Squeers,

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/bgcharlton/peak.html

STRANGE STUFF

Closest I have come to a super-vivid dream was when I was writing a paper on Primates and Psycholinguists. In a vivid dream ideas just flowed through my head on the topic. I made some connection I might not have made otherwise.

One strange phenomenon I once saw was a broken light filament which shone as if it was still joined. The ends were clearly separated.

Apart from the above, sad to say, no ephinanies or UFOs. I was not inclined to assess either event as supernatural.

Cheers,

O.

Epiphanies are grossly exaggerated. The undisciplined brain is capable of feats of supplementation and exaggeration which tend to credit rather than discredit the recipient; similarly, accidental discrepancies at the till always seem to inflate the price. Yet epiphanies and serendipities do occur, for example Crick’s double helix while on LSD. Salvador Dali would sit in a comfortable chair with an arm extended holding a pen; when he fell asleep he would drop the pen and be awoken, hopefully capturing the subconscious moment. I’ve conducted these kinds of experiments myself and am willing to assert that I’ve had dreams I “could not have had”. The point of my last concessional post was that our scientific paradigm exerts the same intellectual censorship as religion once did. Darwin was of the old order and was thus in a similar position to that which Paul Davies often finds himself in (I’m not a fan of his btw). I am struck by the number of respected academics, in the sciences or the humanities, who self-censor their subjective and sometimes irrational thoughts. An overcorrection, I suspect; after centuries of god-bothering and transcendental masturbation, the modern objectivist is wont to ignore volcanic eruptions, or at least to keep them to herself. I am not saying that we are repressing God, but that there is, apparently, a dimension to human life that is seeking an outlet, and that even after Freud’s pseudo-science, it shouldn’t be too hastily dismissed. Lacan’s reworking of Freud is interesting; his “real” is the opposite to our perceived “reality”; the “real” is a kind of negative to Kant’s sublime. Not talking yin yang, but a postmodern update to Kant’s transcendental unity of apperception. Science’s foundation is human perception; but how can we know that what we perceive is how things are in themselves? The human senses either create phenomena (Hegel), or they translate it (Kant). And then there is the symbolic order (Lacan), which translates that dubious reality into an intertextual realm of slippage and indeterminacy.
OUG’s gonna have a ball with this, but that’s easy when you have a closed mind!

OUG,

Sometimes you can be very confusing even with your Bible quotes.

You typed << i will defend..the good/god sustaining all life...under only the principle..of genesis 18;23-33...>>

If true, in these passages, Abraham quite bravely questioned GOD regarding innocent and guilty numbers. But once again this story is totally flawed because GOD goes against what he promises.

Sodom was a city of men, women and children. Some of the women would have had babies in the womb. GOD said he would not destroy SODOM even if he found 10 innocent people there...GENESIS18:32.

This means that GOD considered the children and the unborn as guilty as the adults and murdered them as well....GENESIS19:23.

What sort of maniac loving GOD could kill innocent children?

But more...he had to send his angels down to see if the accusations were true. So much for an all knowing, all seeing GOD! This is obviously fiction!

Then you said <<....you 99 percent remain free to blaspeme..the most loving/living/..cause of causes>>

By believing and quoting this passage in the Bible haven't you blasphemed. Are you saying that your GOD deliberately "rained burning Sulphur" on the innocent children and the unborn?

How can someone who states they believe in a loving GOD, even for one second, believe that their GOD...(the Master of the Universe)...could do such a thing?

And poor old Lot's wife (another innocent) looks back and gets turned into a pillar of salt...GENESIS19:26

But previously you had typed <<...your proof is what...miss-translated holy texts?>>

So they are mistranslated Holy texts when I quote them verbatim...BUT when you quote them they suddenly become a reliable source of GOD's instructions?

I realise you are under great pressure here...but you can't have it both ways.

Just so I can debate with you on your terms...Can you please tell me which of the Bible texts I can rely upon and which are mistranslated and incorrect?

Once again you are making your so called "Intelligent Designer" look pathetically "unintelligent".

Are you being sacrilegious by doing this? Are believers the real blasphemers presenting their GOD as so evil with their selected quotes?

Bravo O2,
but of course OUG only has to respond to his own satisfaction, lol, and is exempted from rigour, lol, or the kind of "proof", lol that he constantly demands of us. I confess to my cosmic bewildermen ... but then I'm not "one under god". With that kind of rampant megalomania, I'm surprised God got top billing!
.......But on with the show! What do you say, God?... sorry, One Under, I mean. Shall you not smite O2 for his blasphemies?

OUG,

God stuff reminder, Sir...

Questions on Intelligent Design.

Please refer:

Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 6 August 2009 2:21:05 PM

O2 makes an excellent point. Were there chidren in Sodom? With all the promiscuity, there would have been many innocent children, methinks. Even Lot offerred his virgin daughters to the angels, who could have their way with the daughters and know them.

O.

whaT IS THE USE OF REPLYING YOU CLEVER LOT...of know it all about fables but nothing about verifying your science facts...

as its only us..in this room that give a damm...and you lot got no idea about science validation...

ok lets debate about sodemites

sodomy is as many of you...might be able to realise..is about the high art of sodomy...im sure many of you will have had the personal experience..thus would be better qualified to commentate

anyhow should one of you sodomites verify it..the act dosnt lead to pro-creating children...sodomy in fact has never resulted in verified impregnation...but its doudtfull any science would definitivly state that..

..add the fact it is usually mono-sexual...it might not have entered your attentions..that the virgins offered were femail/..virgin for want of a male..normal male..intrested in mating with a femail...

the refusal of females speaks loudly..to those who are able to read criticlly...and comprehend the intent and meaning inherant in sodomy...having its root in sodon[and gone-arear-more-ah]

if not the desire expressed in the crowd..lusting after the male angels..might just wake you up...but i doudt it..your so obessed with your own wolf pack mentality...devouring that your thinking is meat..to miss the bleeding obvious...there just might'nt have been children in sodomy country...they just might have..gone raiding for fresh meat...this meat bites back

why i bother attempting to explain..the obvious to..mindless retards amases even me,...read the link you see if there were butt 10..normals...the town would be saved...18;32..i know how hard it must be for you lot to read full quotes...

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen018.htm

but clearly..even as few as ten..is/was impossable...as this topic reveals only three mindless wolves... make their pack attack...in mindless ignorance..with not a thinking brain ammoung you...the origonal thought might just escape you as the others have fallen on stoney ground

till..you lot reveal an origonal thought..[or quote a science fact..[im shaking the dust off my feet]

i know my tares from my wheat...clearly your tart-tares,,,mearly seeking fresh meat...as meat beaters supreeme.. you lot certainly cant be beat