babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Mental Vacuum State: The Genius in us All

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Mental Vacuum State: The Genius in us All
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 28 February 2005 02:55 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is always of some interest to me that those of science might step outside of the box to offer perspective views about what had been of interest in explaining a process that few might of looked at before?


Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge


A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena.


Some might have understood the significance of unconscious processes represented in the bubbles rising to the surface? No? Early universe consideration?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 February 2005 09:54 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Search me. I had no idea physicists thought about these things, although I know they can get trippy. String theory scares me, but I shall send this link to my private tame mathematician-physicist and see what she thinks.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 28 February 2005 10:37 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Thought bubbles" from the sub or unconscious, a rather interesting analogy. I think "ESP" is a rather unscientific word that leeds a person to think that there is another mode of sensation envoved in the phenomenon. Personally I think that is a misconception. The brain is not a sensory organ...no, I won't start with a negative....the differential nature of sense perception is fundemental to normative cognition (see Jean Piaget) and intellectual evolution, i.e. philosophy. Memory is founded upon sense perception and sense perception is founded upon memory; they feed back and forth to each other. That is the simplist description of mental activity. Sense memory and sensing memory form strings of longer memory contructs, i.e memory strings. Our needs as they present to consciousness are driving choices for memory actualization, i.e. planning.

I'm wondering how a seamless memory string could be detected as having a seam. In other words, how could I detect a memory string that does not belong to my own mind? i.e. "ESP"

I think "TSP" (Transmitted Sensory Perception) is a more accurate description.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 28 February 2005 11:24 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What, they got tired of calling upon quantum theory to explain ESP?

They're doing things ass backwards. If they wanna be taken seriously, they first have to find some ESP to explain. 'Cause, you know, every single alleged evidence of ESP has been proven to be bunk...

That guy can claim whatever he wants, but not ONE single instance of a so called ESP phenomena has been observed by qualified researchers, ever.

And scientists don't count as qualified researchers in this case. Scientists don't usually know anything about conjuring tricks and illusion. You need con men and magicians to check for bs when it comes to this kind of stuff.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 28 February 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
What, they got tired of calling upon quantum theory to explain ESP?

They're doing things ass backwards. If they wanna be taken seriously, they first have to find some ESP to explain. 'Cause, you know, every single alleged evidence of ESP has been proven to be bunk...

That guy can claim whatever he wants, but not ONE single instance of a so called ESP phenomena has been observed by qualified researchers, ever.

And scientists don't count as qualified researchers in this case. Scientists don't usually know anything about conjuring tricks and illusion. You need con men and magicians to check for bs when it comes to this kind of stuff.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


It's subject that is subjectable to probability only; there are no identifiable objects for "ESP".
Speaking of "gobbiltygook"?

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: LeftRight ]


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 12:55 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LeftRight:

It's subject that is subjectable to probability only; there are no identifiable objects for "ESP".
Speaking of "gobbiltygook"?

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: LeftRight ]


Uh? Could you please explain? I don't understand you.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brian D. Josephson got a Nobel prize for something he discovered when he was 22 (the Josephson effect). And then he flipped. All his critical thinking skills went out the window after he had a major burn-out. He has supported all kinds of bizarre ideas since then, and he has lost all scientific credibility in the process. His latest fad is cold fusion...

I suggest you read the profile on him that was published in the May 1995 issue of the Scientific American, if you're interested.

He's no visionary, he's just another nut. A painfully shy guy who lost his marbles after being subjected to the pressures of fame.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 01 March 2005 06:43 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the comments

If we can mathematically build it they will come? "They," would be the realization that in a dimensional world, thinking processes would have value in energy determinations, that previously lacked any viable discription using ESP as a exchange in those same mental processes.

Many are involved in developing abtract maths that few of us would even consider, but based on the knowledge inherent in link provided, would you look at Brian D.Josephson differently?

Would this allow recognition of values of neurological development to "see" in other ways that we currently scoffed at?

Any thoughts?

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 01 March 2005 07:23 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PUDDLE OF MUDD LYRICS

Change My Mind

How could I believe anything you've ever said?
I'm on the bottom of your shoes
A little piece of shit
I never wanna hear you sing
You sound just like a little kid
You're like a journey through the world
Going the wrong direction

But something just ain't feeling right
And I think I'm losing track of time
But you're far away and out of sight
So I can't see straight
I'm going blind
Nothing's gonna change this time
Nothing's gonna change my mind

Don't even turn around
Just look away at everything
I think of all the things I've ever done
I've done to me
You know I did it to myself
So I'll stand up and I'll agree
I'm on the bottom of your shoes
A little peace
Some peace for me

But something just ain't feeling right
And I think I'm losing track of time
But you're far away and out of sight
So I can't see straight
I'm going blind
Nothing's gonna change this time
Nothing's gonna change my mind


If the guy is bright and famous, he's nuts. If i've never heard of him, he's stupid and ignorant. If no reputable scientist has ever published evidence (or some did and i haven't read it) in support of this research, that proves the research is illegetimate. If any reputable scientist has published similar conjectures, it proves that scientists was also crazy.
If he's investigating something that doesn't fit my preconceptions, there is something wrong with him, not with my preconceptions.
That's the scientific method, and if you diasgree, i'll say 'Occam's razor' and turn you into a pumpkin.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 01 March 2005 07:38 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
What, they got tired of calling upon quantum theory to explain ESP?

They're doing things ass backwards. If they wanna be taken seriously, they first have to find some ESP to explain. 'Cause, you know, every single alleged evidence of ESP has been proven to be bunk...


This is clearly false. There have been many alleged occurences of ESP that have never been evaluated.

It's not that I'm really into ESP (or religion for that matter), it's the absolutist language that annoys me.

quote:
That guy can claim whatever he wants, but not ONE single instance of a so called ESP phenomena has been observed by qualified researchers, ever.

This is a much different claim from your first one.

quote:
And scientists don't count as qualified researchers in this case. Scientists don't usually know anything about conjuring tricks and illusion. You need con men and magicians to check for bs when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Con men don't know enough about setting up a proper experiment to do it. Sure they may catch charlatans better than a lab scientist, but if you're going to assume everyone's a charlatan than there's no need to even bother with the experiment, is there?

I don't see how science can properly test this without experimenter bias coming into play.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 08:34 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, yeah...

Hey, I got this property on the moon that I can sell you, on the cheap... Interested?

Believe all you want. ESP, schmESP... Once again, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Where's the evidence? What's so absolute about wanting proof? And by the way, you're not dealing with aesthetics or politics here. These are claims that are either true or false, period. And until now, every single ESP claim that has been investigated was proven to be false.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 01 March 2005 08:46 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not interested in defending ESP claims.

I was just responding to what I saw as a misrepresentation of the issue.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 08:46 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:
If the guy is bright and famous, he's nuts. If i've never heard of him, he's stupid and ignorant. If no reputable scientist has ever published evidence (or some did and i haven't read it) in support of this research, that proves the research is illegetimate. If any reputable scientist has published similar conjectures, it proves that scientists was also crazy.
If he's investigating something that doesn't fit my preconceptions, there is something wrong with him, not with my preconceptions.
That's the scientific method, and if you diasgree, i'll say 'Occam's razor' and turn you into a pumpkin.

Bud, Occam's razor is a principle of logic, not science. I might be totally wrong on the existence of ESP, but, you know, it's not to me to prove that I'm right. It's up to them to prove that I'm wrong. And until now, guess what? No ESP.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 01 March 2005 08:52 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

Bud, Occam's razor is a principle of logic, not science. I might be totally wrong on the existence of ESP, but, you know, it's not to me to prove that I'm right. It's up to them to prove that I'm wrong. And until now, guess what? No ESP.


Who is "them"? You're the only one who has made any claims in this topic.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 01 March 2005 09:06 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I remember another thread where Suferosad was just as annoying on the same subject. Proclaim everything that falls outside the bounds of your knowledge bullshit, then accuse everyone who suggests that you're too sure of yourself of believing in these things.

Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but just because the evidence doesn't exist yet doesn't make something wrong. The fact that clocks moving at different speeds keep different time is an extraordinary claim that happened to be correct. A hundred years ago you would have laughed in the face of anyone who said such a thing, and you would have been totally wrong, despite your correct assertion that nobody could prove such an outlandish claim.

The fact is that being as sure of yourself as you are is just plain dumb.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 01 March 2005 09:50 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
I remember another thread where Suferosad was just as annoying on the same subject. Proclaim everything that falls outside the bounds of your knowledge bullshit, then accuse everyone who suggests that you're too sure of yourself of believing in these things.

Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but just because the evidence doesn't exist yet doesn't make something wrong. The fact that clocks moving at different speeds keep different time is an extraordinary claim that happened to be correct. A hundred years ago you would have laughed in the face of anyone who said such a thing, and you would have been totally wrong, despite your correct assertion that nobody could prove such an outlandish claim.

The fact is that being as sure of yourself as you are is just plain dumb.


A similar example to yours on the proofing of something non-sensible: I once had a debate with someone who claimed that humans really didn't have any instincts for doing anything, that every action was an intellectual constuct or a reenactment of knowledge from previous generations (from written word for example). Not an easy arguement to counter arguement.

This sort of fits in with the intimacy of the ESP question; how could anyone doubt something we should know is in our own head? But error is error: the halucination question etc.. Unfornately this envolves the effects of depersonalization and self-falsification; if it were natural to have "ESP" for all, how could we be sure when we have been through that mentally destabilizing process, and this is done on a mass scale in capitalism.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 01 March 2005 10:04 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

Uh? Could you please explain? I don't understand you.


Explain which?...."It's subject that is subjectable to probability only; there are no identifiable objects for "ESP"."? The subject of "ESP" investigation has no sensible object to study: direct use of the seneses are excluded; we may only infer indirectly from outward actions of people in and/or outside a limitedly controled set of conditions including the assumptions of the researcher(s) as descriptions for the nature of their subject for study. There are no absolutes for certainty, only estimations for what the observed actions description should be.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 10:44 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:

Who is "them"? You're the only one who has made any claims in this topic.


"Them" is the people who think ESP actually exists. I haven't made any claims, I've stated a fact. And the fact is: there is no proof that ESP exists. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist. I'm saying that it hasn't been proven to exist.

Actually, I couldn't care less, because I think it's hokum. And I think its hokum because people have been trying to prove that it does exist for the last 150 years at least, without success. How much more do you need?

Now, you feel free to believe whatever you want, it's not up to me to make see this otherwise. Old P.T. Barnum was on to something.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 10:47 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LeftRight:

Explain which?...."It's subject that is subjectable to probability only; there are no identifiable objects for "ESP"."? The subject of "ESP" investigation has no sensible object to study: direct use of the seneses are excluded; we may only infer indirectly from outward actions of people in and/or outside a limitedly controled set of conditions including the assumptions of the researcher(s) as descriptions for the nature of their subject for study. There are no absolutes for certainty, only estimations for what the observed actions description should be.


Sorry, that ain't science. Talk to somehow who's in post-modern studies, they might be interested.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 11:01 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
I remember another thread where Suferosad was just as annoying on the same subject. Proclaim everything that falls outside the bounds of your knowledge bullshit, then accuse everyone who suggests that you're too sure of yourself of believing in these things.

I know that a couple of people here do believe in these things. And this shit doesn't fall outside the "bounds" of my knowledge. I've read enough books on the subject to know something about it. I highly recommend you read stuff written by Martin Gardner. And the Amazing Randi is fun too.


quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Of course extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but just because the evidence doesn't exist yet doesn't make something wrong. The fact that clocks moving at different speeds keep different time is an extraordinary claim that happened to be correct. A hundred years ago you would have laughed in the face of anyone who said such a thing, and you would have been totally wrong, despite your correct assertion that nobody could prove such an outlandish claim.

