IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ghosts

Reply
Old 29th October 2015, 02:30 AM   #441
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Consciousness as an emergent property of brains? If the brain functions as a lens for the consciousness that resides in all of the dimensions that the mathematical theory states exists then that is exactly what the research would reflect.

There is no consciousness outside of our brains. A brain would have to be present for the consciousness to express itself in our physical reality. My idea is that the brain works as a lens or receiver for that consciousness, the one that animates the body. What you see in the brain is the chemical process that allows that to happen.
I know this is just your idea, or speculation or whatever, but humour me: which part of the human brain do you think acts as a receiver or lens?

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Revising my assumptions. I don't think I'm wrong in interpreting and synthesizing the research that is a synthesis of various disciplines. My assumption that it was actually my mother might be wrong. It could have been me in that other dimension using that dream figure of my mother to try to warn me of some impending doom, possibly change it, or be prepared to deal with it. I say this because if we are truly multidimensional beings then there would be no need for my dead mother to warn me of anything in a dream, she could simply tell me in that other dimension, or I would see it for myself.
So far, these have included a cool film you saw, and Alice in Wonderland. It baffles me that you think that these are better or more insightful than the totality of scientific research into consciousness, the human brain, and other dimensions.
And no, this isn't really challenging your own assumptions. You are still convinced that you had an extraordinary visitation by some kind of entity whose existence would overturn decades of research and evidence, rather than just a dream.Why are you so opposed to this idea? Do you have so much invested in your position that you are unable to even consider you may be wrong? Everyone gets it wrong sometimes- it's no big deal. If you've studied spirituality, as you say you have, you should remember that there is no ego to offend. Just leave it and move on.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 07:30 AM   #442
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
There is no consciousness outside of our brains. A brain would have to be present for the consciousness to express itself in our physical reality. My idea is that the brain works as a lens or receiver for that consciousness, the one that animates the body.
We know that bodies can be animate without consciousness, so what are you suggesting consciousness consists of in this idea? what is it's function? what does it do that the brain cannot do without this consciousness 'expressing itself'? what does 'expressing itself' consist of?

p.s. The brain is not a receiver.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 07:40 AM   #443
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Ah, that was a great article. The light fairy.

Jodie, did you read it?
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 08:29 AM   #444
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
What you see in the brain is the chemical process that allows that to happen.
If the effects are fully explained by the chemical process, then there's no need to go looking for other causes, no matter how neat those causes might seem. Science is all about not multiplying causes without good reason. That's not to say we shouldn't imagine systems that might be more complex than what we see here and now. But we shouldn't confuse that imagination with the present need to explain and predict the natural world. When the time comes that effects are no longer explained by processes we know about, then we can look to imagination to provide hypotheses for us to test in search of more complex models.

Quote:
...to create AI.
I wonder how much you've studied artificial intelligence. Computers really don't work anything like the human brain does. While we can model in hardware and software some of the processes we think the brain employs, all we ever come up with is mimicry of the outcome. What we call artificial intelligence is mostly a collection of techniques that work on computer, which allows it to perform some of the tasks we traditionally associate with intelligent beings. But we make no representation that it accomplishes that performance the same way an organic brain would.

Quote:
Revising my assumptions. ... My assumption that it was actually my mother might be wrong. It could have been me in that other dimension using that dream figure of my mother to try to warn me of some impending doom, possibly change it, or be prepared to deal with it.
Well, I commend you for being willing to introspectively challenge your earlier interpretations. But you're just trading one farfetched claim for another equally lacking in parsimony. Okay, you're willing to concede that the "dream figure" wasn't necessarily the literal soul of your mother communicating with you from some other dimension. That's a noteworthy revision. But in all fairness you still haven given us anything that can't be explained simply by a dream of the type we know all humans experience. It is more likely that your dream figure was simply a dream figure.

Your evolving explanation still sounds very much like you really want to believe in multidimensional communication, that your experience was a manifestation of that, and that an explanation will be forthcoming by embracing the foggy fringes of metaphysics. Again, you can believe what you want. But you can't credibly call it science unless you adhere to the scientific method.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 11:08 AM   #445
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Garrette I don't think I've been emotional or upset about my discussions regarding the afterlife. This isn't the first thread I've had this type of discussion about the topic and so far they've been fairly civil, for the most part. I actually enjoy them very much.
Glad to hear you enjoy them, and it is entirely possible I am wrong, but I am not ready to discard the hypothesis yet.

