You forgot, avoid redundant arguments in favor of challenging ones. I'm done beating this dead horse; I hope that you enjoy all of your future one-way arguments and the semblance of self-esteem they provide.
Q, I am just curious on your take of psychic powers. Is your claim that they don't exist or just that this particular guy has no case about them?
I'm done beating this dead horse You haven't even started yet. Where is the evidence for your claims on your website? If you have no evidence, how do you justify making those claims? What is the purpose of those claims and your website? Is your claim that they don't exist or just that this particular guy has no case about them? Quite simple really if you've been following along. After inspecting the website, a list of claims was questioned for evidence, whereupon the author has done everything since to sidestep providing evidence. Instead he has decided to attack me personally. Of course, I could care less about the attacks but it does show the author cannot support his own claims. And it appears this is not the first time his claims have been questioned. Most likely, the inquisitors were also rewarded with personal attacks instead of evidence. Transmaterial is just another in a long list of those who who provide nothing more than empty expectations.
(sigh) EM energy transfer between hearts via touch: http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-papers/Touch/touch-introduction.html >>awaiting redundant response
Sorry, but the link does not work for me. Could you please copy/paste the appropriate material and show us how it relates to your claims?
OK, the article is really, really flawed. So there are measurable changes in people's ECGs when they are touched, but to jump to this; "The data presented here clearly show that when people touch or are in proximity, a transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs." Because they falsely define energy; "If we define energy as the capacity to produce an effect" But that is just wrong. Everyone has heard of the 'Placebo Effect' but nobody ever uses the term 'Placebo Energy'. They have noticed an effect (duh!) but not measured the cause, so their conclusion is meaningless.
On the subject of 'theraputic touch' Of course it works! It's a form of communication between social organisms. When the girlfriend is crying you give her a hug, she feels better. There's no magic about it. Posting links to articles that reference pseudoscientific studies from journals long since dead means exactly fuck all. here's a quick tip. Go and check out articles on physiological reactions to stress. Eek! Could it be that hugging and touch reduce stress? Discovery of the century? Not. Dee Cee
Just thought that I would mention what energy really is. It's uncompressed matter... just as matter is compressed energy: E=MC^2 <----- That's matter uncompressed by a factor of speed of light squared.
I came to these parapsychology forums quite recently--not intending to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor expecting to find such proof, but seeking information. There is often information related to a topic which bears on the topic, yet does not, in itself, entirely prove a certain hypothesis. We can add that to Crunchy Cat's Science 101 archive, along with nuclear force and the theory of relativity (by the way, CC, I'm still waiting on an answer to the question "what energy field produces the mirroring behavior of twin particle systems?") I believe things that have not been conclusively proven according to any study I know of. Guilty as charged, though I never made a claim to the contrary. If you'll review the foundations of science, the lack of ultimate proof does not prove that I am wrong, for there are no absolutes; it means only that scientists should rightly consider my beliefs less probable than explanations with more supporting data. Thus, I restate that there may be human senses other than the commonly accepted five, and that there is a wide and enduring consensus to this effect. I am interested in any information that speaks to these possibilities, but I am not getting paid to track it all down, archive it, and present it to people who will almost certainly deny its validity anyway. I mentioned that I had encountered people like Q before; I wasn't referring to a "pseudo-science" board, but to a political board. This was an alternate news site which presented information that is widely distributed in other countries, but essentially blacklisted in the US press (Columbian trade unionist assassinations, corporate pollution and exploitation of third-world labor, congressional decisions that curtail domestic civil rights, etc). The forum had been infested by right-wing white supremacists who goaded the resident activists with constant racist slurs and stereotypes about "liberals," and litanies about the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. There was little or no reference to the actual message threads being discussed. I challenged the baiters, and they responded with many posts along the lines of "nyah nyah, you're a moron." A similar ideological bum-rush seems to have happened in this corner of SciForums. My main question is, to those of you who give no credence to beliefs like this, why are you even here? There are lots of people out there who are interested in topics that fall under the general heading of parapsychology. There are also a lot of people who scoff at the whole genre. Why can't the latter camp start their own threads debunking various topics, and leave a little bandwidth for we "believers" to share information, no matter how worthless it seems from the context of your own worldviews? This is an honest question: why waste your time and others'? Even if you are absolutely right about certain beliefs being delusional, you aren't going to "get through" to anyone unless you communicate some sense of respect for their intelligence. If you have no respect, like Q, then why the fuck are you trying to argue these points in the first place? It is a vicious cycle that proves nothing but your dependence on ego-aggrandizement. The most logical thing, in my opinion, would be to let people share information, however they define it. If you want to critique it, leave the "nonsense will never be proven" attitude at the door, and address the more challenging arguments along with the weakest links. Maybe people like me will keep investigate all of these worthless scraps of data until we realize that there is nothing substantial to be found. What you are doing isn't logical calisthenics; it's mental masturbation. Was there a single fact in the Electricity of Touch article that made you say "hmm.. interesting?" If presented with information that would challenge your stoic presumptions, I doubt that most of you would notice. Be honest with yourselves, people: you go into each parapsychology thread with the same agenda, and without a shred of doubt that you will emerge victorious.
When was this question asked? Anyhow, I am not sure I understand the question. If you could ellaborate that would be great. It's not this specific belief. It's all of them. Accepting assertions as being true without considering supportive / contradictory evidence is quite frankly a self-chosen form of mental handicap. Anyhow, I am here because I like and have lucid dreams. In fact the nearest I can tell, I have had dream content that nobody else has had to date and I am trying to understand why that may be. Additionally, I like to examine the psychology behind belief to gain a better understanding of where it comes from. So far I have hypothesized that it is an evolutationary trait that was beneficial in the past few millenia. I also like to take the initiative to allow people to prove fantastic claims as well as point out charletons. Why don't we put all the stupid people on one side of the globe and and the smart folks on the other? Same reason as you. Everyone who posts cares about something regarding the thread. It's not intellectual respect that should be the concern. It's just respect in general. People will become defensive otherwise and are not likely to hear whats being said. Even your dick is a muscle. If you exercise it, it will remain strong. Same goes for the brain. There has been a few threads where I offered my money, time, resources, etc. for the purpose of allowing someone to prove a fantastic claim. Certainly I would not not be helping people otherwise.
I came to these parapsychology forums quite recently--not intending to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor expecting to find such proof, but seeking information. Let's review your website and see if that statement is valid: Seems that on one hand you're trying to persuade others your theory has scientific merit while on the other hand consider science close-minded and in denial of your theory. You even state your theory does not contradict biology. Unfortunately, you failed to show how your theory has scientific merit on your website hence I asked you to provide the evidence - there should be no problem with that if you do consider your theory to have scientific merit, right? But you provided nothing in regards to evidence and began personal attacks instead. If you'll review the foundations of science, the lack of ultimate proof does not prove that I am wrong, for there are no absolutes; it means only that scientists should rightly consider my beliefs less probable than explanations with more supporting data. You don't need 'ultimate proof,' evidence will suffice. And it is unlikely the scientific method will be discarded in favor of hand-waving. Thus, I restate that there may be human senses other than the commonly accepted five, and that there is a wide and enduring consensus to this effect. You may state, restate and then restate again, but unless you can provide some evidence, its all just baloney. And just because others believe in similar nonsense does not make it valid in any way. I am interested in any information that speaks to these possibilities The information you seek is not available within the realms of science or reality, so most likely you will find only that speculated by others who believe in the same things. The forum had been infested by right-wing white supremacists who goaded the resident activists with constant racist slurs and stereotypes about "liberals," and litanies about the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. There was little or no reference to the actual message threads being discussed. I challenged the baiters, and they responded with many posts along the lines of "nyah nyah, you're a moron." A similar ideological bum-rush seems to have happened in this corner of SciForums. So, we ask for evidence and you provide personal attacks and that is somehow an ideological bums-rush? Uh-huh. My main question is, to those of you who give no credence to beliefs like this, why are you even here? That is irrelevant. There are lots of people out there who are interested in topics that fall under the general heading of parapsychology. There are also a lot of people who scoff at the whole genre. True, and then there are those who wish to understand the difference between what is real and what is not. I, along with many others here, fall into this category. You come along with a whack of extraordinary claims, which I asked you to verify and you could not. So, I can only conclude your claims are not 'real.' Get it now? Why can't the latter camp start their own threads debunking various topics, and leave a little bandwidth for we "believers" to share information, no matter how worthless it seems from the context of your own worldviews? By all means, have your fantasies, I could care less. But don't come here trying to show how your claims are scientific and verifiable, just because you say so. You'll always find those who want evidence. But I suspect you already know that considering you've been down this road before. And it appears you still don't get it. Even if you are absolutely right about certain beliefs being delusional, you aren't going to "get through" to anyone unless you communicate some sense of respect for their intelligence. If you make fantastic claims and want us to consider them without a shred of verifiable evidence, then you insult our intelligence, therefore you get zero respect. If you have no respect, like Q, then why the fuck are you trying to argue these points in the first place? It is a vicious cycle that proves nothing but your dependence on ego-aggrandizement. I want to learn, as do others. We can't accept your wild claims merely because you say so. In my opinion, it is you who has the ego. If you want to critique it, leave the "nonsense will never be proven" attitude at the door, and address the more challenging arguments along with the weakest links. Unless you actually provide a challenging argument, your claims ARE nonsense and will remain so whether you like it or not. Sorry. Maybe people like me will keep investigate all of these worthless scraps of data until we realize that there is nothing substantial to be found. And we are helping you in that realization. You should be thanking us. What you are doing isn't logical calisthenics; it's mental masturbation. Was it good for you too? Be honest with yourselves, people: you go into each parapsychology thread with the same agenda, and without a shred of doubt that you will emerge victorious. The 'agenda' is to ask for evidence to extraordinary claims. I fail to see how this can be considered victorious.