The fact is that being as sure of yourself as you are is just plain dumb.


Comparing what Einstein came up to this bunk is like comparing a Shakespeare play to a porno movie. And the fact that you doing it indicates that you don't know what you're talking about. See, I would have taken Einstein seriously because:

1) His ideas neatly gave an explanation to things that were puzzling scientists at the time (the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the Precession of the perihelion of Mercury, what was gravity and how did it act at a distance). ESP isn't needed to explain anything. It solves no scientific mysteries.

2) He provided the theoretical frame in which to comprehend his claims.

3) He did it in a language that could be understood by any working physicist or mathematician.

4) He published his ideas in a peer reviewed journal.

5) He provided the means to test his ideas.

6) He would have probably accepted the results if experiments had proven him wrong.

Einstein's ideas were taken very seriously pretty fast by a lot of scientists. 5 years after he published on General Relativity, one year after experimental proof of his claims, the physicists who didn't take him seriously were in the minority.

ESP has been tested for at least 150 years. No single instance of an event that can only be explained by ESP has ever been observed. All that has been found until now concerning ESP claims has indicated fraud, wishful thinking and ignorance.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's the truth until now. And I don't expect it to change anytime soon. But if someone comes up with unassailable evidence (yeah, right!), I will gladly admit that I was wrong and eat my copy of The Demon-Haunted World.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 March 2005 11:15 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Surfer, what does the Amazing Randi say about Josephson on ESP?. On string theory ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 01 March 2005 11:22 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, by the way, if you know someone who claims to have paranormal capabilities, heve him participate in this. No one has ever managed to win. Who knows, maybe he'll be the one!
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 01 March 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Surfer, what does the Amazing Randi say about Josephson on ESP?. On string theory ?.

You're missing the point.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 02 March 2005 12:21 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Comparing what Einstein came up to this bunk is like comparing a Shakespeare play to a porno movie. And the fact that you doing it indicates that you don't know what you're talking about.

No, your response indicates that you don't know what I'm talking about. I said a hundred years ago when there was no Einstein.

Of course you would have believed Einstein, because he proved it. If, however, someone had suggested it to you without proving it, you would have been absolutely certain that he was wrong, as the claim was so ridiculous, and you would have been perfectly "right", that is, scientifically correct, to disbelieve it. Still, the fact would remain that you would have been 100% wrong and the flaky theorist, 100% right, despite how solid your reasons were for dismissing them.

I'm not saying that you should believe in ESP, but disbelieving it and falling all over yourself with derision just because someone theorises about it are two totally different things.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 12:29 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

No, your response indicates that you don't know what I'm talking about. I said a hundred years ago when there was no Einstein.

Of course you would have believed Einstein, because he proved it. If, however, someone had suggested it to you without proving it, you would have been absolutely certain that he was wrong, as the claim was so ridiculous, and you would have been perfectly "right", that is, scientifically correct, to disbelieve it. Still, the fact would remain that you would have been 100% wrong and the flaky theorist, 100% right, despite how solid your reasons were for dismissing them.

I'm not saying that you should believe in ESP, but disbelieving it and falling all over yourself with derision just because someone theorises about it are two totally different things.


Einstein published his special relativity in 1905. Exactly 100 years ago. Check it out if you don't believe me.

I gave you six reasons why I would have taken Einstein's "theories" seriously. Those same six reasons, reversed, explain why I don't take ESP seriously. Plus, of course, the fact that not a single case of ESP has ever been proven to be real. If experiments had proven that nature doesn't work as Einstein postulated, he would now be forgotten, relegated to the dustbins of scientific history. ESP claims have been shown again and again to be hoaxes, frauds, bad statistics or bad science. This has been going on for quite a long time. Martin Gardner cites causes of ESP fraud that date from the last quarter of the XIX century! Still, I must still waste my time here and elsewhere pointing out that there's no proof of it being for real.

And, to top everything, I get accused of being a bad scientist! How much more evidence is really needed, damn it?!

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 March 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

You're missing the point.


But you're missing the subject of the thread.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 12:43 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

But you're missing the subject of the thread.


I'll make this simple:

No ESP, no need for string theory (or any other theory) to explain ESP. Prove ESP, then theory needed to explain how it works. Get it?


Mental vacuum state indeed! I'm starting to get really irritated with this shit, so I think I'll just stop for now. I made my point abundantly clear anyway.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 March 2005 01:17 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ya, we think it's time you took a break, too. Insolent little turd.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 01:27 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Ya, we think it's time you took a break, too. Insolent little turd.

Yeah, I'm insolent, but at least I'm not a sucker who will swallow anything. Go back to reading Von Däniken, you alien anal probe!

By the way, to the smarty-pants who came up with the Occam's razor quip:

Well, I thought about it and here's what I have to say (not that you'll probably care or anything, I have the distinct feeling that I'm wasting my time):

Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Not Occam's razor: if there's a thousand people saying that something is true, then some of the times it must be true. Ex: hundreds of thousands of women were burned as witches in Europe. By your interpretation of Occam's Razor, some of them must have been witches. Witches (those that sell their souls to satan and do black magic) don't exist. Simpler explanation that doesn't require the existence of witches and all that it implies: people were superstitious and irrational.

To explain ESP, you will need entire new theories of physics and psychology. If ESP doesn't exist, none of that is needed. Simpler explanation for ESP: people are superstitious and irrational. So, strictly according to the correct definition of Occam's razor, no ESP. Not that it matters. Occam's razor, as I said before, is just a principle of logic which can only be used as a general rule i.e. shouldn't be taken too seriously.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 March 2005 01:34 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Somebody lose their kid ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 01:40 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Somebody lose their kid ?.

Dude are you implying that I'm a kid? I mean, you're the gullible one...


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 01:42 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aaaanyyyway...

Nighty night, Fidel, don't let the alien bugs bite!

Toodles,

Sceptic


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 March 2005 01:44 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I hear your mother calling.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 02 March 2005 02:11 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Einstein published his special relativity in 1905. Exactly 100 years ago. Check it out if you don't believe me.

Holy Christ! Are you this dense about everything?

I'm going to make one more attempt to make my point clear to you, but it's probably futile as you seem to be twisting yourself in knots trying to avoid the substance of my posts.

It's 1904, okay Mr. Picky? You are sitting in a drawing room with some other pompous intellectuals and one other guy who's a bit of a space cadet. The flaky dude says to you, "hey, imagine that clocks travelling at different rates run at different speeds". You, being the stubborn know-it-all that you are, say "That's preposterous! What a ludicrous suggestion. Is there any scientific basis for such a ridiculous claim? Of course not. Why don't you leave the science to those of us who can think clearly?"

All right? Are you following me so far? No Einstein. Einstein isn't involved. Now, you are within your rights to shoot this guy down, since there is no scientific basis for his claim that anyone knows of, and this guy is just a flake tossing out an idea, so he couldn't have come up with said basis regardless. But despite the fact that his views are unproven and utterly fantastic, and your condemnation of him completely in line with known scientific theory, HE IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG, GET IT!?!

quote:
Still, I must still waste my time here and elsewhere pointing out that there's no proof of it being for real.

Yes, you are completely wasting your time pointing this out, because NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH YOU ABOUT THIS. Not one person has said there is proof for the existence of ESP, not even the physicist that wrote the article that started this thread. All he did was theorise that string theory might allow for the possiblity of such phenomenon, which is a far cry from saying it proves its existence or even claiming it exists.

Personally, I haven't been talking about ESP at all, I've been talking about your attitude, which is pig-headed and arrogant. Einstein's thought experiments, which led to his creation of the theory of relativity, were as fanciful as the ones being discussed here, and if his theory had been proven wrong (as we might assume this theory will be proven wrong someday when we have the means to test it), then they would now be forgotten, but that wouldn't have made them bad science or made Einstein a crackpot. Fanciful theorising is also a part of good science. Einstein believed it was the most important part, whereas you see it as something to ridicule. That's what people take exception to.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 March 2005 02:13 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Not Occam's razor: if there's a thousand people saying that something is true, then some of the times it must be true. Ex: hundreds of thousands of women were burned as witches in Europe. By your interpretation of Occam's Razor, some of them must have been witches. Witches (those that sell their souls to satan and do black magic) don't exist. Simpler explanation that doesn't require the existence of witches and all that it implies: people were superstitious and irrational.


There is such a thing as simplifying far too much by focussing on one factor and ignoring all other factors; or by producing a facile explanation which does not in fact explain anything, eg,, "people were superstitious and irrational." You have missed out on the factors of class, sexism, ageism, religious fanaticism, personal grudges; was it only ugly, unpopular, poor old women who were burned as witches? Mostly, perhaps; but some of them were hanged or killed in other ways; some were not so old or ugly; some were men. Were none of them witches? Again you miss the point by trumpeting your disbelief in witches; what you should be asking is what THEY believed; did some of the "witches" in fact consider themselves to be witches? Did some of them believe they had worked black magic? Did the people who killed them believe they were witches? What were their reasons? What was the state of knowledge at the time? Remember that many of them were tried; they were not killed by a mob with torches and pitchforks.

If I believed you had magically killed someone I loved, then the rational thing would be for me to execute you before you could kill again; a matter of justice, revenge, and self-defence. You might say from a distance of centuries that the assumptions I acted upon were incorrect, but you could not say I acted irrationally based on the information I had at the time.

The lesson here is that you should not try to impose an overly simplistic explanation on a complex event which involved thousands of people over hundreds of years covering a large geographical area; each with their own motivation; each particular situation with its own complicating factors. Above all, do not expect people to think the same way you do; instead you need to try to understand how they think.

You can decide not to believe anything unless you are provided with evidence of its existence; but you cannot declare that something does not exist because you personally are not aware of any evidence of its existence. If you do this, you are claiming to be omniscient; in other words, you are claiming to be God, with all knowledge of all things; and Surferosad, you ain't God.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 02 March 2005 03:39 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have proof for ESP, I just Know Surfer-dude will rudely dismiss it. How the heck can a scientist prove something that's non replicable in a lab anyhow? All they can prove is that a particular guy is using sleight of hand.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 04:03 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Fancy ESP theorising has been going on for decades now. And still no proof. And I perfectly understood the point about 1904, etc, Mr. Jacob Two-Two. You have chosen to concentrate on that phrase and not pay attention to the post where I explain why scientists took Einstein seriously. Typical, really...

Yeah, I simplified on the witch thing. But finally, it all comes down to, what? Superstition and prejudice, two big words that include and imply all those extra factors that Contrarian mentioned. By the way, don't see too much on that analogy. It was only an example given to clearly explain why that Occam's razor argument was badly applied. If you concentrate on that, you'll miss the forest for the trees.

Once again, about ESP... Where's the beef?

I suggest you people spend some time at a few of these web pages:

http://www.csicop.org/

http://www.quackwatch.org/

And for the french speakers:

http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/

And now, I'll let you gentleman shoot the messenger, sort of...

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 04:06 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I have proof for ESP, I just Know Surfer-dude will rudely dismiss it. How the heck can a scientist prove something that's non replicable in a lab anyhow? All they can prove is that a particular guy is using sleight of hand.

Please, go ahead! Give it to us! Non replicable in a lab, uh? This oughta be good!

Am I annoying? Well, I can guarantee you that I'm not annoying you half as much as you are annoying me! I'm sitting right here thinking " I can't believe that I'm having this argument again!"

And by the way, you probably think that you're defending some kind of unorthodox view. But you're not! Your absence of scepticism regarding ESP, religious claims and assorted stuff is unfortunately shared by the majority of humanity. Every year, I have this same discussion, over and over again. At parties, on the net, at dinner with friends. And every year people hate my guts for demolishing their little safe superstitions.... Why do I go through this shit?

