Clayton Conway

Someone is shy

Clayton hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Well TED has decided to go with its invisible board once again. Cancelling TEDx WestHollywood because it's list of talks were too much about consciousness. At least that is what can be inferred since TED wisely decided to not tell anyone exactly what the causes were. Again TED is against facts and for establishment beliefs that science cannot be outside its materialistic philosophy. This is exactly what Sheldrake's talk was about. TED is killing itself in order to gain favor from the scientific establishment, which holds to wrong headed views. TED is now holding that the materialistic philosophy must be followed and paradigm challenges will not be tolerated. Obviously, TED needs to be replaced by some other organization that is willing to accept facts for being facts and allow the evidence to be presented to all us unmanageable masses who have brains of our own that do not need to be helped in the act of thinking for ourselves. Bye bye TED.
Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
First, I would like to state the obvious. There are no extraordinary claims. Claims can only seem to be extraordinary because of the lens in which humans use to understand the cosmos has to be limited. Facts are facts and evidence is evidence. You have to be God in order to determine what is extraordinary. Obviously, everyone fails that test. Second, Sheldrake isn't claiming anything about materialism. He doe not have to. Materialism claims the cosmos is limited to specific phenomena. Moreover, materialism claims that consciousness is an illusion. The internal problem that causes is that a person that holds that view is saying they have no ability to determine ANYTHING. Their belief holds that everyone is unable to determine truth. If the philosophy of materialism excludes themselves as being able to determine truth as everything is a hallucination, then they cannot determine if someone else is able or not to determine a truth. They my be right that no one can determine truth, but they themselves would be unable to prove it. However, they are also unequipped to determine if they are wrong. That is why that road leads to nowhere.
Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
All the talk is just hand waving to distract from facts the establishment wants to ban. The Empire struck back. However, the mean nasty green hornets of the unwashed masses stung the newest supporter so much that they gave in. The Empire loses the strength of their newest supporter. It costs the Empire nothing even if the supporter is dead to them. The Empire ignores it all. The newest supporter will get back up. The Empire goes on treating those that disagree with their sacred paradigm with contempt and will throw them out into the streets if they publically do so as they have Dr. Sheldrake. Nothing changed for the Empire. What does bother the Empire is that doubt has been spread about the value of big G. That will not be tolerated in any of The Empire domains. Without big G all their pet theories are put into doubt. And doubt is the killer. Defense budgets do not like doubt when billions of dollars are on the line. The Empire explains that it so does not doubt big G so much that they do not even bother to check it except to refine the error rate caused by human and machines. The Aristotle mantra is `mass attracts mass'. Repeat the loop and do not stop. Of course, this only made sense when the cosmology was that the Earth was the center of the universe. Does mass attract mass? Of course it does. It's just that every mathematical model ever done are by those stupid math guys who never can get it right. We just need more time to find the right unstupid math guy and our cosmology will be proved. It wasn't until Kepler found that the heavenly bodies did not go in perfect circles within circles after a millennium and a half for that to occur. We only got another millennium to wait. Be patient for God's sake! And do not waste time and resources checking if mass attracts mass. It is self-evident. Just ask us!
Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Seems TED saw the writing on the wall and turned back to save themselves. Good on them. I hope they learned their lesson and get rid of their invisible board or get members unafraid to voice their opinions publically and have the courage to stand by them. Oh, it would be nice if their opinions had facts in them as well unlike the present board. However, the board was not the only warrior hiding behind the skirts of a women. While TED gave the board invisibility they then used that as an excuse to not follow very basic logic by suggesting that they could not disagree with their board's opinions. Nobody sane needs TED to tell them when ideas are off the wall. We all can discern that for ourselves. The question is is this the end or just the beginning. If the motivations of TED have not been altered but just adjusted to meet the new challenges of keeping ideas they don't like out, then they will only be smarter about what does not gather protests like the videos that were banned before when no outcry came forth. I have not heard what the `jobs are not created by the wealthy' and 7 foot giants of north America stand with them. These are based on facts just the same as Sheldrake's ideas. This will repeat unless the standard is that the talk must stand on facts. That to me is the only criteria that matters. TED can ask for a transcript of any TEDx talk and have it go thru their publically known board. Any disagreement of what the facts are can be aired publically. Any disagreements can stand on that alone. At least local organizations will know where TED and they stand. Any other way is likely to end TED's brand for good, which oddly is what they publically stated they desired to protect. I find this nonsense. TED wants to become established in a bigger way quickly and that requires bowing to the establishment and their agenda. The truth requires much more work than that. Good luck TED in making the right choices.
Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Part 3: Shledrake - read the third one down first. Man processes by negative confirmation. When a spiritual lesson is desired such as mass attracts mass as a concept man chooses what he unconsciously knows to be false. Mankind splits the false idea into uncountable splinters and begins processing them. At first the concept of the model maybe consciously unknown as false. However, over time after great efforts have been performed the conceptual shortcomings slowly become known. Despite that there is little to no effort to challenge the premise because fundamental concepts are always above being challenged. The paradigm is not something to be gotten rid of but confirmed. Everything is said, no matter the outcome, to confirm the paradigm. If the evidence is black it confirmed the model. If the evidence is white, it confirmed the model. Confirmational bias is always the order of the day. This lasted over a millennium and a half for Ptolemy's circles within circles. Moreover, no evidence will alter the will of scientists today to stay within their beloved paradigm. The establishment demands that we pay for them to not do science and not allow any evidence whatsoever to be able to question the little big G model and to never allow the conceptual paradigm to be questioned thru their authority. Therefore Dr. Sheldrake will be dropped no matter that the reasons they gave were wrong headed. It is much more important that Dr. Sheldrake and anyone like him to learn the lesson that the establishment authority has the power to do so and his little ideas of what are right and wrong must not be spread because they can be nothing more than misinformation. I however stand with Sheldrake.
Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
Sheldrake and big G. Newton adopted gravity as a concept despite that its instantaneousness made no physical sense. He simply had no alternative to the idea. Today science models the universe on this concept that we know little to nothing about. What causes gravity and how it works is a total mystery. However, it seems self evident that gravity works and nobody questions it as the premise by which it all things are made. It is assumed and not questioned. To my understanding this constant has never been important enuff to measure either on the Moon or Mars which are the bodies most visited by us Earthlings. The establishment assumes that everything in the entire universe is built by gravity alone and so obvious they have no need to measure it outside the Earth. However, all attempts at building models of impact craters as they exist with central peaks has failed. Star formation and galaxy formation modeling by the force of big G always fails decade after decade of research and lab work. Moreover, it always will fail. Galaxy arms stay together like curved fan blades. The closest stars near the center and the farthest stars move about the center together. Dark matter and energy defined as unobservable and making up more than 19/20 of the mass of the universe have to help poor little big G in order to "work". All models of G do not predict any of the findings of our satellite probes. We know as earlier scientists did that circles within circles did not model the planetary solar system and that big G does not construct actual universe formations. So why did earlier scientist use and today's scientists continue to use failed models. And why does the establishment want to safeguard this failure? The answer is simply the way man processes information by negative confirmation. [ I'll finish in part 3]
Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
The open letter from the White Chapel team is most excellent. I agree with every point. However, I doubt it will have any impact that will alter the situation because it was not caused by a lack of care on their part. Any organization at some point will try to achieve greater power in society and will choose to align themselves with either the free truth or the more established and influential elements holding significant cards in the bigger game. The pocketed influencers begin to slowly alter the game to their advantage as they always do. Like Fox so called news in the US facts begin to be challenged. Agruments that favor the rich and established begin to take hold. 7 foot tall giants are shot down by an invisible board despite the fact that the records of them are in the scientific literature. The false idea that the rich are job creators is safeguarded. A war on consciousness is renewed by denial. While TED has every right to not show any video it wants it simply cannot do so arbitrarily without consequences. And the consequences are here. The idea of TED is dead unless they alter course 180 degrees to save themselves. Dr. Sheldrake is their own self inflicted stake in the heart. There is nothing false stated in the video by this man of great integrity. However, it will not matter one wit that what he stated was correct. He will be outcast because he has upset greatly the powers that be. I doubt anyone knows why they so greatly fear this humble man. It is because he dares suggest that their sacred paradigm is to be doubted. Not since Kepler and Aristotle's perfect circle as the be all of paradigm's for the motion of the heavenly bodies has such an sacrilege been committed. Now Sheldrake threatens their second Aristotle paradigm that mass attracts mass. Of course, in that universe it made sense because the Earth was the center of the universe and as the center all non heavenly stuff had to fall together. [I'll continue this about big G next post].
Noface
Clayton Conway
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Rupert Sheldrake's talk
What kind of board do you have? Hiding behind your skirts and lobbing incorrect stuff. You need to fire the lot of them. Moreover, TED ot to be able to determine these things themselves without a board. This is not rocket science. Anyone can follow the logic. This is what is so damaging to TED. If it had been the inner workings of a cell or atoms it might be something everyone cannot know. This however is basic stuff. Sheldrake stated facts. Your board does not like the facts. Constants are not constant particularly G. That's a fact. Anyone can determine this by the information that has been given or able to be looked up in the public domain. Your board does not want to be bothered by the facts. Put the video back up and get rid of your board. You have to. Otherwise you stand with those that do not care for facts.