Interesting Ian
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,675
Loki said:
It doesn't. It is everywhere and everything.
Telephone telepathy
- Thread starter Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy
It doesn't. It is everywhere and everything.
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Ian,
omegablue,
Where I 'think it is', I can measure and support.
Where you 'think it is' you can't measure, and have no support.
Evidence? How do you measure this?
omegablue,
And yet, EVERY possible measure you can think of supports the 'tiny fraction' theory. You seem to be saying that since you can't measure it accurately, it's probably everywhere. Where's the logic in that?
Where I 'think it is', I can measure and support.
Where you 'think it is' you can't measure, and have no support.
omegablue said:
Wrong. You launched into a straw man argument about Randi to shift the goal posts in this discussion. I merely asked you to back up those comments and you provided links to he said-she said on a 20 year old incident. You hardly have shown any reason why Randi is not trustworthy, as anecdotal evidence is a poor a frame of reference not to mention, nothing to do with your original claims.
And yes I did read them. You still have not read anything in Randi's commentary, I'll bet? You yourself said:
So you won't read anything he writes because you don't trust him?
Your logic is flawed, your arguments are weak.
So, why bother posting here if you don't trust him so much? My only conclusion is again that you are here to argue for the sake of arguing.
Sorry fowlsound,
But i´m starting to think that i´m just wasting my time with you. Where you want to go with these strange posts my friend?You asked for me to Back up which arguments, o´ strange one? If I hardly showed any arguments that Randi is not trustworthy, than this is your choice, belief, religious faith on this guy. I feel very sorry for you.
Now i´m sure you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. READ IT CAREFULLY: I SAID THAT I SEARCHED FOR ANY RANDI ACCOUNT ABOUT THE EPISODES THAT I MENTIONED TO YOU, AND I COULD NOT FIND IT...OK??? DID YOU FIND ANY? IF SO , LET ME KNOW...OK?? UNDERSTOOD? IF NOT, HERE WE GO AGAIN: I DIDNT FIND ANY COMMENTS OF RANDI ON KOLODZEY, ROSEMARY ALTEA AND AS WELL AS MANY MANY OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ARE BEING EVIDENCED RECENTLY. I HOPE YOU GOT IT NOW.
Sorry man, this is a completely strange and bizarre conclusion on what i told you. Come on...i´m starting to get frustrated here...because someone does not understand my poor english.
*laughs*
Are you insane? no? Hmm so what is it , that makes you get these bizarre conclusions about my arguments.
But i´m starting to think that i´m just wasting my time with you. Where you want to go with these strange posts my friend?You asked for me to Back up which arguments, o´ strange one? If I hardly showed any arguments that Randi is not trustworthy, than this is your choice, belief, religious faith on this guy. I feel very sorry for you.
Now i´m sure you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. READ IT CAREFULLY: I SAID THAT I SEARCHED FOR ANY RANDI ACCOUNT ABOUT THE EPISODES THAT I MENTIONED TO YOU, AND I COULD NOT FIND IT...OK??? DID YOU FIND ANY? IF SO , LET ME KNOW...OK?? UNDERSTOOD? IF NOT, HERE WE GO AGAIN: I DIDNT FIND ANY COMMENTS OF RANDI ON KOLODZEY, ROSEMARY ALTEA AND AS WELL AS MANY MANY OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ARE BEING EVIDENCED RECENTLY. I HOPE YOU GOT IT NOW.
Sorry man, this is a completely strange and bizarre conclusion on what i told you. Come on...i´m starting to get frustrated here...because someone does not understand my poor english.
*laughs*
Are you insane? no? Hmm so what is it , that makes you get these bizarre conclusions about my arguments.
So two entirely seperate questions merged into one?omegablue said:
Who disgrees? Well the Experimntl Psychologists I studies under including Stuart Sutherland, one of the leading Psychologists in the country - "Educated at King Edward's School Birmingham and Magdalen College Oxford, where he read Psychology, Philosophy and Physiology, he took a First in Greats and went on to win the John Locke Prize in Mental Philosophy and a Prize Fellowship at his College."
He wrote: consciousness "is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon; it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written on it."
I realise this is an appeal to authority, but it is one requested by yourself. If you don't see the flaw in this manner of debate it is not for me to point it out.
Regarding your second point - most of the really famous scientists who have produced groundbreaking work did so in a time when religious beliefs were as normally as ingrained into a person as being able to talk the language of their country. Again what they believed is irrelevant.
What Darwin theorised utterly contradicted what his beliefs told him. But he managed the feat. Ditto Copernicus.
Your misunderstanding (deliberate?) of the term sceptic is getting tedious now.
It has a specific meaning. If any scientist is presented with complling evidence that contradicts their personal view on the subject then they should perform more tests to confirm this position. If it consistently opposes their view then they have to concede that their opinion on the subject was wrong.