Q, My web site is based upon the following premises: 1. There are human abilities beyond the "five" senses 2. These abilities can be developed, and many cultures have developed methodologies to do so. These methods tend to have an empirical thrust, in that they emphasize consistent, repeated mental and/or physical practice which intensifies the expanded perceptual state in question. 3. Science has not proven these abilities' existence, but may be moving in this direction, through the expanding body of knowledge on previously undetectable types of energy. 4. In lieu of scientific confirmation, belief in #1 and #2 is a matter of personal experience. [Either the abilities exist or they don't; understanding the scientific mechanism behind them would not change this hard reality whatsoever.] 5. For those whose personal experience leads them to believe that metaphysical abilities are possible, there are many disciplines for honing awareness that could help them to develop these abilities. My main objection was that you inferred an argument I never made: that there is conclusive proof of psychic ability. Maybe you found the language confusing in the last snippet you excavated from my site, but the fact remains that your first excerpt was a quote out of context. My site is not mainly geared toward scientific discoveries, it is a resource for people who practice any method for developing transmaterial awareness. If you wanted to attack the actual operant assumptions of my site from a Rationalist stance, you would have had plenty to work with. You could have taken the "facilitated hallucination" angle, that people can convince their brains to fabricate all manner of trans-sensory experiences but it is still bunk. Or you could have taken the "get with the age of Enlightenment" angle, in which millions of people are still lost in primitive delusions and superstitions (including a large part of India) but someday they will all bow to the One Truth of scientism. Instead you tried to characterize me as someone who claims to have evidence of psychic abilities. You tried to draw me into your usual win-win scenario for these parapsych forums, in which you say "has your claim been proven according to these scientific criteria?" And the person says, "well, no..." and you say "well you're a moron for believing in it!" Either the 6+ senses are real or they are not. Either millions of Hindus, Tibetan Buddhists, Jainists, Taoists, Sufis, Pagans, Shamanistic peoples (et. al) live in a state of permanent, self-induced dementia, or they are perceiving real things that some other people do not. I agree that science can't explain or confirm what all these people claim to have perceived. This discussion was over before it had begun, because you made a false assumption about me. So what was your question again? Why are you still here?
