• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Randi and

Pelopre said:
And I believe that article is not under any copyright, does anyone know differently? If so, let me know
Click to expand...
Copyright © 2001 Victor Zammit. All rights reserved.
 
As Claus (CFLarsen) has already said, the initial post (and presumably the duplicate referenced by roger) violate forum rules.
Links to copyrighted material are ok, but do not quote the reference in full.
-All quoted material should be credited to the original author and a link given (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph. Nevertheless, forum administration reserves the right to modify quotes if such quotes are judged too complete.
Click to expand...
There is a link to forum rules at the top of each forum. You should familiarize yourself with the other rules while you are there.

Oh, and in case you forgot, posts 1870064849 and 1870064897 (both above) were basically stating the same nonsense twice. Instead of saying something twice, try making your points more articulately.
 
>As Claus (CFLarsen) has already said, the initial post (and presumably the duplicate referenced by roger) violate forum rules.

I learned and fixed the post.

>Oh, and in case you forgot, posts 1870064849 and 1870064897 (both above) were basically stating the same nonsense twice. Instead of saying something twice, try making your points more articulately.

You never stated a reason as to why they were nonsense, you just said they were, helping no one.
 
Actually, Mr. Randi does focus on science, in a roundabout, but ultimately practical way, given the types of claims he studies.

All science eventually must have some sort of practical effect if it is going to be of any use to society at large. The eventual practical effect may be many levels removed from the discovery of the original theory that spawned the real-world application.

Theories about "how the mind affects reality" are worthless by themselves. What Randi is asking claimants to do is demonstrate a practical, demonstrable effect under controlled conditions. If the discoveries from parapsychological research are as paradigm-shattering as those researchers claim, there should be legions of people coming forth to demonstrate these phenomina, especially for a cool million! Given the number of people out there who believe in this stuff, the number of applicants is pretty modest, and of those, none have passed the preliminary test.

Combining this evidence with our own personal experiences, many on this board, myself included, have concluded that parapsychology is pure bullsh*t. Since Keen is making the positive claim, it's his job to show that it isn't.
 
>>>>>Theories about "how the mind affects reality" are worthless by themselves. What Randi is asking claimants to do is demonstrate a practical, demonstrable effect under controlled conditions. If the discoveries from parapsychological research are as paradigm-shattering as those researchers claim, there should be legions of people coming forth to demonstrate these phenomina, especially for a cool million! Given the number of people out there who believe in this stuff, the number of applicants is pretty modest, and of those, none have passed the preliminary test.

Not exactly. If it is true that belief influences reality, the complex set of circumstances that brings us to our hard beliefs (read as those that we do believe, that can't be effected by taking on a temporary belief such as "I can fly", that we deeply don't mean.) Would effect the simplicity of just believing and doing. Also, the beliefs of everyone over history, if they did effect reality, would have forged the reality we are now in, which may or may not be breachable by one person, and if it could be, possibly not all the time.
 
In last post "of just simply believing and doing" change to "of just simply forcing belief against our inner construct and doing."
 
Pelopre said:
In last post "of just simply believing and doing" change to "of just simply forcing belief against our inner construct and doing."
Click to expand...
Has anyone else noticed how "Pelopre" and "Pillory" sounds similar, in more ways than one?
 
HGC

I, for one, do not know that consciousness and beliefs reflect reality, on any level (if by that you mean something 'paranormal,' since the statement could be interpreted otherwise).
Click to expand...

Since this thread deserves to be hijacked anyway, do you realy think our beliefs are not a reflection of the reality we exist in? I know he has already admitted that he meant 'effect' reality, but I was curious to see what you mean by this. Or perhaps I misunderstood.
 
Has anyone got a calculator to hand that can help me with the following from the article?

The voting at the start of the show indicated that of the 63 people who held an opinion 44 were believers. At the end of the show 78 people held an opinion 54 being believers. The article says “Despite the fact that there was a significant swing towards belief.”

Can anyone calculate the significant swing towards belief ?

If you get a significant positive swing towards belief can you to help my understanding also calculate the significant swing towards option ‘A’ below.

Pre-event

Voters for A - 10
Voters for B – 10
Undecided – 980

Post-event

Voters For A – 20
Voters for B – 960
Undecided – 20

Does one of the world's most credible assessors on psychic phenomena, fail to understand simple maths ?
 
Re: HGC

Starrman said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, for one, do not know that consciousness and beliefs reflect reality, on any level (if by that you mean something 'paranormal,' since the statement could be interpreted otherwise).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this thread deserves to be hijacked anyway, do you realy think our beliefs are not a reflection of the reality we exist in? I know he has already admitted that he meant 'effect' reality, but I was curious to see what you mean by this. Or perhaps I misunderstood.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think that. Hence the parenthetical to my statement, in which I specified that I was speaking to Pelopre's apparent intended meaning, i.e., in a 'paranormal' way. No solipsist here.
 
Pelopre said:

Not exactly. If it is true that belief influences reality, the complex set of circumstances that brings us to our hard beliefs (read as those that we do believe, that can't be effected by taking on a temporary belief such as "I can fly", that we deeply don't mean.) Would effect the simplicity of just believing and doing. Also, the beliefs of everyone over history, if they did effect reality, would have forged the reality we are now in, which may or may not be breachable by one person, and if it could be, possibly not all the time.
Click to expand...
I think what you're describing is the age-old problem of these effects not being amenable to detection and measurement. And that's all well and good, and there's no way to prove that such-and-such does not exist.

But for me, and for anyone else who relies on empirical methods to look at the world around us, if an effect can't be examined with any kind of predictability and is no way measurable, then the evidence just isn't good enough to take it seriously. Especially when the claimed effect is in contradiction to what we would predict based on what we know through lots of good evidence (i.e., the laws of physics).
 
HGC:

>>>>>I think what you're describing is the age-old problem of these effects not being amenable to detection and measurement. And that's all well and good, and there's no way to prove that such-and-such does not exist.

Not exactly, it may be possible, but the methods or technology might not yet exist to fully assay such a large scope. But seeing as small steps are being taken (random number, etc.), it seems worth looking into. But perhaps not, to him.

RSLancastr,
The Central Scrutinizer:

Bogging down threads with unrelated issues to the discussion, and speculating about things meaningless to the discussion. Why, I would ask, but will probably would just recieve more speculation and failed insult. But perhaps not.
 
Pelopre said:
HGC:

>>>>>I think what you're describing is the age-old problem of these effects not being amenable to detection and measurement. And that's all well and good, and there's no way to prove that such-and-such does not exist.

Not exactly, it may be possible, but the methods or technology might not yet exist to fully assay such a large scope. But seeing as small steps are being taken (random number, etc.), it seems worth looking into. But perhaps not, to him.

...
Click to expand...
There's a long and venerable history of emerging technology being used to detect previously undetectable things (think Galileo's telescope and the moons of Jupiter). As for being able to affect random number generators, the technology is definitely available to detect any effects. I don't know of any scientific studies showing positive results. If and when it does happen, there will be no shortage of other labs willing to examine to protocol and attempting to reproduced the results (and to attempt to reproduce under different protocols too).

As for Randi, I'd bet he'd have an interest in such things personally, if he thought it had an credence, but the business of JREF is a little different. In that capacity, Randi gives a big incentive for claimants to demonstrate the effect, regardless of the mechanism -- a good first step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom