Another "Chi" demonstration

[CFLarsen]

You still don't know seeing that you repeat the same gurgle again.

The birds didn't just suddenly decide to fly in V-formation because they knew it would save energy, they had no way of knowing so.

Ever heard of a thing called "Evolution"? Or perhaps you have another explanation.

No need, it is theoretical, and will use many pages back and forth.

Of course there is a need for you to explain yourself. Do you think we will accept your word?

Correction: "It doesn't prove anything wether I knew someone who could or not."

Ah. No, it wouldn't. But do you know anyone who can see auras?

There are many examples when people have OBE when having a NDE (near death experience). This is not uncommon in operation rooms. They have seen the operation, and knew the tools they used, what was said, and there were no way they could have known that in advance.

Please provide your best case, and let's see if we can come up with natural explanations.

Neglect it if it cannot be brought up on this forum.

Of course it can be brought up in this forum. I just thought you were presenting cases for the paranormal.

No, I just wanted to bring up some stuff to see how serious the people here are and what level of knowledge this forum is at. I'm content.

As you can see, you are asked to clarify, explain and present your evidence. Isn't that what made you content?

 

[Hypernicus]

To be fair, you are projecting the image of a "believer" even if that is not your intention.

I said in the beginning that people who only comes with statements that they do not argue for are more likely to be supporter of A==A!. That means they think subjectively which has no root in reality. They might as well be finished-programmed.

Help me out with this "A==A" thing. I might be familiar with the concept but not the symbol.

A thing is what it is and nothing else, to put it simple. "==" is the symbol for identical. Without logic one can not know something for certain.

 

[Hypernicus]

Ever heard of a thing called "Evolution"?

Just a page with some examples:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm

Of course there is a need for you to explain yourself. Do you think we will accept your word?

The universe is a hologram. Our minds exists in a non-physical dimension. Here is where the flock-mentality forms.

Please provide your best case, and let's see if we can come up with natural explanations.

I can only find links on the Internet like everything else I have approached with. It could be false or true, so it would not be any different from me or anyone else to look up (on the Internet). As said before the best proof is if it can be repeated (for everyone to see). That is what Randi's formula is all about, repeating.

As you can see, you are asked to clarify, explain and present your evidence. Isn't that what made you content?

Arguments, that is all there is to it. Arguments doesn't necessarily prove anything (right away), but it can, and eventually will.

 

[KingMerv00]

A thing is what it is and nothing else, to put it simple. "==" is the symbol for identical. Without logic one can not know something for certain.

Even with logic you can't know something for certain.

(Although "cogito ergo sum" might be a certainty. I'm not sure. )

 

[Hypernicus]

Even with logic you can't know something for certain.

Axioms:
Existence exists.
Something is what it is and nothing else.
Humans have a non-physical mind.

Out from this; logic will never be false. Just because Einstein came up with something that didn't fit in with Newtons law didn't suddenly make it false, it was a new knowing which was integrated with different premisses. Newtons law still apply.

Relativists claim one can not know things for sure, because they never use logic.

I just got a warning from an Admin because I broke a rule. I asked which one and the reply was: "The general civility guideline."
I will point out that being subjectiv has no root in the real world. That rule explains nothing concrete. Its only use is for the admins to interpret and act as themselves feels like. If they feel aggression by reading my writing they will act by it and send a warning without making arguments for the accusations. A==A! in practice, the root of all evil.

 

[Hellbound]

Hypernius:

Quit reading the Rand cult-literature and try actually learning what logic is, where it applies, and how to apply it. Learn what axioms are and how they are determined. Also learn that you are not 100% right, logic is not always 100% right, and Ayn Rand was definately not 100% right.

Objectivism made some good points, but you are sounding a lot like our old pal Franko at this point. Tossing around words like psychotic at anyone who doesn't agree that you're absolutely right (and insisiting on contradictory axioms, specifically your first and third) doesn't add any confidence to our measure of your stability.

 

[CFLarsen]

Just a page with some examples:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/cleanerf.htm

Could you address the example of birds flying in V-formation? You brought it up to illustrate your own point, remember?

The universe is a hologram. Our minds exists in a non-physical dimension. Here is where the flock-mentality forms.

O.....K.

Prove that the universe is a "hologram".

Prove that your mind exists in a non-physical dimension.

Explain how that is where the flock-mentality will form.

I can only find links on the Internet like everything else I have approached with. It could be false or true, so it would not be any different from me or anyone else to look up (on the Internet). As said before the best proof is if it can be repeated (for everyone to see). That is what Randi's formula is all about, repeating.

I asked you for your best case. Please provide that case, and let's see if we can come up with natural explanations.

Arguments, that is all there is to it. Arguments doesn't necessarily prove anything (right away), but it can, and eventually will.

Physical, empirical evidence means nothing? You are in for a big surprise.

 

[Thomas]

The universe is a hologram. Our minds exists in a non-physical dimension. Here is where the flock-mentality forms.

Unless you wear a tin-foil hat.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Does he [Randi] post on this forum at all? Didn't think so.

Randi posts in the forum very rarely but I believe he does browse it. He may be reading your remarks, but we should not expect him to join the discussion. My private email exchanges with Randi were helpful and enlightening, so I heartily encourage you to write to him.

This forum has "followers" and people who are interested if something unlikely can be proven so this is the forum I want to check out.

Please be specific. What unlikely thing can be proven? If you can prove something unlikely, you may very well qualify for Randi's million dollar prize. Randi's followers would like to see a paranormal claim tested, so if you focus on that, I think you would find his followers are eager to help.

