Thread: Hello:) It's great to join everyone here. I prioritise respectful and enjoyable discussion:)

I am not qualified in any of the sciences but I am interested in them all to varying extents. I am also very interested in the nature of conceptual thinking which is used in all sciences and if unexplored will continue to produce theory and technology which is severely limited. Current advances are fascinating and yet built into their development is the apparent contradiction that they cannot guarantee individual or global human happiness, flourishing and the mental and emotional stability that all humans seek. These qualities of being human are essential and a science that emerges from a community that does not experience unhappiness or instability will not only be of great benefit to the earth and all creatures and life forms on it but also beyond. Such a science will inherently be for the benefit of all. It would also be a solution based science which does not perceive a range of problems that must be investigated and resolved. Only conceptual thought-based knowledge would take that approach.

When science and humanity on an individual basis shifts its emphasis from over-thinking, over-analysing and trying too hard to find solutions that it believes are not already available, then there will be a relaxation from a pursuit that has contributed to division and instability for many decades. If this seems harsh or even wrong, take a look at the relationships between yourself and others in this community or other communities and the relationships between scientists in your own country and globally. You will find some positive aspects. But what else do you find? I apologise in advance that I am not always able to spend a long time in the Forum in discussion but will be able to return to an ongoing thread intermittently. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Ged

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

if unexplored will continue to produce theory and technology which is severely limited.

Compared to... what?

Current advances are fascinating and yet built into their development is the apparent contradiction that they cannot guarantee individual or global human happiness, flourishing and the mental and emotional stability that all humans seek.

That's not the role of science so it's hardly surprising.

These qualities of being human are essential

Are they?

and a science that emerges from a community that does not experience unhappiness or instability will not only be of great benefit to the earth and all creatures and life forms on it but also beyond. Such a science will inherently be for the benefit of all.

Supposition.

It would also be a solution based science which does not perceive a range of problems that must be investigated and resolved.

Drivel.
Science looks for solutions (answers) you can't have a science based on them since - if we already knew the answer - science wouldn't be involved as such.

Only conceptual thought-based knowledge would take that approach.

Assuming that the waffle in your other posts us an example of "conceptual thought-based knowledge" then, regardless of the approach, it's unlikely to produce workable answers.

When science and humanity on an individual basis shifts its emphasis from over-thinking, over-analysing and trying too hard to find solutions that it believes are not already available, then there will be a relaxation from a pursuit that has contributed to division and instability for many decades. If this seems harsh or even wrong, take a look at the relationships between yourself and others in this community or other communities and the relationships between scientists in your own country and globally. You will find some positive aspects. But what else do you find?

1) Little that's coherent.
2) A series of claims with no supporting data/ argument.
3) Airy-fairy thinking.
4) A lack of rationality.
5) False claims.

I apologise in advance that I am not always able to spend a long time in the Forum in discussion but will be able to return to an ongoing thread intermittently.

Er, yeah...
You: I have to get things done around the house but intend to return.
You wrote that over 2 hours ago and you're still here (and haven't actually addressed any of the points I raised in that thread).

Apologies Dyw, I did leave the tab open as I did things at home, so it must have looked as though I was here for all that time. I popped back once or twice. Thank you for the replies. This is great. Looking at things a bit more closely even when it seems like being dismissive. In the same way we know we are aware before we form a concept of what that means or involves, so too with knowledge, including science. I can't address each point you make or each comment you choose to share, but I can reply to some, some of the time. I like your wish to engage and learn. It's a great quality. Thank you Dyw.

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

I am not qualified in any of the sciences but I am interested in them all to varying extents. I am also very interested in the nature of conceptual thinking which is used in all sciences and if unexplored will continue to produce theory and technology which is severely limited. Current advances are fascinating and yet built into their development is the apparent contradiction that they cannot guarantee individual or global human happiness, flourishing and the mental and emotional stability that all humans seek. These qualities of being human are essential and a science that emerges from a community that does not experience unhappiness or instability will not only be of great benefit to the earth and all creatures and life forms on it but also beyond. Such a science will inherently be for the benefit of all. It would also be a solution based science which does not perceive a range of problems that must be investigated and resolved. Only conceptual thought-based knowledge would take that approach.

When science and humanity on an individual basis shifts its emphasis from over-thinking, over-analysing and trying too hard to find solutions that it believes are not already available, then there will be a relaxation from a pursuit that has contributed to division and instability for many decades. If this seems harsh or even wrong, take a look at the relationships between yourself and others in this community or other communities and the relationships between scientists in your own country and globally. You will find some positive aspects. But what else do you find? I apologise in advance that I am not always able to spend a long time in the Forum in discussion but will be able to return to an ongoing thread intermittently. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Ged

Aha, you would seem to be what one might call a "woo merchant". As this is a science forum, you may get short shrift here. Are you really sure this is the right kind of place for you?

Hello Exchemist, yes I'll stay. Labelling others is not as much fun as entering into discussion to reveal more important things.

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

Hello Exchemist, yes I'll stay. Labelling others is not as much fun as entering into discussion to reveal more important things.

Wrong card to play bearing in mind the complete lack of relatable content in your posts.

Dyw. Perhaps you could relate some of your scientific understanding to me? Anything about measuring the distances between human thoughts and, for example, protons speeding around the apparatus at CERN. That would be great.

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

Anything about measuring the distances between human thoughts and, for example, protons speeding around the apparatus at CERN.

This is a question with as much meaning as "Explain how many kilogrammes heavier than purple the taste of summer is".
Last warning: get your act together with regard to
terminology,
stating what YOU mean (i.e. providing a definition - if not using the accepted one),
making coherent posts.
The next post from you that is as incoherent or undefined or irrational will earn you a one day ban. Subsequent bans will occur for further offence (in increasing duration) up to and including a permanent one.

I'm sorry you can't see the meaning in it Dywyddyr.

















.

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

I'm sorry you can't see the meaning in it Dywyddyr.

And I'm sorry that you're incapable of explaining what you mean and/ or being coherent.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

I'm sorry you can't see the meaning in it Dywyddyr.

And I'm sorry that you're incapable of explaining what you mean and/ or being coherent.

That's ok. You're absolutely right though Dywyddyr, what I am talking about is so difficult to grasp when judged by normal thought-based intelligence. Thanks for reading anyway.

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

what I am talking about is so difficult to grasp when judged by normal thought-based intelligence.

And whatever you're using (possibly abnormal thoughtless not even-approximating-intelligence) is flawed.

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

I'm sorry you can't see the meaning in it Dywyddyr.

And I'm sorry that you're incapable of explaining what you mean and/ or being coherent.

That's ok. You're absolutely right though Dywyddyr, what I am talking about is so difficult to grasp when judged by normal thought-based intelligence. Thanks for reading anyway.

It can only be understood by someone who is abnormal, unintelligent and incapable of thought .

Strange, I do have some intelligence, and if I engage here I may learn a great deal, that is my plan.

Originally Posted by Ged Mannix

Strange, I do have some intelligence, and if I engage here I may learn a great deal, that is my plan.

You seem to think that you are making intelligent comments but pretty much everything you write is just meaningless twaddle.