For starters, I don't completely buy that you have not been emotional or upset. You react as if being personally attacked. Moreover, you repeatedly accuse those who question you of being upset or offended. It's a projection sort of thing that I'm seeing.


Originally Posted by Jodie
I grew up in the bible belt and my Dad was a rocket scientist who worked under Werner Von Braun at Red Stone Arsenal in Alabama. Huntsville was a unique little town since there was a high number of professionals living there during the glory days of the space program. Despite it being in the deep south I was lucky enough to receive a very good education because of the tax base and demographics of the population.
Excellent. Completely irrelevant, but excellent.


Originally Posted by Jodie
However, were I to announce that I received a message from my dead mother I'ld get push back even in the deep south, even from other Christians depending on what denomination they belonged. It would be different from what I'm hearing here, it would go something like this " a demon tried to change the future", or some such nonsense. Life is full of give and take. I've met my fair share along the way. If I took all of this personally do you really think I'ld be coming back for more time and time again?
Depends on your motives and on what you get out of it. You would hardly be the first to keep coming back in spite of being challenged. For some, it is being challenged that is their reason for coming.


Originally Posted by Jodie
To me, people like JayUtah that resort to cussing you are people that are dealing with their own issues and happen to take it out on you on the forum because there will be little or no repercussions from it.
Possible but completely unsubstantiated. More likely is that his actually rather limited swearing is a combination of his personal style and his frustration at what amount to your non-answers.


Originally Posted by Jodie
It really has nothing to do with me other than how I choose to respond.
That's the case for everyone. So far your choices have been not to respond substantively. You have certainly responded at length but not substantively and not coherently.


Originally Posted by Jodie
This just happens to be one of my favorite subjects to talk about.
Cool. Seriously.


Originally Posted by Jodie
I remember over hearing my dad and his coworkers discussing the "many universe" theory in the early 60's when I was a child. I was so impressed by the conversation that, as a child, I reread "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through The Looking Glass" hoping to find clues on how to get to these other places. I was also hung up on "The Wizard of Oz" for the same reason because this was the only way I could understand what other dimensions might look like at the time. That's the extent of my emotional attachment to the topic. It reminds me of home.
That is actually a rather large emotional attachment, and it is echoed in the subject of your dream. It is also indicative that your understanding of the topics is fairly limited.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 12:39 PM   #446
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
For some, it is being challenged that is their reason for coming.
Indeed, the UFO community relies upon this principle. "He must be telling the truth. Why would anyone make up a story that means they get ridiculed?" And the answer, according to Oscar Wilde, is that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Quite a number of people would rather be taunted, criticized, and laughed at just as long as they aren't ignored.

Over the years I've noticed that fringe claimants sometimes need some satisfaction regarding their critics, either to pretend to have bested them in debate, or to come to some comforting postulate about why the critics have "inappropriately" rejected the claim. This often leads to the kind of performance art we see in a number of ISF threads. Regardless of why we believe something, we (humans) want to frame our beliefs in the appearance of fact, reason, and science. It's ironic that sometimes we do this precisely by rejecting as "closed-minded" or "biased" the very facts, reason, and science that we presume to court.

Quote:
More likely is that his actually rather limited swearing is a combination of his personal style and his frustration at what amount to your non-answers.
Indeed, I'm not secretly working through my own "issues," as Jodie suggests. Nor am I habitually vulgar. ("GTFO" is about as vulgar as saying the phrase "the f-word" instead of the word.) But she needs some pretext for rejecting me, as well as all the other critics. So it might as well be for "cussing." Anything to avoid having to deal with the actual issues I raised.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 03:16 PM   #447
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I know this is just your idea, or speculation or whatever, but humour me: which part of the human brain do you think acts as a receiver or lens?
You'ld first have to establish that there was something to catch before you could try to define what part of the brain or process made it a type of receiver.


Quote:
So far, these have included a cool film you saw, and Alice in Wonderland. It baffles me that you think that these are better or more insightful than the totality of scientific research into consciousness, the human brain, and other dimensions.
The film was an example to illustrate the concept that the multidimensional theories suggest, not provide evidence. The books by Lewis Carroll were used to explain why I was interested after over hearing discussions about other dimensions as a child.