A scientist can be a sceptic and a believer perfectly easily. Their scepticism is applied to their work, but they are free to believe whatever they wish, and to not apply scepticism to thiose beliefs if they do not wish to.
Which scientists do not do this omegablue? Why not fight your own strawman?
No one said or even implied any such thing. Yet another strawman.
Why do you persist in arguing with positions and opinions which no-one has expressed?
The religious beliefs of a scientist do not make that scientist better or worse at their work.
And I find your implication that religuious people are more open minded equally laughable as the implications you make about atheists. Do you see many Christians open to the possibility that Allah is the true God?
There have indeed been due to wars (mostly caused by religion you'll note) and disease and other sociological reasons.
Marx has quite a lot to say on the subject of cycles of change - you'll also note he wasn't particularly pro-religion.
Where do you get such information? What cycles existed before the Egyptians? What cycle are we currently undergoing?
And where on earth do you get the impression a "higher order" is involved?
Again blind assertation without any reaon or logic.
Wishful thinking?
The brain processes a great deal of information without conscious processing. Sometimes we register things on a level below that of direct conscious acknowledgment. Sometimes these things are useful.
Again Einstein was talking about an area on which he had an opinion, but not the level of information we have today.
If Einstein said that there was no God would you keep quoting him to this extent?
His genius in Physics does not make him any more correct in his religious opinions than anyone else. Why do you not understand this?
Do you deny that atheist scientits have produced great work too?
I am currently busy so I will have to address the rest of your points at another time.
But I have to say I am getting a little bored with your mirepresentations of sceptics, atheists and Randi as they are all proving increasingly incorrect.
Your own opinions are starting to appear as dogmatic as unchangeable as the attitudes of your imaginary sceptics.
During this conversation I have conceded that I might be incorrect in my opinions. I notice you have not.
I have suggested how the universe may work. You have made bald assertations of how it does work.
Which of those two attitudes appears to be more sceptical?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
omegablue said:
Archetypes? You mean those universal symbols that are the sentient parallels to animal instinct, present in the unconscious of every human being? The ones first described in Jung's groundbreaking work, "Symbols of Transformation"? The ones that vary significantly from person to person at the surface, but become more and more similar the deeper into the unconscious you explore? The ones which, at this very deep level, form the collective unconscious, which forms a universal link between all human beings, a link which is revealed through such phenomena as synchronicity? Are these the ones you mean?
You're right; I've never heard of them.
Ahh...just this one?
You might be right.
I do not know why you jumped to this conclusion.
Nothing new to me here... did i contradict it? When?
It is an assumption isnt it? I´m sure everyone is free to believe whatever they wish, but it is kind of fuzzy your premise that scientists does apply theirs skepticism just to their works. Perhaps you are wrong, skepticism is more a philosophy of life than a method of studying. Being skeptical and religious?? hmmm...
Skeptic scientists apply scepticism to their whole life...or not? If not...i need some light shed on this. As far as i know, if a scientist is skeptic, he is , and period. And if he is not, you can see it reflected in their works. But again, let me tell you, the skeptic type that i think its exagerate is the only type i am arguing against here. I mean, the skeptics which close their minds to new things, they are just defending a view of world, a materialistic one. They are not keen to new things and it is very hard for these poor souls to realize when they are using only their little and fading healthy skepticism side, or they are just using their creativity in order to keep believing that nothing "paranormal" exists and that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter and in some cases, a false phenomenon. You might well be a skeptic or a dogmatic one, i dunno, but up till now, i´m fairly convinced that you are a close minded type...am i wrong? I could be, but it is just my current impression. And tell me what is exactly my straw man?
Ahh nice, you think this way, but a handful of others dont. And as far as you are not the only skeptic person in the world, i have to realize first if you have such an oppinion.
Wishful thinking hahahah spoken like a todd carrol avid reader and believer. As far as many great philosophers are wishful thinkers on this matter , so am I. The cycle we have right now: It´s the gradual but sure change on the scientific paradigm, from materialism to a more idealistic approach. The partnership between religion and science comes and goes, it has always been like that, and we are experiencing it again. Materialism is fading out gradually, and soon, either you and your dear skeptical convictions like it or not, they will be together again. Many scientists theorizes that it is due to the advent of quantum mechanics and its uncertainty, as well as the great number of paralels found betweeen QM and modern physisc in general, and eastern mysticism, ie, taoism, budhism and etc. This is a PHILOSOPHOCAL discussion. Although there is plenty of evidence that this is going on.
If i understand you right, you are diplomatically suggesting that perhaps Einstein was wrong? Perhaps, transpersonal experience is stupid anyways...is that it? Or are you just "being sceptical" and is not making any move but just doubting about everything? I think Einstein was giving his recipee of how a groundbreaker scientist shold be described. How to have the intuitive and fantasy driven mind to exercise creative thinking, a kind of thinking the close-minded skeptics always have abominated. Many many many today´s psychiologists and philosophers do agree with Einstein on this. I cant see a consensus about what "we learned in the last 30 years" that denies Einstein´s thoughts about it.
