Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yup. I also sent you a message while listening to the song , just right now. Let's see how this ESP thing goes. I'm not "blinded by science". Science ain't the right tool for this. Here's what I did.
I set the song "One of These Days" to play, turned S of due West to lock into San Diego. I closed my eyes , concentrated, and sent you a message. I won't say what the message was of course. It's for you to look for. Now of course again, I'm not blinded by science.
You may not have received the message for some reason or other. ESP is just one of those things that "beyond the abilities of mankind's synthetic knowledge." Actually, I think such post modern default dogmatic adherence to the notion that we know all there to know" to be the height of hubris, myself, IMHO. Otherwise I wouldn't have gone through the bother of sending you a message.

I haven't got it yet; maybe try sending it again to San Jose! Do you know the way?

Yes, I did. It's actually not bad. It's better than JB tripe by far.

Now, that's high praise! Certainly there's a difference in era and genre, although JB has been influenced by this Totem piece in his electronica songs (there's quite a few of them now), as are all artists who do it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I would agree, except that I have seen plenty of such clear pictures. They don't seem to be easy to find on you tube though. It's hard to navigate through all the trash there.

And it never, ever occurs to you that maybe all of it is trash?

We also have eyewitness reports, claims of artifacts recovered, and so on.

The exact same level of "evidence" the advocates had fifty years ago! You really don't seem to understand why that is the final coffin nail in your claims do you?

No doubt the issue remains unresolved, and probably will for some time, but this is also because UFOs disrupt the prevailing paradigm about travel through space, in a way that canals or no canals on Mars or the Bermuda triangle might not have done.

Because you spend your entire intellectual life floating in the shallows of magic pony land, I don't think you really grasp how fundamentally explosive the discovery of previous intelligent life on Mars would be.

Some of these legends are disproven; even many of them. But Big Foot is another one that is still out there despite all this supposed progress in our observation.

Yep, people do like creating, sharing and retelling stories to one another.

This Big Foot anomaly though, is also not nearly so disruptive to current paradigms of science as the UFO phenomenon might be. It is subject to many instances of cover up. It not only disrupts the authority of the current paradigm, but could cause public panic and a possible lost war with the aliens if ever allowed to go public.

Seriously, it is time that you unplug from the crank pipeline.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I just saw this today, a video with Rupert Sheldrake about his banned TED talk, which became the most discussed talk in TED history.

Yeah, when a supposedly trusted source of great ideas allows someone to spout off patently refuted crank science, it tends to get many people fired up.

Quoting Rupert Sheldrake: "They also have in the Skeptical Inquirer last year, I subscribe to it because I feel to need to know what they're up to, there was an article by a woman skeptic, advocating skeptics get involved in their campaign to make sure that wikipedia reflects what they see as the true scientific position on things like telepathy and pseudoscience. And they have lots of people, a significant number of dedicated activists working in wikipedia making sure that in every possible way it reflects the materialist and skeptic point of view; and they've learned the rules, they've become expert editors and they've infiltrated wikipedia because, as they argued in the Skeptical Inquirer, this is where most children and students get their information from, and indeed where most people get their information from. So it's very important for them that it reflects the skeptic point of view. So they've had a determined campaign, and I think it's probably a small group of activists, but very proactive, whereas people who work in psychical research or in other branches of more unconventional science haven't been spending their time trying to influence the media; they've been getting on with doing their research.... this kind of scornful, aggressive, dismissive style of polemic was already well in place in the 19th century; nothing much has changed really..."

That's why corrections to dogmatic statements on wikipedia pages are not allowed, obviously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu8TJsyo (remarks about wikipedia @ about 9:50 minutes)

Instead of relying on the words of someone who spouted off disproved nonsense, why not check out the web page home of the people Sheldrake is referring to. Guerrilla Skepticism

Universe forbid you have an actual open mind about the issue.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Graham Hancock on his (and Sheldrake) being BANNED on TED by the scientific materialist mindset orthodoxy, the Vandal mindset that dominates our society, and their thoughtpolicemen such as Vandal, the Skeptical Inquirer and the editors of wikipedia.

Please, stop spouting phrases that you don't understand.

Hancock and Sheldrake weren't banned. Upon expert review, their talks were determined to not fit Tedx's goal of presenting sound science. Therefor Tedx removed the videos from their library.

