Richard’s Selected Correspondence
RICHARD (to Co-Respondent): How on earth can someone – anyone – appreciate the words and writings spoken and written by a prick, a prick that is not a caring human being, a prick that is aggressive, a prick that is arrogant by nature?
RESPONDENT: I appreciate very much the fact that you correspond with us on issues of great mutual interest. I appreciate very much what you have to say (not how you say it), I appreciate very much the hard work and time and money you put in to address the many questions that come to you ... yet I did not find it easy to appreciate your way of communicating, your conversational style, your (apparent) inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, and so on and so forth.
RICHARD: Whereabouts in the conversation in question – anywhere at all in that exchange spanning 34 e-mails – is it [quote] ‘apparent’ [endquote] to you that there is an inability on my part to get my co-respondent’s point of view? And, for the sake of clarity in communication, my co-respondent’s point of view was that ...
RESPONDENT: All the statements below involve you.
RICHARD: No, none of the statements below involve me ... they all involve my co-respondent’s point of view (as in what they feel/ intuit/ imagine/ infer me to be and to be doing).
RESPONDENT: That is not the crux of the matter.
RICHARD: Au contraire ... my co-respondent specifically made it (their view of me) the crux of the matter. Here is how they began (from the e-mail of theirs which started the thread):
Do you see that it is their point of view being clearly expressed, so as to ramp up the brouhaha which they and several others simultaneously subscribed to the list to make, with the words ‘Richard carries on as if ...’ and the words ‘Richard would also have us believe ...’ and the words ‘Here’s Richard disparaging ...’ and the words ‘I’d like to know which planet Richard visits ...’ in the above quote?
RESPONDENT: The basic subject of the conversation was rather the special relativity theory.
RICHARD: Here is the text of mine from which my co-respondent extracted that one-line quote of mine above (highlighted for convenience):
I was clearly responding to a speculative query about deoxyribonucleic acid being the carrier for the instincts and the scientists being referred to were microbiologists, biochemists, neurobiologists and their ilk ... I specifically go on, in that e-mail, to provide quotes by and referring to Mr. Darryl Reanney (a molecular biologist), Mr. Paul MacLean (a brain biologist), and Mr. Joseph LeDoux (a neurobiologist).
RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]: 01. Richard is disparaging most scientists.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t that so?
RICHARD: No ... see for yourself:
I am simply stating it as it is ... even a cursory glance at the material available in the area of instinctual behaviour shows that facts are indeed few and far between – the ability to conduct brain probes/ brain scans is relatively recent – and that today’s proposition is soon to be discarded for tomorrow’s.
RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]: 02. Richard said most scientists chose to ignore facts.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t that so?
RICHARD: No, that is outright mendacity ... I clearly state that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, and never anywhere ever say they choose to ignore facts.
This is an apt a place as any to re-post the following:
RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]: 03. It is a fact that Richard is scientifically naïve.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t that so?
RICHARD: Although but a layperson when it comes to matters of science I am well aware that fundamental to the scientific method is empirical observation of a phenomenon/ phenomena => formulation of an hypothesis to explain same => utilisation of that hypothesis to make predictions => experimental tests of those predictions, properly performed, by independent testers ... whereas my co-respondent, self-represented as being a scientist by profession, formulated an hypothesis about me – that in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have others believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world – which had no observational basis at all (what I share with my fellow human, being experiential, is not at all scientifical) nor any textural evidence whatsoever to support it and, despite being given cogent reasons and at least ten opportunities to do so, would not budge one iota from their un-informed and ill-conceived way of ramping up the brouhaha.
There is no way I am going to discuss a mathematical model of the universe in (supposedly) scientific terms with someone who will not, or can not, put into practice the rigour rightly expected of the scientific profession.
RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]:
RESPONDENT: Isn’t that true?
