You said science was immoral. I think it is niether moral or immoral. It is a method used to explain the universe around us. (simplistic definition) I don't know. Which is why I said "Yes the problem is that no one seems to have telepathy." That is a perfectly correct statement until it is proven to exist. Ophiolite did mention a possible test on a previous page involving a target concentrating on something while a telepath writes down their thoughts. Using strict testing protocols someone would have to get results above those expected by chance. This would have to be repeatable of course.
Huh? You don't make a whole lot of sense here. You go from the accusation that science says all material is lifeless except err scientist's brains so it is immoral (?!) because power corrupts. Righty. Don't know what you mean by things getting hostile either. If science has crushed any worldviews then those people will have to deal with the truth. This is not immoral. Science is not there to comfort people with delusions. Yes reality often seems boring to believers. I guess this is why you are so keen to believe in anything that will make your life seem more interesting. Do you have a better test for telepathy duendy?
shall remain nameless: His experimental 'constraints' violate the nature of that which is to be 'studied'). Some things are not applicable to command performances. Excuses don't cut it. Experiment requirements are agreed upon by both parties. If its not applicable to so-called 'command performances,' then its most likely crap. You either have the power or you don't, simple. Yes, telepathy can be 'accessed' by training, just not necessarily in the area that you think. It is not a superior brain function, it is something related to all being One. If there is only One Mind, and there is, then it is certainly no trick to access 'thoughts' wherever or whenever they might occur. Within ones own mind, that could be true. But, one cannot access anothers thoughts, that is pure horsepucky. That has never been shown by anyone. One is also warned against egoic attachments to these 'powers' when others go 'oooohhh and aahhhh' and "Aren't you special!" and feed the ego. That alone is a good reason to keep one's 'abilities' to oneself. More excuses and more crap. Since no one has ever shown those abilities, then no one has ever called someone special preceded by ooohs and aaahs. And if they were to keep it to themselves, why are so many nutjobs claiming they have the ability, regardless of the fact they cannot show their abilities to anyone. Do know, however, that once you have found and made use of the 'access code', the more that you excercise the 'ability', the easier, stronger and more 'at Will' it becomes. Do know, that you are either lying or delusional.
I have direct 'eye' witnesses that would swear in court under oath as to what they have experienced which you will discount as you are not one of them. And even if you were a direct witness you would not accept as it violates your invested 'world view'. Now, the poster of this topic had a specific question that he wished to discuss. Why it it that you clenched materialists feel the need to obfuscate and HIJACK every thread of this nature? The question was not "Do you believe and why". If it was, then feel free. Why is it that you pathetic clueless materialist uncreative sort feel the need to enter a conversation shouting with arms waving attempting to drown out the conversation with your cement headed disrespectful noise? Feel free to start your own thread on your own subject and take your fundamnentalist sh!t there. No one here wants your bible waving noise! Now, with respect to the original poster, FuK OFF and go away. Am I being clear enough that even uncreative cement headed materialists like yourself can understand when you arent wanted. Do none of you have any respect for anyone but yourselves? Faugh! {spits in the dust} Shooo!
Impossible to do. At some and many points, you will believe in assumptions and work from there. You cannot eliminate 'belief'. You appear to 'believe' in the infallibility of 'empiricism'... Perhaps for you. Seems funny, though, that after all this time, science is still being surprised at the directions that those questions lead and the paradoxes they entail. Science can not yet define 'reality'. That is for metaphysics. Truthful? Show me any scientific text that defines 'Truth'!
I have direct 'eye' witnesses that would swear in court under oath... And of course, no one has ever lied under oath. *tongue planted firmly in cheek*
How did I know that you'd have to go there? Could it be the predictability of fossilized minds? I know somewhere you can firmly plant that tongue where it will actually do some good... (just ask! *__- ) A perfect example of a 'religious belief' that comes face to face with something 'different'.. Sidestep, shuffle, wave arms, shout enough noise where you can no longer hear.. na na na na na na na na dummm de dimmmm ne ne naaaaaa anything from an equally valid different perspective. Perspectives that do not change regularly, like underwear, start to similarly stink!