Crunchy Cat: As for twin-particle systems: I was referring to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, originally described in Bell's Inequality Principle. Sources: http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/rmext04/92andwed/pf_quant.html#Q30 http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/epr.html http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9707042 http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/quantum_physics/quantum_physics.htm#Bell ...And a critique of Bell's theorem: http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/The Record/TheRecord.htm
My web site is based upon the following premises I know upon what you're website is based, I took the time to read it, and I posted the claims exactly as they appear, no changes on my part. Anyone can verify that. My main objection was that you inferred an argument I never made: that there is conclusive proof of psychic ability. No need to obfuscate the argument, you made claims, I posted them and asked you to back up your claims. You have yet to do so, and you continue to evade that. I never said anything about conclusive proof of psychic ability, those are your words. Stop trying to put them in my mouth. Maybe you found the language confusing in the last snippet you excavated from my site, but the fact remains that your first excerpt was a quote out of context. I copied and posted directly from your website, your claims are there for all to see. My site is not mainly geared toward scientific discoveries, it is a resource for people who practice any method for developing transmaterial awareness. Are you going to add lying to your current list of achievements here? See above quotes or go directly to your website to see exactly what your website claims. If you wanted to attack the actual operant assumptions of my site from a Rationalist stance, you would have had plenty to work with. I'm seeing the written English you're writing there but can only assume you don't understand English. I'll explain it to you again, you made claims, I asked for evidence. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Instead you tried to characterize me as someone who claims to have evidence of psychic abilities. No, I characterize you as someone who can't back up their claims. There are labels for such people, I'm sure you can pick any one of them you like. You tried to draw me into your usual win-win scenario for these parapsych forums, in which you say "has your claim been proven according to these scientific criteria?" And the person says, "well, no..." and you say "well you're a moron for believing in it!" More lies? Is that the only way you think you can get out of supporting your argument? Pathetic. Either the 6+ senses are real or they are not. You have failed miserably in trying to convince me of that. Are there any other peeps here convinced? Either millions of Hindus, Tibetan Buddhists, Jainists, Taoists, Sufis, Pagans, Shamanistic peoples (et. al) live in a state of permanent, self-induced dementia, or they are perceiving real things that some other people do not. Millions of people also believe in gods, so what? Logical fallacies will not support your argument. I agree that science can't explain or confirm what all these people claim to have perceived. Then you admit that your claims are worthless and conjured from your imagination? This discussion was over before it had begun, because you made a false assumption about me. How is asking you for evidence to support your claims a false assumption? So what was your question again? Why are you still here? You know the question and I am here to ask it. So, any evidence to support your wild claims from your website? Or is it just that which you conjured from your imagination? Inquisitive minds want to know.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate..." Q, you have spent a good bit of your time asking me to support a certain claim according to certain criteria. I said on my web site (and everyone else would have known this, if you had extended your quote by a couple of paragraphs) that I do not possess said evidence. I said that there is a lot of tantalizing information that does not yet add up to a secular metaphysics, but that these data, when corroborated with cross-cultural ontological studies of beliefs about human perception, may warrant more attention from the scientific community than they currently receive. I lost, you won... but you can't quit, can you? Believe me, I can identify. May St. Jude smile on you. Why don't we just have a few beers, sing "The Boxer" together and call it a day. As for the "millions of people believe in gods too" statement, this is a faulty comparison. This type of belief is not concerned with abilities which allow one to perceive one's god(s), at least not in terms of a concrete perceptual taxonomy. Faith takes precedence over a desire for empirical confirmation. If we had been talking about millions of people who believe in an unseen life force based solely on faith, it would be an appropriate example. I think it's time to cut your losses.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate..." hehe - Don't you mean, "failure to provide supporting evidence to fantastic claims?" Q, you have spent a good bit of your time asking me to support a certain claim according to certain criteria. Again, no I have not. I have asked you to provide evidence to the claims on your website, that is all. What part of that question don't you understand? I said on my web site (and everyone else would have known this, if you had extended your quote by a couple of paragraphs) that I do not possess said evidence. So, you admit your claims are false and unfounded and are merely that which you conjured from your imagination? I said that there is a lot of tantalizing information that does not yet add up to a secular metaphysics, but that these data, when corroborated with cross-cultural ontological studies of beliefs about human perception, may warrant more attention from the scientific community than they currently receive. Your claims do not warrant attention from the scientific community because there is no evidence whatsoever to support them. Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. If you can't support your claims, they are worthless. Do you get it now? Faith takes precedence over a desire for empirical confirmation. Your claims are based on blind faith just like religion, that much you have made clear, so it is definitely a fair comparison. If we had been talking about millions of people who believe in an unseen life force based solely on faith, it would be an appropriate example. We are talking about an individual who has made extraordinary claims of unseen forces. So, it is a perfect example. I think it's time to cut your losses. What exactly have I lost? Quite clearly you are unable to support that which you claim and you are under the delusion that your claims will gain support by attacking me. Simply admit it - your claims are worthless and were conjured from your imagination. Everyone else knows that, why don't you?
Well, I just submitted your website to http://www.crank.net/contents.html . So far, all of my submissions (and there have been many) have made it to their lists. Let's see how they categorize your website, shall we? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually Q, I think you know that bats and dolphins have sonar sense, there are some birds which literally guiding see color spot in their field of vision as they can detect the poles, and hammerheads use electric impulses to detect prety. Anyhow, there is no evidence to suggests that humans have additional senses. That is nothing more than an attractive fantasy.