RICHARD: No, I do not assert anything ... what I do is provide unambiguous reports of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, articulate clarifications of misunderstandings, an exceedingly simple do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record and, as already mentioned many, many times, an invitation to my fellow human being to ascertain for themselves – experientially – that what I have to say is in accord with actuality.
RESPONDENT: Richard, it might help (me at least) to clarify your following statement in your correspondence with No 56: [Richard]: ‘... facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set’. [endquote]. It is clear and plain to see that the second part of what you are saying is correct. Specifically, that many of scientists ‘facts’ ‘later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set’. I don’t see any room for disagreement on that point. Anyone who has studied or read about science and the history of science would be able to agree with that statement. But, you are additionally saying that ‘facts are few and far between for most scientists’, which is by no means obvious. Would you mind stating more clearly what you mean?
RICHARD: I am none too sure how I can put it more clearly ... in any area of research I have ever looked into I have, more often than not, found that not only are facts rather thin on the ground but that it is mainly the hypothesis/theory which gets most of the attention (which is possibly why many of the ‘facts’ later turn out not to be facts at all).
I could provide many examples – global deforestation for instance – yet hesitate to do so as I would become deflected into attending to all the minutiae the presenting of such examples require in order to make a case ... instead I would invite anyone genuinely interested to find out for themselves by conducting their own research into various topics.
If anyone were to do so I would suggest reading the following booklet ‘Science Without Sense’ before they start: http://www.junkscience.com/sws.html
RESPONDENT: For example, a literal reading:
1) Most (more than 50%) of scientists (people who work or consider themselves ‘scientists’) are few and far between on their facts (there are many more or significantly more errors in their scientific studies than facts). If that is what you mean, can you demonstrate that to be the case?
RICHARD: Nope ... and neither can anybody demonstrate that to not be the case either (more on this immediately below).
RESPONDENT: In other words, can you demonstrate that more than 50% of people who consider themselves scientists are in error significantly more often than they are correct regarding their ‘scientific’ study?
RICHARD: The last time I looked-up the subject there were over 100,000 scientific journals published each year containing more than 6,000,000 articles ... and no single person can ever even read all those articles let alone make sense of them as no single person has expertise in all areas of scientific research (there are over 1,000 areas of specialised study and no single person has cross-disciplinal expertise in all areas). Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Or maybe you mean:
2) Scientists ‘facts’ often turn out to be errors due to flawed methodology arising out of their expectations.
RICHARD: Yes, I also mean that. Expectations can, and often do, lead to cherry-picking the data, for example ... especially in the area of epidemiological studies (such as the tobacco issue for instance).
RESPONDENT: Or possibly:
3) Scientists are victims of the human condition like everyone else, so in as much as they are living an illusion, they must also be significantly in error about much of what they do and say inside and out of their ‘scientific’ study.
RICHARD: I also mean that as well, yes, and the intuitive/ imaginative facility is often the main culprit ... plus there is the matter of position, prestige, and attracting research dollars as well, to mention but a few of the impediments to unbiased study, and there is also the down-side of peer-review to take into account (which prevents many discoveries outside the mainstream paradigm from being published in the prestigious journals).
RESPONDENT: It might also be useful to demarcate between various kinds of ‘science’ – as you seem to have more disagreement with theoretical physics and such than say, biological sciences – like work done in genetics or evolutionary theory – though these are also not exempt from error.
RICHARD: I do understand the value of pure science (theoretical science), as contrasted to applied science (practical science), in the area of research and development – just as I understand the value of pure mathematics as opposed to applied mathematics – as evidenced by the technological revolution and the main point I am emphasising is the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific discovery to be fact, as propagated by the popular press for instance, because theoretical science does not describe the universe ... mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process.
Perhaps this might go some way towards explaining what I mean:
Once the not-observable-as-objects-in-space-and-time basis of sub-atomic particles is established the mathematical processes involved unfold further mysteries accordingly. Vis.:
Needless to say, once this postulation is accepted – and as ‘an inescapable necessity’ at that – then there is no prize for guessing what will happen. Vis.:
Thus the sub-atomic postulates (aka particles) have become ‘as real as any everyday object’ and thus assume the status of being factual via a sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of mind) that would be the envy of many a confidence trickster.
