The Future of Earth

[star.logic]

Oh, what the heck, I'll ask nicely one more time. Can you provide a specific example of what you mean?

Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.

Simply put: no. Science allows us to find new medicines. Science allows us to determine the efficiency (and possible dangers) of these new medicines through double blind testing.

Yes and other ways of viewing reality allow you to find other solutions, and alternative methods of reaching those solutions.

All the while, learning as you go along.

The efficiencies and dangers of medicine is only an aspect of reality relative to the nature of the objective basis of it. In this case the material world, and the living body itself. Dangers is relative to the body and it's physicality, as well as efficiency, regarding the body.

So the view of medicine and science that you are portraying is relative to the reality or belief system based primarily on the physical, and materialistic aspect.


The nature of a medicine being new, is dependent on the body aging and becoming vulnerable to different things at different times, this is once again based on a physical and materialistic aspect, just one belief system of many, looking a it's cures and practices within that understandings limits, or focuses.

Testing medicine, is yet another aspect of a belief system which entails a changing body, and a changing reality with new solutions required, and a possibility for the solution to do the opposite of what it's supposed to do, as well as do nothing all together.

Primarily the focus of the medicine is placed upon the positive effects that occur, while the negative effects are labeled "side-effects".

This is also possible for this type of medicine because this type of medicine focuses one the entire objective, and physical aspect of healing a body.

While other's focus entirely opposite and focus on a non-physical, or others are a mixture of the two, or otherwise.

All of these belief systems have their own ways of working, which work well for some situations, while not being able to help others.

According to my original post, the combination of every medical application, and the narrowing down of all fields, through a finding of similarity or "middle ground", would indeed break new ground and allow much more to be possible, than previous was in any of the other *single* understandings.

 

[star.logic]

Second, you state that objective reality is "equal but opposite" to one's subjective experience.

This is only an expression, but may be seen accurate in that sense.

I subjectively experience the sun being the size of a quarter.

How is that equal to the sun objectively being 870,000 miles across?

The sun cannot be a quarter! There are differences, both subjective and objective!

How is the objective reality of a Ford Fiesta opposite of the subjective beliefs about a Ford Fiesta?

The objective reality of a Ford Fiesta is that it may exist!

While the subjective would be *how* it exists, according to one's specific way of describing or experiencing certain aspects of it's existence.

Assuming that this duality exists, what is the value of reconciling them?

Gaining harmony between two conflicting views of reality would effectively bring a solution of conflict into place, which the effects of, would lesson or disappear!

Can you see conflict in humanity's views of reality? Past or present, future?

I went to Disneyworld when I was 9 and I have a subjective memory of where the different rides were located in the park.

Ok.

If I go back to Disneyworld today, they will have a map that differs significantly from my memory (if only because they've opened some new rides since 1979 but for other reasons as well).

Ok.

Which should I do: 1) Ignore the map and follow my memory

Technically the memory is not of the park you would be at, present day, it would be of a different park, constructed differently, no longer existing to you!

The map would be a more likely choice, seeing it's been updated according to the present construct of the location, and your memory hasn't (according to you)!

2) Ignore my memory and follow the map;

If they both contain the truth, seeing as your memory is of the same location, you have recalled accurately, and it's reasonable to believe that not EVERYthing has changed. Then it would be more helpful to ignore neither, but take into consideration that you may remember somethings as they actually are today, and that so many things may have changed.

You would likely remember things as you see them, as well as beforehand, and without other information, you would discover new things as you experience them for the first time.

or 3) sit down and create a new picture that is half-map/half-memory?

This would be impossible, without experiencing first, which parts of your memory are no longer applicable to the park based on the representation on the map, and so doing this without the necessary information would likely result in understanding less about the park than with the map or the memory, only causing you to become confused.

If you said I should do anything other than 2, you have doomed me to a very frustrating day at the amusement park.

I believe, in this case, you would have doomed yourself! Through confused and illogical thinking!

My point is that we all live our lives according to a map - a construct of how the world works that we store in our head.

Although we can always update what's in our head, unlike the map, memory scenario!

The more realistic our construct is, the better we will navigate through life.

This is an opinion!