Do you even understand the meaning of the term "thought police"? Pointing out to others that your ideas are ludicrous nonsense is not punishing you for having the ideas. Thought police work in secret. They don't point out what they are doing and explain why they are doing it. Guerrilla Skepticism is the very antithesis to thought police. Besides, considering the level of scientific literacy in our society, your brand of wooly headed thinking is far closer to being the status quo than mine.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Here is a neat video that explains the best world view as far as we know now; refuting the Vandal and the Bob Butler paradigms. Will they be able to face the falsehood of their worldviews? Will they stay values-locked? Will they continue to be soldiers in the war against consciousness, and officers in the reality police department (along with TED and wikipedia)? Only they can say!



“There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”


― Ronald A. Knox

"It just isn't Grade A woo if it doesn't misrepresent quantum mechanics. Tell your local woo-dealer that you will accept no substitutes! Demand the best woo. Your lack of critical thinking skills requires it."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

What is meant by "God" is certainly something that needs to be understood -- and that you don't.

God is not a proposition. Proof is relevant only for propositions. Proof is not relevant for God.

Well, first convince all the others on your side claiming that God exists to accept your particular definition of the term and then get back to me. Then, we can help walk you through an understanding of the fallacy of special pleading and why it makes your claim meaningless.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Yeah, when a supposedly trusted source of great ideas allows someone to spout off patently refuted crank science, it tends to get many people fired up.

Instead of relying on the words of someone who spouted off disproved nonsense, why not check out the web page home of the people Sheldrake is referring to. Guerrilla Skepticism

Universe forbid you have an actual open mind about the issue.

Don't let the Vandal steal your soul. Don't let this certified, decorated (and self-admitted guerrilla) soldier in the obscene war on our consciousness destroy and murder your soul. Don't let this ultra hopelessly close-minded fundamentalist reality policeman blind you to real life. Don't let him enslave you to the normal consensus reality that is destroying our planet, sapping our lives and forbidding us to dream and see a better day! Protect your soul from this ridiculous Vandal! Don't indulge his never-ending crank arguments and misinformation! IGNORE him! Rise up and defeat him and his comrades in wikipedia and skeptic magazines! And thank you Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake! True heroes in the liberation of consciousness from this bull(bleep). I salute them, and I am grateful for all their great honest scientific work! Hallelujah!

Worth quoting again from none other than the famous scientist Rupert Sheldrake himself. It's quite interesting what Rupert Sheldrake reveals about guys like Vandal. He's got their number seriously:

"They also have in the Skeptical Inquirer last year, I subscribe to it because I feel to need to know what they're up to, there was an article by a woman skeptic, advocating skeptics get involved in their campaign to make sure that wikipedia reflects what they see as the true scientific position on things like telepathy and pseudoscience. And they have lots of people, a significant number of dedicated activists working in wikipedia making sure that in every possible way it reflects the materialist and skeptic point of view; and they've learned the rules, they've become expert editors and they've infiltrated wikipedia because, as they argued in the Skeptical Inquirer, this is where most children and students get their information from, and indeed where most people get their information from. So it's very important for them that it reflects the skeptic point of view. So they've had a determined campaign, and I think it's probably a small group of activists, but very proactive, whereas people who work in psychical research or in other branches of more unconventional science haven't been spending their time trying to influence the media; they've been getting on with doing their research.... this kind of scornful, aggressive, dismissive style of polemic was already well in place in the 19th century; nothing much has changed really..."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Don't let the Vandal steal your soul. Don't let this certified, decorated (and self-admitted guerrilla) soldier in the obscene war on our consciousness destroy and murder your soul.

Have you ever in your life completed a conversation without lying?

Just because I know who the Guerrilla Skeptics are and what they do, does not mean I'm a member of their group.

Don't let this ultra hopelessly close-minded fundamentalist reality policeman blind you to real life. Don't let him enslave you to the normal consensus reality that is destroying our planet, sapping our lives and forbidding us to dream and see a better day! Protect your soul from this ridiculous Vandal!

So, anyone who dares point out that your ideas have no clothes is to be feared and avoided?

Don't indulge his never-ending crank arguments and misinformation! IGNORE him! Rise up and defeat him and his comrades in wikipedia and skeptic magazines!

"Hyperbolic, pretentious Boomer tells everyone else what to do based on what they personally think is correct. Little consideration for the ability of others to think for themselves. Film at eleven. Also, dog bites man."

And thank you Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake! True heroes in the liberation of consciousness from this bull(bleep). I salute them, and I am grateful for all their great honest scientific work! Hallelujah!