Quote:
And no, this isn't really challenging your own assumptions. You are still convinced that you had an extraordinary visitation by some kind of entity whose existence would overturn decades of research and evidence, rather than just a dream.Why are you so opposed to this idea? Do you have so much invested in your position that you are unable to even consider you may be wrong? Everyone gets it wrong sometimes- it's no big deal. If you've studied spirituality, as you say you have, you should remember that there is no ego to offend. Just leave it and move on.
I'm not offended by lack of agreement. It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong when there has been no one looking for consciousness in other dimensions. We've only had MRI and CT scanners for a few decades and atom smashers for even less time that that. These tools are pretty new so I wouldn't expect for this kind of research to happen anytime soon assuming they could be used to look for consciousness in other dimensions.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 29th October 2015 at 03:18 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 03:22 PM   #448
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
--snip--

I'm not offended by lack of disagreement. It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong when there has been no one looking for consciousness in other dimensions. We've only had MRI and CT scanners for a few decades and atom smashers for even less time that that. These tools are pretty new so I wouldn't expect for this kind of research to happen anytime soon assuming they could be used to look for consciousness in other dimensions.
This is the lack of understanding bit. First, MRIs and CT scans can't look for other dimensions. Second, and more important, no one has looked for leprechauns in other dimensions, either. This likely sounds flippant, but it's not. Third, and still more important, the nature of consciousness has been explored for quite a long time, and everything points to it being dependent upon the material and processes of the brain that we experience here and now without regard for other dimensions.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 03:45 PM   #449
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong when there has been no one looking for consciousness in other dimensions.
That's not how science works. You're making specific, affirmative claims. And people are pointing out that you have no evidence for them. They're not trying to convince you. They're explaining why they themselves remain properly unconvinced of your belief.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 03:47 PM   #450
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
We know that bodies can be animate without consciousness, so what are you suggesting consciousness consists of in this idea? what is it's function? what does it do that the brain cannot do without this consciousness 'expressing itself'? what does 'expressing itself' consist of?

p.s. The brain is not a receiver.
Depends on what you call animation. A functioning body without consciousness is just a body. Example- a partial mole as a result of a molar pregnancy. It contains DNA, teeth or other developed body structures, even brain cells but no one would consider it to be a conscious living being.

Those in a vegetative state or partial vegetative state have brain damage. That brain damage prevents the person from experiencing reality as we do, but it doesn't mean they lack consciousness on some level, their lens is just broken. To me, expressing consciousness means that you have the capability of using the brain as a tool to develop the necessary skills to survive and interact in this world.

If consciousness exists in these other dimensions then it would require a structure or means to process information from that dimension, not necessarily a physical brain. Since we only have research that indicates that these other dimensions exist, it would be a far stretch for me to try to guess how disembodied consciousness would work in these areas.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 03:53 PM   #451
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Frogs send consciousness to all brains via unknown ribbits. The bullfrog bodhi is the source of all thoughts.

Jodie will ignore this.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:04 PM   #452
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's not how science works. You're making specific, affirmative claims. And people are pointing out that you have no evidence for them. They're not trying to convince you. They're explaining why they themselves remain properly unconvinced of your belief.
I'm making specific assertions of belief knowing full well that there is no research that will back up my ideas, not now, and certainly not in the near future. Some have very kindly explained why they don't agree, others have insisted I'm mistaken. My point is that lack of evidence for a concept is not synonymous with being mistaken, in this case, it's simply an untested concept.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:08 PM   #453
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
My point is that lack of evidence for a concept is not synonymous with being mistaken
My point is you expect someone to prove you wrong. You must prove you're right.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:09 PM   #454
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
In a general sense you are correct, but you have expanded the concept to the point of uselessness. That's why I mentioned leprechauns earlier and frogs and have rabbits have been mentioned more recently.

Aimed at Jodie, not JayUtah.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 29th October 2015 at 04:10 PM. Reason: To clarify target audience
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:17 PM   #455
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, the UFO community relies upon this principle. "He must be telling the truth. Why would anyone make up a story that means they get ridiculed?" And the answer, according to Oscar Wilde, is that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Quite a number of people would rather be taunted, criticized, and laughed at just as long as they aren't ignored.