I will repeat what I said earlier for emphasis: in any area of research I have ever looked into I have, more often than not, found that not only are facts rather thin on the ground but that it is mainly the hypothesis/theory which gets most of the attention.
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed.
RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated.
So as to assist in some rigour being put into your critique I will supply the query and response sequence in full where my above sentence first appeared (and the URL so that the entire e-mail can be read for further elucidation):
I see that, before making the statement in question, I wrote (a) a ‘it would seem to be so’ qualifier when suggesting that instincts are genetically encoded in deoxyribonucleic acid ... and (b) a ‘with the proviso’ conditioner that I am seeking an after-the act explanation for what happened in my situation (and not a before-the-act theory) ... and (c) that I was looking at scientific probes into the brain-stem rather than hypotheses (about the brain in general) ... and (d) how practical science (as contrasted to theoretical science) has to be empirically-grounded.
Even a cursory glance at the material available in the area of instinctual behaviour shows that facts are indeed few and far between – the ability to conduct brain probes/brain scans is relatively recent – and that today’s theory is soon to be discarded for tomorrow’s ... indeed you say so yourself (much further below in this very e-mail) although in another context:
Whereas a fact is not provisional ... else it be not a fact.
I also see that, after the statement in question, I then provided an explanation (that scientists are fallible, ego-ridden and soul-bound human beings trapped in the human condition like everybody else) as a cautionary note and gave the example of last century’s theoretical physics so as to flesh out the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific discovery to be fact ... and even pointed out who it was who was most influential in sending modern science down the path it has gone in case further example was required.
Thus the planet I took my samples from was planet earth ... albeit from the ‘real-world’ planet earth (an intuitive/imaginary place).
RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on.
RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’ as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on ... which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument.
RESPONDENT: It does not take away from the fact that you are scientifically naive.
RICHARD: As it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on what it does take away is the very core of your entire e-mail and what is central to your argument (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) ... and to just stick the words ‘the fact’ in front of your (reworded) assertion adds nothing to your presentation.
In what way do I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ – now reworded as me being ‘scientifically naïve’ – by making the observation that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set? If you could address yourself to the question, and not re-present your assertion in yet another form, it would be most appreciated.
RESPONDENT: Bollocks, Richard. Your physics is muddle headed and you don’t know what you are talking about.
RICHARD: As you have chosen to but re-present your assertion in yet another form it would appear that your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) is not based on fact but interpretation.
I cannot say I am all that surprised as most scientists’ facts are few and far between and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set. (for example: [Respondent]: ‘As a working scientist I can see right through your rubbish’. (January 15 2004).
‘Tis no wonder modern-day science is in the degraded state it is, eh?
RESPONDENT: As you have so far refused to debate your flawed pseudo-scientific utterances ...
RICHARD: If I may point out? As you are yet to demonstrate that my observation – that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set – is a ‘flawed pseudo-scientific utterance’ then any conclusion you may make (just as any conclusion anyone may make based upon an undemonstrated premise) cannot be taken as a valid conclusion.
RESPONDENT: ... we can only conclude that you have more than adequately demonstrated your basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works.
RICHARD: I do understand that you have made such a conclusion (you made this abundantly clear in your initial e-mail where you first formulated your hypothesis that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) yet you still have not demonstrated that the quote in question – the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) – shows anything of the sort.
RESPONDENT: Your pseudo-scientific buffoonery is not just based on one quote.
RICHARD: As I am not a mind-reader I can only go by the information you type out on your keyboard and send to this mailing list ... and the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) is the ‘one quote’ in question.