And it is really special that they only had to forego the entire scientific process in order to get the answers they wanted from the start. True heroes there.

Worth quoting again from none other than the famous scientist Rupert Sheldrake himself.

Rupert Sheldrake is not a famous scientist. He stopped doing science research in 1978.

It's quite interesting what Rupert Sheldrake reveals about guys like Vandal. He's got their number seriously:

"They also have in the Skeptical Inquirer last year, I subscribe to it because I feel to need to know what they're up to, there was an article by a woman skeptic, advocating skeptics get involved in their campaign to make sure that wikipedia reflects what they see as the true scientific position on things like telepathy and pseudoscience. And they have lots of people, a significant number of dedicated activists working in wikipedia making sure that in every possible way it reflects the materialist and skeptic point of view; and they've learned the rules, they've become expert editors and they've infiltrated wikipedia because, as they argued in the Skeptical Inquirer, this is where most children and students get their information from, and indeed where most people get their information from. So it's very important for them that it reflects the skeptic point of view. So they've had a determined campaign, and I think it's probably a small group of activists, but very proactive, whereas people who work in psychical research or in other branches of more unconventional science haven't been spending their time trying to influence the media; they've been getting on with doing their research.... this kind of scornful, aggressive, dismissive style of polemic was already well in place in the 19th century; nothing much has changed really..."

Sure would be nice if all these psychical researchers could be bothered to take a break from their book tours in order to show their work to real experts for evaluation.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I haven't got it yet; maybe try sending it again to San Jose! Do you know the way?

Ah, I FUBARED. San Jose [Lat/Lon: 37.33°N 121.9°W Elevation: 82 ft] San Diego is a bit north, not south. Silly me.
I'm 36.73 N. Bad move , Rags. So by all means a resend is needed.

[Obviously, I don't know my way to San Jose.] Of course if you were the Grey Badger, I have Albuquerque covered down pat.
I can get there without a map. I can also hit the area pretty well since I used to live in Los Alamos and we had to shop for lots of stuff in either Santa Fe or Albuquerque. [Albuquerque is S of Santa Fe. Santa Fe is east of Los Alamos. Taos is North up high. There's a cool mine, called the Harding mine near Dixon which is east of Taos. ] There's a bunch of garnets in the arroyos near Dixon as well. If you work real hard, you can separate the garnets from the dross. Now if you go pretty far east you'll hit the front range and find Las Vegas, NM. Las Vegas, NM was a big hippie hangout in the early 1970's.

Now, that's high praise! Certainly there's a difference in era and genre, although JB has been influenced by this Totem piece in his electronica songs (there's quite a few of them now), as are all artists who do it.

Well that could be. It used to be his voice that sucked. Now it's just his "hip hop aura". I do not like spunky punkies.

Edit

Message retransmitted to corrected lat/lon bearings.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Well, first convince all the others on your side

Vandal, you have no clue who is or isn't on "my side." This isn't a team sport.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Because you claimed that ESP alters such things.

Still demonstrating why you never accomplished anything as a scientist, I see. You strangle the baby before it can draw breath.

I am presenting a hypothesis to account for certain observations. While measuring the random firing of synapses to see if minor alteration to them can account for what we observe would be a logical follow-up, expecting me to have already done that at this point is ridiculous. Grow up.

If you can't even demonstrate an ability to just measure their existence how can you possibly claim that ESP alters them.

This is a little better, but the pertinent question isn't "what probabilities are associated with synaptic firing," but rather "is synaptic firing in fact indeterminate." Are you calling that into question?

Translation: idea = imaginary

Why, yes. The imagination is one of the strongest tools we have. That's where all ideas come from. It's the font of creativity. A lack of it -- or an insistence on disparaging it -- makes a person a blockhead.

Imagination is at the heart of all science and all art, which proceed by analogous methods, first opening up with the imagination, and afterwards tightening down with critical pruning. The exact sort of imagination and criticism differ between the two, but at root the two are similar. If I didn't at some point apply critical tools to my writing, I'd write crap. But if I started out that way, and didn't allow the imagination free play, I'd write nothing.

The same is true in science. Pick any great scientist from history, someone who is responsible for major advances, and you will find someone with a highly active imagination that was at some point given free play.

And that, I submit, is why you aren't one of them.

What the hell is an "indeterminate process"?

One whose outcome cannot be precisely predicted from initial conditions.

You claim the phenomenon exists. Provide evidence.

Not my job. Others have already done that.

Put up, or shut up.

Grow up, or fuck off.

Scientific journals do not waste publishing space for repeatedly negative results.

Irrelevant. You claimed that ALL double-blind studies, and later that ALL studies, period, had failed to show the existence of psi. Negative results that are unpublished would not prove you wrong here. Positive results that are unpublished would, I suppose, but the point is that you made a preposterously excessive claim and it's reasonable to call you on it. Consider yourself called.

Every one of your "NOT fails" has been shown to be the result of poor experimental set ups (improper controls) or blatant statistical fraud

Please cite a source that references every single test for psi conducted by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Put up, or shut up.

Do you honestly think there is a single neuroscientist who would refuse to research something, that if real, would be a paradigm shaking discovery?

If all it gave him was an inexplicable anomaly, there would be no paradigm shaking. As parapsychologists have failed to present a coherent theory, that's where we are.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why, yes. The imagination is one of the strongest tools we have. That's where all ideas come from. It's the font of creativity. A lack of it -- or an insistence on disparaging it -- makes a person a blockhead.

Pretty good description of Vandal, I'd say

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Ah, I FUBARED. San Jose [Lat/Lon: 37.33°N 121.9°W Elevation: 82 ft] San Diego is a bit north, not south. Silly me.
I'm 36.73 N. Bad move , Rags. So by all means a resend is needed.

[Obviously, I don't know my way to San Jose.] ...

The message I'm getting is that you want me to look in your chart to see about another kind of investment besides oil companies.

I'm also getting something about your health. Have you signed up for Obamacare?

Well that could be. It used to be his voice that sucked. Now it's just his "hip hop aura". I do not like spunky punkies.

Funny, I never thought his voiced sucked, although I'm not fond of his hip hop aura either. On the other hand, none of these things really matter to me, since I like his music.

Oh btw San Diego is considerably far south of San Jose.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The message I'm getting is that you want me to look in your chart to see about another kind of investment besides oil companies.

Not even close. You know I invest in "sin stocks". OK, now when you meditate or however you receive messages, you need to clear your mind of EVERYTHING I've posted here. The message I sent has nothing to do with any of that. It's a clear obscure message that will seam like a "bolt out of the blue".

I'm also getting something about your health. Have you signed up for Obamacare?

1. Nothing about health. See above.
2. Yes, I signed up for the ACA and got the subsidy I *deserve*. Jonesers are entitled to special dispensation wrt health related stuff 'cause we drank lots of fallout laden milk and inhaled leaded gasoline contaminated air. Lead intoxication makes for violence. Maybe lead is one reason Jonesers racked up all those social pathologies.

Funny, I never thought his voiced sucked, although I'm not fond of his hip hop aura either. On the other hand, none of these things really matter to me, since I like his music.

Oh btw San Diego is considerably far south of San Jose.

Ick, I meant to say San Jose

Originally Posted by travel info

san josé, califórnia
Type:	Locality
Country:	United States
State:	CA
District:	Santa Clara
Locality:	San Jose
Sub-Locality:	NA
Closest Address:	San Jose, CA, USA

OK, for the sake of fairness.

Rags :

* 1 dodo for thinking San Jose was South of where I live

* 2 dodos for stating "San Diego" instead of "San Jose".

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Still demonstrating why you never accomplished anything as a scientist, I see. You strangle the baby before it can draw breath.

Maybe being around teenagers makes for a bad mood.

I am presenting a hypothesis to account for certain observations. While measuring the random firing of synapses to see if minor alteration to them can account for what we observe would be a logical follow-up, expecting me to have already done that at this point is ridiculous. Grow up.

Uh, perhaps we have a different problem: Maybe Vandal has grown OUT too much and *that* also makes for bad moods.

Why, yes. The imagination is one of the strongest tools we have. That's where all ideas come from. It's the font of creativity. A lack of it -- or an insistence on disparaging it -- makes a person a blockhead.

Yeah, like imagining riding a wave of light.

Imagination is at the heart of all science and all art, which proceed by analogous methods, first opening up with the imagination, and afterwards tightening down with critical pruning. The exact sort of imagination and criticism differ between the two, but at root the two are similar. If I didn't at some point apply critical tools to my writing, I'd write crap. But if I started out that way, and didn't allow the imagination free play, I'd write nothing.

Imagination is the tree of thought. There would be nothing to prune without the tree.

The same is true in science. Pick any great scientist from history, someone who is responsible for major advances, and you will find someone with a highly active imagination that was at some point given free play.