Over the years I've noticed that fringe claimants sometimes need some satisfaction regarding their critics, either to pretend to have bested them in debate, or to come to some comforting postulate about why the critics have "inappropriately" rejected the claim. This often leads to the kind of performance art we see in a number of ISF threads. Regardless of why we believe something, we (humans) want to frame our beliefs in the appearance of fact, reason, and science. It's ironic that sometimes we do this precisely by rejecting as "closed-minded" or "biased" the very facts, reason, and science that we presume to court.



Indeed, I'm not secretly working through my own "issues," as Jodie suggests. Nor am I habitually vulgar. ("GTFO" is about as vulgar as saying the phrase "the f-word" instead of the word.) But she needs some pretext for rejecting me, as well as all the other critics. So it might as well be for "cussing." Anything to avoid having to deal with the actual issues I raised.
I'm only rejecting your approach, other than insults, nothing you've offered has been a positive contribution until the last couple of questions. I'm being sarcastic here, but in what world do you live in where it is appropriate to tell someone to GTFO a forum no matter what the reason? That does demonstrate that something about my idea required a visceral reaction from you, which would be your issue.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:22 PM   #456
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
...where it is appropriate to tell someone to GTFO a forum no matter what the reason?
Asked and answered. You keep coming back to this over and over again, ignoring practically everything else I've written. Why are those four little letters so gawldurned important to you? Are you that desperate to dismiss your critics?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:22 PM   #457
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm only rejecting your approach, other than insults, nothing you've offered has been a positive contribution until the last couple of questions. I'm being sarcastic here, but in what world do you live in where it is appropriate to tell someone to GTFO a forum no matter what the reason? That does demonstrate that something about my idea required a visceral reaction from you, which would be your issue.
No, and this lends credence to the idea that it is attention-seeking on your part. I'm not quite there yet, but I haven't dismissed it yet.

It is difficult to believe that you cannot imagine that the GTFO is, as I said and JayUtah confirmed, simply a combination of his style and his frustration. That frustration does not even need to be at you specifically but at the type of posters you sometimes typify -- those who post wild claims, dismiss counter arguments without reading and/or understanding them, and blame the miscommunication on the skeptics.

You are either gaming for attention or humor, or you need to step back and observe your behavior objectively.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 29th October 2015 at 04:23 PM. Reason: Grammar
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:29 PM   #458
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
It is difficult to believe that you cannot imagine that the GTFO is, as I said and JayUtah confirmed, simply a combination of his style and his frustration.
Not even really frustration, except in the sense that debate is often just inherently frustrating. "Visceral reaction" is Jodie's characterization, not mine or yours. It suggests a need to paint me as some kind of emotional loose cannon that she can safely ignore.

The figure of speech means "Unless you have evidence, it doesn't matter what else you have." No more, no less.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:33 PM   #459
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not even really frustration, except in the sense that debate is often just inherently frustrating. "Visceral reaction" is Jodie's characterization, not mine or yours. It suggests a need to paint me as some kind of emotional loose cannon that she can safely ignore.

The figure of speech means "Unless you have evidence, it doesn't matter what else you have." No more, no less.
Understood and agreed. My point being that Jodie's insistence on the only explanation being that she has gotten to you, if sincere, is evidence of the attention-seeking hypothesis and, if feigned, is evidence of the gaming hypothesis. There may be something else, but I don't see it.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 04:58 PM   #460
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
If the effects are fully explained by the chemical process, then there's no need to go looking for other causes, no matter how neat those causes might seem. Science is all about not multiplying causes without good reason. That's not to say we shouldn't imagine systems that might be more complex than what we see here and now. But we shouldn't confuse that imagination with the present need to explain and predict the natural world. When the time comes that effects are no longer explained by processes we know about, then we can look to imagination to provide hypotheses for us to test in search of more complex models.
Quantum physics and mechanical physics are diametrically opposed theories but when you interject the mathematics for dimensional space, they work together. So far that theory remains unproven.