300 years ago it would have been witches, angels and bad spirits, now it's UFO abductions, homeopathy and ESP... Plus ça change... And what pains me the most is to see so called progressive people falling for this kind of hokum! I thought that the left was supposed to be rational, rigourous, empirical! And the right was supposed to be supported by churches and all kinds of irrational beliefs (patriotism, xenophobia)! I guess I'm wrong...

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 02 March 2005 04:54 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You must feel strongly about this. THat Was my proof. A joke. I also figured you'd assume I'm a regular subscriber to Jo Jo's psychic clinic. There was that one time though...I had just Knew someone was going to phone, sure enough my mother phoned to wish me a happy birthday.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 05:03 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
You must feel strongly about this. THat Was my proof. A joke. I also figured you'd assume I'm a regular subscriber to Jo Jo's psychic clinic. There was that one time though...I had just Knew someone was going to phone, sure enough my mother phoned to wish me a happy birthday.

I do feel strongly about this! How the hell can people build a better world if they are so easily hoodwinked?


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 02 March 2005 05:18 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now That is a good question, worth a whole thread unto itself. How for example do the Republicans continue to convince over half the American electorate that they represent the average shmoe's interests better than the average bleeding heart?

I do BTW believe that some psychic activity maybe possible, for reasons I won't divulge, but I just assume that most "psychics" are charlatons or fools, I really don't know how something like that can proved without a shadow of a doubt (disproved sure) and I am sadly lacking in any extra-sensory ability myself alas. Can be quite profitable I hear.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This ironic quote comes to mind:

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and political system; since are at present faultless, this must weigh against it. I am also aware (what is more serious) that it would tend to diminish the incomes of clairvoyants, bookmakers, bishops and others who live on the irrational hopes of those who have done nothing to deserve good fortune here or hereafter."

Bertrand Russel


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 March 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How do new paradigms finally emerge? Some emerge all at once, sometimes in the middle of the night, in the mind of a man deeply immersed in crisis. Those who achieve fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have generally been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they changed. Much of this process is inscrutable and may be permanently so.

Some might be familiar with Thomas Kuhn and others might not? Some will scoff at a subject here in terms of the very words of paradigmal change, yet I do not want to remove what is already in place by the perspective views shared here, but nudge it to consider how such revolutions are born.

For me the topic of string theory is such a attempt to alter the perceptions that we have previously held, although we now mask the science world with the innovation of a alternate point of view. These concepts are beyond most of you, but the implications are quite clear on how theoretical change could modify current thoughts on how we can percieve the world differently.

Oh, I am just a normal guy who likes a mystery too?

So, such a revolution for me was to wonder how this paradigmal change might move into other areas of perception. I want to introduced a foreign perspective that I meet along the way to help elucidate the realizations where a paradigmal change, might have occurred?

Dr. Hans Jenny (1904-1972). Swiss physician, artist, and natural scientist

Before moving into this perspective there was further considerations in regards to Chaldni plates thatI also wanted to offer for further perspective as well.

I am not trying to hood wink anyone, but offer more perspctive as I developed my research. I am open to criticism and any falsifiable approach.


Optiverse

And yes the Solvay meetings were very instrumental on developing further thought experiments.

Any thoughts

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 02 March 2005 04:03 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I have proof for ESP, I just Know Surfer-dude will rudely dismiss it. How the heck can a scientist prove something that's non replicable in a lab anyhow? All they can prove is that a particular guy is using sleight of hand.

Why exactly should ESP, if it existed, not be replicable in a lab? ESP proponents have fallen back on the "inherently unreliable" thing simply because they haven't been able to come up with any that just works.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 02 March 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh lordy! Another quote of Kuhn by a supporter of quack science! Every time I disagreed with a relatively literate supporter of pseudoscientific hokum (be it UFO, crop circles, homeopathy, crystal energies, etc.) there's always a point at witch he mentions Kuhn...

Although I don't take Kuhn very seriously (am I the only one who's sick of the word paradigm?), I will stay within his opinions: before a "paradigm shift", there has to be conflicting data i.e. facts are necessary.

Quoting the link above: " Inquiry begins with a random collection of "mere facts" (although, often, a body of beliefs is already implicit in the collection). During these early stages of inquiry, different researchers confronting the same phenomena describe and interpret them in different ways."

I repeat: there are no unassailable facts concerning ESP, no evidence that ESP exists. Therefore, no need to shift paradigms.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 March 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey kid, your parents are at looking for you at the front of the store.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 02 March 2005 05:31 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Though I'm not enamoured with Surferosad's tone, nobody has answered his or Rufus' objections.

As for your joke, nobody laughed when you first posted it, so maybe you should consider another approach.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 02 March 2005 05:39 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are a lot of good people who insist they've experienced what they consider "psychic" phenomena or "spiritual" events directly, that maybe why they believe despite all the Uri Geller's or Kreskin's out there.

As I said, if something is considered a "miracle", involves "para-normal" activity or "supernatural" agents, or depends on a highly unusual state of mind, then by definition it can't be replicated on a routine basis by any old lab technician or priest. Conversely, if the scientific community Did find a measurable cause for paranormal activity then it will no longer be considered supernatural, spiritual, or paranormal by definition, it would have to be within the realm of measurable causation, matter and energy. That's all I'm saying, I get tired of all the pseudo-scientific "new age" BS too.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 March 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The point is, physicists and mathematicians are pursuing what they believe to be a unified theory of the universe. Albert Einstein was himself said to be interested in pursuing such a theory.

I think that if people here want to criticize a Nobel laureate in physics for his work, that's fine. But there are plenty of online physics and math forums for them to introduce Amazing Randi's opinions on the matter. Why sit on guard of this particular thread and firing off insults in what is essentially the same post over and over ?.

Another scientists motto: "Take nobody's word for it."

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 02 March 2005 06:51 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Though I'm not enamoured with Surferosad's tone, nobody has answered his or Rufus' objections.

I have no problem with Rufus' statements. Surfer's diatribes haven't been answered because he's arguing with a figment of his imagination. He keeps assuring us that there is no evidence to support psychic phenomenon despite the fact that no one has claimed that there is. In fact, nobody has even claimed they believe in such things, let alone claimed that there is proof to back up such a belief.

All people are TRYING to do is speculate on the POSSIBILITY (however remote) of the existence of such phenomenon, and how it might fit into the accepted framework of scientific theory that we currently have. This is too much for Surfer, however. Not only must we not believe in such things, but we must be vigorously discouraged from even speculating about it. Thank you, thought police. What would we do without you?

But as Fidel has pointed out, Surfer, we all get it, okay? It bothers you that people talk about this. You need to accept that people are going to talk about it anyway and move on with your life, instead of running around trying to head any such discussion off at the pass with your contempt and insults, not that we don't appreciate them. In short, buzz off.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 02 March 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

I have no problem with Rufus' statements. Surfer's diatribes haven't been answered because he's arguing with a figment of his imagination. He keeps assuring us that there is no evidence to support psychic phenomenon despite the fact that no one has claimed that there is. In fact, nobody has even claimed they believe in such things, let alone claimed that there is proof to back up such a belief.



If someone promotes an explanation for a purported phenomenon, there's an implicit assumption that they believe in that phenomenon, no? I think that's what got Surfer's back up.
quote:

All people are TRYING to do is speculate on the POSSIBILITY (however remote) of the existence of such phenomenon, and how it might fit into the accepted framework of scientific theory that we currently have. This is too much for Surfer, however. Not only must we not believe in such things, but we must be vigorously discouraged from even speculating about it. Thank you, thought police. What would we do without you?


Thought police, yeah. Nobody's going to arrest you for speculating about the paranormal. But when the evidence is so scanty, it's better to investigate the soundness of this evidence first, and then look at possible explanations. You don't waste as much time that way.

Incidentally, I'm not averse to a bit more research being done on this topic, but such research time and money would be better spent trying to replicate the results claimed by people like PEAR (they make some interesting claims; others say that attempts to replicate their experiments have been unsuccessful) rather than prematurely proposing explanations for something that might not exist.

quote:

But as Fidel has pointed out, Surfer, we all get it, okay? It bothers you that people talk about this. You need to accept that people are going to talk about it anyway and move on with your life, instead of running around trying to head any such discussion off at the pass with your contempt and insults, not that we don't appreciate them. In short, buzz off.


Surfer's diplomacy skills leave something to be desired, agreed. But I can understand his frustration. When critical thinking is allowed to slip, bad things can happen. It's not so much that people believe in ESP that's a problem; it's that the same sort of suspension of critical thought that leads people to believe in other, more pernicious ideas. That's why it's important to stop shoddy thinking in its tracks wherever it's found.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 02 March 2005 07:44 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He keeps assuring us that there is no evidence to support psychic phenomenon despite the fact that no one has claimed that there is. In fact, nobody has even claimed they believe in such things, let alone claimed that there is proof to back up such a belief.

Besides Brian D. Josephson himself? The abstract presupposes the existence of ESP and paranormal phenomena, doing a lot of silly arm-waving to support its position.


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 02 March 2005 08:15 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I understood resistance would be felt as soon as I mentioned paradigm, because I speak from experience and know that resistance would be meet. That's okay.


George Lakoff: Our answer is that the ordinary embodied mind, with its image schemas, conceptual metaphors, and mental spaces, has the capacity to create the most sophisticated of mathematics via using everyday conceptual mechanisms.

Let's dispense with the word paradigm then, and speak to this revolution in "perspective" from example. So what might you have that it might not appear as mysterious as any thought of, an "idea" bubbling to the surface awareness?

Here's one I thought of, and it's progressive change in approaching the basis leading into GR with time.


Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri

What role would he have in developing the inroads to non-euclidean geometry, and how would this transform our views in GR? Would the ideas of curvature in space, allow one a more intuitive approach to having understood this progression of thought?

Would you gain a sense of the new geometry?

If such thought processes fell within the realm of the abstract mental fuction, how would such a thought be transmitted to those of us whose earthly emotive functions might not of paved the way for any comprehensible understanding. Some simple anomalie(to us let educated) that might make a impression and emotive conection?

If you have this "sense" then inject your examples here, that we may see, what you see?

As a teacher can you give us analogies that would impart the understanding of the greater visions of science and what they have developed for us? Think of something? Anything, and tell me what rises to the surface?

What would these words of Dvali mean to you if you entertained this analogy ?

Dvali uses the analogy of a metallic sheet submerged in water to illustrate the principle. If one hits the sheet with a hammer, shock waves will carry away the energy in all directions. "Most of the energy will travel along the two-dimensional surface. Only at a substantial distance away from the source will the energy loss to water be appreciable," he said. "According to our picture, we are in a very similar situation. We think gravity is 'normal' because we only measure it directly at relatively short distances, but cosmic acceleration indicates leakage.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 02 March 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

I'll make this simple:

No ESP, no need for string theory (or any other theory) to explain ESP. Prove ESP, then theory needed to explain how it works. Get it?

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]



Yes, it is simple: either a person is dishonest or they are mentally malfunctional and as "ESP" has no material construct to analize to produce or base a theory on, there is no valid theory possible for it. Human instinct would be another example of such baseless theory as I suppose the concept of the subconscious.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 02 March 2005 09:13 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can not understand why the concept of mental telepathy ("ESP") has no more possibility or impossibility than does AM radio. Why does it have less?
From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 02 March 2005 09:26 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

Sorry, that ain't science. Talk to somehow who's in post-modern studies, they might be interested.


I don't know what post-modern study is. I do know what "measurable" means, estimation and synchronic/simaltaneous events are. Voltage variation of brain activity, Amplitude Modulation (AM radio), Voltage Modulation (electronic systems action) and encoding. I know what electromagnetic record reproduction is. I know what memory is. I know what a claim is and how to differentiate one claim from another and approximate a probability (random limit expressed as a ratio of true (3), false (0) and unproven (1 or 2?) subscripts of a claim) comparison for them.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 02 March 2005 09:39 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can not understand why the concept of mental telepathy ("ESP") has no more possibility or impossibility than does AM radio. Why does it have less?