A lot of them are thought of as "esoteric" or even crazy because their thoughts are so "out thee".

And that, I submit, is why you aren't one of them.

True. Vandal's inner child is cranky.

Grow up, or fuck off.

Eh, it's "fuck you and get a fucking life".

Irrelevant. You claimed that ALL double-blind studies, and later that ALL studies, period, had failed to show the existence of psi. Negative results that are unpublished would not prove you wrong here. Positive results that are unpublished would, I suppose, but the point is that you made a preposterously excessive claim and it's reasonable to call you on it. Consider yourself called.

No. If you think your hand is better than Vandal's or if you find that Vandal is a habitual bluffer, you need to raise. The idea is to get the most chips in the middle when you have the best of it.

Please cite a source that references every single test for psi conducted by anyone, anywhere, ever.

I'm ready now.

Put up, or shut up.

:: munches on popcorn ::

If all it gave him was an inexplicable anomaly, there would be no paradigm shaking. As parapsychologists have failed to present a coherent theory, that's where we are.

OK.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Eh, it's "fuck you and get a fucking life".

Knock, knock.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Not even close. You know I invest in "sin stocks". OK, now when you meditate or however you receive messages, you need to clear your mind of EVERYTHING I've posted here. The message I sent has nothing to do with any of that. It's a clear obscure message that will seam like a "bolt out of the blue".

OK, you're giving me another chance. Something Vandal would never even consider doing Well, I'll let you know if anything comes to me. But I doubt it will.

btw you have some balls for trying to speak for Vandal as a response to Brian. Might be a bit risky

1. Nothing about health. See above.
2. Yes, I signed up for the ACA and got the subsidy I *deserve*. Jonesers are entitled to special dispensation wrt health related stuff 'cause we drank lots of fallout laden milk and inhaled leaded gasoline contaminated air. Lead intoxication makes for violence. Maybe lead is one reason Jonesers racked up all those social pathologies.

And pathological 3T metal music, which could be the soundtrack for all those social pathologies.

Although I think a lot of you guys are turning out just fine anyway. I know, that's only my opinion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK, you're giving me another chance. Something Vandal would never even consider doing Well, I'll let you know if anything comes to me. But I doubt it will.

NP

btw you have some balls for trying to speak for Vandal as a response to Brian. Might be a bit risky

For? Eh, I'd use the preposition, "about".

And pathological 3T metal music, which could be the soundtrack for all those social pathologies.

Well, lead is a "heavy metal". Now, fallout has a whole shitpot of them.
There's
Uranium
Neptunium
Plutonium
Americium
more here

Although I think a lot of you guys are turning out just fine anyway. I know, that's only my opinion.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Vandal, you have no clue who is or isn't on "my side." This isn't a team sport.

Doesn't stop you from substituting atheist arguments against other theist claims for arguments against your own position. You know, being dishonest.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Still demonstrating why you never accomplished anything as a scientist, I see.

Since everyone here knows that you can't possibly know what I may have or have not done in research, how can you possibly think this statement is anything other than a bit of juvenile whining?

You strangle the baby before it can draw breath.

I am presenting a hypothesis to account for certain observations.

And I'm pointing out that you have failed to demonstrate that the "certain observations" are anything other than observation bias combined with poor experimental protocols and statistical fraud. There is no there, there.

While measuring the random firing of synapses to see if minor alteration to them can account for what we observe would be a logical follow-up, expecting me to have already done that at this point is ridiculous. Grow up.

Measuring the random firing of synapses? Show me that your "researchers" actually do that. It's like trying to explain how pigs fly without bothering to check to see if there is really anything that needs explaining.

This is a little better, but the pertinent question isn't "what probabilities are associated with synaptic firing," but rather "is synaptic firing in fact indeterminate." Are you calling that into question?

I am pointing out that your researchers don't actually do any of this "measuring".

Why, yes. The imagination is one of the strongest tools we have. That's where all ideas come from. It's the font of creativity. A lack of it -- or an insistence on disparaging it -- makes a person a blockhead.

And imagining answers to imaginary questions about imaginary events makes one a psuedo-scientist.

Imagination is at the heart of all science and all art, which proceed by analogous methods, first opening up with the imagination, and afterwards tightening down with critical pruning. The exact sort of imagination and criticism differ between the two, but at root the two are similar.