 

[Ashles]

Maybe it would bebest if Hypernicus chooses one paranormal claim that he feels is strongest and we focus on discussing that one.

Hypernicus - it is a bit hard to address any of your claims in any detail when you keep adding different ones.

Would you be interested in concentrating on one in particular?
Do you have one in particular you feel has a very strong case for it?

 

[alfaniner]

Are you trying to create some new catch-phrases or what?

"The universe is a hologram."

"A==A!"

 

[Hypernicus]

Quit reading the Rand cult-literature and try actually learning what logic is, where it applies, and how to apply it. Learn what axioms are and how they are determined. Also learn that you are not 100% right, logic is not always 100% right, and Ayn Rand was definately not 100% right.

Statements without arguments.

Objectivism made some good points, but you are sounding a lot like our old pal Franko at this point. Tossing around words like psychotic at anyone who doesn't agree that you're absolutely right (and insisiting on contradictory axioms, specifically your first and third) doesn't add any confidence to our measure of your stability.

Statements without arguments.

I will not reply on something people are not willing to go into. They post subjectively according to their own believes which has no root in the real world, and they alle project teir believes on others who has different view than themselves. Such people need a latrine. Go find one and relieve yourself. Come back when you can reason and make arguments.

 

[KingMerv00]

Statements without arguments.


Statements without arguments.

I will not reply on something people are not willing to go into. They post subjectively according to their own believes which has no root in the real world, and they alle project teir believes on others who has different view than themselves. Such people need a latrine. Go find one and relieve yourself. Come back when you can reason and make arguments.

Statements without arguments.

You are the one making claims. You should pose arguments first. Counter arguments will surely follow.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I said in the beginning that people who only comes with statements that they do not argue for are more likely to be supporter of A==A!. That means they think subjectively which has no root in reality. They might as well be finished-programmed.

A thing is what it is and nothing else, to put it simple. "==" is the symbol for identical. Without logic one can not know something for certain.

As far as I know, the double equal sign was invented by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie of Bell Labs to be a comparison operator for their C programming language. As they defined it, if the values on both sides of the "==" operator are the same, then the result of the expression is one, else it is zero. For example, in classic C, the value of the expression ((A==A) + (A==A)) is 2.

The use of "==" as an operator of the logical system developed by Aristotle* is novel and you should not expect anyone here to understand what you mean by it. If I make a guess about you based on sketchy clues and guess wrong, then it doesn't mean I believe A!=A. It just means I guessed wrong.

*Reality is fuzzy.

 

[Ashles]

They post subjectively according to their own believes which has no root in the real world, and they alle project teir believes on others who has different view than themselves. Such people need a latrine. Go find one and relieve yourself. Come back when you can reason and make arguments.

The irony...

 

[Hypernicus]

Prove that the universe is a "hologram".

It has been well known for thousands of years. In some parts of the world they call it Maya (illusion). The smallest bricks in the universe are particles. Particles can't make consciousness. One can not make nor study consciousness in a laboratorium. One have to read David Bohm's work to learn more about quantum and hologram.
The Aspect experiment also shows that there are more in this world that we can sense, that there exists other dimensions.
Stephen Wolfram - a new kind of science: The World is Digital. Motion is a myth.

I asked you for your best case. Please provide that case, and let's see if we can come up with natural explanations.

Beyond Brain Death by Pam Reynolds
The Monroe Institute: Out-of-Body Experiences
I have not read the webpages, as they can't prove anything, nor checked their validity.

Physical, empirical evidence means nothing? You are in for a big surprise.

Did I say that? One still have to reason. Theory and practice are inseparable. Without gathering information via our senses (empirical) in the physical world we live in we can not make arguments. No practice, no theory.

 

[Hypernicus]

The use of "==" as an operator of the logical system developed by Aristotle

A long "=", or two "=" makes "==", or a "=" with three lines instead of two are all the same symbol.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Hypernicus, are you the same person who posts as Hypernicus on the Astral Pulse forum?

 

[CFLarsen]

It has been well known for thousands of years. In some parts of the world they call it Maya (illusion). The smallest bricks in the universe are particles. Particles can't make consciousness. One can not make nor study consciousness in a laboratorium. One have to read David Bohm's work to learn more about quantum and hologram.
The Aspect experiment also shows that there are more in this world that we can sense, that there exists other dimensions.
Stephen Wolfram - a new kind of science: The World is Digital. Motion is a myth.

O...K. Since Google searches aren't evidence, perhaps you could just sum up, briefly, Bohm's arguments?

And, of course, point to the evidence that it has been known for "thousands of years", while you are at it.

Beyond Brain Death by Pam Reynolds
The Monroe Institute: Out-of-Body Experiences
I have not read the webpages, as they can't prove anything, nor checked their validity.

The case of Pam Reynolds was already debunked on this forum.

Did I say that? One still have to reason. Theory and practice are inseparable. Without gathering information via our senses (empirical) in the physical world we live in we can not make arguments. No practice, no theory.

Perhaps. But you are not going to get anywhere without actually testing your arguments in the real world.

 

[Bronze Dog]

It has been well known for thousands of years.

Argument from tradition.

The smallest bricks in the universe are particles. Particles can't make consciousness.

Argument from ignorance.

One can not make nor study consciousness in a laboratorium.

Argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know how to make it yet, doesn't mean we'll never figure it out.

Probable appeal to stereotype.