Because the science related to electromagnetic phenomena is solid enough that it has all sorts of real-world applications? And ESP is apparently so unreliable that according to some it can't be reproduced in labs?


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 02 March 2005 10:18 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Ergaster:

Because the science related to electromagnetic phenomena is solid enough that it has all sorts of real-world applications? And ESP is apparently so unreliable that according to some it can't be reproduced in labs?


Is it normal to reproduce the same experience many times? Perhaps there are too many materialist applications for "ESP" that a single conscious application is impossible. If "ESP" is an evolved function for the mind then perhaps it is not natural for it to be limited to our scienctific demands. Perhaps it would be more likely to be identified in a natural real time sociological environment. Why would we have "ESP" and how is it connected to our interests as living things?

Equipment used for brain data identification would be needed for correlation of a subjects 'unexplained brain activity' event. For that we would need a list of explainable brain activity and brain activity description for the subjects normative personal experience.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 02 March 2005 10:41 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Francis Mont:

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


Aw come on, why did you edit that out? It was refreshing.

I would've thanked you when I read it last night but I was running out the door.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 02 March 2005 10:56 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the sake of balance, here's an article about CSICOP. It's generally critical of csicop (not mean-spirited though) and seems to be well researched. I found it this evening when googling.

Edited to add: The article is _CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview_ by George  P. Hansen
 
Originally published in The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Volume 86, No. 1, January 1992, pp. 19-63.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: wage zombie ]


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 02 March 2005 11:16 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LeftRight:

Is it normal to reproduce the same experience many times? Perhaps there are too many materialist applications for "ESP" that a single conscious application is impossible. If "ESP" is an evolved function for the mind then perhaps it is not natural for it to be limited to our scienctific demands.



Hmm. ESP doesn't like science, so it runs away and hides every time science shows up. Interesting ad hoc hypothesis, anyway...

But really, why should this be? All kinds of human traits evolved under conditions very different from the ones we find ourselves in now, yet we're still able to detect them. I suppose that it's not impossible, but it doesn't seem like the simplest explanation for the paucity of well-documented cases.

quote:

Perhaps it would be more likely to be identified in a natural real time sociological environment. Why would we have "ESP" and how is it connected to our interests as living things?


The thing is, in a "real time sociological environment" (really a lab is a real time sociological environment as much as any other human setting, but I think I know the kind of environment you mean) there are a lot of things to confuse the issue- many of which might complicate verification. Are the pages of the book turning because of someone's telekinetic powers, or because of air currents? Questions like this can only be adequately answered in a lab, where you can design the environment to eliminate air currents as a possibility- something you couldn't do on a stage in a theatre, for instance.
quote:

Equipment used for brain data identification would be needed for correlation of a subjects 'unexplained brain activity' event. For that we would need a list of explainable brain activity and brain activity description for the subjects normative personal experience.


That might be an excellent idea... once we find someone who can reliably demonstrate ESP, and once we know enough about the brain to map all those specific things. Even if we can find the first, it will likely take us a long time to attain the necessary knowledge to do the second.

[ 02 March 2005: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 02 March 2005 11:57 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Ergaster:
Because the science related to electromagnetic phenomena is solid enough that it has all sorts of real-world applications? And ESP is apparently so unreliable that according to some it can't be reproduced in labs?

I didn't say that either. I just said that if it DOES exist it obviously isn't as reliable or concrete as a radio antenna. No one has ever said it was --you really should read more about spiritualism.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 03 March 2005 12:49 AM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is it normal to reproduce the same experience many times? Perhaps there are too many materialist applications for "ESP" that a single conscious application is impossible.

Why? Doesn't the "P" stand for "perception"? Therefore, shouldn't it be reliable to some degree, like our other senses are? Shouldn't the applications that are most commonly mentioned by believers--mind reading, remote viewing, precognition--be testable, within certain limits?

quote:
If "ESP" is an evolved function for the mind then perhaps it is not natural for it to be limited to our scienctific demands. Perhaps it would be more likely to be identified in a natural real time sociological environment.

If, if, if. You're putting the cart before the horse. And of course it'd show up in a "real time sociological environment" rather than a lab. But you could also say that about, e.g., faith healing.

quote:
Why would we have "ESP" and how is it connected to our interests as living things?

Maybe because it'd be a cool power to have. Personally, I wouldn't mind X-ray vision, too. I'm afraid of heights, so flight would be out.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 03 March 2005 01:06 AM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

I didn't say that either. I just said that if it DOES exist it obviously isn't as reliable or concrete as a radio antenna. No one has ever said it was --you really should read more about spiritualism.


Har. Well, I've read my fair share. But this begs a few questions:

  • Does it indeed exist?
  • And if it does, just how reliable is it?
  • And is the answer to question (2) more, or less, reliable than random chance?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 03 March 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For the sake of balance, here's an article about CSICOP. It's generally critical of csicop (not mean-spirited though) and seems to be well researched. I found it this evening when googling.
Edited to add: The article is _CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview_ by George P. Hansen

Only seems well researched. Actually it's a pile of crap.

Hansen refers to Martin Gardner many times in the article, but always calls Gardener a magician. It's true Gardner did magic, but that was only a part of his overall career.

Gardner graduated with a major in philosophy, and wrote hundreds of articles on mathematics over his career.

Most of Hansen's complaint appears to be that the members of CSICOP are not nice to paranormalists.

Well, that's too bad.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 03 March 2005 05:18 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Though I'm not enamoured with Surferosad's tone, nobody has answered his objections.

(I seperated out Rufus for a benign reason.)

Let us speculate as to possible reasons.
Why was Daniel reluctant to enter the lion's den? Hmmm...
It's just not as much fun as you might think to confront intellectual bigots on turf they have laid, bound by rules they have set.
1) they generally have no sense of humour, awe, wonder or possibility.
2) They don't play fair.
3) They don't want to play at all.
4) They lack the imagination to follow thought-experiments.
5) They're too rigid learn new vocabulary or understand the meaning of "what if?" - the pad off which all new science is launched.
6) They won't believe evidence from anyone else's observed data and they haven't got their own observed data, because they keep declining invitations to data-collection parties by any group outside their own.
7) They shun/diss/punish anyone who even tries to collect data outside their own group.
8) - and most important - They are about to become extinct and irrelevant, so who cares?


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 03 March 2005 06:45 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If someone promotes an explanation for a purported phenomenon, there's an implicit assumption that they believe in that phenomenon, no?

I don't think so. I don't believe in ghosts but I'll still talk about them and how their existence might make sense within our current framework for understanding reality. In fact, it is precisely because I don't believe that makes such discussion valuable for me. It is intellectually healthy to step outside of your assumptions and pre-conceptions occasionally, however well-founded they may be.

quote:
Thought police, yeah. Nobody's going to arrest you for speculating about the paranormal.

I don't think the term "policing" necessarily implies powers of arrest. I'm just referring to monitoring and taking action against certain types of discussion. There's no need. If you think a conversation has no merit, then don't take part. It's that simple. If you really can't help but communicate your displeasure that people talk about subjects that you consider frivolous, then do so once and leave it alone. Repeatedly berating everyone for having a conversation you disapprove of is nothing more than bullying.

quote:
it's better to investigate the soundness of this evidence first, and then look at possible explanations. You don't waste as much time that way.

Leave it to the conversers to decide whether their conversations are a waste of time, m'kay? This is exactly the attitude that I'm talking about. As well, your advice makes no sense in this context, because there is no evidence to investigate. Much like discussions about wormholes, discussions about ESP involve something that may or may not exist, but is impossible to verify.

The implicate assumption here is that only things that refer to observed and verified phenomenon merit discussion, but luckily not all scientists have followed this self-limiting maxim. As I said above, Einstein's thought experiments about travelling at the speed of light were fanciful speculations of the first order. They seem entirely reasonable to us now, as the concept has become part of our cultural consciousness, but at the time he was thinking them, they were as outlandish as speculating about the nature of reading minds. The fact that they led to real hard science means they are now regarded as genius, but if they hadn't they would be dismissed as the ravings of a quack. Fine line there.

quote:
Surfer's diplomacy skills leave something to be desired, agreed. But I can understand his frustration. When critical thinking is allowed to slip, bad things can happen.

While Surfer's tone is a little grating, it doesn't really bother me. It's the content of his posts that irritated me, which was essentially that conversations about unproven or discredited ideas shouldn't happen. Don't tell other people what they can and can't talk about about or feel it's your duty to stop them from doing so.

I agree about the critical thinking, but is it a lack of critical thinking to muse about possibilities, even when you know they're slight? Or is the lack of critical thinking not being able to distinguish between this kind of discussion and more serious argument over verifiable data? In my opinion it is Surfer and yourself who are showing the lack of critical thinking because you assume, as you said, that when someone offers a theory, they are professing a faith in it.

quote:
That's why it's important to stop shoddy thinking in its tracks wherever it's found.

Yeah, no thought policing here. I stand corrected.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 March 2005 07:33 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bully is the word. Only one way to deal with a bully, and that's to give him what for.

I don't feel like commenting on the thread topic with someone's adolescent kid lurking. It just seems to encourage him all the more.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 03 March 2005 08:37 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:

Much like discussions about wormholes, discussions about ESP involve something that may or may not exist, but is impossible to verify.


Interesting point about wormholes, but there is a subtle difference between discussions about wormholes in connection with relativity, and discussions about ESP in connection with string theory. In the case of wormholes, their possiblility is an implication of general relativity. Josephson seems to be trying to do something similar, but it somehow seems more post-hoc here- he believes in ESP and is trying to make it fit the theory. I won't push this too far, since there are probably elements of wish-fulfillment in theories about wormholes too, but there is another point- string theory is FAR less well confirmed than general relativity.
quote:

Yeah, no thought policing here. I stand corrected.


Maybe my wording was too strong, but let's look at what I said in context:
quote:

It's not so much that people believe in ESP that's a problem; it's that the same sort of suspension of critical thought that leads people to believe in other, more pernicious ideas. That's why it's important to stop shoddy thinking in its tracks wherever it's found.


In other words, I want people to learn to think critically about things. Sure, belief in ESP is not harmful per se, but the sort of skepticism that leads to suspicion of these claims is good for critical examination of other claims (missile defense works, global warming isn't happening, this drug is safe, that homeopathic remedy works, etc).

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 March 2005 09:32 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
Interesting point about wormholes, but there is a subtle difference between discussions about wormholes in connection with relativity, and discussions about ESP in connection with string theory. In the case of wormholes, their possiblility is an implication of general relativity. Josephson seems to be trying to do something similar, but it somehow seems more post-hoc here- he believes in ESP and is trying to make it fit the theory. I won't push this too far, since there are probably elements of wish-fulfillment in theories about wormholes too, but there is another point- string theory is FAR less well confirmed than general relativity.

There is more to the universe than science understands but is, nevertheless, striving to know at the moment. About 85-90% of the universe's matter, referred to now as "dark matter", is currently unknown to science.

As a world renowned physicist, I think Josephson knows better than to approach science with whimsical desire to prove the unprovable. String theory and M-theory are, for me anyway, quite fantastical. But for physicists, string theory is a necessary stepping stone to understanding why relativity and quantum mechanics, both proven in countless experiments, are at odds over the same phenomenon, gravity. The two theories clash over how to describe gravtons, something that has never been observed by scientists, according to what I've last read. Many scientists are hopeful that string theory or a variant of will eventually develop into a unifying theory of both quantum mechanics(study of the extremely small) and relativity(very large measurements).