Thanks. Having spent my entire adult life studying, engaging in and teaching about science, I was completely clueless about how it works. [/snark]

If I didn't at some point apply critical tools to my writing, I'd write crap. But if I started out that way, and didn't allow the imagination free play, I'd write nothing.

Crap being a subjective opinion, you aren't likely to be surprised at my opinion of your writing, at least in this forum.

The same is true in science. Pick any great scientist from history, someone who is responsible for major advances, and you will find someone with a highly active imagination that was at some point given free play.

And that, I submit, is why you aren't one of them.

Your understanding of the history of science is incredibly naive. You seem to have swallowed the stereotypical description of great scientists as having "the soul of artists". Since many of these stories are written by artists (writers) who likely couldn't comprehend the actual science, they tend to downplay the disciplined training, methodical thinking and adherence to the principle of abandoning an idea that is unsupported by the evidence. They then play up the part of the story that resonates with their own personal experience.

How many biographies of Einstein have you seen that include the entire derivation of E=mc^2 from the basic principles of special relativity? For that matter, how many of those biographies include the basic equations of special relativity? How many include his equations for explaining the photo-electric effect and resolving the ultraviolet catastrophe? You know, the thing he actually won the Nobel Prize for? Artists tend to tell the stories of scientists as if they were fellow artists. When fellow scientists go to tell their stories themselves, other artists (publishers) require them to downplay the actual science. All of this leads to people like you and Eric thinking you understand science or scientists because it feels familiar to your own experience. But, every time you try to actually use the science, you end up botching it because your sense of familiarity is misleading you.

A tremendously creative idea that fails a controlled experiment must be abandoned. For an artist, a creative idea can be perpetuated forever despite its lack of popularity or utility.

In science, data trumps creativity. Always.

One whose outcome cannot be precisely predicted from initial conditions.

Google the term "indeterminate process" and tell me which scientific field uses it. Hint: it doesn't appear in any neuroscience journals.

Not my job. Others have already done that.

No, they haven't. They have told willing saps like you that they have but experts in the relevant fields have shown that their claims are experimental and statistical fraud.

Grow up, or fuck off.

You can't provide a source that actually supports your claim, got it.

Irrelevant. You claimed that ALL double-blind studies, and later that ALL studies, period, had failed to show the existence of psi. Negative results that are unpublished would not prove you wrong here. Positive results that are unpublished would, I suppose, but the point is that you made a preposterously excessive claim and it's reasonable to call you on it. Consider yourself called.

Please cite all the studies that definitively prove that Russell's teapot doesn't exist.

See, once again it becomes apparent that you don't understand how science is actually done.

Please cite a source that references every single test for psi conducted by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Put up, or shut up.

You don't have any actual evidence that psi exists, got it.

If all it gave him was an inexplicable anomaly, there would be no paradigm shaking. As parapsychologists have failed to present a coherent theory, that's where we are.

No, pseudo-scientists have failed to present conclusive evidence that there is anything actually in need of a theory at all. But, DAMN! They sure have sold a lot of books!

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Maybe being around teenagers makes for a bad mood.

Uh, perhaps we have a different problem: Maybe Vandal has grown OUT too much and *that* also makes for bad moods.

Or perhaps you are completely clueless to the fact that this thread makes me laugh my ass off.

Yeah, like imagining riding a wave of light.

Imagination is the tree of thought. There would be nothing to prune without the tree.

Nice analogy. Any idea when Brian and Eric will learn to use the pruning shears (science)?

A lot of them are thought of as "esoteric" or even crazy because their thoughts are so "out thee".

Artist generated stereotype rears its smarmy head again. Other scientist, who understand the ideas, do not see them as "esoteric" or "crazy".

True. Vandal's inner child is cranky.

Eh, it's "fuck you and get a fucking life".

No. If you think your hand is better than Vandal's or if you find that Vandal is a habitual bluffer, you need to raise. The idea is to get the most chips in the middle when you have the best of it.

Trust me. He hasn't got the nuts.

I'm ready now.



:: munches on popcorn ::

OK.

Prepare to be bored. Brian is just like all the other psi enthusiasts. They are all bluster and no rain.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK, you're giving me another chance. Something Vandal would never even consider doing Well, I'll let you know if anything comes to me. But I doubt it will.

Let us know when you get to the green MnM's.

btw you have some balls for trying to speak for Vandal as a response to Brian. Might be a bit risky

Because Brian is an Internet God, capable of smiting those he finds to be unfaithful to his vision?

And

pathological 3T metal music, which could be the soundtrack for all those social pathologies.

