|
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. |
13th June 2011, 06:20 AM | #481 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,971
|
|
__________________
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice Unlike the rest of you squares. Tom Lehrer - Folk Song Army |
|
13th June 2011, 06:28 AM | #482 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
13th June 2011, 06:29 AM | #483 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
13th June 2011, 06:30 AM | #484 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
13th June 2011, 06:46 AM | #485 |
Jedi Consular
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,077
|
The first link from the post you quote is a book about an example. Extraordinary Knowing. There are tons of examples out there, tons of evidence but somehow JREF skeptics seem to remain ignorant. If only they would get off their asses and read some frakking books, eh?
Quote:
This strikes me as an emotional response in the defense of something held to be sacred. Don't be so defensive! If you have a problem with science being described as too clumsy for psi, take it up with Freeman Dyson. He said it in the book I mention above. Extraordinary Knowing. |
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." |
|
13th June 2011, 07:04 AM | #487 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 317
|
Actually, I used to be absolutely fascinated by PSI, ghosts, the great lake monster, prognostication, prophesy and what have you, lapping up a number of books such as those you mention.
Then I went to med school and had to take a long, hard look at one of my pet subjects, alternative medicine. Looking at it in broad daylight, I realised that homeopathy and hypnosis did nothing that couldn't be explained away either by placebo effects, pure wishful thinking or by mechanisms far better understood and utilised by science. So I respectfully have to state that the emotional argument's all on your side, boiling down to wanting to believe in something accessible only by acceptance. What I don't understand though, is why you so adamantly whish to put your mysticism beyond the reach of science? Wouldn't it be amazing to find out that PSI or similar exists, and explainnig the mechanisms behind it, rather than simply wishing for it? |
13th June 2011, 07:35 AM | #488 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
You may as well refer us to the Pope for a rational chat about Christianity. I have read all the books. When I was younger I believed in it all. Kundalini,Atlantis,ley lines,chakras,siddhis,pyramid energy,the lot. The more I read about these matters,the more I realized that there was not a shred of evidence. I wasn't got at by skeptics,I came to this realization all by myself. Don't assume things please,I will bet that have read more books about these subjects than you have. The head librarian of Antwerp City Library told me that over the last twenty years that I had borrowed the most books,very few of them fiction.
|
13th June 2011, 08:06 AM | #489 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
13th June 2011, 08:13 AM | #490 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
13th June 2011, 08:22 AM | #491 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
I am hoping that you will become a thinker. A skeptic is not somebody who simply gainsays all claims and says no like a parrot. A skeptic goes with the evidence and arguments. You have consistently failed to present a coherent argument. When your mistakes are pointed out to you,you simply ignore it and then invent a new meaning for a word or phrase.
|
13th June 2011, 09:58 AM | #492 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
I see that you are avoiding this on another thread. Demonstrate to us your understanding of infinity.
What would be the cardinality of a 'nearly infinite' number? Would Cantor's Theorem apply to it? Does your nearly infinite number consist of the real or the natural numbers? Real numbers have a higher order of infinity than the the natural numbers. Can one have a higher order of nearly infinite? |
13th June 2011, 12:02 PM | #493 |
Jedi Consular
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,077
|
I didn't say it is impossible to study psi. I said science is too clumsy to prove it. "There are three possible positions one may take concerning the evidence for ESP. First, the position of orthodox scientists, who believe that ESP does not exist. Second, the position of true believers, who believe that ESP is real and can be proved to exist by scientific methods. Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science. These positions also imply different views concerning the proper scope of science. If one believes, as many of my scientific colleagues believe, that the scope of science is unlimited, then science can ultimately explain everything in the universe, and ESP must either be nonexistent or scientifically explainable. If one believes, as I do, that ESP is real but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true. I claim only that it is consistent with the evidence and worthy of consideration." -Freeman Dyson |
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." |
|
13th June 2011, 12:15 PM | #494 |
Jedi Consular
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,077
|
Why do you assume its what I wish? Just because I believe something doesn't mean I like it. :/ I would like it if science could prove psi. But it can't. It's up to the individual truth-seeker to determine for himself whether psi is real or not. Fortunately, the individual can go where science can't. |
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." |
|
13th June 2011, 12:49 PM | #495 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
These are mathematical theorems considering endless (infinite) sequences of numbers.
I am not talking of an infinite quantity of gods, rather an unimaginably large number. Which for practical purposes can be regarded as equivalent or approximately infinite. So rather than state an unimaginably large number of gods, I put a nearly infinite number. I am not talking of an infinity. |
13th June 2011, 01:12 PM | #496 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
13th June 2011, 03:51 PM | #497 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
Ai aiai. That's a very complex thing.
Punshhh: wiki Googolplex. When I first understood the meaning of the word, it was so far above what I'd imagined that I was awestruck. It's soooooooooooo big, the entire space of our entire universe cannot hold a Googolplex of anything, so long as that anything is at least the smallest measurable space we can observe; one Planck volume. I'll admit I've used the analogy of, "near infinity," as a number; but it's more fun to just say, Googolplex to the power of a Googolplex, as this concept is unimaginable to humans, and can be considered to contrast with, "nearly infinite." [eta] But it still doesn't come close to the concept of it; nor does it even register as, "1," in the scale of infinity. Meaning, if our understanding of Googolplex^Googolplex has the intrinsic value of, "1," to infinity, then the concept of infinity would be Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googol plex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^G oogolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolp lex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Go ogolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolpl ex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Goo golplex^Googolplex and so on and so forth to eternity. Which could then be condensed to, "1," compared to infinity, and repeated, and you would still never understand the size of infinity beyond the definition of, "infinite." [/eta] |
13th June 2011, 03:58 PM | #498 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
It's impossible to show you an infinite number of anything if you wish to reach infinity.
Definitively, I could show you an infinite amount of anything until you died, and you would have witnessed infinity until you died. The act of death, however, means that I've ceased to show you, and is hence just another finite number. |
13th June 2011, 04:13 PM | #499 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
I am referring to this comment in your last post(I should have bolded it)
"Your brain gets used to processing information in a certain way, and if you pay attention to facts and a scientific way of looking at the world your "intuition" becomes quite useful." This process is operating in a spiritual life likewise through the practice of contemplation.
Quote:
Unless this has been attended to sufficiently it is likely to unsuccessful in some way resulting in the abandoning of the practice, or the subject might go down a blind or confining alley.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I also adopt a spiritual interpretation of reality which does not conflict with anything in science that I have come across. It is concerned with other things than the materialist universe.
Quote:
To me divinity is a natural process present in nature, with no supernatural qualities. Although these qualities may appear supernatural from humanities limited understanding. |
13th June 2011, 04:20 PM | #500 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
13th June 2011, 04:29 PM | #501 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
Googolplex=GP
Quote:
Round 2 after condensing:
Quote:
and again:
Quote:
and all of that equals 1, and there are infinite numbers after "1." Hey that was fun |
13th June 2011, 04:33 PM | #502 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
No. I'm not good at space stuff, but from what I've heard the Universe is expanding; [which is infinite so long as it keeps going] but will eventually implode, then explode again.
If this is so, then the time could be infinite [if it were linear], but the space would always have a set amount. If this is false, then, yes, theoretically, that could be so. But I really don't have any formal knowledge of the matter, so someone else on this thread would be better suited to answer your conjecture. |
13th June 2011, 04:45 PM | #503 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
13th June 2011, 04:47 PM | #504 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
|
13th June 2011, 04:47 PM | #505 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
13th June 2011, 04:51 PM | #506 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
|
13th June 2011, 05:07 PM | #507 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
|
13th June 2011, 05:13 PM | #508 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
|
13th June 2011, 05:26 PM | #509 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
Exactly, and some "spirtual" conclusions you come to might be useful or mesh with the natural reality you live in. But how do you know if your conclusions are real? In natural philosophy you can find out. In mysticism you don't have the same reality feedback
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
13th June 2011, 05:31 PM | #510 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
Reminds me of the sun gazing documentary (funny clip) where this idiot thinks he'll be able to go without food and absorb energy from the sun but really he burns a hole in the back of his eyes but he just keeps doing it because he thinks he's getting enlightened. It's so stupid, you will facepalm, lol
|
13th June 2011, 05:33 PM | #511 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
|
13th June 2011, 06:51 PM | #512 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
His guru, HRM, claims to have gone years without eating. There probably is something to absorbing those wavelengths at that time for some kind of health benefit, there are lots of studies on the effect of light (and it's lack, night shift etc) on health. Just another abuse of a normal human function for some bizarre mystical reason. Yeah it's a cult. You've got yer moonies, and then you've got yet sunnies
|
13th June 2011, 06:58 PM | #513 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
|
|
13th June 2011, 07:11 PM | #514 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
Well, I thought humans needed food, according to science? If he's actually gone years without it, then shouldn't that open new windows? Or am I wrong about not actually needing food.
I'd be interested to see his health records nowadays; I can't imagine they'd be very good. |
13th June 2011, 07:34 PM | #515 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
Naw the last dude that supposedly passed the no eating test was an obvious fraud you just can't go that long without food you die it's insane, and hilarious that americans believe this guy. Not as hilarious as this dude who stares at people who state at him and they get all these positve engery sensations and get healings, it's totally opening up a channel to divinity or something. But it's literally a dude and a crowd staring at each other. Ladies and Gentleman, Braco
So really, staring at stuff seems to be a really epic thing to do. Maybe the act of staring gives you a buzz or something. Yeah I could see how staring at something for long enough could alter your consciousness. |
13th June 2011, 08:08 PM | #516 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
13th June 2011, 08:13 PM | #517 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
|
|
13th June 2011, 08:13 PM | #518 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
13th June 2011, 08:18 PM | #519 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2007
Location: noWhereLand
Posts: 4,362
|
This depends on what is connoted by "Divine Nature". In the sense of "The Ineffable", that is spot on: science doesn't give an eff for that which is "in-effable".
Yet in an abstract sense, science relies a great deal on identifying ideally perfect values towards which empirically observed values trend asymptotically, or around which they are distributed statistically. Reality may not rely on Divinity for its ontology, yet, historically, perception of reality often relies on the notion of infinite continuity, aka Divinity, in order to make testable hypotheses. And there is the difference. The superstitious ones consistently mistake the map for the territory. They consistently mistake analogy for tautology. They consistently misconstrue elegant symbols as rigid dogma. They consistently mistake the abstract metaphysical for the literal para- or super-normal. |
__________________
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige "No man should have to clean up after another man's dog." - Gerald Ford |
|
13th June 2011, 08:23 PM | #520 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|