And Josephson, for all intents and purposes, is not theorizing the most incredible, imo. I think that six or seven dimensions in the world beneath us is quite extraordinary all by itself. These aren't quacks. They're Nobel prize winning physicists, mathematicians and enthusiasts alike. Enrollment in physics programs is up.

quote:

In other words, I want people to learn to think critically about things.

I didn't earn my B.Eng by drinking and partying on school nights, Mike. Although there were just a few nights when caution was thrown to the wind and found myself saying, "Where are we going with this, and why are we in this hand basket?." And some days were downright frightful.

The universe is not only more than we can know, it's stranger than we may know ?.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 03 March 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As you must now know, the article produced was a sideline version of something much more intricate, then the subject of esp. Yet, such a theory as strings, would have to include it in it's model applicability, or it would not be a theory of everything would it?

Fidel is right. These are not abilties of men and woman who are giving us a good look at alternates models for considertaion and do not have a basis from which they articulate.

Any statement made by the higher virtues of science would have been understood implicitly, and if they stepped outside of the box, they are moving their models into different areas for consideration?

Now this brings me to the basis for consideration, and Dvali's statement. A preview to a much more complex view that I have moved here for debate.

What is the Sound of Gravitational Waves?

Now, do I have a much more complex view here for consideration, in light of Josephson's theoretical position. If the basis of my arguement is understood, then how would you see Josephson's statement now?

What patterns could emerge from probabilistic events? How do they?

Do not forget to turn your speakers on, before you hit link provided.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 03 March 2005 01:42 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:

(I seperated out Rufus for a benign reason.)

Let us speculate as to possible reasons.
Why was Daniel reluctant to enter the lion's den? Hmmm...
It's just not as much fun as you might think to confront intellectual bigots on turf they have laid, bound by rules they have set.
1) they generally have no sense of humour, awe, wonder or possibility.
2) They don't play fair.
3) They don't want to play at all.
4) They lack the imagination to follow thought-experiments.
5) They're too rigid learn new vocabulary or understand the meaning of "what if?" - the pad off which all new science is launched.
6) They won't believe evidence from anyone else's observed data and they haven't got their own observed data, because they keep declining invitations to data-collection parties by any group outside their own.
7) They shun/diss/punish anyone who even tries to collect data outside their own group.
8) - and most important - They are about to become extinct and irrelevant, so who cares?


I refuse to be awed by shoddy thinking and unproved assertions, therefore I have no imagination, I lack a sense of humour and I'm rigid! What a crock of shit!
You don't know anything about me!

Frankly, I find it highly annoying that you pretend to talk in a scientific tone while you obviously don't give two shits for scientific methods and conclusions. Or better, you only care about those methods when they tell you what you wanna hear. I work in science, bud. I can't count the times where one of my cherished ideas was demolished by some professor, or a colleague, or an article, and I had to go back to the drawing board, start anew...That's how it goes! With supporters of ESP, if scientific methods don't give what they want, then there's obviously something wrong with the methods or with the people who did the experiment... Once again: every single time an ESP experiment has been done in a controlled setting, with both sceptics and believers present (the presence of sceptics is very important here, since they're the ones that need convincing, and the ones that are harder to fool) and with clear experimental parameters, the ESP experiment has failed to prove that there is such a thing as ESP. There are probably hundreds, maybe thousands of such experiments. If even a single one had clearly indicated that there was something to ESP, I'm sure it would have been widely publicised, and it would have been reproduced by hundreds of researchers around the world.

I don't hide the fact that I find ESP highly improbable. And the field has a long history of association with charlatans, con men and deluded thinkers. Why is it so surprising then, why does it annoy you so much, that someone like me ask for hard evidence? Wouldn't you demand rigourous testing too if your were in my shoes?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 03 March 2005 01:49 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I've never said to anyone "you shouldn't talk about ESP"! I personally don't believe in any kind of censorship. But if you talk about highly dubious subjects, you should expect to have your views criticised. I think that I'm within my right to tell you that I find ESP highly improbable. Also, I only pointed out that there's no proof that there is such a thing as ESP, and that Josephson has zero scientific credibility, in spite of his past achievements. That's how this whole thing started. My tone wasn't initially "grating". It became grating because I reacted to the openly hostile tone of the answers to my objections. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, and I can't say I'm surprised. When it comes to these kinds of subjects, I'm used to being the proverbial fly in the ointment...

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 03 March 2005 02:13 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

When critical thinking is allowed to slip, bad things can happen. It's not so much that people believe in ESP that's a problem; it's that the same sort of suspension of critical thought that leads people to believe in other, more pernicious ideas. That's why it's important to stop shoddy thinking in its tracks wherever it's found.

The crux.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 03 March 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Only seems well researched. Actually it's a pile of crap.

Hansen refers to Martin Gardner many times in the article, but always calls Gardener a magician. It's true Gardner did magic, but that was only a part of his overall career.

Gardner graduated with a major in philosophy, and wrote hundreds of articles on mathematics over his career.


From the article)

Here's the first reference made to Gardner

quote:
There are several reasons CSICOP has flourished. Much of the organizational success can be attributed to the dynamic leadership of philosopher Paul Kurtz, the publicity skills of magician James Randi, and the wide influence of writer Martin Gardner.

Here's the background information provided about Gardner

quote:
Martin Gardner has been aptly described as the “godfather of the movement” (Clark, 1990, p. 420); his influence is pervasive. As mentioned previously, he is highly regarded in conjuring circles and has contributed important works to magic (Booth, 1988). In 1952, he published In the Name of Science, which has turned out to be a landmark skeptical work. The volume established Gardner as an early prominent debunker. The book took a popular rather than scholarly approach, and it contained no footnotes or list of references. It displayed a snide and sarcastic demeanor, setting the tone for many future debunkers. Gardner’s book was later revised and is still in print under the title Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (Gardner, 1957). The temper of his writing attracted the attention of a Newsweek writer who noted: “Gentle as he is, he is driven almost beyond satire ... he wields Ockham’s razor like a switchblade” (Adler with Carey, 1981, p. 101). Despite his style, Gardner is no intellectual lightweight; for example, his The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener (1983b) is much more sophisticated than a number of Kurtz’s recent books.

Gardner is primarily a writer and shuns public appearances; he has never made a presentation at a CSICOP convention. His entry in Contemporary Authors (Locher, 1978) lists 41 authored and edited works; many more have been published since. His skeptical influence has been felt in the publishing world beyond his own writings. Hansel (1966, p. v) specifically thanked Gardner for helping to assure publication of his ESP: A Scientific Evaluation. Gardner also makes a point of talking with editors and publishers and informing them as to what can be considered as “acceptable” science (e.g., Gardner, 1981, p. 346).

Gardner probably received his greatest fame through his mathematical games column in Scientific American. This series ran from 1957 to 1982. I grew up reading his column, and I suspect that a substantial portion of today’s physical scientists and engineers did too. Near the time of his retirement, a number of magazines carried articles on his career (e.g., Adler with Carey, 1981; Morris, 1982; Rucker, 1981), and Volume 22 of the Journal of Recreational Mathematics was dedicated to him (Madachy, 1990). These tributes attest to his wide influence.


It's true that in some sections he's referred to as having been a magician but only when contextually relevant. For example, when talking about the disproportionate amount of magicians in CSICOP he includes Gardner.

quote:
As can be seen in Table 1, 13 official members of CSICOP are or have been magicians. A number of these people have achieved some eminence within the conjuring fraternity. Martin Gardner began contributing to magic magazines more than 50 years ago (Matrix, 1979) and is an authority on impromptu close-up magic (Waters, 1988).

Now as I said, I found this by googling, so I don't have any attachment to the author or work. If you have more knowledge about this then please share it. But before I'm going to dismiss a 30 page paper with 10 pages of references as "a pile of crap", I'm going to need more than that.

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Most of Hansen's complaint appears to be that the members of CSICOP are not nice to paranormalists.

Well, that's too bad.


I'd say his big complaint is that this organization misrepresents itself as a committee for "scientific investigation". However the group isn't driven by science and doesn't do any investigating. The purpose of the organization is not to discover anything but to promote certain opinions/ideologies.

He also points out that the main people involved in CSICOP all have financial interests in the promotion of skepticism.

Again, I liked to this article for balance because I didn't think that just looking at the CSICOP website was likely to give both side of the story.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 03 March 2005 03:09 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally I have great respect for the scientific process.

It would be easy to dismiss a subject based on the opening title including ESP, yet if you looked at the basis of what instigated this, careful inspection would have realized, a much more vast resource of material that speaks to the string debate currently that exists at the frontiers of science.

In all fairness they are opposing points of view about the theory and outright dismissal even within the context of scientific endeavors highly structutre and exercised.

They ran into problems trying to explain the energy with reductionist processes and have experiments on line to answer some of these.

But there is something much more suttle here that asks one to ask how a theoretical position has moved so far into our world of the safe and sound, and has been ignored using this model to further our perceptions Would you debate the mathematical basis of this developement?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 03 March 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why was Daniel reluctant to enter the lion's den? Hmmm...
It's just not as much fun as you might think to confront intellectual bigots on turf they have laid, bound by rules they have set.
1) they generally have no sense of humour, awe, wonder or possibility.
2) They don't play fair.
3) They don't want to play at all.
4) They lack the imagination to follow thought-experiments.
5) They're too rigid learn new vocabulary or understand the meaning of "what if?" - the pad off which all new science is launched.
6) They won't believe evidence from anyone else's observed data and they haven't got their own observed data, because they keep declining invitations to data-collection parties by any group outside their own.
7) They shun/diss/punish anyone who even tries to collect data outside their own group.
8) - and most important - They are about to become extinct and irrelevant, so who cares?

Well, thank goodness we have brave Daniels like you to take cheap shots at the lions. And totally inaccurate ones, as Surferosad's already pointed out.

(Not that Surferosad needs this newbie's support, of course, but since I count myself among these "intellectual bigots" of which you speak, I thought I'd reply.)

Who's not playing fair, here, anyways? Who insists there is data to support ESP but then refuses to present it? Who changes the rules to redefine what that data is and how it should be collected? Who's shunned whose data-collection parties? As far as I know, it's woos who don't want skeptics to ruin their fun.

Who takes some very cool and, yes, pretty far-out science, then cheapens it to support old mysticism? That's lack of imagination right there, like creationists using scientific language to support their beliefs.

But hey, we're going to be extinct and irrelevant soon, so that's all right. Y'all have fun using string theory to explain ESP and homeopathy

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 03 March 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by forum observer:
Would you debate the mathematical basis of this developement?

No, for a bunch of reasons:

1) We have, I think, diametrically opposed points of view. Frankly, I wouldn't even know were to start!
2) I'm not qualified. Although I have a laymans comprehension of modern physics (including string theory) I don't know enough about the mathematics of it to discuss it freely. It's not my domain of expertise.
3) You're probably not qualified either.
4) Because there's no point in discussing a mathematical model of something that hasn't been proved to exist.
5) Some of the mathematical models proposed for ESP (which, I remind you, hasn't been proved to exist) are not even known to be true yet (i.e. string theory, while a promising hypothesis, hasn't been tested yet).
6) Many of the people proposing mathematical models of ESP and assorted stuff have zero scientific credibility. I find it hard to speculate on something I don't take seriously...
7) While I have nothing against speculation based on some facts, I find uninformed speculation about unproved subjects generally pointless.

This isn't politics or ethics, were compromise should be sought and a lot of hand waving arguments are allowed. This is hard science! Before speculating, you need facts. And the ESP field suffers from a dire absence of facts!

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 03 March 2005 04:19 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for your help, Ergaster. Sometimes it feels pretty lonely here...
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 March 2005 06:13 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you mean Josephson has zero scientific credibility?. He's a world renowned physicist and teaches physics at Cambridge, moron.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 03 March 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
What do you mean Josephson has zero scientific credibility?. He's a world renowned physicist and teaches physics at Cambridge, moron.

