seeing the light in skepticism

[Dr Adequate]

Placebos are almost as effective as the real thing? Don't be absurd.

Well of course they are, you ignoramus. That's why a piece of paper with ABRACADABRA written on it provided almost as much protection from the Black Death in the fourteenth century as penicillin does today.

 

[Nex]

Could a moderator please check De'Ville's Advocaat's IP address and see if it's Lucianarchy?

Odd, that mystery is more compelling to me than anything he's said thus far.

 

[Yaotl]

Could a moderator please check De'Ville's Advocaat's IP address and see if it's Lucianarchy?

Odd, that mystery is more compelling to me than anything he's said thus far.

Probably because what he's said thus far is complete rubbish.

 

[The Don]

Consider that you are watching a movie, on DVD, and you pause. You are given the option to choose from a variety of 'next scenario'. You chose the one which you want. Eventually your selections arrive at the ending of your choice.

Quantum theory gives consciousness an infinite number of 'next scenario's and those choices are happening at an infinite speed, countless trillions every billionth of a nano-second, and each of those choices has an infinite number of outcomes, and so on.

Here you are reading this now, and everything we share has been so until this point. You may continue to choose to see no evidence, you may build straw structures in order to hide yourself from the evidence, but others are seeing this evidence you are excluding yourself from, and as that memetic virus spreads, the less 'in touch' you will find yourself with in reality. That will only be resolved for your consciousness when you accept a quantum shift in the democratic reality and allow your self to experience the alter-paradigm.

A few points:

Firstly, it's clear from your post that you really don't understand Quantum Mechanics.

Secondly, despite being asked to do so, you have failed to provide any credible evidence

Thirdly, appealing to people to experience an alter-paradigm will not really further your argument in this company


To stand a chance of changing minds round here you will need to provide links to expeimental evidence of PSI which is

- Not anecdotal
- Peer reviewed
- Replicated by independent researchers
- Not already compromised
- Published in reliable scientific journals

 

[KelvinG]

Could a moderator please check De'Ville's Advocaat's IP address and see if it's Lucianarchy?

Odd, that mystery is more compelling to me than anything he's said thus far.

Trouble is, disguising IP addresses isn't that hard. In fact, I would be surprised if someone (even someone as dense as Luci) would return to this board after being banned without taking measures to disguise his identity.

But, I agree, might as well check.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I too have heard these anecdotes.

Is there anything to confirm they are real?

Edited to add: It is already accepted that what you are thinking can affect your body - relaxation and calmness will help to slow the heart, but we know the brain has influence over the body to a certain degree anyway so this isn't about 'belief affecting reality' merely standard accepted physiological responses to mood.

But I realise you are splitting hairs and redefining things to try and prove yourself right. As usual.
You know EXACTLY what we are refering to by beliefs affecting reality, and it's NOT "I believe I can pick up this pen and I then do so, so my belief affected reality" type of statement,which is where you are coming from.
We are talking about external events or those not under the direct influence of our mind, like heart rate, breathing, pain perception etc.

(I am sceptical about the ice cube story anyway, but if it did turn out to be true it wouldn't be inexplicable or outside the bounds of possibility. I just still would like to hear any evidence for it.)

I don't have any references, but I believe it's quite common knowledge. And of course certain people are able to alter their heart rate, pain perception etc.

I agree that the contention that our beliefs can effect events outside our bodies, that are not precipitated by bodily movements, is more controversial. We're talking about psychokiesis and DMILS (Direct Mental Interaction with Living Systems) here. Go look up the evidence.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You may continue to choose to see no evidence, you may build straw structures in order to hide yourself from the evidence, but others are seeing this evidence you are excluding yourself from...

Hey, I tell you what. Instead of whining about us and lying about us, why don't you
<marquee>SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE</marquee>
instead of hiding away from the lack of evidence with this pathetic smokescreen of insults, fantasy, and, frankly, gibberish. Nothing will change my mind but evidence that I'm wrong. At the moment, with every post you make, you validate the idea that I'm right and that there is no psi, for as I've pointed out, the fact that believers have to spam out worthless arguments like this in a continual stream of pointless gibble, instead of referring us to evidence, shows how pathetically weak your case is.

and as that memetic virus spreads, the less 'in touch' you will find yourself with in reality. That will only be resolved for your consciousness when you accept a quantum shift in the democratic reality and allow your self to experience the alter-paradigm.

It's like listening to a fundie fantasise about the Rapture. One day, one glorious day, he'll be proved right, and everyone will realise how right he was. Do you realise that people have been writing this sort of deluded wish-fulfillment fantasy about psi for decades before you were even born? (As with the second coming, for that matter). And the Great Day hath not dawnethed. Dream on.

 

[Ashles]

Could a moderator please check De'Ville's Advocaat's IP address and see if it's Lucianarchy?

