Empathy

**TimeTraveler** · 12-30-06, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

Technically entagled particles aren't transmitting information to each other. They simply share a relationship. Also the speed of light limit only applies to matter / energy moving through a vaccum. On Earth, physacists have moved light itself at 2x and 3x the speed it moves in a pure vaccum. Additionally, the universe (i.e. space-time) can expand faster than the speed of light.

Yeah, I would agree that the 'theory' is at best a speculation.

They share a relationship because they are part of the same thing, there is no such thing as distance on the quantum level, and there is no such thing as seperate, it's one thing.

**heliocentric** · 01-15-07, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

If telepathy was an observable phenomena then I can guarantee someone would have claimed that 1 million dollar Randy award and won a nobel prize.
It seems that speculation would be much more valuable in cases like this than implications or assertions of empirical phenomena.

Randi's million is an entirely device ploy used to proved the non-existance of esp out-right, without the need for bothersome 'experiments'
You really think an experiment that has a prize waiting at the end of it if it doesnt go the experimentor's way is a good way to go about the process of genuine scientific unbiased research?
Randi is the living embodiment of pseudo-science, the man is uneducated in the sciences, hes not even a behavioural psychologist, his only claim is that he knows abit of magic.
Its amazing how alot of you will drop your supposed 'scientific standards' the second someone comes along who looks like he might make a half-decent bluff/call to authority.

**jessiej920** · 01-16-07, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by EndLightEnd

OK your right, but you missed my point...
You still need some clue from any of the five senses, whether it be sound, vision, touch etc...
You cannot emphasize with someone you dont even know is present in the same room!

I call your bullshit. Try doing it 20 states away...about people you've never heard of before. No I won't take that stupid Randi challenge that everyone keeps talking about. I wouldn't even know how a scientific experiment could judge something like this.

**shaman_** · 01-26-07, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by heliocentric

Randi's million is an entirely device ploy used to proved the non-existance of esp out-right, without the need for bothersome 'experiments'
You really think an experiment that has a prize waiting at the end of it if it doesnt go the experimentor's way is a good way to go about the process of genuine scientific unbiased research?
Randi is the living embodiment of pseudo-science, the man is uneducated in the sciences, hes not even a behavioural psychologist, his only claim is that he knows abit of magic.
Its amazing how alot of you will drop your supposed 'scientific standards' the second someone comes along who looks like he might make a half-decent bluff/call to authority.

Many people feel a need to attack Randi's challenge because no one has managed to display any paranormal powers yet and they need to rationalise this.

On its own it is certainly not scientific as any positive results need to be replicated and this test is a one time display of powers. However it is a controlled test so the fact that no one has won yet is still significant. It certainly appears that all paranormal powers disappear within a controlled environment.

So what are the best qualifications for testing the paranormal?

Scientists have messed up many times before. Targ and Puthoff were fooled by Uri Geller. Schwartz declares John Edward 80% accurate. No I think a magician should definitely be involved in the testing.

The Geller Seeks an Heir controversy in the last week has only made this clearer. His attempts to pass off magic tricks as paranormal powers is annoying magicians.

**grover** · 01-27-07, 04:44 PM

Randi's challenge is an absolute joke. It's a publicity stunt, no one would have heard of the guy except for this dumbass challenge he has created. 2 things to think about:
1. What if Randi did find somebody who he said could do magic? It would prove nothing, everyone would just say the whole thing was a big ploy. It's ridiculous for sceptics to use this guy as part of their argument.
2. There have been counter challenges to Randi where people who claim they can prove they have psychic powers will put up their own money they will give to Randi if they can't, the only difference in the rules is that they want a panel of impartial judges to judge, instead of Randi being the judge. What does that tell you.
Bottom line: Shut the fuck up about Randi already.

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-27-07, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by TimeTraveler

They share a relationship because they are part of the same thing, there is no such thing as distance on the quantum level, and there is no such thing as seperate, it's one thing.

More or less I agree.

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-27-07, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by heliocentric

Randi's million is an entirely device ploy used to proved the non-existance of esp out-right, without the need for bothersome 'experiments'
You really think an experiment that has a prize waiting at the end of it if it doesnt go the experimentor's way is a good way to go about the process of genuine scientific unbiased research?
Randi is the living embodiment of pseudo-science, the man is uneducated in the sciences, hes not even a behavioural psychologist, his only claim is that he knows abit of magic.
Its amazing how alot of you will drop your supposed 'scientific standards' the second someone comes along who looks like he might make a half-decent bluff/call to authority.