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

Quote:
I wonder how much you've studied artificial intelligence. Computers really don't work anything like the human brain does. While we can model in hardware and software some of the processes we think the brain employs, all we ever come up with is mimicry of the outcome. What we call artificial intelligence is mostly a collection of techniques that work on computer, which allows it to perform some of the tasks we traditionally associate with intelligent beings. But we make no representation that it accomplishes that performance the same way an organic brain would.
It's because one can't replicate what one doesn't understand. No one has a clear idea of exactly what consciousness is yet to artificially recreate it here.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news...-be-conscious/

Quote:
Well, I commend you for being willing to introspectively challenge your earlier interpretations. But you're just trading one farfetched claim for another equally lacking in parsimony. Okay, you're willing to concede that the "dream figure" wasn't necessarily the literal soul of your mother communicating with you from some other dimension. That's a noteworthy revision. But in all fairness you still haven given us anything that can't be explained simply by a dream of the type we know all humans experience. It is more likely that your dream figure was simply a dream figure.
How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?

Quote:
Your evolving explanation still sounds very much like you really want to believe in multidimensional communication, that your experience was a manifestation of that, and that an explanation will be forthcoming by embracing the foggy fringes of metaphysics. Again, you can believe what you want. But you can't credibly call it science unless you adhere to the scientific method.
I've based my premise on what science states is possible, not confirmed. When you really start reading this stuff with any regularity you'll find that we really don't know very much about our own theory of mind and how it works in the physical world, much less postulating how it would work in other dimensions we aren't consciously experiencing. It's all speculation at this point and I enjoy that process.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 05:05 PM   #461
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Understood and agreed. My point being that Jodie's insistence on the only explanation being that she has gotten to you, if sincere, is evidence of the attention-seeking hypothesis and, if feigned, is evidence of the gaming hypothesis. There may be something else, but I don't see it.
The fact that you two keep it going is more to the point than my responses. I let it go until it was brought up again, and that is the "something else" neither of you are seeing.

Now I must depart for the evening, I need to get situated for Project Runway.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 29th October 2015 at 05:08 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 05:08 PM   #462
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
...
How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?
...
It is not actually shown a dream actually had a prophetic nature. Once you can remedy that, you'd have something to talk about.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 05:10 PM   #463
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
The fact that you two keep it going is more to the point than my responses.
More to what point?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 05:11 PM   #464
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
--snip--

How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?


--snip--
Others will deal with the science stuff; I haven't the time right now except to say that quantum physics and mechanical physics (by which I take it you mean Newtonian) are not, as you say, diametrically opposed. That's not to say they are reconciled, but diametrically opposed they are not.

On the prophetic nature of the dream, there are several possible explanations, none of which can be applied without a verification of what you actually dreamt followed by a verification of what actually happened.

You would do better to lay out both of those specifically and then tell us how you ruled out the other normal explanations. I'm sure you know what at least most of them are.


Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
The fact that you two keep it going is more to the point than my responses. I let it go until it was brought up again, and that is the "something else" neither of you are seeing.
This is what, my fourth post on the topic? That's really going at it, yes, of course.

I go back to my original (recently) post about you floundering. This is more of it.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 05:14 PM   #465
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
It's because one can't replicate what one doesn't understand.
Sure, but then why invoke it? Artificial intelligence doesn't have anything to do with any other part of your claim. It conveys the impression that you're just scrambling for whatever seems tangentially relevant, without really understanding what you're looking at.

Quote:
How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?
First you have to prove it was prophetic.

Quote:
I've based my premise on what science states is possible...
Call a spade a spade. You're speculating. That's fine, but it's not probative.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2015, 06:40 PM   #466
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I let it go until it was brought up again...
No. You brought it up again out of the blue in post 437 after I had already clarified myself and the subject had been dropped for quite some time. Garrette was responding to your resurrection of it. Unless you plan to continue your martyrdom, I suggest you stop being artificially butthurt by an offhand comment and address the substance of the debate.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 01:27 AM   #467
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Jodie has rung gamer alarms in other threads (bigfoot, iirc).

She never changes her approach and it just unspools an endless litany: It seems like a genuine interest and proximity to "Aha!", but it won't arrive. There's always a twist, a reset, an ignore, an act.

See also Jabba. Posters like these have succeeded in their goal: they drive people away. I am rarely here now.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 02:25 AM   #468
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
Jodie has rung gamer alarms in other threads (bigfoot, iirc).