RESPONDENT: There is an entire thread of you demonstrating your scientific ignorance for all to see. I have posted a refutation (see ‘RE: Brouhaha Indeed’ 14th Jan 04) of your nonsense and you have so far refused to defend your utterances.
RICHARD: I see ... you based your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) on something that I did not write until fifteen (15) days *after* you published it, eh? Vis.:
‘Tis no wonder I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ ... I lack prescience:
RESPONDENT: Oh Richard, you are just like a dog kicking dirt to cover up his own stinking shit, only you prefer to kick a mound of verbiage.
RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend your line of thought: you present something that I did not write until fifteen (15) days *after* you published your hypothesis so as to demonstrate that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works, yet because I point this after-the-act fact out to you that means I am the one doing a cover-up.
Am I understanding you correctly?
RESPONDENT: That single quote was just me warming up, silly! There’s plenty more to come. You have spouted so much scientific drivel it’s hard to keep up with it all. Give me time.
RICHARD: Hmm ... so you based your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) on something that you have yet to find on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, then?
I do appreciate the insight into how the mind of a working scientist operates that you are providing with all of the above (for example: [Respondent]: ‘As a working scientist I can see right through your rubbish’. (January 15 2004).
RESPONDENT: And I do appreciate your sincere demonstration of cowardice in the defence of your own scientific nonsense.
RESPONDENT: Would you care to study quantum physics?
RICHARD: You may find the following informative in this regard:
As quantum theory is based upon a mathematical device (Mr. Max Planck’s ‘quanta’) initially designed to solve the hypothetical problem of infinite ultra-violet radiation from a non-existent perfect ‘black-box’ radiator, and never intended to be taken as being real (until Mr. Albert Einstein took it up for his own purposes), I have no interest whatsoever in studying it.
RESPONDENT: Consider Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: The more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum is known. Under what you classify this phenomenon? Classical Physics, Quantum Physics, or nonsensical misreading of actual phenomenon?
RICHARD: If you were to re-read my detailed response to your question (further above) you would see that I classify it as ‘the imaginative/ intuitive speculations of [a] theoretical physicist’.
RICHARD: Your hypothesis itself had, and has, nothing to with what is actually happening ... I am in no way trying to weave an aura of (scientific) authority by having you believe I am like a scientist reporting my findings to the world.
RESPONDENT: Rubbish. You assert all manner of findings based on ‘PCE evidence’ and even go as far as to assert a steady state universe.
RICHARD: First and foremost: I copy-pasted the words <steady state universe> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits; I copy-pasted the words <steady state> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits.
In short: I make no mention of ‘a steady state universe’ ... let alone ‘assert’ one.
Second, I will refer you to the following:
In other words I do not ‘assert’ (I provide a report/ description) and, as already mentioned in the previous e-mail, invite my fellow human being to ascertain for themselves – experientially – that what I have to say is in accord with the fact.
Third, since when has what you call ‘PCE evidence’ ever been considered scientific evidence?
Lastly, your entire sentence (above) – including the preliminary word ‘rubbish’ – is what an assertion looks like in action ... and most, if not all, of my responses to you involve correcting what you invent about what I said, what I am, what I do, why I do it, how I do it, and so on.
RESPONDENT: You make assertions about Relativity and Einstein based on your own narrow worldview.
RICHARD: I provided a referenced quote of Mr. Albert Einstein reminiscing, in 1920, about the birth of his relativity theory in 1907, which shows in his own words that his theory is not based on fact ... if pointing this out really is me making ‘assertions’ – and from a ‘narrow worldview’ at that – then modern science is in a more parlous state than I have previously taken it to be.
RESPONDENT: You are basically saying that you can assert whatever you like, without the need for scientific grounding.
RICHARD: No ... you are saying that, not me.
RESPONDENT: That’s fine ...
RICHARD: And here you are agreeing with your latest invention as if you were agreeing with me.
RESPONDENT: ... we can agree then that you are a purveyor of science fiction ..
RICHARD: Not ‘we’ ... you; you can agree, then (as you invented that fantasy you can, of course, agree with it all you like).
RESPONDENT: ... but you are creating the impression that you have scientific knowledge and have the grounds to critique Relativity, Einstein and quantum mechanics when in actuality you do not.
RICHARD: I am doing no such thing as I have made it quite clear that I am but a layperson when it comes to physics ... as well you know from a quote of mine you posted only two and a half hours before you posted this e-mail,. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I’ve been watching this discussion unfold from start to end (...) Initially I thought there’d be some interesting discussion about how and why actualism and relativity are incompatible.
RICHARD: I have no idea why you would think that as my co-respondent made it quite clear at the outset that what they were doing was sharply increasing the commotion they and several others from a Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti e-mail forum had created regarding my report that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience. Vis.:
Here is what a dictionary has to say:
RESPONDENT: I’m no scientist, but I was keen to watch two people sharing their perspectives, learning from each other perhaps, and teaching us all something in the process.
RICHARD: If I wanted to learn more about relativity than I already know I would not go about learning it second-hand from somebody – anybody – writing to this mailing list ... I would obtain the appropriate texts from a library, for instance, or enrol for a part-time University Online course at the nearby campus, for another example (or maybe even subscribe to a relativity mailing list).
RESPONDENT: For one reason or another, it never got off the ground.
RICHARD: That would be because my co-respondent never got around to demonstrating that the quote of mine they presented, which was at the core of their initial ‘let’s-ramp-up-the-brouhaha’ e-mail and central to their argument, in any way validated their hypothesis (that, even though they would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have them believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) despite at least ten (10) opportunities to do so. This is what I wrote on the tenth opportunity:
Put simply: if a person – any person – does not show, in the course of an e-mail exchange, that they have a basic understanding of science and how it works how on earth are they going to have a sensible, reasoned discussion about relativity ... let alone why actualism and relativity are incompatible? As it is well-nigh impossible to be that ignorant in this day and age then the discussion is indeed, as stated at the outset, all about sharply increasing the commotion.
RICHARD: I will repeat what I said earlier for emphasis: in any area of research I have ever looked into I have, more often than not, found that not only are facts rather thin on the ground but that it is mainly the hypothesis/ theory which gets most of the attention.
RESPONDENT: I suppose this is what it boils down to?
RICHARD: Aye ... no one person can read, let alone comprehend so as to determine validity, all the millions upon millions of scientific articles.
RESPONDENT: I can readily agree with your conclusion regarding ‘any area of research’ that I have looked into as well being thin on facts – especially regarding major theses.
RICHARD: I am pleased we are in agreement on this ... it is glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for (the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition) and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something that can never make sense.
RESPONDENT: This is quite different though from saying that science itself is thin on facts – which of course, you did not say. Open a college physics I textbook or Chemistry I textbook or a textbook on anatomy or cell biology and quite interesting facts abound. It is easy to infer from your statement of most scientists being thin on facts that science itself is thin on facts – but it appears that you are mostly referring to ‘scientific’ research, though not necessarily exclusively. Is that a correct assessment?
RICHARD: Yes ... I was, and am, most definitely referring to facts being few and far between in the research most scientists do and not science itself (as out of those 6,000,000 or so articles a year, multiplied by x-number of years, comes the abundance of those ‘quite interesting facts’ which you mention).
I do appreciate science and have the highest regard for facts – it is what enabled western civilisation to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance – hence the concern that it not be taken over by the metaphysicists who would have future generations slip back into the supernatural.
RESPONDENT: Possibly the distinction I’m looking for is between ‘descriptive’ science and ‘theoretical science.’ What I’m thinking of as ‘descriptive’ science are things like anatomy, biology, geology, palaeontology, basic physics and chemistry and electromagnetism – possibly these could all be called ‘physical’ sciences. I am also aware that these cannot completely do without theory.
RICHARD: They certainly cannot ... it is, after all, what one does with the facts which counts.
RESPONDENT: I just don’t see that your statement that ‘most scientists’ are thin on facts could possibly apply to the ‘physical’ sciences. It seems that it would be more accurate to apply that sort of statement to the instances when theory outruns observation.
RICHARD: Yes ... ‘when theory outruns observation’ is another way of saying that facts are few and far between/thin on the ground in that area of the research.
RESPONDENT: An illustration on this point might be your example of the ‘smoker’s lung’ and ‘non-smoker’s lung’ versus the ‘unhealthy lung’ and ‘healthy lung.’ In other words, facts regarding the structure, composition, and function of a lung are not hard to come by, but research into the causation of lung cancer and it’s connection to smoking tends to be mired with confusion, emotion, and error.
RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: as I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ what makes you say that I think that?
RESPONDENT No 60: In the context of discussing the Big Bang theory, you said that it is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. By contrast, the PCE informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. The fact that you juxtaposed the Big Bang theory with both the ASC and the idea that consciousness gives rise to matter suggests that you think they are, in fact, linked. If that isn’t what you meant, what did you mean?
RESPONDENT: Being that I know personally what it is like to be somewhat baffled by responses given by Richard and other actualists, I’d like to input a clarification at this point that could save some confusion.
What Richard actually said was [quote] ‘It is the PCE which informs that matter gives rise to consciousness’. [endquote]. The only substantial difference between how you reported what Richard said and what he actually said was the word ‘implies’ versus ‘informs’. There is a marked difference between the two. What is important to see here is that Richard is saying that the PCE ‘informs’, not ‘implies’ – as an implication means that an additional inference must be made.
[Addendum] After rereading this paragraph, I see that I made an error. It isn’t the case that ‘The only substantial difference between how you reported what Richard said and what he actually said was the word ‘implies’ versus ‘informs’. Actually, it was the ASC that Richard said ‘informs that consciousness gives rise to matter’. So the misunderstanding doesn’t hinge on the words ‘implies’ versus ‘informs’ after all as I thought, but apparently your replacing ‘ASC’ with ‘the big-bang theory’ in Richard’s statement that ‘It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter’.
RICHARD: I like the way your mind works, No 27 (such as observing that an implication does mean an additional inference must be made), and appreciate that you do not hesitate to provide input from time-to-time based upon, not only your experience of being somewhat baffled on occasion, but your presumably extensive research of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... as evidenced by knowing where to find an appropriate quote that will throw some light upon what is at that time currently under dispute over a lack of information/a misunderstanding/a misrepresentation/or whatever.
I also see you as consistently able to be impartial (you will say ‘this is what Richard actually says’ and not ‘Richard says this thus it is so’) and leave it up to the other to sort it all out for themselves based upon being more fully informed ... as no doubt you do, for yourself, also. I also recall, for example, you pointing out an error I made – an oversight – very early in the piece about what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti had said in another context which negated a point I was making.
In short: your clarifications lift the level of discussion.
It occurs to me, and I write this as it is occurring, that whilst I do not know what academic qualifications you have I do recall you mentioning having studied philosophy (along with a broad knowledge of the more mystical aspects of consciousness studies) so if you were to ever entertain the notion of putting together an article/thesis/book/whatever on actualism, as it is presented in the publicly available word (a researched and annotated scholarly piece as opposed to a personal account), then I would not only be appreciative – being the boy from the farm I have no formal training – but supportive in whatever way appropriate ... such as supplying all the actualism writings on disc, for instance, to enable quick and easy word or phrase searches.
RESPONDENT: Just thought I should express my appreciation for these discussions on modern science ... Richard’s answers and Respondent No. 60 & Respondent No. 27’s questions throw a lot of light on these matters. Very stimulating.
What I understood (from Richard’s mails mainly) so far is that: a direct experience is the final arbiter and while logic/ mathematics can sharpen the directly experienced, they are subservient to the direct experience. This is in contrast to the theoretical physicist/ mathematician’s viewpoint which is: logic/ mathematics is the final arbiter – direct experience is prone to error. Please correct this appraisal if necessary.
RICHARD: No correction necessary ... you have hit the nail right on the head.
Just as a matter of interest: the empiricism/ rationalism debate has a long history.
RESPONDENT: Whenever you listen to a CD or your computer, think of old Max Planck ...
RICHARD: Or, and more usefully in regards reconsidering what Richard says about quantum mechanics, you could think of what Mr. Jules-Henri Poincaré has to say about mathematical models (google it yourself).
RESPONDENT: I will reconsider what Richard says about quantum mechanics when he can explain to me how a CD/DVD player (laser) works without using concepts derived from quantum mechanics.
RICHARD: In what way would another mathematical model of how a laser works – such as, for instance, the principle behind the laser (stimulated emission) being understood in terms of a classical field – motivate you to reconsider what Richard says about quantum mechanics?
More to the point: just what is it that Richard says about quantum mechanics (and, for that matter, any other mathematical model), anyway?
RESPONDENT: Take this nonsense from Richard (google it yourself): ‘And quantum theory, for an instance of this, is most definitely based on a mathematical device (Mr. Max Planck’s ‘quanta’) initially designed to solve the hypothetical problem of infinite ultra-violet radiation from a non-existent perfect ‘black-box’ radiator and never intended to be taken as being real (...)’ [endquote].
RICHARD: Why is it [quote] ‘nonsense’ [endquote] to cite quantum theory as being an instance of physics having departed from being a study of the natural world (the physical world) and having entered into the realm of the mathematical world – an abstract world which does not exist in nature – when, for example, peoples far more knowledgeable on the topic than this layperson have described it as being [quote] ‘strictly phenomenological’ [endquote]? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: The way in which there is no ‘perfect black-box radiator’ is the same way there is no ‘perfect circle’ ...
RICHARD: Here are what some encyclopaedia articles have to say:
RESPONDENT: ... mathematics has this inconvenience if you start using it for describing things.
RICHARD: But I am not using mathematics for describing things ... on the contrary I (repeatedly) say that mathematics do not describe the universe/have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process. For just one instance:
RESPONDENT: It was not at all a ‘hypothetical problem’ that the quanta solved ...
RICHARD: All that is required is to type ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’ into an internet search-engine ... for example:
RESPONDENT: ... but very actual measurements which contradicted the existing theory and which were perfectly explained by introducing the ‘quanta’. The OBSERVED spectrum of black body radiation could NOT be explained with Classical electromagnetism and statistical mechanics. The first sentence of Planck’s 1901 paper, which got quantum physics started, makes this abundantly clear: ‘The recent spectral measurements made by O. Lummer and E. Pringsheim1, and even more notable those by H. Rubens and F. Kurlbaum2, which together confirmed an earlier result obtained by H. Beckmann,3 show that the law of energy distribution in the normal spectrum, first derived by W. Wien from molecular-kinetic considerations and later by me from the theory of electromagnetic radiation, is not valid generally.’(http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html).
RICHARD: Just for starters ... according to Mr. Max Planck, in his ‘Nobel Lecture’, of June 2, 1920, the measurements of Mr. Heinrich Rubens and Mr. Ferdinand Kurlbaum, which he refers to in the above quote, were of the [quote] ‘infrared residual rays of *fluorite and rock salt*’ [endquote].
Needless is it to add that, whilst fluorite and rock salt may be a quite lot of things, perfect blackbody radiators they are not?
RICHARD: ... I (repeatedly) say that mathematics do not describe the universe/ have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process.
RESPONDENT: I’m completely with you here ...
RESPONDENT: Richard, as you would have it, I’m off to more gullible pastures.
RICHARD: Never mind how I would have it ... how do you have it?
RESPONDENT: Have fun at the keyboard.
RICHARD: I already am ... but thank you for your post-factum blessing, anyway.
RESPONDENT: However, if you feel the sudden urge to put my challenge regarding quantum physics on your website in its entirety – and not only your part, even if you choose not to respond – it would make the evaluation of AF easier for potential newcomers.
RICHARD: Ha ... if you want to have each and every thing, which each and every person chooses to write irregardless of its relevancy, on a website then how about you get your act together and spend the time, the application, and the money, in establishing, maintaining, and managing, a website of your own with its own associated mailing list?
RESPONDENT: I’m sure you agree with this ...
RICHARD: Your surety is entirely misplaced for I have no intention whatsoever of archiving irrelevant distractions away from what I have to say about mathematical models in general and quantum theory in particular ... that you chose to ignore my clear expression of what [quote] ‘Richard says about quantum mechanics’ [endquote] at the very top of my response is your business, not mine, and any attempt on your part to make it my business will fall on deaf ears.
Here it is again:
How on earth my quote of what Mr. Jules-Henri Poincaré has to say about mathematical models can possibly be misconstrued (such as for you to waste your time needlessly typing out both a pointless challenge and your codicil to same in this e-mail) has got me stumped. Here it is (in context):
RESPONDENT: ... although with 180 degrees different opinion about the potential effects on new readers. So be it.
RICHARD: It has nowt to do with opinion (and to be calling it a ‘180 degrees different’ opinion is to be but displaying your ignorance in public for the sake of a cheap shot).
RESPONDENT:: And if you do find the classical explanations for quantum phenomena, let the list now – and put it on your science part of the website, which to my mind it is one of the major AF PR catastrophes.
RICHARD: Maybe you will have gathered by now that whatever it is, which is to your mind catastrophic, it holds no interest for me whatsoever?
RESPONDENT: At least for people who have read more than just David Bohm (aka J. Krishnamurti-inspired interpretations) or Encyclopaedia Britannica articles on quantum physics (and relativity, by the way) ...
RICHARD: No amount of expertise in theoretical physics is ever going to make one iota of difference to the fact that mathematical models do not describe the universe/have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process.
RESPONDENT: ... and can tell that here is a particularly evident case of taking down a strawman you first put up yourself.
RICHARD: There is not, and there never was, a straw man (other than the one you put up that is).
RESPONDENT: Well, the experienced AFer will understand that I have it 180 degrees wrong here. So be it.
RICHARD: You do not have it 180 degrees wrong – you just have it plain old ordinarily wrong – and speaking of which ... have you noticed that none of the points you have raised, in your e-mails to me over these last 25 days, about me and/or my understanding/ experience have been correct?
Not a single one.
RESPONDENT: Peter, Vineeto, may you not find your lives completely wasted but profit in the best possible way from your ‘big leap’.
RICHARD: As there is no [quote] ‘big leap’ [endquote] in actualism – that is the stuff of religionists/ spiritualists/ mystics/ metaphysicians and their ilk (theoretical physicists for instance) – your condescensive blessing is entirely uncalled for.
RESPONDENT: I’m certain you will enjoy life with Richard.
RICHARD: As the three of us socialise only for a few hours on an, at most, weekly basis are you also certain they will enjoy life for the remaining 165 hours ... or is a virtual happiness and harmlessness (according to you) dependent upon being with me?
RESPONDENT: For taste’s sake, try not to be too hypocritical about honesty – and don’t, if possible to avoid, tell people you’re just being honest about honesty.
RICHARD: Hmm ... so taste is to be the determiner of what a virtually free person may or may not inform their fellow human being about, eh?
RESPONDENT: Well, I guess it’s impossible to avoid.
RESPONDENT: Caveat emptor.
RICHARD: As the honesty referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is self-honesty (being scrupulously honest with oneself) perhaps ‘caveat venditor’ might have been a more applicable finale to your dismissive summary of what you have made of actualism and actualists during your 25-day perusal.
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.