* 1 million dollars is the prize for anyone whom can concretely demonstrate the existence of 'paranormal' anything.
* All demonstrations will be performed and documented in a controlled environment because you are untrustworthy.

This isn't about the scientific study of some objective phenomena.

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-27-07, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by grover

1. What if Randi did find somebody who he said could do magic? It would prove nothing, everyone would just say the whole thing was a big ploy. It's ridiculous for sceptics to use this guy as part of their argument.

That person would win 1 million dollars and would be offered very well paid opportunities for scientific research if the recorded demonstrations and documented protocols were very convincing. If the opportunities were taken and science showed magic to be real then there might be a second enlightenment.

Originally Posted by grover

2. There have been counter challenges to Randi where people who claim they can prove they have psychic powers will put up their own money they will give to Randi if they can't, the only difference in the rules is that they want a panel of impartial judges to judge, instead of Randi being the judge. What does that tell you.
Bottom line: Shut the fuck up about Randi already.

It tells me that those challengers are not trusted.

**TimeTraveler** · 01-27-07, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

More or less I agree.

Crunchy Cat, then you also understand how the eco-system works, and if you figure out how the eco-system works, you'll figure out how life works, and how our species works. The human species is one organism, the problem is that most humans are unconscious, you see, subconsciously we know we are one organism, but we don't seem to have a human identity yet.

It's strange, it's almost as if, most humans actually believe they are seperate from their species, from the eco-system, from everyone around them and the environment. There is no evidence of seperate on the scientific level, on the eco-system level, on the energy level, and while this might not tell us for sure that there is a soul, it tells us that as that we control our own fate and destiny.

**grover** · 01-28-07, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

That person would win 1 million dollars and would be offered very well paid opportunities for scientific research if the recorded demonstrations and documented protocols were very convincing. If the opportunities were taken and science showed magic to be real then there might be a second enlightenment.

It tells me that those challengers are not trusted.

1. Crunchy, there is now and has been since at least the first quarter of the 20th century scientific research that is being done on psi phenomena. There are still perfectly intelligent, reputable, Phds, at accredited universities who believe there is credible evidence for psi phenomenon. You claim to be science minded but instead of considering the science you continue to harp on a side show freak as if he were proof that psi doesn't exist. Even if Randi does end up giving up the money it will not be scientific evidence because he is not a scientist, and his biased little publicity stunt is not the scientific method. Why you would consider Randi as an authority is beyond me, I guess like all fundamentalists you are a hypocrite.

2. The counter challenge I saw was one where money was offered to Randi if he accepted the requirements of their test, which was simply that a panel of impartial judges would decide (closer to true science than a magician being the sole arbiter). Randi didn't accept the counter offer. So once again you are picking and choosing who is trustworthy in accordance with you're own preconceived notions (and against you are alleged belief in the scientific method). But even if he did accept the counter offer, still...so what? It's still not science.

If you want to look at some of the science here's the website of Brian Josephson, the noble prize winning physicist I mentioned who believes there may be credibility to psi http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

**akasha1** · 01-28-07, 03:35 PM

i personally know only of one scientific experiment design about empathy.
the results were that after 16 years of research nobody higher accuracy scores above 60%, thats pretty lousy if you ask me

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-28-07, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by TimeTraveler

Crunchy Cat, then you also understand how the eco-system works, and if you figure out how the eco-system works, you'll figure out how life works, and how our species works.

I'll drink to that!

Originally Posted by TimeTraveler

The human species is one organism, the problem is that most humans are unconscious, you see, subconsciously we know we are one organism, but we don't seem to have a human identity yet.

And this is where we go from the concrete into fantasy. An instance of a human is a single oragnism. If that were not the case then 1 human + 1 human would not == 2 humans. Most humans are only unconscious when the majority of humans are in non-REM sleep and it would be a problem if they didn't sleep. Humans have no such knowledge of being a single organism and humans have many identities... although I am not sure if there is a common identity amongst us.

Originally Posted by TimeTraveler

It's strange, it's almost as if, most humans actually believe they are seperate from their species, from the eco-system, from everyone around them and the environment.

There is no evidence of seperate on the scientific level, on the eco-system level, on the energy level, and while this might not tell us for sure that there is a soul, it tells us that as that we control our own fate and destiny.

Ugh, I can find serious flaw in almost every line.

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-28-07, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by grover

1. Crunchy, there is now and has been since at least the first quarter of the 20th century scientific research that is being done on psi phenomena.

Incorrect, there has been research happening looking for the existence of 'psi' phenomena.

Originally Posted by grover

There are still perfectly intelligent, reputable, Phds, at accredited universities who believe there is credible evidence for psi phenomenon.