Odd, that mystery is more compelling to me than anything he's said thus far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably because what he's said thus far is complete rubbish.

Are you sure we need to bother checking the IP address.



Or perhaps De'Ville's Advocaat could point us to the sections of Quantum Theory that back up his 'DVD menu' analogy.

Or is this all just how he reckons Quantum Theory should work based on a good 3 minutes guesswork?

That will only be resolved for your consciousness when you accept a quantum shift in the democratic reality

And where in the much-abused Quantum Theory does it state that reality is decided by what the majority believe?

Honestly, stick to talking about this to drunk students at closing time. Your understanding of the subject is clearly non-existent.

 

[Ashles]

I don't have any references, but I believe it's quite common knowledge

Ian - I can't believe you of all people have resorted to that to back up your theory.

If it's that well known there should be numerous examples where this phenomena has been researched.

Or maybe it's one of those things that people believe, but isn't actually true.

We're talking about psychokiesis and DMILS (Direct Mental Interaction with Living Systems) here. Go look up the evidence.

Oh have you given up providing evidence for your claims now?
It's up to me to hunt around for evidence for something I don't believe exists?
Well that certainly sounds like a productive use of my time.

Tell you what Ian - reality is unaffected by belief. There's loads of evidence to support this.
Go and find it.

 

[Anders]

I would like to know more about that...

Quoting a pair of reasearchers at the Gothenburg unversity in Sweden : "I will never again trust her, K.D. regarding any reasearch around parapsycology".

This was after they had K.D sound tapes analyzied by sound engineers.

The quote in swedish is the following, C.F and a few more can read this: "- Jag kommer aldrig någonsin att fästa minsta tilltro till någonting som hon påstår om hennes parapsykologiska forskning, säger han. "

And due to swedish law I can't write the researchers names but this is the link to the news paper interview:

Para Fraud

 

[alfaniner]

... A patient overheard his Doctor tell another Doctor that he (the patient) has a galloping heart. The patient interpreted this as meaning that his heart is fine, where as quite the opposite was the case. Next time the patient goes to the doctor his heart is fine.

Sorry, the contention was that belief cannot affect reality. This is flat out false.

Would this have the same effect if the patient had not heard the doctor?

Belief does not affect reality. Belief affects perception.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian - I can't believe you of all people have resorted to that to back up your theory.

If it's that well known there should be numerous examples where this phenomena has been researched.

Or maybe it's one of those things that people believe, but isn't actually true.


Oh have you given up providing evidence for your claims now?
It's up to me to hunt around for evidence for something I don't believe exists?
Well that certainly sounds like a productive use of my time.

Tell you what Ian - reality is unaffected by belief. There's loads of evidence to support this.
Go and find it.

Ashles,

Nex implied that she thinks beliefs cannot affect reality. I refuted this using the example of placebos (I agree that some studies show that they are only 55% as effective as the real thing, but other evidence suggests higher than this).

OK, people claim she wasn't talking about processes within our bodies, but if so, she should have made this clear. We need to be precise in our utterances.

There is plenty of evidence of micro-psychokinesis and DMILS, although I am not particularly cognizant of the quality of this evidence. The point that I was going to make though is that if ones mind can cure you of ailments, produce blisters, speed or slow down ones heart rate etc, then the notion that we can also affect the external environment becomes a prima facie more reasonable one. If my mind can affect my own body, then what is the conceptual difficulty in supposing it can't also affect yours? Consider the starring effect or praying. Why are they prima facie so unreasonable?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Would this have the same effect if the patient had not heard the doctor?

Belief does not affect reality. Belief affects perception.

No, clearly it affects reality. Consider placebos!

Honestly!

 

[Anders]

There is plenty of evidence of micro-psychokinesis and DMILS, although I am not particularly cognizant of the quality of this evidence. The point that I was going to make though is that if ones mind can cure you of ailments, produce blisters, speed or slow down ones heart rate etc, then the notion that we can also affect the external environment becomes a prima facie more reasonable one. If my mind can affect my own body, then what is the conceptual difficulty in supposing it can't also affect yours? Consider the starring effect or praying. Why are they prima facie so unreasonable?

This is really interesting! If there are plenty of evidence of micro-psychokinesis and DMILS I sure have missed that outrihght. Acctualy, in no one of the articles on molecular biology I've read, there has never been a word on micro-psychokinesis. Funny thing to be sure, because, as I see it, shouldn't cells and the molecules in them be the first objects to be affected by micro-psychokinesis.

Ian, any comments?

 

[Ashles]

The point that I was going to make though is that if ones mind can cure you of ailments, produce blisters, speed or slow down ones heart rate etc, then the notion that we can also affect the external environment becomes a prima facie more reasonable one

No it doesn't at all. The brain and the body are part of the same organism. They are designed over millions of years of evolution to work together and the body requires a controlling centre, which is the brain.
They are physically connected in known and understood ways and the signal transmission and effect is a known and studied area of science with masses of observable data.

