06-16-12, 05:49 AM #141
06-16-12, 06:29 AM #142
Your prediction didn't come to full fruition. Look at your quote you wanted him gone for an eternity. Not a week. Keep counting.. ( you can mike it past seven I hope.)~just joking in the last part..
06-16-12, 07:56 AM #143
06-17-12, 02:45 PM #144
The trolling issue:
Most points brought up by the troll introduce ideas that people have either heard or talked about before on a common basis. Trolls believe they an only they believe this information that they posess is "real and unheard of". But if any random person including a troll posts something close to the current state of reality, they are sure to get attention. The troll basks in this attention by playing psychological games that most often ends any intelligent conversation when a person feels fooled into thinking something that is so commonly wrong. But a true psychologist is able to see the reason without the expression of words. Hence disagreement between the reality and illusion is blurred. And we all hate anything that feels "uncertain"
Most things have already been said. Which brings almost anybody the propensity to be called a troll for expressing their own thoughts in their own way with the same words meant for similar points holding their own value.
Purpose is always the question in dealing with trolls.
06-17-12, 06:18 PM #145
06-17-12, 07:47 PM #146
06-17-12, 08:59 PM #147
06-21-12, 03:02 AM #148
Not sure many trolls left here, been gone long time myself But in use to be more in old days.
06-21-12, 07:32 PM #149
This is off the trolling topic, however James R has called me a cop-out which I need to demonstrate is a totally false allegation. You will see I have attempted a serious experiment on sciforums and with "The Amazing Randi".
@ James R,
You said - I think you're wimping out because you know you will fail any fair test of your supposed psychic abilities.
I did not create that thread with sarcasm in mind. I am genuinely interested in anybody who says they have psychic powers that are even close to 100% reliable. Such powers should be easy to show under controlled conditions.
kwhilborn note: I claim above probabilies and chance, but not near 100%
I said - I have not started a paranormal thread in years. I am a Licensed Engineer and am not focused on proving anything to anyone.
You said - That's a standard cop-out for people who are offered the opportunity to apply for James Randi's million dollar challenge. "I don't need the money! I have nothing to prove" Well, then, why not donate it to a worthy charity that could use $1million? You'll be doing a great good with your special powers. Proving something to somebody is beside the point (although why claim a power if you can't demonstrate it?).
I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE JREF IN REGARDS TO THEIR Million dollar prize. They essentially want a short youtube entry that they can poke fun at, and are unwilling to accept probabilities as proof. They made this very clear. That is why I am calling James Randi a fraud for not accepting probabilities. I have been in contact with his organization.
The demonstration I was organizing with crunchycat was never followed through on his behalf (not mine). You can follow through the exchanges made at that time on that link. I was 100% willing to co-operate despite the time and effort it would have required on my behalf.
I in no way "copped-out".
The person whom I was planning the experiment with apparently had NO INTENTION of doing the experiment with me and even claimed,
"Crunchycat - It would have been far more preferable to publically see him fail with the claim."
So youd already decided the out-come of the experiment before embarking on it?
Good job he left really you would have been completely wasting his time.
The whole point of *any* half decent psychology experiment is that youre agnostic about the outcome - given that the psyche can simply output the outcome it wants without you even being consciously aware of it.
kwhilborn did actually make a very interesting point while he was here though which i think alot of you missed.
<HOW MANY COINCIDENCES EQUALS PROOF>
This is typically the problem with proofs of this nature, we have no pre-defined or definitive idea of when a coincidence transforms into a proof.
We can calculate the statistical likelyhood of an outcome, but these could still be subjectively understood as 'statistical coincidences'.
So where exactly is the problem then?
The problem as i see it is that we all have our own internal measurements to define the point at which a coincidence becomes a proof, which largely seem to be part of subconscious process rather than an outward rationalised one.
So how can we satisfy our non-rationalised internal standards?
Id agree with kwhilborn in as much as the best way to satisfy your own requirements of proof would be to provide your own.
You need to self-experience the coincidence/proof for the greatest chance of comming into contact with your self-defined version of either.
Last edited by kwhilborn; 06-21-12 at 07:54 PM.
06-21-12, 11:01 PM #150
By rpenner in forum Physics & MathLast Post: Yesterday, 07:59 PMReplies: 415
By Rick in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 06-20-09, 11:52 AMReplies: 4
By lightgigantic in forum SF Open GovernmentLast Post: 03-10-09, 07:52 AMReplies: 24
By charles cure in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 10-09-05, 06:50 PMReplies: 233
By Undecided in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 07-21-05, 05:34 AMReplies: 266