That there are. There are perfectly intelligent, reputable, Phds, at accredited universities who believe state theory is objective truth. There are perfectly intelligent, reputable, Phds, at accredited universities who believe 'Demons' exists.

Originally Posted by grover

You claim to be science minded but instead of considering the science you continue to harp on a side show freak as if he were proof that psi doesn't exist.

The Randi challenge is proof that no objective claimers of 'psi' can produce supportive evidence.

Originally Posted by grover

Even if Randi does end up giving up the money it will not be scientific evidence because he is not a scientist, and his biased little publicity stunt is not the scientific method.

I more or less agree and if someone received the money, that someone might become the most important person on the planet for the advancement of real science.

Originally Posted by grover

Why you would consider Randi as an authority is beyond me, I guess like all fundamentalists you are a hypocrite.

I consider 'Randi' as just a guy whom is offering wealth in exchange for a demonstration. If I could make a tennis ball float in mid air while producing chicken noises using nothing but raw thought then that million would be so mine. Unfortuantely I cannot, but if someone could I have 'faith' that human nature would bring that person right to Randi.

Originally Posted by grover

2. The counter challenge I saw was one where money was offered to Randi if he accepted the requirements of their test, which was simply that a panel of impartial judges would decide (closer to true science than a magician being the sole arbiter). Randi didn't accept the counter offer. So once again you are picking and choosing who is trustworthy in accordance with you're own preconceived notions (and against you are alleged belief in the scientific method). But even if he did accept the counter offer, still...so what? It's still not science.

I am not choosing whose trustworthy. 'Randi' is. I do happen to agree with his methodology however in that all 'applications' should be considered untrustworthy to the maximum degree.

Originally Posted by grover

If you want to look at some of the science here's the website of Brian Josephson, the noble prize winning physicist I mentioned who believes there may be credibility to psi http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

So yesterday I was making my couch float across the room using pure thought and then I decided to incinerate it using pure thought and then I projected my consciousness into the future so I could see what the winning lottery numbers are. After I was done I went to buy some tickets at a local 7-11 and the I read the thoughts of the lady behind the counter and it turns out she's sleeping with her husbands sister... wow! I took my winning lottery ticket home and out-of-body experienced my soul into the ether and partook in the ceremony of klax (with a bunch of indigo and crystal children) to open the deitey doorway into the zaboombafoo dimension.

Oh and Brian Josephson thinks my story has a bit of credibility! Woo hoo!

**grover** · 01-28-07, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

So yesterday I was making my couch float across the room using pure thought and then I decided to incinerate it using pure thought and then I projected my consciousness into the future so I could see what the winning lottery numbers are. After I was done I went to buy some tickets at a local 7-11 and the I read the thoughts of the lady behind the counter and it turns out she's sleeping with her husbands sister... wow! I took my winning lottery ticket home and out-of-body experienced my soul into the ether and partook in the ceremony of klax (with a bunch of indigo and crystal children) to open the deitey doorway into the zaboombafoo dimension.

Oh and Brian Josephson thinks my story has a bit of credibility! Woo hoo!

-If thats what you think psi is no wonder you don't believe in it. Of course most people over 12 years old have a little more grown up understanding of what people are talking about when they're talking about psi phenomenon. I don't believe psi is like what you just wrote and neither do any of the researchers(including Josephson) I've read. And like I said, neither do most people older than 12.
-It's obvious you didn't bother to read anything on Jospehon's website. You are totally uninformed and won't look at the science, yet you claim to be the one that's science minded, what a joke. You won't look at what a scientist has to say about the subject and his analysis of the science but instead make a big deal about the "Amazing Randi Challenge." Hmmm, nobel-prize winning physicist vs. "amazing Randi." Instead of discussing it rationally you resort to ridicule and a total mischaracterization. Like I said, just underlines what a hypocrite you are, and an immature one at that.

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-28-07, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by grover

-If thats what you think psi is no wonder you don't believe in it.

DEFINITIONS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_%28parapsychology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psionic

Originally Posted by grover

Of course most people over 12 years old have a little more grown up understanding of what people are talking about when they're talking about psi phenomenon. I don't believe psi is like what you just wrote and neither do any of the researchers(including Josephson) I've read. And like I said, neither do most people older than 12.

Originally Posted by grover

-It's obvious you didn't bother to read anything on Jospehon's website. You are totally uninformed and won't look at the science, yet you claim to be the one that's science minded, what a joke. You won't look at what a scientist has to say about the subject and his analysis of the science but instead make a big deal about the "Amazing Randi Challenge." Hmmm, nobel-prize winning physicist vs. "amazing Randi." Instead of discussing it rationally you resort to ridicule and a total mischaracterization. Like I said, just underlines what a hypocrite you are, and an immature one at that.