Dont break your arm patting yourself on the back. One, at least I have emotions, and two I am enjoying telling you clueless cement headed clenched uncreative fossils what I feel about your mewlings. I an playing the game. Do you really think that you have that much power? Hahahahahaahahahahahaah... It is you who are deluded!
Now, if the rest of you uncreative garbage hasn't scared Lomion off of his own thread, and he wishes to discuss further with me, I'll be glad to. I won't waste anymore time with the rest of you though, except to say that you exhibit pathological responses and need emotional help.. Clenched people are that way usually due to a stunted emotional growth, hence the 'carved in stone' materialism. Fear is at the bottom... Pathetic! Enough already. Have a nice day. Unclench your Minds!
I actually agree somewhat. 'Belief' is impossible to eliminate for any human being today. What is not impossible is to understand that 'belief' is often used as substitution for 'i dont know'. Knowing this, anyone can mitigate the risk of 'belief'. I think 'belief' in empiricism is being confused with acceotance of reality. It doesn't matter what I believe... reality is what it is. It's not a personal 'Jesus' kind of thing (i.e. just for me). No other method on earth allows us to ask reality questions and get truthful answers. Please feel free to contradict the assertion with evidence. Science may produce surprising results, certainly has not uncovered all the answers, hasn't defined reality yet, etc. So what? Having to say "I don't know" is far superior than substituting the absence of knowedge with fantasy (metaphysics... intelligent design... psychic powers... god... the tooth fairy). Here's a starter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Theories_about_truth Basically it's reality without interpretation or interpretation validated by reality.
Self back-patting is being confused with pointing out an intentional action that produced a predictable result. I think it's great that you have such strong emotion and that it gives you pleasure expressing them. That's really what the whole PSI thing is all about. Expressing your emotions and making yourself feel good / creative / important / attractive. Any 'power' anyone has comes from their understanding and what they can do with it. In Skin's case he understood human psychology quite well and made you behave in a manner that he wanted.
Wrong, Crunch, it is what the whole HUMAN thing is about. Believing what is most rewarding. Everyone 'believes' what is most rewarding. Of the definition of 'rewarding', logical and intellectual is only a subset. I dont express emotions to make me feel anything, I express them because they are there and part of my humanity which cannot be divorced from my 'intellectualism'. Lack of integration of one's 'completeness' is pathological. Nonsense. He displays little understanding of the totality of what it means to be an integrated human, and 'made' me do nothing. Or is this some around the corner way of trying to invalidate something I said by creating this straw-man? It is impossible to eliminate and you are unwilling to accept its necessary existence as an integral part of the equation. 'Mitigate'? A fools errand... What a pathetic life. You are the helpless victim of a life that comes from somewhere 'out there', with which you muct somehow 'cope' the best you can, under the circumstances. How powerless. How... 'grey'. YOUR truth, YOUR reality, YOUR life, not mine. You cannot even find a universally accepted definition of Reality in any scientific tomes. It has been the subject of metaphysical philosophy for millenia. Yet all of a sudden, YOU KNOW what it is... for everyone. So, if we just accept your definition (forthcoming?) we all will finally know? How exciting! The 'empirical evidence' (your 'Jesus' again) is that previous TRUTHS that science has found had subsequently, almost all of them, been altered as new data is found, again, and again... Just stopping somewhere on the continuum and saying that you are done looking, you will accept the current understanding as your TRUTH is intellectually lazy and exactly equates to religious fundamnentalism. Anyone that discounts the field of metaphysics as fantasy is either horribly ignorant, incapable of understanding what it is, or a blind 'true believer'. You sound like the 'believer'. "I have my beliefs, I will not hear your fantasy! It is the work of the devil!!" Unclench your mind! No need to even go there as I see what the link says, "Theories_about_truth" Is that the best you got? Christian sites do better to promote their TRUTH. At least they come right out and tell you that their belief is the TRUTH! Not a 'theory'. I guess if you do not know Truth, all you can do is 'theorize'...
I'm sorry, but with respect to the author of this thread I will not continue this conversation here. My apologies to Lomion.
Interesting response and from what I gather, the assertion is people 'believe' what is most rewarding and emotional processing is a determinant of what 'most rewarding' is. It feels good to think a human brain can interpret the information in a foreign brain. That feeling is rewarding and that's why PSI is around. This subsection of the forum is a plethora evidence to support this assertion and there is ZERO evidence to contradict it. I am willing to bet that he knows he could interview college students at a desk smelling of beer and predict with great accuracy what the answer to the question "what are you doing this weekend?" will be. The point being is that he is aware of how to ellicit specific responses. Maybe I wasn't heard the first time. I AGREE that it is impossible to eliminate for any human on the planet today. I disagree that the original 'blue sky' assertion has to be 'belief' founded. And yes 'mitigate'... long term (next 500 million years or so) not keeping belief in check could lead to extinction quite easily. I am not sure where the interpretation came from where I could define reality. Sounds like your trying to make me take ownership of your assertions. Regarding what I am... it's a manifestation of self awarness in space-time. Nothing helpess, victimizing, or powerless about it. It's ok if science re-models. If something is wrong it can be corrected. If something is incomplete, it can be completed. Science can get answers from reality. Sometimes the question is bad. Sometimes the answer is mis-understood. Regarding the whole 'stopping somewhere' bit, you're trying to make me take ownership of assertions that aren't mine again. I never said anyone is 'done looking'. All the while, I opened the door for supplying contradictory evidence and none has been provided. I was too hard on Metaphysics. It started off as a philosophy that birthed science and has evolved in a way that is attracting alot of folks whom integrate their 'spiritual' positions into it. The problem isn't with Metaphysics conceptually. The problem is the people whom are driving it. The critieria was to provide a science definition. Science deals with theory and the link's text shouldn't come as a surprise. What's more important is the content of the URL and the simple definition I provided. Anyhow, you asked, I provided, you ignored. The message is that you're unwilling to learn.
No, 'emotional rewards' is merely a subset of 'all possible rewards'. The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects," -www.edge.org. It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God. "We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." - http://www.edge.org/ __________________________________________________
Sure you do. All good scam artitists, cons, charletans, faith healers, revivalists, etc. have armies of "witnesses" and testimonials from which to draw some bit of validation for their claim. And if it isn't a con or a scam, then undoubtedly you have a little following of gullible believers who will be willing to say they saw whatever you wish -perhaps they'll even believe they saw it. But whenever the microscope of science is placed over the slide of wild claims of telepathy, the telepaths are suddenly unable to perform. Apparently the "materialists" give off "bad vibs" or "negative energies." Or is that the evidence of such sacred abilities is for the true believer only? You remind me of the neighbor I used to have that was into Wicca and "The Craft." She claimed to be able to cast all sorts of spells and use Reiki and all sorts of nonsense. But when asked to show it? "You're not a believer, dude. It won't work with you." Right. Simple. This is a science board. True enough, this is the parapsychology sub-forum of that board, but it is still a science board. If you expect to be able to make extraordinary claims about silly nonsense like telepathy and go out on the limb and claim to be able to do it on a regular basis, you naturally must expect to be ridiculed. And deserve it. On the other hand. If you were to actually show some evidence (eye witness testimony does not equal evidence), data obtained from a controlled experiment, that show telepathy exists, I'll willingly eat crow. Until then, you're either lying or delusional. The thread topic was poppycock. Horse-hockey to quote my esteemed colleage. The only way one can develop telepathy with any reasonable measure of success is through literature. Fiction to be precise. As long as there are those who are willing to lie about their claims or be deluded enough not to temper their beliefs in a science forum, there should always be those willing to call them on it. If you find my posts offensive, I really don't care. There are those for whom it is one's duty to offend.
That example is attrcative... pleasing to the mind... and pleasure is emotional. Maybe there is a different example supporting the assertion? Yep, it's an great article with excellent points. It demonstrates alot of the harm that can come of 'belief'. What doesn't change is that assertions of PSI abilities have no supportive evidence.
