Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that > matter is the fundamental ance or essence in nature, and > that all phenomena, including mental phenomena, are the result > of material interactions. In other w
Forum: Author of the Month
6 years ago
Chris Jordan
Hi Thomas You seem to be continuing the consciousness question here, I did respond to your last comment in the previous thread. Here you introduce little further to the understanding of consciousness, but provide clues as to why you hold your current perspective. I hope its not fixed beyond adjustment. Thomas Razzeto wrote: > Materialist science is excellent yet it is my opinion that > t
Forum: Author of the Month
Pages: 12345...LastNext
Current Page: 1 of 33