Your judgments might be different after reading the links I posted.

**shaman_** · 01-29-07, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by grover

2. The counter challenge I saw was one where money was offered to Randi if he accepted the requirements of their test, which was simply that a panel of impartial judges would decide (closer to true science than a magician being the sole arbiter). Randi didn't accept the counter offer. So once again you are picking and choosing who is trustworthy in accordance with you're own preconceived notions (and against you are alleged belief in the scientific method). But even if he did accept the counter offer, still...so what? It's still not science.

Who was this challenge from?

My understanding of Randi's challenge was that there is no judging involved. Each test is designed so that the results speak for themselves. The test is designed by both parties beforehand, including what constitutes a success and failure.

**grover** · 01-29-07, 08:55 AM

Shaman- The counter challenge was by Dane Spotts. Don't know anything about this guy except that he offered a counter challenge which Randi didn't accept.
Crunchy- I didn't say no one believes in that stuff. I specifically said "most people over 12." Besides, this cartoon version of psi hasn't not been demonstrated to exist by science (sceptics seem to make the logical flaw that that means no psi phenomena exists). But science has demonstrated in huge meta-analysis that some psi does exist. Is it not a fact that any new discovery in science that challenges the status quo is very slow to be accepted? Again, why are you relying on anecdotal evidence of people on the web or some magician's challenge instead of the science?

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-29-07, 09:20 AM

grover, as was likely seen in the definitions provided 'PSI' is fairly concretely defined and there is no observable phenomena that it corresponds to. If there is some kind of highly unusual phenomena that has been observed then at present I strongly doubt anybody objectively know what that it is... and to declare it 'PSI' is as good as certifying it as grade A fantasy.

If you look at towel in anger and it bursts into flames do you know what just happend? You can take the easy route and say it was 'PSI'. You can take the real route and look for evidence as to what the cause was.

**grover** · 01-29-07, 10:18 AM

Crunchy,
What do you think scientists have been studying for 100 years now? If there was nothing to it it would have been clearly disproven by now. But instead theres is scientific evidence for it and highly respected scientists that verigfy that the evidence supports its existence. There is in contrast, to use your example, no scientifc evidence to support the existence of demons. With every further post you type your ignorance of the actual science (the methods, evidence, and statistical analysis) becomes more and more evident. Just look at the actual science that's been going on for 100 years. I find it incredibly hypocritical of you that your initial posts in this topic were critical of people "believing" things with out the support of science yet you continue to refuse to look at the science yourself. You are a scientific materilism fundamentalist, and like all fundamentalists a massive hypocrite. Christianity is a religion of non-violence yet it is historically it became the inversion of that to become one of the most violent institutions in the world. Science is a method to determine truth without ideology, yet there is now the ideology of scientific materilaism that guises itself as science, yet they refuse to look at the evidence, in effect the inversion of true science. FOR THE LAST TIME: DO A LITTLE RESEARCH AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF AT THE EVIDENCE!

**Crunchy Cat** · 01-29-07, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by grover

Crunchy,
What do you think scientists have been studying for 100 years now?

Some real phenomena... some fantasy.

Originally Posted by grover

If there was nothing to it it would have been clearly disproven by now.

Well it pretty much has; however, like 'God' people will hold on to silly beliefs regardless.

Originally Posted by grover

But instead theres is scientific evidence for it and highly respected scientists that verigfy that the evidence supports its existence.

Show me a single double blind experiment that supports 'its' existence. Seriously.

Originally Posted by grover

With every further post you type your ignorance of the actual science (the methods, evidence, and statistical analysis) becomes more and more evident. Just look at the actual science that's been going on for 100 years. I find it incredibly hypocritical of you that your initial posts in this topic were critical of people "believing" things with out the support of science yet you continue to refuse to look at the science yourself. You are a scientific materilism fundamentalist, and like all fundamentalists a massive hypocrite. Christianity is a religion of non-violence yet it is historically it became the inversion of that to become one of the most violent institutions in the world. Science is a method to determine truth without ideology that guises itself as science, yet they refuse to look at the evidence when it contradicts their preconceived notions, in effect become the inversion of true science. FOR THE LAST TIME: DO A LITTLE RESEARCH AND LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!

There is no supportive evidence to look at grover. There is lots of evidence of other things... desire, delusion, emotional intelligence, observational abilities, etc. Don't you find it strange that with all these great discoveries people are making there is not one single nobel prize for the discovery of 'PSI'? Not one.

Thread: Empathy

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions