Proof of life after death?

Originally posted by Alliance
[B]This is not to say that definitions don't change, but mreery that you do not have the power to change them .

If you believe that something TRULY does not exist then it should not have any effects on you. or Should it? Thoughts exist. your definition of existence is deficient whether you want to admit to it or not. being in the the text books does not necessary make it ABSOLUTE TRUE. And if it is not ABSOLUTE TRUE then it is a fair candidate for change.

If you stick strictly to the definition you will never see that there is something wrong with it.

Sometimes you have to step away from things to get a better perspective on them: Example If your nose is against the wall of a building, you will never be able to tell how big that building really is.

and You are right! I may not have any powers to change invalid Definitions but I certainly have some power to uncover the invalidity of some of them. It is just that we may not be ready for it.

I really Enjoyed the whole run with you and I have learned many things along the way.

Thanks Alliance!

np 🙂

Biochemistry is only one field. There are many others to which we my understand when we put them all together......... 😉

what are these other fields?

I thought I was already using a gestalt view.

They are all the other science fields and studies........If they were more combined we might have more answers......

Modern science is much more integrated than you think:

I mentioned biophysics, biochemistry, molecualr biology, cellular biology, physicaology, neurology, and psychology in my original argument.

Biochem is just the common language of biological science...its like latin.

And Quantum physics???

didn't really pull that one...did i mention electons?

< casting a vote for quantum cosmology as a kick-ass field. 😎

But seriously, folks, a gestalt approach would probably involve things more like metaphysics, ontology or even some aspects of metatheory and transpersonal psychology, the latter already tending to integrate the physical, biological, mental and spiritual levels of reality from a developmental POV.

And if we're gonna integrate, where does Scientific Method fit in?

There is a difference between integrating everything that comes to mind and integrating useful sciences. Things like transpersonal psychology don't have a place in science. They are untestable. Integrating railroad mechanics will not help me study the human brain.

If you look, all the disciplines I mentioned were at least somewhat scientific, all using the method. Psychology is a little soft for me.

Originally posted by TheSpinner
If you believe that something TRULY does not exist then it should not have any effects on you. or Should it? Thoughts exist. your definition of existence is deficient whether you want to admit to it or not. being in the the text books does not necessary make it ABSOLUTE TRUE. And if it is not ABSOLUTE TRUE then it is a fair candidate for change.

If you stick strictly to the definition you will never see that there is something wrong with it.

Sometimes you have to step away from things to get a better perspective on them: Example If your nose is against the wall of a building, you will never be able to tell how big that building really is.

and You are right! I may not have any powers to change invalid Definitions but I certainly have some power to uncover the invalidity of some of them. It is just that we may not be ready for it.

I really Enjoyed the whole run with you and I have learned many things along the way.

[B]Thanks Alliance! [/B]

🤪

😆 That wasnt helpful 😖. What did you mean?

Originally posted by Alliance
There is a difference between integrating everything that comes to mind and integrating useful sciences. Things like transpersonal psychology don't have a place in science. They are untestable. Integrating railroad mechanics will not help me study the human brain.

Psychology is a little soft for me.

Still, my main point was this (perhaps I could've phrased it better): Is Scientific Method necessary in constructing an overall, integrating paradigm? If not, why? If so, how?

😆 You're talking to a scientist.

Originally posted by Alliance
😆 You're talking to a scientist.

I figured. Biologist?

When I first joined KMC, I had a similar discussion with the ever-stimulating Sir Whirly (he held a similar stance regarding psychology). It was quite heated at points but a lot of fun.

BTW, my field is not exactly alien to science (though you have made your feelings known about it. 😉 )

Molecular.

Your're a PSYCHOLOGIST?!?😱

Big surprise, I'm sure.

Actually, I was also considering astronomy, but the dept where I went to school was limited...plus, I didn't want to have to keep pulling all-nighters.

I dunno.

Don't take my phychology insults personally. I'm a radical when it comes to this. A lot of phsychological experiments that I have studied lack mechanisms, controls, and the elimination of other variables. Thus I have a problem with it sometimes. The parts of phsychology that I consider scientifically accurate, I feel are just a small baby step from what is already included in biology.

...but again, this is my very-unmainstream view.

Originally posted by Alliance
Don't take my phychology insults personally.

I don't. 🙂 Jeez, if we all agreed on stuff, how boring would that be. Plus, debates with very different POVs are great exercise for the mind. I know for myself, it's an excellent way to prevent a myopic perspective.

but it clearly enables a diopic one