Steven B Kurtz
on September 29, 2019 at 3:29 pm said:
@Roger

Wilber, despite being brilliant in some areas, has for decades assumed that non-physical/energetic things exist. He is far from alone, as theologians and some philosophers have done so for millennia. As appealing as those positions are to Homo superstitious (estimated 80+%), there is zero shareable evidence for such stuff. The attempted ‘proofs’ I’ve seen are either circular or tautological. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/tautology

Similar techniques have been used by those claiming disembodied mind and panpsychism. An Australian author, Reg Morrison, has written about mysticism as an evolved trait which has outgrown its usefulness now that we’ve become too successful. (overshoot) See:
http://regmorrison.edublogs.org/articles/

drtimmorgan
on September 29, 2019 at 4:17 pm said:
We do know of one non-physical, non-energetic thing that does exist – thought.

Moreover, the idea that mysticism (or anything beyond the tangible) has been rendered obsolete by advances in our knowledge seems to put a lot of faith in the concept of ‘advance’.

I’m not a subscriber to any established religion, but I certainly don’t dismiss the concept that there might be ‘something beyond us’. Perhaps the most rigorous philosophical investigation of this topic, carried out many years ago by a retired judge, concluded (a) that there probably is a driving intelligence behind the universe, but (b) that this is likely to bear no resemblance at all to the Deity postulated by religion. For one thing, this intelligence is likely to be subjective (akin to our subconscious minds), not objective (like our conscious minds). It might thus be likened to a “highest law of science”.

Steven B Kurtz
on September 29, 2019 at 4:29 pm said:
Tim,

Energy is physical. If anyone can evidence non-caloric thought, a Nobel likely awaits!

Cheers,
Steve

rogerglewis
on September 30, 2019 at 5:06 am said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Hello Stephen,
Ken Wilber is an interesting Philosopher and Psychologist I find his ideas interesting. Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of Morphic Resonance is very interesting as well, and one which I believe has much to recommend it.
Regarding Philosophy of Mind, it is a huge subject and my own interests tend towards the work of Wittgenstein and Linguistics. Ultimately I am though most persuaded by the Father of American Pragmatism CS Pierce.
Here is a link to my Essay, why are we here which I wrote in reaction to David Malones Documentary series of the same title,

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/01/08/why-are-we-here-an-essay-provoked-by-golem-xivs-david-malones-latest-documentary-series/
In all matters epistemological and philosophical I demure ultimately to C S Pierce and this made up quote from ´We Pragmatists ´

CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: ´´In order to reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues as intellectual honesty and sincerity and a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientificinquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to know how things really were … (1-34).[Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake(1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with intentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235). [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative…´´. http://web.ncf.ca/ag659/308/Peirce-Rorty-Haack.pdfPierces seminal essay How to make our ideas clear is also a great starting off point for embracing such truth as we might be fortunate enough to encounter in our allotted time on this blue marble suspended in eternity.http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html

Davids Documentary is available on Curiosity stream. David and I are good friends and you may be familiar with some of his other Documentary Work for BBC Horizon ( Icon Earth) or Independently (Dangerous Knowledge) or of his Father Adrian Malone, Cosmos with Carl Sagan and The Age of Uncertainty with GK Galbraith.
https://www.whyarewehere.tv/about/

Here is a link to My trilogy of Poems which informs my Novel Conquest fo dough which I have also made a web site for also linked.

https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/globalisation-un-entangled-a-found-poem-cipher-of-globalism/

https://theconquestofdough.weebly.com/

Getting back to Wilber the Paper by the late great Bernard Lietaer Integral money
is hugely en-riching and AQAL analysis of monetary perspectives bears much fruit
Jain Many Sidedness and Maimonides souces of Contradiction are equally helpful templates for Making our ideas clear.

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html

http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

“The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially
pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct
reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is,
after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research
will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological
storage of CO2. It is appalling.”

1. This simple calculation clearly demonstrates that there are not enough stations to model
the surface temperature of the globe, and satellites cannot replace surface stations. The
reduction in the number of sensors being used is fundamentally unsound: temperature
varies from one place to another, from one hour to the next, and this natural variability can
be tracked only by a very dense network of sensors. p.16

2. Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical
meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by
organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the
sensors and calculate the average! p.23

3. According to the British Met Office, ‗The global average temperature is
the arithmetic mean of the northern hemisphere average and the southern hemisphere
average.‘
This type of reasoning is being used by all the international bodies, and one might
legitimately question its validity. The thermodynamic mean, for its part, is too complicated
to apply and requires the use of models (with all their limitations and uncertainties).
We might, however, wonder why the arithmetic mean is also being used in areas that are
less well provided with sensors or have very high or very low temperatures. If we content
ourselves with an unweighted arithmetic mean, then areas with the highest density of
sensors are going to be over-represented!
Our conclusion here is very clear:

SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09
– to calculate the arithmetic mean for the entire planet makes no sense and can only
lead to errors;
– you can calculate the arithmetic mean for areas well provided with sensors (Europe
and the US), and compare the values from one year to another. This might provide
information on local climate variation. p.26/27

4. On CO2 Measurement and concentration,
Our conclusion is very clear: the entire methodology used to observe CO2 has to be
overhauled before we can even think about the results that have been obtained by these
observations. The first step is to correctly document the natural variability of CO2
concentrations (what affects them, and how do they manifest?). We must not forget that the
aim here is to make a global assessment of CO2 concentrations in the entire atmosphere.
Let us use a simple comparison to explain this. Let us imagine that we want to document
incidents of sins committed by human beings. Before concluding that ‗we can restrict our
investigations to the areas around cathedrals‘, which would at least have the merit of
simplicity, we would have to find out about the ‗natural‘ variability of sin. Perhaps, in fact,
more sins are committed far away from cathedrals? p.57

5. Cyclones.
3. Critical analysis
In this case, we have been able to obtain raw data and conduct our own analysis, which
clearly demonstrates, contrary to what we are all reading all the time, that there has been
no increase in the number of cyclones over the past 40 years. We have found a slight
increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 cyclones (the strongest), but the numbers are
very small each year, and the increase might simply be due to changes in ‗accounting
methods‘.
A common deception is as follows: you begin by looking at cyclones that reach the US
mainland (the ones that affect people and insurance companies) and you count them. Then
you change the perimeter and include all cyclones in the North Atlantic, including ones that
disperse at sea. Of course, the second group is bigger!
As we said earlier, the statistics presented here cover all cyclones in the North Atlantic. p.67

6. Sea Level Rises.

a. Two kinds of instruments are used:
• Marigraphs, which have been around for 200 years;
• Altimetry satellites, which measure the height of the satellite above the ocean; they
have been around for 20 years, namely Topex/Poseidon (1992), Jason 1 (2001), Jason
2 (2008).
The water level varies naturally:
• Due to the tides (lunar attraction)
• Due to wind and storms
• Due to sea currents
This being so, the estimates provided by marigraphs and satellites can be no more than
averages, if possible over one year or several years, as phenomena such as El Niño affect
the sea level for a year or more. p.68
b. E. Be careful! On Models. ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/dv8avoovsHqr/)
As this issue has taken on a major political dimension, all kinds of statements are made by
absolutely anyone at all. Great care is therefore called for when accepting information.
1. Models
Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in
building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them.
Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as
76
SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09

Critical analysis
The rising sea level is a basic thesis for journalists, to support the doctrine of global
warming. They say, ―Look, the sea is rising, and so we are in danger‖.
It is perfectly true that the sea level is rising, but essentially this is due to the cooling down
of the core of the terrestrial globe which has been taking place gradually for five billion
years. As a result of this contraction, the lighter areas (the oceans) tend to rise up in
relation to the heavier areas (the mountains). This is simply a consequence of buoyancy,
and human beings have nothing to do with it. p.77

That’s Chapter 1 summarised and is sufficient for responding to the Pariah Status proffered upon me by Ron.

I would close only by Pointing interested and critical thinkers at the work of Clive Spash and his Paper The Brave New World of Carbon Trading.

https://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf

https://youtu.be/FTEaXBnXLts

“A FIRE, A FIRE IS BURNING! I HEAR THE BOOT OF LUCIFER, I SEE HIS FILTHY FACE! AND IT IS MY FACE, AND YOURS, DANFORTH! FOR THEM THAT QUAIL TO BRING MEN OUT OF IGNORANCE, AS I HAVE QUAILED, AND AS YOU QUAIL NOW WHEN YOU KNOW IN ALL YOUR BLACKHEARTS THAT THIS BE FRAUD – GOD DAMNS OUR KIND ESPECIALLY, AND WE WILL BURN, WE WILL BURN TOGETHER!”
― ARTHUR MILLER, THE CRUCIBLE

rogerglewis
on July 23, 2019 at 8:26 am said:
test, post not appearing

So what are you accusing me of?
Don Stewart

Reply ↓

rogerglewis
on September 27, 2019 at 6:25 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Don Both you and Xavier have a lot to say, at length and thats fine I read it and the links, That is not anywhere near the full picture and your COnclusions are in my opinion unsupported by evidence but are supported by a lot of emotional writings.
Seeds is an empirical metric and the economy is an energy transformation machine. My own research and reading on these matters point to a future that can be wholly pleasant and fulfilling. Your own position as you set it out is that we have all been very naughty and are riding for a fall. There is evidence t support mans ability to do very stupid things and your worse fears may come to pass, the final blow will be nuclear and war based should it come by our own hand, should the solar system cast the first stone then of course we may go the way it is theorised that did for the dinosaurs.
Meanwhile, I recommend Vaclavs smils paper on the carrying capacity of Mother earth which considers various positions.
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/08/18/feeding-the-world-malthus-wasnt-such-a-miserable-old-misanthrope-apparently-vaclav-smil-albert-bartlett-energy-economics-and-no-alarmism/
Renewables without the hot air by the late and greatly missed Prof. Sir , David MacKay is also very much worth reading./ Watching.