What is the value of giving heed to anything but the most accurate, objective information that exists?

The value is that you have a balance of information, instead of becoming partial, and biased to one aspect, leaving you to eventually learn or experience less!

P.S. I hear they opened something called Epcot in 1982. Am I safe just ignoring it?

I'm not sure what you mean, so I'm assuming it's irrelevant!

 

[fuelair]

This is a deception.

No, no examples (concrete) given =no examples known to you OR you know some but are being deliberately obtuse. I assume the former from your limited input and was expressing that assumption. That is not deception though I am fairly uninterested in your opinion at this point as you seem to be another of the Truthtweaker, Light is Bright school of meaningless wordiness masquerading (unsuccessfully) as high level knowledge impartment.

 

[This Guy]

I agree with Fuelair.

Seeing a lot of words, but no substance.

I'm outa here.

Have a nice day

 

[rats]

Star.logic, how would you define ‘a belief’?

Please could you provide an example of a belief?

 

[Ladewig]

Oh, what the heck, I'll ask nicely one more time. Can you provide a specific example of what you mean?

Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.

The efficiencies and dangers of medicine is only an aspect of reality relative to the nature of the objective basis of it. In this case the material world, and the living body itself. Dangers is relative to the body and it's physicality, as well as efficiency, regarding the body.

[snipped for brievity]

According to my original post, the combination of every medical application, and the narrowing down of all fields, through a finding of similarity or "middle ground", would indeed break new ground and allow much more to be possible, than previous was in any of the other *single* understandings.

So you either cannot or will not give an example. That's alright. If you ever change your mind and decide to give an example, that would be a wonderful physical and yet non-physical response which combines beliefs and non-beliefs in such a way to promote (yet not promote) a revolutionary breakthrough in the dual nature of everything (or nothing)!

 

[star.logic]

I agree with Fuelair.

Seeing a lot of words, but no substance.

I'm outa here.

Have a nice day

See you soon.

Star.logic, how would you define ‘a belief’?

Please could you provide an example of a belief?

A belief system is the sum total of one's self. (in the case of my description, which is biased towards my experience) One know's certain things to be true and certain things to be untrue, it is currently represented by such a duality in on earth. In this duality an individual belief, within a belief system, must correspond with every other belief in the belief system. If the belief primarily decides whether a certain aspect of life is true or untrue, or one thing or another, and there is another similar belief in the system, which contradicts, one of them must become truncated or removed or both of them compromised.

A simple example of this is when a person gets angry at some part of life because they believe it should be different. Beliefs decide how you will react to a situation, if you would like to react differently you first change your beliefs about the situation, and then your life and actions begin to follow suit. This is the simple and most abstract understanding I could come up with, if you'd to see a more specific and related example, please simply provide some "mental stimulation" to get things moving.

 

[star.logic]

So you either cannot or will not give an example. That's alright. If you ever change your mind and decide to give an example, that would be a wonderful physical and yet non-physical response which combines beliefs and non-beliefs in such a way to promote (yet not promote) a revolutionary breakthrough in the dual nature of everything (or nothing)!

Example:
I believe that other skeptic boards, skeptic blogs, and science websites are some of the best places to find new-thread topics

 

[Folly]

Any medical issue has it's own way of being cured, using different methods.

Okay. I have to wait for a few long running tests to finish the next few days, so I'll bite. Here's a nice concrete example of a medical issue: a stab wound puncturing a lung. I know the solution that comes from the standard view of reality. What do alternate views of reality tell us about punctured lungs?

 

[Loss Leader]

A belief system is the sum total of one's self. (in the case of my description, which is biased towards my experience) One know's certain things to be true and certain things to be untrue, it is currently represented by such a duality in on earth. In this duality an individual belief, within a belief system, must correspond with every other belief in the belief system. If the belief primarily decides whether a certain aspect of life is true or untrue, or one thing or another, and there is another similar belief in the system, which contradicts, one of them must become truncated or removed or both of them compromised.

So, besically, what you're trying to say is, "Save the cheerleader, save the world."

 

[star.logic]

^ No, I don't believe I've said that anywhere.

Okay. I have to wait for a few long running tests to finish the next few days, so I'll bite. Here's a nice concrete example of a medical issue: a stab wound puncturing a lung. I know the solution that comes from the standard view of reality. What do alternate views of reality tell us about punctured lungs?

Thinking with logic one would assume that when a certain system becomes damaged you use the corresponding knowledge of that system to fix it.

Meaing you don't fix a broken leg, by talking kindly to it and reassuring it that every one loves it, it's not an emotional system instability.

So! With the example you have given me, there is a direct physical alternative (they are all alternatives) for fixing a punctured lung which is simply bounding the body to position the bones correctly if any are broken or otherwise, and limiting mobility, sometimes with the use of a device for air flow emplaced. This may be an outdated, limited, or standard proceedure, I do not know. Although all in a search for good knowledge, if you wish to, please explain more about how it's done.

 

[Loss Leader]

Thinking with logic one would assume that when a certain system becomes damaged you use the corresponding knowledge of that system to fix it.

But you've said that our scientific knowledge is an incomplete picture of the universe and we must combine it with all sorts of religious beliefs in order to get more accurate information. Now, you say that our scientific understanding of punctured lungs is all that we need to fix punctured lungs and religious and alternative beliefs play no part.

So, how do we know when we need to combine scientific and magical thinking to get better results and when scientific thinking alone is appropriate?

Also, exactly how are your statements different from, "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?

 

[Folly]

Okay. I have to wait for a few long running tests to finish the next few days, so I'll bite. Here's a nice concrete example of a medical issue: a stab wound puncturing a lung. I know the solution that comes from the standard view of reality. What do alternate views of reality tell us about punctured lungs?

Thinking with logic one would assume that when a certain system becomes damaged you use the corresponding knowledge of that system to fix it.

Meaing you don't fix a broken leg, by talking kindly to it and reassuring it that every one loves it, it's not an emotional system instability.

So! With the example you have given me, there is a direct physical alternative (they are all alternatives) for fixing a punctured lung which is simply bounding the body to position the bones correctly if any are broken or otherwise, and limiting mobility, sometimes with the use of a device for air flow emplaced. This may be an outdated, limited, or standard proceedure, I do not know. Although all in a search for good knowledge, if you wish to, please explain more about how it's done.

So you are not saying that all problems have different solutions from each view of reality? Are you saying that each problem must be solved by the system that defines the problem? There is no "alternate view of reality solution" here because it was an evidence based problem so evidence based medicine must be used to fix it?


As to what you do for a punctured lung, from what I remember from aquatic emergency care courses (sort of like St. John's for pools) the first response action is to not quite seal the wound with something airtight. Once in better hands, depending on whether the lung reinflates on its own, a tube with a valve may be inserted in the chest cavity, and suction may or may not be applied. If that still doesn't do the trick I think they have to glue/staple the lung back in place. I'm sure I got at least something wrong, so please kids, don't start a home medical practice based on this! In any case, it's something like this, and given knowledge about what's going on, the solution is both clear and effective.

 

[star.logic]

So you are not saying that all problems have different solutions from each view of reality?

I don't believe I'm not saying this.

Are you saying that each problem must be solved by the system that defines the problem?

Either directly or indirectly, if the system cannot perceive of a problem, it cannot solve it.

There is no "alternate view of reality solution" here because it was an evidence based problem so evidence based medicine must be used to fix it?

More or less, this is what I wanted you to understand in responding to your first quote!

There are other solutions, yet how often would you find one massaging a broken leg, or making it feel better?!

There are different solutions, yet there are those which are muc more readily applicable. Note: I believe you have made some misconceptions about the phrase "alternative view of reality solution".

The alternative view of reality solution only represents that there are more than one ways of going about fixing a problem, just as there are different aspects of the problem to be experienced, and thus individually solved.

So science is an alternative view.

Any other is the same.

As to what you do for a punctured lung, from what I remember from aquatic emergency care courses (sort of like St. John's for pools) the first response action is to not quite seal the wound with something airtight. Once in better hands, depending on whether the lung reinflates on its own, a tube with a valve may be inserted in the chest cavity, and suction may or may not be applied. If that still doesn't do the trick I think they have to glue/staple the lung back in place. I'm sure I got at least something wrong, so please kids, don't start a home medical practice based on this! In any case, it's something like this, and given knowledge about what's going on, the solution is both clear and effective.