Your extension of this to external objects and events that are not part of the body is totally unjustified and is not in any way a reasonable assumption.

This is like saying because my computer can cause the CD tray to open a prima facie it must be able to move other things too.

You are using faulty logic Ian.

(Plus you are still quoting blister evidence that is, at the moment, entirely something you think you heard somewhere, which is hardly convincing.)

 

[Ashles]

No, clearly it affects reality. Consider placebos!

Honestly!

No it doesn't.

Really!

Trust me on this!

Seriously!

I wouldn't kid you!

Scout's honour!

 

[Interesting Ian]

No it doesn't at all. The brain and the body are part of the same organism. They are designed over millions of years of evolution to work together and the body requires a controlling centre, which is the brain.
They are physically connected in known and understood ways and the signal transmission and effect is a known and studied area of science with masses of observable data.

Your extension of this to external objects and events that are not part of the body is totally unjustified and is not in any way a reasonable assumption.

This is like saying because my computer can cause the CD tray to open a prima facie it must be able to move other things too.

You are using faulty logic Ian.

No, you're presupposing materialism here. Placebos strongly suggest that it is ones conscious states per se which initiate (or help to initiate) certain physical processes in the brain. Now, if something non-physical can inititate physical processes in the body, then conceptually there is no difficult in supposing it can affect processes outside the body too. They stand together; if one is explicable, then so is the other. If one is inexplicable (the option materialists go for), then so is the other.

So you need to maintain the mind/consciousness per se (rather than their neural correlates) does not affect the body whatsoever. The examples of placebos, anxiety, blisters froming from ice cubes, all strongly suggest this is wrong.

(Plus you are still quoting blister evidence that is, at the moment, entirely something you think you heard somewhere, which is hardly convincing.)

Let's not nitpick. You know that hypnosis can produce cures for various skin complaints, for example, don't you? I don't know if the ice cube producing blisters is correct, but I've heard a lot of very similar stuff, so I think you're being a bit desperate here.

Give it up Ashles, admit the world is not what you think it is.

 

[Interesting Ian]

No it doesn't.

Really!

Trust me on this!

Seriously!

I wouldn't kid you!

Scout's honour!

Placebos don't affect reality???

I'm sorry? Are you being truly serious??

Please please please, look at the evidence, speak to your doctor, or whatever.

Dear me!

 

[Yaotl]

Placebos don't affect reality???

I'm sorry? Are you being truly serious??

Please please please, look at the evidence, speak to your doctor, or whatever.

Dear me!

Please define reality and perception as you see them. I don't understand how you don't differentiate the two.

 

[Ashles]

You know that hypnosis can produce cures for various skin complaints, for example, don't you?

Have you even looked into this? Or is this another thing you remember hearing sometime?
It is once again an example of the mind controlling moods. Eczma can be very resultant on moods. The link is not a direct "hypnosis gets rid of Eczma" but again is a result of the brains' ability to control its own moods which nobody is disputing.

I don't know if the ice cube producing blisters is correct, but I've heard a lot of very similar stuff, so I think you're being a bit desperate here.

You may have heard a lot of this stuff - that doesn't make it real Ian.
The point I am making is that the brain's effect on moods, concentrate here, is not disputed by anyone here. Some physiological changes can be noted as a result of this (heart rate, skin conditions etc.)
However you seem to be implying a more direct causal link to reality - belief directly changing it.
Firstly the blister story sounds reasonable even to those who don't think belief can affect anything extrnal to the body - it is, after all, a body reaction and the brain directly controls those.

However I have heard this story a few times but never read anything showing that this has ever been done.
This isn't nitpicking as this would be a more direct effect than just the mood control - this would involve someone actually triggering the skin's burn response.

However there does not appear to be any evidence for even this.

So we are left with no evidence of any belief effect on anything apart from our own moods (and indirectly things that result from us being relaxed, agitated etc. like heart rate, blood pressure, skin complaints, perspiration etc.)

You assume all this evidence is out there backing you up Ian, but it doesn't appear to be.

Give it up Ashles, admit the world is not what you think it is.

What, just on your say so? Sorry Ian you'll have to do a little bit better than that.

Placebos don't affect reality???

I'm sorry? Are you being truly serious??

Please please please, look at the evidence, speak to your doctor, or whatever.

Dear me!?

I was actually gently mocking your use of the 'Honestly!' at the end of your earlier post, as though a post is more convincing with that at the end.

I know placebos work.

But as we have shown, this does not show any evidence that belief affects reality outside of our own emotions (and any subsequent affect emotional change may produce).