Was a world renowned physicist... I can guarantee you that very few people in the physical sciences community take him seriously. You might argue that it,s unfair etc., but that doesn't change the fact that Josephson has lost his credibility. He got a tenure teaching post at Cambridge after he made his important discoveries back in the late sixties, that means that he can't get kicked out no matter how outlandish his current research is. Even Nobel prizes can go gaga. They're human, after all. I mentioned a profile on him by the Scientific American mag. He's not the first respected physicist to go for this stuff either. Just read on a gentleman called David Bohm. He got involved with Krishnamurti and co... And even after Krishnamurti was revealed to be just another asshole guru, he steadfastly hanged on to all of that murky philosophy...

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 March 2005 06:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So again, what does the world renowned Amazing Randi have to say about Josephson ?. String theory ?. We wanna know.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 03 March 2005 07:00 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
So again, what does the world renowned Amazing Randi have to say about Josephson ?. String theory ?. We wanna know.

Here you go, Your Highness (I mean, you're using the royal "we", right?). A few links to Randi's weekly commentaries, on the JREF site. This is just after a quick search on that one site. I'm sure you could find more yourself, yes?

January 26, 2001 commentary: a bit about Josephson peddling homeopathy with Jacques Benveniste.

August 24, 2001 commentary: a bit about how Josephson and a few other quacks dropped out of Randi's $1,000,000 challenge.

October 5, 2001 commentary: Josephson trying to link quantum mechanics and telepathy. Reactions of some other physicists

November 29, 2002 commentary: More about Josephson and homeopathy

September 5, 2003 commentary: a bit more about Benveniste, and Josephson, both peddling homepathy and whining about peer review and other such repressive systems.

It's a safe bet Randi has nothing to say about String Theory, on account of him not being a physicist.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 March 2005 07:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's that ?. Randi's a washed-up magician ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 03 March 2005 07:10 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
Just read on a gentleman called David Bohm. He got involved with Krishnamurti and co... And even after Krishnamurti was revealed to be just another asshole guru, he steadfastly hanged on to all of that murky philosophy...

This is news to me, who ever 'revealed' Krishnamurti was just 'another asshole guru', what did he do -abscond with his followers property, diddle their wives? I read one book criticising him and was obviously a trash piece by the daughter of one guy he broke ties with earlier in his life. Please fill me in. And I'd be curious to know what's wrong with David Bohm while you're at it(?)

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 March 2005 07:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't all this name calling fun ?. [removing pen tip to load spitball] And don't forget to throw in the odd "shit" expletive for emphasis and appeal to authority. ha ha
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 03 March 2005 09:27 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
1) We have, I think, diametrically opposed points of view. Frankly, I wouldn't even know were to start!
2) I'm not qualified. Although I have a laymans comprehension of modern physics (including string theory) I don't know enough about the mathematics of it to discuss it freely. It's not my domain of expertise.
3) You're probably not qualified either.
4) Because there's no point in discussing a mathematical model of something that hasn't been proved to exist.
5) Some of the mathematical models proposed for ESP (which, I remind you, hasn't been proved to exist) are not even known to be true yet (i.e. string theory, while a promising hypothesis, hasn't been tested yet).
6) Many of the people proposing mathematical models of ESP and assorted stuff have zero scientific credibility. I find it hard to speculate on something I don't take seriously...
7) While I have nothing against speculation based on some facts, I find uninformed speculation about unproved subjects generally pointless.

Fair enough.

To ergaster, the game has never changed, just that the focus was improve and revealled the topic underneath it

I don't intend to change anybody's point of view other then to present something. You should be able to have your say.

The mathematics is very interesting as I am learning as well in the layman status. The basis as far as I understand is to find a geometrical/topolgical process underneath this and if such a proces is followed then the work leading to GR would be very important from those higher dimensions. In a non conformal approach I don't know if this is right though?

As a interest and quest for meaning to reality I have learnt enough to heed the warnings earlier that some have put forth here.

Gravitational waves like ESP have not been proven yet they have been incorporated into our dialogue quite freely. I would warn others of the roads taken in this regard as well, as I have been warned.

The Man Who Knew Infinity(don't forget to click on the White Lotus)

quote:
Speaking of Witten and tv does anyone know what program/series featured Ed Witten wandering through the countryside and sitting by rivers scribbling on a notepad, and walking across the boulders on some dried-up lake bed?

This is firmly emblazoned within my mind as well. Can't recall the name of this program either though.

Because of what it signified, and what I concluded, is that intense mental dealings with math could stifle the mind from finding anything further, but it was from these silent walks and divergences from the hectic, that allowed the breakthroughs to manifest.

I think this was the point that Witten was showing then. It also open up the idea that complex mathematics might from perspective, as if in some meditative stance, takes us closer to finding the language most relevent in innovation, when such math structures are contemplated.

Invention is no less in the same sequence of events as math might be in creativeness, that if you leave it, it will come later.

Looking for these areas of further intelligence developement in mathematics, raise the issue of cognitive functions spoken in previous post.

Why metaphorically, bubbly structures rising to the surface, from unconsious processes, might be more revealing then first anticipated?

For example it was Ramanujan's enviromental god processes that spoke to him about the math , but of his mind was dealing with complex variables in a way that metaphorically was the sign post of probabilities?

Yet out of the hectic, a system emerged. You just had to be aware of what the mind was capable of producing and how it would do that.

Ramanujan was no different then you and I and the envirnoment that we deal, with could manifest creative possibilties, as math would in comparison. Why Susskind's light switch turned on, with those loops called strings?

Perspective views of other systems could awaken more comlex structures, as seems to be the way of math structures continung to build on itself , when these minds become involved and contemplate



I put forward the second part because I thought it relevant. But maybe, it is too spacy for some?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 03 March 2005 10:10 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Ergaster:
Why? Doesn't the "P" stand for "perception"? Therefore, shouldn't it be reliable to some degree, like our other senses are? Shouldn't the applications that are most commonly mentioned by believers--mind reading, remote viewing, precognition--be testable, within certain limits?
..................................
Maybe because it'd be a cool power to have. Personally, I wouldn't mind X-ray vision, too. I'm afraid of heights, so flight would be out.

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]


In the question of self deception (neurosis), halucination, delusions and braindamage (mental retardation of one kind or another), the senses are not that perfectly reliable. I was only thinking of the possibility of data tranmitted from one person to another via brain-wave (brain radio) at the subconsciously reflexive level......Dispite all that uncertainty of sensory perception and human mentality, the instincts are more reliable as they are simpler and cyclical rather than the conscious/subconscious complex which is, in the best of conditions, ordered, selective and adaptive.....Deeper than instinct is the unconscious functions that regulate autonomic and parasympathetic organ function. I would think they would be the most stable and reliable of all biological functions.

.....A cool power to have....hmmm...or the most horribly exploited undermining of free and private conscious activity. The military and market application possibilities are horrific. And children?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: LeftRight ]


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 03 March 2005 11:14 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:

This is news to me, who ever 'revealed' Krishnamurti was just 'another asshole guru', what did he do -abscond with his followers property, diddle their wives? I read one book criticising him and was obviously a trash piece by the daughter of one guy he broke ties with earlier in his life. Please fill me in. And I'd be curious to know what's wrong with David Bohm while you're at it(?)

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


In a biography of Bohm written by David Peat (title: infinite potential), there's a mention that Bohm carried a key bent by Uri Geller as if it were a holy relic. Bohm's contributions to physics are admirable, but in other fields, he was extremely gullible. I suggest you read his biography...

As for Krishnamurti, David Peat tells that this guy actually believed for a while that he was the incarnation of Lord Maitreya and the successor of Jesus. Apparently, behind the sanctified guru façade, he was a self-centered, vain man, who treated Bohm (a sincere believer, poor guy) as a child and was capable of quite a lot of cruelty. Peat also describes him as an habitual liar. The guy he broke ties with was called Desikacharya Rajagopalacharya (Raja for short). He was a devoted disciple of K. and his business manager. Well, it seems that Krishnamurty "diddled" Raja's wife, a pretty american called Rosalind... That's why they became bitter enemies. K. then dumped Rosalind for another woman... The "trash" biography on Krishnamurti that you mention was written by Raja's and Rosalind's daughter, Radha Rajagopal Sloss.

Personally, I've never understood the appeal of Krishnamurti... The guy was excellent at spewing boring moral platitudes that sounded deep but were so vague that could mean nothing and anything... If you want I can give you a few examples, this kind of bunk is all over the net. Don't tell me you're a follower?

[ 03 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 04 March 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the question of self deception (neurosis), halucination, delusions and braindamage (mental retardation of one kind or another), the senses are not that perfectly reliable.

No, not completely. But my senses work well enough that I can find my way around my appartment, get to work, read your words on my computer screen and type out my response. So would most people's, most of the time. If ESP is another sense, why shouldn't it function the same way?

quote:
I was only thinking of the possibility of data tranmitted from one person to another via brain-wave (brain radio) at the subconsciously reflexive level......Dispite all that uncertainty of sensory perception and human mentality, the instincts are more reliable as they are simpler and cyclical rather than the conscious/subconscious complex which is, in the best of conditions, ordered, selective and adaptive.....Deeper than instinct is the unconscious functions that regulate autonomic and parasympathetic organ function. I would think they would be the most stable and reliable of all biological functions.

Wait, what? "transmitted via brain-wave"? Brain waves aren't signals sent out to other brains. There's no such thing as "brain radio".

And... how exactly would these signals be interpreted by the receiving brain? Hunches? Subconscious suggestions? Unexplained emotional states? In an earlier post, you said

quote:
Equipment used for brain data identification would be needed for correlation of a subjects 'unexplained brain activity' event.

So, the subject would need specialized equipment to know anything was happening to their nervous system? How is this anything like the popular perception of ESP, with the mind reading and the clairvoyance and whatnot?

quote:
.....A cool power to have....hmmm...or the most horribly exploited undermining of free and private conscious activity. The military and market application possibilities are horrific. And children?

Pish-posh. There'd be nothing to fear from telepaths. They will use their powers responsibly, never overstepping their boundaries. Also, the Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father. Trust the Corps.


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 04 March 2005 12:56 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On CSICOP:

quote:
I'd say his big complaint is that this organization misrepresents itself as a committee for "scientific investigation". However the group isn't driven by science and doesn't do any investigating. The purpose of the organization is not to discover anything but to promote certain opinions/ideologies.

He also points out that the main people involved in CSICOP all have financial interests in the promotion of skepticism.

Again, I liked to this article for balance because I didn't think that just looking at the CSICOP website was likely to give both side of the story.


Surely you're joking...skeptics making money out of skepticism. If indeed that is a criteria, then how about all the paranormalists who do nothing but ask for money.

I've read the Skeptical Inquirer for years and have always found it to be well informed, and always allowed people to respond to articles.

Here's the Skeptical Inquirer's guide to authors:

quote:
Guide for Authors
The Skeptical Inquirer encourages the scientific outlook, science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, and the use of reason and the methods of science in examining important issues.

While we are known for our critical examinations of claims of paranormal, fringe-science, and pseudoscientific phenomena, we now seek to broaden our scope to include examinations of a wider variety of issues.

Issues of broad public importance are of potential interest as long as they involve science and reason. Our subtitle is in fact "The Magazine for Science and Reason," and we think that accurately conveys our focus and outlook.

Well-written articles, reviews, and columns from leaders in science, biomedicine, technological fields, psychology and the social sciences, philosophy, and education are sought.

Contributions by investigative journalists and science writers are wanted. The Skeptical Inquirer's readership includes scholars and researchers in many fields and general readers of diverse backgrounds.

Write clearly, interestingly, and simply. Avoid unnecessary technical terms. Maintain a factual, professional, and restrained tone. All submissions are judged on interest, clarity, significance, relevance, authority, and topicality.

Categories of Contributions
Categories of contributions include: Articles, Book Reviews, News and Comment, Forum, Follow-Up, and Letters to the Editor.

Articles
Articles may be evaluative, investigative, or explanatory. They may examine specific claims or broader questions. Well-focused discussions on scientific, educational, or social issues of wide common interest are welcome.

We especially seek articles that provide new information or bring fresh perspective to familiar subjects.

Articles that help people find natural explanations of unusual personal experiences are useful. So are articles that portray the vigor and excitement of a particular scientific topic and help readers distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific approaches.

Well-balanced articles that report on and evaluate controversial scientific claims within science itself are also needed.

The Skeptical Inquirer must be a source of authoritative, responsible scientific information and perspective.

The Editor will usually send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. It is good practice to have knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission.

Reports of original research, especially highly technical experimental or statistical studies, are best submitted to a formal scientific journal; a nontechnical summary may be submitted to the Skeptical Inquirer.

************************************************

News and Comment
News articles from 250 to 1,000 words are welcome. They should involve timely events and issues and be written in interpretative journalistic style. Use third person. The news sections of Nature, Science, New Scientist, and Science News are excellent models.

Balance, fairness, and perspective are important. In reporting on controversies, seek and include comment and perspective from the various opposing parties.

Forum
The Forum column consists of brief, lively, well-written columns of comment and opinion generally no more than 1,000 words. Space allows only one or two per issue.

Research Reviews
Research reviews are occasional evaluative reports providing perspective on a newly published journal article of significance. They are written by authorities in the field. Generally about 1,200 words.

Follow-Up
The Follow-Up column is for response from persons whose work or claims have been the subject of previous articles. The original authors may respond in the same or a later issue.


Now if only the paranormalists had the same scruples...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 04 March 2005 01:01 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hell, I wish there was more people with a financial interest in the promotion of scepticism!

I mean, criticising someone for having a financial interest in the promotion of scepticism is like bad-mouthing doctors because they wish people would stop smoking!

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 04 March 2005 02:47 AM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course you'd wish that, you're a believer.

The point is that Randi and others go on and on about how all the paranormal advocates are making mad cash off everyone. But they're in the same situation themselves.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 04 March 2005 03:57 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, what about the paranormal attributes of string theory? Are there any? I am not rich and I don't make any money in this regard.

And then I thought of Einstein's view on what a pretty girl could do for him, in the passage of time. No offence to the female persuasion.

I just thought time dilation could be compared, on a human level


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 04 March 2005 06:56 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
In a biography of Bohm written by David Peat (title: infinite potential), there's a mention that Bohm carried a key bent by Uri Geller as if it were a holy relic. Bohm's contributions to physics are admirable, but in other fields, he was extremely gullible. I suggest you read his biography...

As for Krishnamurti, David Peat tells that this guy actually believed for a while that he was the incarnation of Lord Maitreya and the successor of Jesus. Apparently, behind the sanctified guru façade, he was a self-centered, vain man, who treated Bohm (a sincere believer, poor guy) as a child and was capable of quite a lot of cruelty. Peat also describes him as an habitual liar. The guy he broke ties with was called Desikacharya Rajagopalacharya (Raja for short). He was a devoted disciple of K. and his business manager. Well, it seems that Krishnamurty "diddled" Raja's wife, a pretty american called Rosalind... That's why they became bitter enemies. K. then dumped Rosalind for another woman... The "trash" biography on Krishnamurti that you mention was written by Raja's and Rosalind's daughter, Radha Rajagopal Sloss.

Personally, I've never understood the appeal of Krishnamurti... The guy was excellent at spewing boring moral platitudes that sounded deep but were so vague that could mean nothing and anything... If you want I can give you a few examples, this kind of bunk is all over the net. Don't tell me you're a follower?


Not a follower, I never knew what to do with his stuff personally and found him mostly depressing. I did however find his particular 'bunk' original and insightful, far beyond the usual new age platitudes, but maybe they're old hat to your generation. He himself was quite critical of other gurus and rejected the usual cultic offerings that most charlatons go for. Way I remember it, he also rejected the Theosophists claims that he was the next incarnation of Lord Maitreya and ultimately the whole group, though he clearly saw himself as some sort of psychological/religious/philosophical teacher. Magic tricks weren't his thing either, though he never totally denied the possibility of that either.

I found that women's book trashing him to be highly suspect, like an angry but loyal daughter getting revenge for her disappointed old father (who other biographers portrayed as a bit of a control freak too) pecking at Every little thing about him with no consistent rhyme or reason, all the while claiming she really did Love him, just "trying to balance the record" sez she. I have no doubts he had some normal personality flaws and may even of had an affair or two -why I mentioned it. All people have flaws -hey, even the mythologized Buddha was said to have left his wife without saying a Word, while the "Prince of Peace" hisself lost his temper on occasion. That just makes em slightly more plausible as historical personalities to me.

I doubt very much though that he was the major league cheat and all around liar, that too many insistent athiests and Christian scientists like to paint anyone who claims some unusual spiritual insight, doesn't fit the rest of his profile very well. I don't believe "spiritual" insight is impossible at all -depending on how we define it- anymore than I find it impossible that science has become another jealous orthodoxy to some of its own community. Sorry, nothing personal, but I think it should be said. Sounds like that other biography mostly just borrows from hers, though sure he could have found others willing to trash him too. I'm agnostic myself on these kind of impossible to settle issues, so I might check it out sometime out of curiosity.

Re Bohm, what, besides his abiding respect for Krishnamurti and his related if controversial theories about language and thought, makes him gullible in your mind? That he gives any credence to that idea that the human mind may have higher functions than intellect and instinct?


[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 March 2005 07:27 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What's with the US military and spending millions on ESP over the years and now "P-teleportation" ?.
I thought the Russian's were off of remote viewing at this point.

From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 04 March 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
Of course you'd wish that, you're a believer.

The point is that Randi and others go on and on about how all the paranormal advocates are making mad cash off everyone. But they're in the same situation themselves.


Prey tell, in what do you think I believe in exactly?

I think that it should be pointed out that there's quite a lot more cash to be made exploiting people's gullibility than in trying to promote scepticism!

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 04 March 2005 12:11 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahem... An example of Bohm's gullibility:

quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

In a biography of Bohm written by David Peat (title: infinite potential), there's a mention that Bohm carried a key bent by Uri Geller as if it were a holy relic. Bohm's contributions to physics are admirable, but in other fields, he was extremely gullible. I suggest you read his biography...


About Krishnamurti: that's right, those are purely human flaws. Those are the kinds of things that I would easily forgive in my friends (and, I hope, they would forgive in me). But see, my friends and I, we don't usually claim to be moral guides above reproach ! Krishnamurti, it seems, preached one thing in public and did something else in private.

Oh, and I have no doubts that "spiritual insight" is possible. People have been having spiritual insights for thousands of years! But even "spiritual insights" should be closely looked into, like any other assertion. Just because something is a "spiritual insight", it doesn't exempt it from close examination.

Think about it: I don't know were "spiritual insights" come from, I mostly don't know anything about those that have (or had) "spiritual insights", I have no idea of the value of these insights. Why should I believe in the people who have "spiritual insights"? Maybe they are (or were) lying. Maybe they are (or were) head cases. It's possible that some are sincere and even true, but how do I know that? And how do I separate delusions from the real thing? It's very hard to verify the validity of a "spiritual insight", it's even harder to figure out if an apparent insight is really "spiritual" (whatever that means) or just due to gullibility, dumb luck or chemical imbalances... Frankly, I prefer to rely on things for which there is some evidence.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 04 March 2005 02:56 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I agree. Spiritual insights are non-transferable, and you can't verify the validity of someone else's spiritual insight. That's the way they work. No one can have a spiritual insight for you, you have to have it yourself (or do without).

Anyone who would claim to have absolute authority or absolute knowledge should not be taken seriously, IMO.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with relying on stuff for which there is some evidence. If someone you know seems to be making spiritual headway (ie based on observable behaviour changes) and it seems to be correlated with a spiritual practise, then you have the opportunity to try to follow the same process. The process may or may not work similarly for you. If it is working for you somewhat, the other person's knowledge may be of use. Not their spiritual insight, but what they know about the process they followed.

I agree that "spiritual insight" is an ambiguous and problematic term.


From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 04 March 2005 06:40 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They say he carried Geller's bent key, that's it? Next.

Jiddu Krishnamurti did NOT seek authority over others or start any new cult, others just wrote about him, particularly after his death. He mostly just went around and talked to whatever groups showed up, telling them the value of what he said resided entirely in what THEy got out of it, what they did with it for themselves, that was the most consistent theme of his. The only "authority" he may have carried with me was based on whether his words made sense to me, which they did -up to a point. That's why I don't accept having him lumped in with guys like Rajneesh or Mahesh Yogi.

Been twenty odd years since I read any of his stuff but I also recall him saying that personal "perfection" was an impossible, egotistical ideal -I wouldn't know, but I think it's a bit silly to impose old Judeo-Christian "values" on those who may have other cultural references. I do believe he lost his temper on occasion, and it could be possible he had One affair in his life. Scandalous. I don't believe he was a compulsive liar or manipulator. If you think this is important enough you can read some more of his own words and maybe some other biographies written about him, before simply assuming that the one or two which attack him are "the truth". If you hate any recognition of any sort of spirituality though, there's not much point.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 04 March 2005 07:17 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
Anyone who would claim to have absolute authority or absolute knowledge should not be taken seriously, IMO.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with relying on stuff for which there is some evidence. If someone you know seems to be making spiritual headway (ie based on observable behaviour changes) and it seems to be correlated with a spiritual practise, then you have the opportunity to try to follow the same process. The process may or may not work similarly for you. If it is working for you somewhat, the other person's knowledge may be of use. Not their spiritual insight, but what they know about the process they followed.

I agree that "spiritual insight" is an ambiguous and problematic term.


And I agree with all that, pretty much how I see it. "Spirituality" probably is too vague a term, meaning practically anything anyone wants. I just meant it in terms of whatever ideas or practices that might give people more insight into themselves, or make them better, happier, more mature people, just an alternate term that doesn't necessarily imply the usual religious dogmas or fetishes.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 04 March 2005 08:47 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think of spirituality as opening/openness (which is how I'd describe the process).
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 04 March 2005 08:52 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
They say he carried Geller's bent key, that's it? Next.

Jiddu Krishnamurti did NOT seek authority over others or start any new cult, others just wrote about him, particularly after his death. He mostly just went around and talked to whatever groups showed up, telling them the value of what he said resided entirely in what THEy got out of it, what they did with it for themselves, that was the most consistent theme of his. The only "authority" he may have carried with me was based on whether his words made sense to me, which they did -up to a point. That's why I don't accept having him lumped in with guys like Rajneesh or Mahesh Yogi.

Been twenty odd years since I read any of his stuff but I also recall him saying that personal "perfection" was an impossible, egotistical ideal -I wouldn't know, but I think it's a bit silly to impose old Judeo-Christian "values" on those who may have other cultural references. I do believe he lost his temper on occasion, and it could be possible he had One affair in his life. Scandalous. I don't believe he was a compulsive liar or manipulator. If you think this is important enough you can read some more of his own words and maybe some other biographies written about him, before simply assuming that the one or two which attack him are "the truth". If you hate any recognition of any sort of spirituality though, there's not much point.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Erik the Red ]


Look dude, I don't care about Krishnamurti. Never did, never will. I'm just reporting what I read on that Bohm biography I mentioned. Personally, I find the stuff K. used to say pretty vapid and bland. This makes him at least sound, from my point of view, like a big bore. That's for starters. Now, according to Peat, K. had a very low opinion of Bohm, and very little understanding of what Bohm worked on. Bohm was a brilliant man, but K. apparently treated Bohm condescendingly, in a cruel way, as if Bohm was a child incapable of appreciating K. vast wisdom... This, and the affair with one of his disciple's wife, all of this put together makes K., I think, look like an asshole! But who knows? As I already told you, I don't really care.

And no, carrying Geller's key wasn't the only gullible thing Bohm did. Like Josephson, he believed in all kinds of silly, unproved things which seriously damaged his reputation as a scientists. I just cited that key thing because it was one of the most pathetic things Bohm did. I mean, he was carrying that key even after Geller was revealed to be a fraud! How sad is that?

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 04 March 2005 09:35 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no qualms with "spirituality". I get annoyed when "spirituality" becomes an excuse for shoddy thinking, gullibility and quackery. ESP, homeopathy, UFO abductions, crop circles, astrology, al of those pseudosciences that sucker people into pointless silly beliefs have nothing to do with spirituality. Spirituality gets a bad name when so called spiritual people subscribe to these things. Spirituality must stay confined to ethics, aesthetics and morals, and leave the material world alone.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 04 March 2005 10:11 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Ergaster:

No, not completely. But my senses work well enough that I
can find my way around my appartment, get to work,
read your words on my computer screen and type out
my response. So would most people's, most of the time.
If ESP is another sense, why shouldn't it function the same way?

One reason I can think of is that normal senses are singularly distinct in our body and are normally used synchronistically rather than simultaneously ( or 'at-the-same-time'). Transmitted sense impression would not have that physical distinctness; they would more like remembered sensations rather than perceiving here-now sensations, as in the first person but not of the first person.
....................

quote:

Wait, what? "transmitted via brain-wave"? Brain waves aren't
signals sent out to other brains. There's no such thing as
"brain radio".

And... how exactly would these signals be interpreted by
the receiving brain? Hunches? Subconscious suggestions?
Unexplained emotional states?


Possibly all of the above, depending on both sender and receiver, not that sender and receiver are discernable in their unknowing condition. Theoretically people who have as children been taught to watch for such events would be in a better position to discern self from other. ....First stage of reception is not an 'interpretation' as we understand the word in conscious thought. The process is refexive and more machanical than conscious intent. There is is no effort nor consciousness state required for the TSP event (Transmitted Sensory Perception)

quote:
In an earlier post, you said

"Equipment used for brain data identification would be needed
for correlation of a subjects 'unexplained brain activity' event."
So, the subject would need specialized equipment to know
anything was happening to their nervous system?
How is this anything like the popular perception of ESP,
with the mind reading and the clairvoyance and whatnot? ..........


The equipment is for public and scientific review and retrial......sense perceptions in TSP, unlike clairvoyance, can not come from nothing or an empty space; there must be another person having the sense experience. Mind reading assumes that it is safe or efficient to induct another persons personal experience of their self and their world relation to their conceived self and world i.e. could their minds 'mesh' correctly or would they destroy each others adapted internal order?.

quote:

.......Pish-posh. There'd be nothing to fear from telepaths. They will use their powers responsibly, never overstepping their boundaries. Also, the Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father. Trust the Corps.

Not nice and competent telepaths, no.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 04 March 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does your "science" explain this?
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 04 March 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well it seems to be repeatable
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 04 March 2005 11:06 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
I have no qualms with "spirituality". I get annoyed when "spirituality" becomes an excuse for shoddy thinking, gullibility and quackery. ESP, homeopathy, UFO abductions, crop circles, astrology, al of those pseudosciences that sucker people into pointless silly beliefs have nothing to do with spirituality. Spirituality gets a bad name when so called spiritual people subscribe to these things. Spirituality must stay confined to ethics, aesthetics and morals, and leave the material world alone.

[ 04 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


An "excuse"? I would say 'exploitation'. Confining 'spirituality' is to confine the people. There is no dividing line isolating spirit from material in man. We should be scientific socialists.

"We see how subjectivity and objectivity, spirituality and materiality, activity and suffering, lose their antithetical character, and – thus their existence as such antitheses only within the framework of society; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

"We can see how subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity, first lose their character as opposites under social conditions, and therefore their existence as such opposites. We can see how the solution of theoretical oppositions is only possible in a practical way, only through the practical energy of man. Their resolution is therefore by no means a project for knowledge but a project of actual living. Philosophy cannot solve them precisely because philosophy grasps them only as theoretical problems."


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 04 March 2005 11:26 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
Does your "science" explain this?

String theory, of course. Haven't you been paying attention?


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 04 March 2005 11:32 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
One reason I can think of is that normal senses are singularly distinct in our body and are normally used synchronistically rather than simultaneously ( or 'at-the-same-time'). Transmitted sense impression would not have that physical distinctness; they would more like remembered sensations rather than perceiving here-now sensations, as in the first person but not of the first person.

Uh-huh. And you know this how, exactly?

quote:
Possibly all of the above, depending on both sender and receiver, not that sender and receiver are discernable in their unknowing condition. Theoretically people who have as children been taught to watch for such events would be in a better position to discern self from other. ....First stage of reception is not an 'interpretation' as we understand the word in conscious thought. The process is refexive and more machanical than conscious intent. There is is no effort nor consciousness state required for the TSP event (Transmitted Sensory Perception

...Okay, seriously. Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 12:55 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
Does your "science" explain this?

That.. Uh... Well, yeah, I think...

But this and this... Well... No.

But this? Yeah!


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 12:57 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LeftRight:

An "excuse"? I would say 'exploitation'. Confining 'spirituality' is to confine the people. There is no dividing line isolating spirit from material in man. We should be scientific socialists.

"We see how subjectivity and objectivity, spirituality and materiality, activity and suffering, lose their antithetical character, and – thus their existence as such antitheses only within the framework of society; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

"We can see how subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity, first lose their character as opposites under social conditions, and therefore their existence as such opposites. We can see how the solution of theoretical oppositions is only possible in a practical way, only through the practical energy of man. Their resolution is therefore by no means a project for knowledge but a project of actual living. Philosophy cannot solve them precisely because philosophy grasps them only as theoretical problems."


You know, you quote Karl Marx the same way some people quote scripture!


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 06:10 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Once again, what does the Amazing Randi have to say about string theory, Surferosad ?. Randi seems to rule your world, so why not lend him some respect with a few scientific quotes of his ?.

And Marx is quoted in academic circles all over the world, moreso than the Amazing Randi.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 05 March 2005 07:55 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am trying to get the jest of the dialogue going on here and I like to wonder if there are indeed spiritiual implications in how thought developement could have exercised itself in how the mathematics developes?

So, it would have to indicate to me how they would have used the subject of strings and its math to wonder indeed that we have ventured beyond the normal mode of euclidean thinking to depart in possible views of Gauss, Reimann and lead to some pretty interesting geometries.

But first some prep work I guess is in order?

How are dimensions looked at, seemed quite sigificant to me and is part of the rejection of interpretation using strings to describe something beyond the way we have interpreted the standard model?

Shadow's in Plato's Cave

I was chided once for being a first year student and how this topic was quite prevalent from the attitude of a young scholarly mind.

I do like to try and get to the heart of the issues for sure, and being attributed to this stage was quite a honourable sentence, since later life seems to allow more opportunity to express and develope the philospohies that you have about life in one's continued research.

I am still talking about string theory here and how the perceptions are being developed. I do not like shodding thinking also.Part of my understandng would be, that philosophies would have at it's basis, a mathematical structure that we would develope from discussion.

The pictures linked, are links to their sources.

Dvali's example of striking a metal plate under water has direct scientifc valuation to what is being demonstrate in the aspects of dimensional developement. These analogies of Dvali's are following scientific law that have been developed.

The move to M theory, or membrane theory, and how we percieve these branes in higher dimensions are being served here for consideration.

The water serves to expand developing aspects of further analogies of sound, which can be used to direct our mind to think in terms of these harmoncal freuqencies, as they might be percieved by moving macrocosmic valuations down to the microstate quantum levels. As interpetive devices we have currently seen in our vews of reductionistic particle research?

Has strngs achieved this unification? In the model apprehension it has? The next step would have been to apply it to different areas. I will list one perspective(toy model) on this later as I watched this continued developement .

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 05 March 2005 09:47 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Once again, what does the Amazing Randi have to say about string theory, Surferosad ?. Randi seems to rule your world, so why not lend him some respect with a few scientific quotes of his ?.


Randi isn't trying to assess the detailed claims about string theory and ESP. He's merely trying to assess claims about the existence of ESP. If there's nothing to explain, there's no need to bring string theory into the discussion.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 10:36 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But string theory is already in the discussion, Mike. If you refer back to FO's original post at the top of this thread which mentions a Nobel Prize winning physicist and his thoughts on ESP as it may relate to a string theory model, you may realize that it's the Amazing Randi who isn't worthy of shining Josephson's shoes. We realize you and Surfer are strapped for positive comments, but could you try and at least pay attention to the thread topic ?. We appreciate all of your drive-by comments, but try and show ForumObserver a little courtesy.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 05 March 2005 12:00 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The point is that Randi and others go on and on about how all the paranormal advocates are making mad cash off everyone. But they're in the same situation themselves.

Until now the funniest thing I've read on babble was the wing-nut who thought al-Qa'bong's handle was a tribute to Muslim terrorists. But the notion that paranormal debunkers are in it for the money is the new champ.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 01:11 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Typical paleo-conservatives, afraid that someone is going to turn their little worlds inside out.

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 05 March 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
But string theory is already in the discussion, Mike. If you refer back to FO's original post at the top of this thread which mentions a Nobel Prize winning physicist and his thoughts on ESP as it may relate to a string theory model, you may realize that it's the Amazing Randi who isn't worthy of shining Josephson's shoes. We realize you and Surfer are strapped for positive comments, but could you try and at least pay attention to the thread topic ?. We appreciate all of your drive-by comments, but try and show ForumObserver a little courtesy.

Or else you'll post some more drive-by comments and call them children again? Good morning, kettle. I couldn't help noticing your hue is a touch darker than usual...

PS: love the argument from authority. Because Josephson won a Nobel Prize 30 years ago, does that give him a free pass to promote whatever mysticism he feels like?


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 05 March 2005 01:27 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
afraid that someone is going to turn their little worlds inside out.

You shouldn't project your attitudes on other people, Fidel. It's rude.


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aaaa go haunt a drunken magicians convention.

C'mon now. This is an Amazing Randi thread, or haven't you noticed ?. beep-beep!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Ergaster:

You shouldn't project your attitudes on other people, Fidel. It's rude.


This whole thread has been dedicated to insults, hectoring and rude comments a la the retired magician himself, so right back at'cha.

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." - Robert Oppenheimer, scientist, socialist and vice versa


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who's trying to impose barriers on freedom of enquiry? I mean, there's a big difference between saying "you can't investigate that assertion" and saying "there's no proof supporting that assertion". No one has said here "thou shall not investigate". Do you realise that what you're saying (together with the Amazing Randi stuff) makes you seem pretty dense, Fidel? I mean, this ain't complicated, and it was explained at least twice to you!

You don't go around dickering with the known laws of physics just to accommodate unproved stuff! Well, you can you want to, but don't expect to be taken seriously!

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 02:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That'd be "unproven", and that last sentence doesn't make sense. But it's essentially the same post over and over, Surf. Express anger and that should command some authority, eh.

How do you like being insulted and badgered?. It's not done in good spirit, is it?.

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 March 2005 02:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IF thread_length > 100 THEN GOTO close_thread ELSE ignore

:close_thread
CLOSE

:ignore
DO otherstuff


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca