This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main
gripes about Science versus The Rest.

I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into
account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going
on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no
evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science
bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am
still saying that this may not actually be true.

Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of
similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so
because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very
smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these
Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving
stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some
planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go
backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this
one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this
planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it
move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some
unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it
an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we
had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an
elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all.

So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science
assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each
individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective
conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space
at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject?
Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the
Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to
undserstanding it?

Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some
instances, merely observing a situation changes it. You could extrapolate
this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a
long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer
to do. Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment.
We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for
instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up
on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different
times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means
that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is
measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a
bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual
realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently
been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at
the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this
though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film
"What the bleep do we know").

And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect
the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond
the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in
a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.



Gareth.