Although I think a lot of you guys are turning out just fine anyway. I know, that's only my opinion.

One thing that's important to understand, and that I don't think you do, Eric, is that the skeptical community and the scientific community aren't the same thing, and there isn't a lot of overlap. I've seen polls of scientists on the subject of paranormal powers, and while full-on belief that they exists is very low (something like two percent), acceptance of the possibility is quite high. This is definitely appropriate, in my opinion, since as I said all we have evidence for at this point is an unexplained anomaly, and the only "explanations" being offered are those like, well, yours, to put it bluntly, and those simply can't fit into the framework of science. Similar results obtain on the idea of God, or on religious belief generally. Most scientists are not believers in traditional concepts of God, but a substantial chunk of them are spiritual people without labels (as I now call myself). That's the way to describe Einstein's position: he wasn't a theist, and yet his approach wasn't congruent with that of most people who call themselves "atheists," either (although technically he was one -- but then, technically, so am I).

So most real scientists aren't skeptics. I believe that goes back once again to the important role of imagination in science. There was a study done recently (unfortunately I can't seem to find it to link it) that showed skeptics to have higher internal interrupts -- there's a technical term for this that I don't recall -- it means that they stop themselves from thinking certain things that don't make sense to them, more so than a control group of non-skeptics. Someone presented this over on G+ as if it were a good thing, and my thought was that it was a creativity-killer. If you stop yourself from entertaining ideas that are outside the pattern, you will never discover anything new. That's not just the death of science, but the death of art as well.

What I'm saying here is that a lot of the time, I see hostility on your part towards scientists, and what you're talking about isn't actually scientists but the skeptical community. Real scientists are motivated in many cases (and all of the best ones) by a sense of wonder about the natural world, which is the antithesis of the skeptical mind-set. Skepticism, in the sense of scientific criticism, is for real scientists a tool, not a way of life. Make it a way of life, and your curiosity dies, and then you do no more science. I can't think of a single scientist whose name I know (meaning they discovered something important or developed important advances in theory) who was a skeptic in the sense that they would join an organization such as SCICOP, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, who was a member, but a dissident one in that he thought many of the positions taken by SCICOP were anti-scientific. For example, he refused to sign the "Objections to Astrology" paper, not because he believed in astrology -- he obviously didn't -- but because it argued that since astrology has no basis in physics, it can't possibly work. Sagan's point there was simply that we don't know everything, and to dismiss something simply because we can't explain it is unscientific.

(Also, I can't think offhand of any theoretical or empirical work done by Sagan. He was more a science popularizer than anything else. A good one, though.)

By the way, you might want to check out my latest blog entry. My thinking's evolved to the point where I have rejected materialism as an ultimate philosophy; it's not compatible with first-person consciousness. That doesn't mean I'm prepared to accept a lot of your ideas, of course.

Vandal-72, if you're reading this, sorry, but I put you on ignore. I simply don't have the time or inclination to deal with rude, obnoxious assholes, and it's perfectly clear that the only reason you participate here is to be a cyber-bully, browbeating, intimidating, and making things so unpleasant for people that they'll shut up in order to avoid more aggravation. I can't be bothered with crap like that. If I hear that you've changed your approach and become civilized, I'll remove you from ignore. I want to make it clear that what I'm silencing and refusing to deal with here is not your thoughts and arguments, but your behavior.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One thing that's important to understand, and that I don't think you do, Eric, is that the skeptical community and the scientific community aren't the same thing, and there isn't a lot of overlap.

That was precisely my point, and Sheldrake's point that I quoted. No, it's not! But it appears, according to Sheldrake (and I agree) that there is indeed lot of overlap, because the sciences have become "wholly-owned subsidiaries of the materialist worldview" and materialism has become the "default worldview of educated people around the world." I agree with him. That doesn't mean that there aren't scientists who swim off from this default view, including a lot of quantum physicists like those shown in the "end of materialism" video. It seems in fact that physics has pretty well demolished materialism. In other sciences though, this fact has not yet prevailed.

I've seen polls of scientists on the subject of paranormal powers, and while full-on belief that they exist is very low (something like two percent), acceptance of the possibility is quite high. This is definitely appropriate, in my opinion, since as I said all we have evidence for at this point is an unexplained anomaly, and the only "explanations" being offered are those like, well, yours, to put it bluntly, and those simply can't fit into the framework of science. Similar results obtain on the idea of God, or on religious belief generally. Most scientists are not believers in traditional concepts of God, but a substantial chunk of them are spiritual people without labels (as I now call myself). That's the way to describe Einstein's position: he wasn't a theist, and yet his approach wasn't congruent with that of most people who call themselves "atheists," either (although technically he was one -- but then, technically, so am I).