She never changes her approach and it just unspools an endless litany: It seems like a genuine interest and proximity to "Aha!", but it won't arrive. There's always a twist, a reset, an ignore, an act.

See also Jabba. Posters like these have succeeded in their goal: they drive people away. I am rarely here now.
Jabba is one of those I had in mind when I wrote the post about people not having been challenged before. There are others, but they rarely stick around as long. Jabba, I think, hasn't been challenged because until recently he stayed in friendly territory and because his family mostly nodded their heads at "Gramps' eccentricities."

Jodie, I think, is a bit more interesting in that I think she really hasn't been challenged on stuff like her dream and consciousness beliefs and that she also games. The balance of the two changes between topics, but both appear to be there.

It would be simply amusing were it not for the frequent interjections of true nastiness such as the business with The Shrike, the truth of which is obvious yet regarding which she continues to claim he was in the wrong.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 02:34 AM   #469
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
You'ld first have to establish that there was something to catch before you could try to define what part of the brain or process made it a type of receiver.
No, I wouldn't. It's your claim, you the burden of proof lies on you.
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
The film was an example to illustrate the concept that the multidimensional theories suggest, not provide evidence. The books by Lewis Carroll were used to explain why I was interested after over hearing discussions about other dimensions as a child.
No, at least not the way I read it. You posited your theory of multidimensional consciousness before you admitted it was based on a film.

This is what you said about Alice in Wonderland:
Quote:
[A]s a child, I reread "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through The Looking Glass" hoping to find clues on how to get to these other places.
Sounds like you were looking for evidence to me.
Did you read dlorde's linked article? This is what looking for evidence is actually about: examining all sides of any discussion.
Alas, given what you say next, you probably haven't read it and, even if you had, it wouldn't have made any difference:
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong
Even with what follows in that sentence, which I have snipped for clarity, that pretty much sums up your attitude, and is very much in line with what other posters have been saying to you. You have a predetermined conclusion, and nothing will shake it.
That's fine, but, as JayUtah said, don't pretend this is science. If you want to go down that path, you will have to answer another point I made, that you seem to have carefully sidestepped:
If what you claim is true, it would mean upturning every advance on scientific endeavour in this field. How could such a revelation be possible?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 07:37 PM   #470
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Glad to hear you enjoy them, and it is entirely possible I am wrong, but I am not ready to discard the hypothesis yet.

For starters, I don't completely buy that you have not been emotional or upset. You react as if being personally attacked. Moreover, you repeatedly accuse those who question you of being upset or offended. It's a projection sort of thing that I'm seeing.
Rude behavior indicates that there is some kind of passion behind it, there might be multiple motives for why someone would do that. Historically, I'm not bothered by someone disagreeing with me but there is no excuse for being hateful about it. However, I have no problem returning the favor if provoked. I usually only experience that in the bigfoot threads. The take home lesson from that is to spend more time enjoying the rest of the forum.


Quote:
Excellent. Completely irrelevant, but excellent.


Depends on your motives and on what you get out of it. You would hardly be the first to keep coming back in spite of being challenged. For some, it is being challenged that is their reason for coming.
I enjoy certain topics like this, that's my only motive. There are some here that use this forum as a means to take out their frustrations on others but I'm not one of them. I live alone and I miss my family because you can't really find too many people here in the south that would even know what you were talking about if you tried to start a conversation about a multidimensional universe. Most women my age in my immediate area want to talk about their kids, grandkids, church, recipes, and pampered chef parties.

Quote:
Possible but completely unsubstantiated. More likely is that his actually rather limited swearing is a combination of his personal style and his frustration at what amount to your non-answers.
I'ld be more sympathetic if I hadn't already repeatedly stated that this is all supposition on my part. I stepped outside of the forum culture to speculate about how multidimensional reality might support non corporeal consciousness, nothing about that justifies the kind of knee jerk responses I got from a few people here. There are no rules that forbid this kind of discussion. No one is forced to respond if they find what I post to be distasteful.


Quote:
That's the case for everyone. So far your choices have been not to respond substantively. You have certainly responded at length but not substantively and not coherently.
Because it's not a fully formed idea, part of the discussion here helps to refine and redefine some of the concepts. If you want to know what's wrong with a plan, idea, or concept don't go to the yes man to get honest feedback.


Cool. Seriously.


Quote:
That is actually a rather large emotional attachment, and it is echoed in the subject of your dream. It is also indicative that your understanding of the topics is fairly limited.
As is most of the participant's understanding in this thread. There are a handful here on the forum that work in a field involving physics, but then there are others that simply reject the hypotheses I embrace for various reasons that have about as much understanding of the mathematics involved as I do. We have to rely on the experts interpretations' of the research to decide what we support. Saying something isn't so because there is no evidence to support a hypothesis that we haven't been able to test yet isn't a very good argument to dismiss the idea. That would be more of an emotional response than a truly logical one IMO.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 30th October 2015 at 07:38 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 07:55 PM   #471
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
My point is you expect someone to prove you wrong. You must prove you're right.
Flatly saying something isn't possible isn't productive if you can't elaborate on why, that's what I'm looking for. There is nothing about what I'm saying that can be proven and it would be unrealistic of you to expect that. The demand to prove that I'm right is a means to derail the discussion.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 07:59 PM   #472
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Quote:
It isn't the physical world, that's the whole point. Neither are those other dimensions that are curled up and entwined with our physical reality. If we exist in the 1st 4 dimensions why would we assume it ends there?
That's the problem, we live in the physical world. We have a mind housed inside an amazing and complex brain. Until we've figured out how the brain work we shouldn't be speculating on other dimesions.

Quote:
I did mention ghosts. I think it was in response to one of your posts earlier. If you were a ghost hunter then you ought to be familiar with the theory of what causes poltergeist activity. Did you ever encounter a case like that during one of your hunts?
I'm familiar with at least three concepts. None of them are consistent nor repeatable. That's a huge red flag.

I've only had one thing happen and it didn't tie into any of the popular poltergeist theories. Since it only happened once and I can't explain it the event goes into "I don't know" file, not the "Ghosts are real" file (currently empty).

Quote:
My theory is similar but it doesn't hinge on the psychological aspects so much.
Again, huge red flag. You can't take the psychological aspects out of the paranormal any more than you can with any other issue involving humans (war, police work, stress, etc). So much hinges on perception. Innocent men have gone to prison and executed based on perception and prejudices.



Quote:
If what I think is true about our multidimensional world then consciousness might form a type of conduit for the activity to manifest.
The problem as I see it is that your multidimensional work is based on cocktail party quantum physics and not the hard stuff. I'm not qualified to evaluate the hard stuff, but those who are got all excited about the Higgs-Boson particle and all the stuff they're doing with the Hadron Collider because that's where the pointy end of physics is happening ( there and labs like it). Lots of head scratching and chin rubbing as they did through the data and make evaluations. They'll be busy for decades applying the findings to known physics and then arguing over the findings and so on.

Some of those scientists are searching for dimensional data from this work, and it will be a long time before they can even postulate a coherent thesis (I could be wrong, some guy might pop up next week with a paper that I can't read). That's where the science is.

More importantly, if I was to lodge a thesis about ghosts it would center around very physical processes of this world, including the brain.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 08:06 PM   #473
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Flatly saying something isn't possible...
Cite the post where I have done that.

Quote:
There is nothing about what I'm saying that can be proven and it would be unrealistic of you to expect that.
Nonsense. You ask me to explain the allegedly prophetic nature of your dream. Yet you know you can't prove it was prophetic. You come to a forum of skeptics and float speculation, calling it science. This isn't your first thread. You must know you'd be asked for evidence. Who's the one being unrealistic here?

Quote:
The demand to prove that I'm right is a means to derail the discussion.
No, it's a means to place the burden of proof appropriately where it belongs. If you demand an explanation for "prophecy," first prove it was prophetic. If you seek to explain your experience via multidimensional consciousness, you bear that burden.

Last edited by JayUtah; 30th October 2015 at 08:08 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 08:06 PM   #474
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, I wouldn't. It's your claim, you the burden of proof lies on you.
As I said, it's speculation, demanding proof is a means of derailing the conversation.
Quote:
No, at least not the way I read it. You posited your theory of multidimensional consciousness before you admitted it was based on a film.
The film was to demonstrate what I was thinking. My idea has evolved over time from reading several books designed for the layman regarding theoretical physics, my discussions with Dr. Meythalyer when I worked on a brain injury unit, and the research that UAB was doing at the time. I've continued reading research regarding consciousness which lead to the AI research.

Quote:
This is what you said about Alice in Wonderland:


Sounds like you were looking for evidence to me.
Did you read dlorde's linked article? This is what looking for evidence is actually about: examining all sides of any discussion.
Alas, given what you say next, you probably haven't read it and, even if you had, it wouldn't have made any difference:
Evidence from a child's perspective. I was trying to come to assimilate with what I overheard from my father and his colleague's discussions with the only example I had at the time. Sure, my 8 year old self was looking for some kind of way to travel to these other dimensions. I haven't read Dlorde's article yet, it'll have to wait until tomorrow when I'll be less likely to be interrupted by work.

Quote:
Even with what follows in that sentence, which I have snipped for clarity, that pretty much sums up your attitude, and is very much in line with what other posters have been saying to you. You have a predetermined conclusion, and nothing will shake it.
That's fine, but, as JayUtah said, don't pretend this is science. If you want to go down that path, you will have to answer another point I made, that you seem to have carefully sidestepped:
If what you claim is true, it would mean upturning every advance on scientific endeavour in this field. How could such a revelation be possible?
Establishing that these dimensions exist and that they work in an integrated manner would be the first step, we are a very long way from that, and many times physicists spend years looking for conclusions that end up being wrong. This might be one of them too. My idea that non corporeal consciousness that spans multiple dimensions explains how we exist in reality is an idea based on an untested hypothesis, but it is based on science.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 30th October 2015 at 08:11 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 08:19 PM   #475
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'ld be more sympathetic if I hadn't already repeatedly stated that this is all supposition on my part.
But let one of us say that and you remind us your claim is "based on science." What are your critics to do if you can't even make up your mind yourself whether your claim should be evaluated scientifically?

Quote:
There are no rules that forbid this kind of discussion. No one is forced to respond if they find what I post to be distasteful.
There are no rules forbidding the kind of response you're getting. And no one is forced to remain silent if they disagree with you.

Quote:
Because it's not a fully formed idea, part of the discussion here helps to refine and redefine some of the concepts. If you want to know what's wrong with a plan, idea, or concept don't go to the yes man to get honest feedback.
But you are largely ignoring the feedback, and going to great lengths to convey the impression that none of it is honest. As has been said by several people, you seem to have come here with a preconceived notion in which you remain fairly entrenched.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 08:20 PM   #476
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
As I said, it's speculation, demanding proof is a means of derailing the conversation.
If you invoke science to support your speculation, asking for evidence is never a derailment.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 08:33 PM   #477
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Sure, but then why invoke it? Artificial intelligence doesn't have anything to do with any other part of your claim. It conveys the impression that you're just scrambling for whatever seems tangentially relevant, without really understanding what you're looking at.
Based on your questions, I'm not sure how much you've read to judge whether AI research is applicable to consciousness research. It is depending on what kind of functions you want your AI to accomplish.

Quote:
rst you have to prove it was prophetic.
Everything said came true 30 years later.

Quote:
Call a spade a spade. You're speculating. That's fine, but it's not probative.
Ive stated repeatedly that this was speculation.


I need to run, got a delivery, I'll pick up the conversation tomorrow.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Last edited by Jodie; 30th October 2015 at 08:38 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 08:37 PM   #478
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Based on your questions, I'm not sure how much you've read to judge whether AI research is applicable to consciousness research.
I have a degree in computer science, and I also used to teach it at the University of Utah. I build and use thousand-CPU computer systems to do a variety of science and engineering tasks, many of which would be classified as artificial intelligence.

What are your qualifications in that area?

Quote:
Ive stated repeatedly that this was speculation.
Will you admit here and now, once and for all, that your claim is not a viable scientific theory?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2015, 08:38 PM   #479
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Everything said came true 30 years later.
Prove it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2015, 01:12 AM   #480
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Prove it.
Here's something I posted on another thread yesterday which may help to get Jodie started:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
In order to show that dreams are precognitive it is necessary to

(a) establish criteria for how close a match counts as a hit

(b) reliably estimate the hit rate that would be expected by chance

(c) show that the actual hit rate is significantly greater than that chance hit rate
For a single undocumented anecdote the alternative explanations I listed back in post #345 will always be more plausible.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.