I disagree. This is a confortable position for a skeptic person adopt because you simply deny that a genius in physics , a grounbreaking mind manages to change your skeptic world moved by the gift for fantasy and intuitive nature of mind. And of course being not atheist. Being a genius on physics and still telling that he believes in a cosmical god is not the same as me or you saying that. WHY DO YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? One of the best scientists of all the time warns you about the benefits of transpersonal experience and as well as the intuitive side being most important, and you simply state that this oppinion is not to be taken more seriously than any other oppinions just because it is outside PHYSICS. What a reductionist mind do you have , my friend.
Great work,...yes, some.... such as Richard Feynman. But scientific turnarounds, hardly. If so, let me know. But my attack is not on atheism, im an atheist, but i´m not materialistically skeptic anymore. I once was , but some experiences in my life opened my eyes to things that were always and obviously by our side, and inside, and i was too dogmatically blind about it, because my only tools for examining life was logic and scientific method. How i was wrong, friend. I observe many here on these forums being like me before. I used my creativity in order to formulate possibilities of debunking everything, like you and your friends here do nicely. Too blindly imo.
For reminding me as i were before , i think i cannot change your mind. You will only change your mind if you experience such things also. Take your time.
I dont think so, and many great professionals for every area of knowledge does not also. Materialistics are hardly right. Exagerated skepticism tend to blind people. You get the most confortable position of doubting , forcing people to elaborate materialistically validated experiments on things that do not belong to the material experience in order to accept their crackpot theories. Skeptics wont move their arses in search of any groundbreaking discovery. Atheism is not my target , again, i have to say that. My target is exagerated skepticism. I´m an atheist but i believe that we are completely dependant upon greater things, and perhaps greater conscious things that may be or not aware of our existance. A more "cosmical god" approach like Einstein and Spinozza. As we are just a cell of a giant being, giving it a little substance, life, and thus consciousness and as a gift, this being gives us back with existance and consciousness. As we are universes ourselves and our cells being universes the size of ours, if observed with the proper time and space scaling tools. A more budhist approach as a philosophy, not religion. Again, philosophy, not dogmatic and logically mechanicist theories.
Surprised i am. Because you always appeal to logic and rationalism even if it an essentially philosophical debate. So i might be wrong in my assumptions also, but one thing that i cannot conceive in a skeptic person, is the deyning of a given thing without having experience it!! This i can´t have as a healty skeptical approach. I confess i would get a little frustrated if i was wrong. But i would not be a fool to continue to deny it just for the sake of holding my point of view. I find myself reconsidering about my personal beliefs on and on, but one thing wont go away: that we can experience different and at least equally real worls of consciousness through "mystical" experiences.
They are not unchangeable. But they are changing , changing towards the emptyness and blindness of dogmatic skepticism. And these are not immaginary, how can you say that? I dont know how.
It appears to me the other way around. I do not know how the universe works , i just make speculations, as any person could do. No one can explain how the universe works. The only thing that i affirm is that different realms of conscioussness exist, by FACT. By the empirical fact of PERSONAL experience. If everyone in the world, including Randi, meditate or have any powerful experience such as NDE, then we would have a common sense agreement and almost everyone would agree on changing our scientific paradigm. This, i think is FACT.
I have sonme questions about you:
1) What is your scientific training? (it is not an attack on your credibility)
2) Do you ever had any powerful transpersonal experience? If so, which one? Could you tell me that? And if yes, which were your impressions about it?
3) Do you think collective unconsciousness, alternative medicine, cold fusion and UFOS might be true or just bunk?
4) Do you know well enough about jung´s theories of archetypes and collective unconsciousness and synchroniticy for even speculate about the deep implications that it might have in our lives?
see you later
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Omega, the JREF still has about one-million dollars that needs to be unloaded. Are you ready to help?
Richard Dawkins seems to want to help this out. But Randi seems not to be willing that.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Dace_amazing3.htm
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
Your attacks on Randi and the JREF are rather pathetic.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
omegablue said:
Yes, it's Pathetic, with a capital P. Dawkins simply had the position that there are some things that we consider paranormal that MAY be proven scientifically. Randi agree, and said he'd pay up if it happened. The Ganzfield nonsense has been debunked before, also. That article was written by woo woos with an agenda. They have no qualms about using psuedoscience to support their beliefs in psychic nonsense.
Tell me more about it. Show me Randi saying that he would pay up, and if you could provide me on what Dawkins called perinormal would help greatly. Show me Ganzfeld nonsense being debunked if even Susan Blackmore said on the contrary. Show me why they are woo woos with an agenda and skeptics like Randi are not. And any groundbreaking scientific feat is only possible if you use some pseudoscience first to be proved science later on. Might i call you a believer? A believer on skepticism?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,573
You should wear a siren, because woo woo is coming from all of your posts.