If you say so; I haven't seen such polls. I am sure what you say applies to many scientists. It is pretty clear though that most academics in general are still deniers, being materialist believers. Even if they don't deni psi or God, they retain some aspects of materialism in their world view, and deny other paranormal things such as the afterlife (you appear to fit in with that description).

So most real scientists aren't skeptics. I believe that goes back once again to the important role of imagination in science. There was a study done recently (unfortunately I can't seem to find it to link it) that showed skeptics to have higher internal interrupts -- there's a technical term for this that I don't recall -- it means that they stop themselves from thinking certain things that don't make sense to them, more so than a control group of non-skeptics. Someone presented this over on G+ as if it were a good thing, and my thought was that it was a creativity-killer. If you stop yourself from entertaining ideas that are outside the pattern, you will never discover anything new. That's not just the death of science, but the death of art as well.

Quite so.

What I'm saying here is that a lot of the time, I see hostility on your part towards scientists, and what you're talking about isn't actually scientists but the skeptical community. Real scientists are motivated in many cases (and all of the best ones) by a sense of wonder about the natural world, which is the antithesis of the skeptical mind-set. Skepticism, in the sense of scientific criticism, is for real scientists a tool, not a way of life. Make it a way of life, and your curiosity dies, and then you do no more science. I can't think of a single scientist whose name I know (meaning they discovered something important or developed important advances in theory) who was a skeptic in the sense that they would join an organization such as SCICOP, with the possible exception of Carl Sagan, who was a member, but a dissident one in that he thought many of the positions taken by SCICOP were anti-scientific. For example, he refused to sign the "Objections to Astrology" paper, not because he believed in astrology -- he obviously didn't -- but because it argued that since astrology has no basis in physics, it can't possibly work. Sagan's point there was simply that we don't know everything, and to dismiss something simply because we can't explain it is unscientific.

(Also, I can't think offhand of any theoretical or empirical work done by Sagan. He was more a science popularizer than anything else. A good one, though.)

I agree with the above. Except I am not hostile toward scientists, but regarding those scientists who are materialists, I may have some hostility when they are given all the coverage (sometimes, for example, Neil DeGrasse Tyson (though I still watch his shows), the brain scientists on Charlie Rose, etc.). I am certainly unhappy that the skeptics are given all the power in places like TED and wikipedia, enabling them to misinform the world. And the skeptics are passed off as scientific references there. That's good to hear that Sagan was more open minded at least than SCICOP.

By the way, you might want to check out my latest blog entry. My thinking's evolved to the point where I have rejected materialism as an ultimate philosophy; it's not compatible with first-person consciousness. That doesn't mean I'm prepared to accept a lot of your ideas, of course.

Well, that's progress Now, when you do agree with me, you'll be home! Just kidding.

The first/second/third person language seems to be an important consideration for you, and appears to be new in your thinking. It is an interesting approach, perhaps.

Vandal-72, if you're reading this, sorry, but I put you on ignore. I simply don't have the time or inclination to deal with rude, obnoxious assholes, and it's perfectly clear that the only reason you participate here is to be a cyber-bully, browbeating, intimidating, and making things so unpleasant for people that they'll shut up in order to avoid more aggravation. I can't be bothered with crap like that. If I hear that you've changed your approach and become civilized, I'll remove you from ignore. I want to make it clear that what I'm silencing and refusing to deal with here is not your thoughts and arguments, but your behavior.

Exactly why I have him on ignore too.

He's a perfect specimen of what Sheldrake called above the "aggressive, scornful, dismissive" approach of skeptics today.

Well, it's not reasonable, in my opinion, to expect scientists to approach science from a non-materialist perspective. If you read my blog article, you know that I'm making a distinction between the first and third person approaches to reality, and noting that consciousness can only be dealt with in the first (or second) person, because it IS first-person subjective awareness. However, what that really means in terms of science is that consciousness is not a scientific subject. (Unless we're talking about what Chalmers calls the "easy problems of consciousness," and I'm not.) Science is always conducted in the third person, and anything that can be dealt with in the third person fits into a materialistic framework.

It seems to me that you're advocating things in the third person that are non-materialistic in nature, and I don't think that's appropriate.