Interesting, thank you.

 

[star.logic]

But you've said that our scientific knowledge is an incomplete picture of the universe

All current knowledge is incomplete.

and we must combine it with all sorts of religious beliefs in order to get more accurate information.

Either you're purposely lying, or have made detrimental misconceptions.

Now, you say that our scientific understanding of punctured lungs is all that we need to fix punctured lungs and religious and alternative beliefs play no part.

Refer to the above response.

So, how do we know when we need to combine scientific and magical thinking

These are just two examples you have given, define all the variables of thought/thinking/belief.

to get better results and when scientific thinking alone is appropriate?

You can get positive results in many ways.

Also, exactly how are your statements different from, "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?

You have me confused with another person, I did not say this.

 

[Folly]

So you are not saying that all problems have different solutions from each view of reality?

I don't believe I'm not saying this.

Terrific. I did understand you correctly the first time then.

More or less, this is what I wanted you to understand in responding to your first quote!

There are other solutions, yet how often would you find one massaging a broken leg, or making it feel better?!

Okay. I agree that massaging a broken leg is not going to help, and massaging someone isn't going to help a punctured lung either. You do say there are other solutions even in this case, so what is another solution for a punctured lung? If you don't know (fair enough - you didn't know what the medical science solution was either) than what is a system I can follow to find another solution for a punctured lung?

There are different solutions, yet there are those which are much more readily applicable. Note: I believe you have made some misconceptions about the phrase "alternative view of reality solution".

The alternative view of reality solution only represents that there are more than one ways of going about fixing a problem, just as there are different aspects of the problem to be experienced, and thus individually solved.

No, I got that. It's just that you said all problems can be approached in different ways, so I presented an example problem we could both work with. Your comments at that point made me think you didn't truly mean "all", you just meant "most".

 

[star.logic]

If you don't know (fair enough - you didn't know what the medical science solution was either) than what is a system I can follow to find another solution for a punctured lung?

The non-physical methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of a different type of energy being used to heal a wound very quickly. A device can be used for this, which can be biological or artificial. I believe that's all that can be said at this moment. The healing time is within a moment, and there is no other equipment involved, and depending on the state of awareness of the individual there is usually not much pain.

That is a frame work, now, science, not as a belief system, but "science" as the labeling humanity has given to it's foremost understanding of the universe, has yet to fully acknowledge or detect this energy, as well as learn to accept it emotionally/mentally. This causes very big conflicts of war and hatred within the human race, as we and fundamentally all living things are composed of some form of this energy.

Your comments at that point made me think you didn't truly mean "all", you just meant "most".

I did mean all, I don't see why you would think this.

 

[Loss Leader]

The non-physical methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of a different type of energy being used to heal a wound very quickly.

You do that, then. I'm gonna go with the medical thing.

 

[Folly]

The non-physical methods of medical health, concerning a damaged body part, consist of a different type of energy being used to heal a wound very quickly. A device can be used for this, which can be biological or artificial. I believe that's all that can be said at this moment. The healing time is within a moment, and there is no other equipment involved, and depending on the state of awareness of the individual there is usually not much pain.

You didn't answer the question of what the specific solution would be, so I assume you don't know what it is. Do you at least have a general idea of what this alternate energy based solution would be for a punctured lung? If not, how about for a broken leg, since you mentioned it as an example previously? There must be something more specific to say about this.

 

[CapelDodger]

"The Future of Earth".

It's going to get warmer. The oceans will become more acidic. We, as a species, can do that sort of thing now. We've been unintentionally changing local, then regional environments for a few thousand years but now we've hit global. Unprecedented.

Simple souls might then predict extra-global, but the International Space Station puts that idea in perspective.

Given the unprecedented nature of our starting-point - the world today - the best we can do is extrapolate from previous experience on a smaller scale. Taking into account that there's nowhere new for people to move to these days. It's gonna be ugly.

On the Earth's timescale, of course, it won't even feature.