What in your post to ME here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/957193/posts?page=12#12 is "discussing Betty Boop's actual topic?"
The part where I pointed out its similarity to countless prior "explanations" of thought which invoked some "underlying essence" at work (e.g. chi, quantum fields, etc.) without actually explaining anything, and thus were unsuccessful at "changing the face of science forever", and thus the odds for this one doing so aren't too hot either.
I do believe I was quite clear.
And while you're at it, justify why YOU brought up religion, so the lurkers aren't duped into thinking it was my idea.
Why must I "justify" something I didn't do?
"While *you're* at it", please explain to the lurkers why *you* had the idea of mislabeling my point as somehow bringing up religion, when it did not.
My point quite clearly involved only comparing the current "resonance theory" to prior "crystal theory", "chi theory", "Akashic record theory", "aura theory", etc. All of these were (poor) attempts to "explain" the mysteries of thought/mind/soul/whatever by passing the buck to some even more mysterious "essence" in which thought "resided" or "sourced" from. Some of them may have been more "mystic" than others, but that doesn't make the my point about the inadequacy of their explanatory power somehow a "religious" point, nor are most of them "religious" in the normal sense of the word (personally, I would maintain that none of them are). I quite clearly (to all but you, apparently) restricted my comment to their inability to "change the face of science forever" as scientific "explanations".
When you're done, you can get back to discussing Betty Boop's actual topic.
I'm way ahead of you.
Actually you are way behind everyone else and you just managed to poop all over someone else's thread with a lotta claptrap and respin.
Here's your post that started it:
Impressive work and sure to change the face of science forever! <-- YOU quoting my compliment to betty boop
Your confidence in new-agey suppositions is awe-inspiring.
If you like that one there are at least a hundred more like it in any New Age "library", including variations pinning their imaginations on crystals, photons, quantum fields, ghosts, karma, Universal spirit, chakras, chi, psi, Akashic record, magick, archetypes, the stars, auras, etc.
So far, they've all been remarkably unsuccessful at "changing the face of science forever".
12 posted on 08/02/2003 7:46 PM CDT by Ichneumon
It was a smarmy swipe at both me and the creator of this thread and I suspect the intent was to turn it into a tinfoil thread in hopes those that followed you would pick up your lead and post more tinfoil cracks.
This is serious science, son. With serious players and a high potential for serious consequences for the rest of science, and that's probably what is bothering you.
You can learn more about this new science here: http://designeduniverse.com/bb/integrativescience
Now back to betty boop's topic with ya!
Oh, and remember, lotsa wordy re-spins don't make ya right. Just read Hillary's book.
posted on 08/03/2003 7:37:21 AM PDT
(http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's finest . contact me to add yours!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson