XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: sfct@aol.com   
      
   Raan wrote:   
   >   
   > "olive"  wrote in message news:41218DE2.29A4@aol.com...   
   > > Raan wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > The fact of the constancy of the speed of light had been experimentally   
   > > > proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  It was the explanation for it that   
   > was   
   > > > lacking until Einstein came up with one.  The relation by analogy to   
   > > > apparent psychic events is marginal owing to the lack of any factual   
   > > > evidence and the subjective interpretations that color the perceptions   
   > being   
   > > > reported.  The fellow with the magnetic field helmet was at least   
   > getting   
   > > > closer to establishing experimental fact.  If you want to think you are   
   > > > being scientific then remember that all good scientists are above all   
   > else   
   > > > skeptics.   
   > > > --   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Raan you didn't understand the post at all, did you? It wasn't about the   
   > > speed of light, but about learning to accept what seems to be the   
   > > impossible when you're forced to face new objective facts.   
   >   
   > You didn't understand my post, did you.  It wasn't about the speed of light   
   > but about explanations for verified phenomena.   
   >   
   > > Einstein   
   > > understood the lesson, you can't, even when it is pointed out to you by   
   > > another.   
   >   
   > Untrue.  Where are the uninterpreted objective facts you refer to?   
   >   
   > > Rudy was a young Phd. student in excellant health when he had his NDE   
   > > dream about Godel dying that night. His young brain was in excellant   
   > > shape with no reason for having any dream about Godel's death or the   
   > > white light in it. GET THE POINT? It was easy enough for me.   
   >   
   > What point is that?  Ever had dreams of people dying who did not or have not   
   > died since then?  Human nature has us increase the significance of   
   > coincidental mysterioue dream events while ignoring those other similar   
   > events that never led to anything.  His claim is far from constituting   
   > verification for some sort of psychic event nor anything even seemingly   
   > impossibile.  It is lack of imagination that leads the ignorant and   
   > credulous to leap to implausible descriptions when their limited capacity   
   > cannot assimilate an unexplained event in any other way.   
   > --   
   >                >   
      
   ----------------------------------------------------------------   
   -----------------------------------------------   
      
              Actually no. Never have. Surprised? Shocking?   
      
   'Human nature has us increase the significance of coincidental   
   mysterious dream events while ignoring those other similar events that   
   never led to anything.'   
      
   Duh? What a laugh. Haven't you caught up with latest scientific research   
   conducted at Princeton University on psychic abilities a few years   
   back?  Guess not.   
      
   They had positive results. Results statistically too high to just ignore   
   with your simplistic pat explanation of how chance accounts for   
   explaining psychic phenomena. You're really fell behind the latest info   
   in the field. Your reasoning is old hat, rapidly becoming discarded by   
   the leading experts researching the field. Or maybe you can lecture the   
   Princeton and Cal Tech scientists who participated in the study on the   
   significance of random correlation.   
      
   But your explanation was once a sensible explanation before the experts   
   got a lot smarter in their testing for ESP abilities. Grow old, but   
   never in your mind.   
      
      
      
      
   'His claim is far from constituting verification for some sort of   
   psychic event nor anything even seemingly   
   impossibile.  It is lack of imagination that leads the ignorant and   
   credulous to leap to implausible descriptions when their limited   
   capacity cannot assimilate an unexplained event in any other way.'   
      
      
   Wow, how arrogant you are. How smugly you view the opinions of others   
   that don't agree with your simple picture of reality. Is that ignorant   
   of you?  Sure it is? You are the emotional opposite of someone like an   
   open minded Einstein.  So what about the value of your conclusions?   
      
   Actually it is the opposite isn't it? To assume dreams are nothing more   
   than the random noise of brain chemistry, not following any coherent   
   patterns in a sleep state, doesn't take any imagination to believe. It   
   follows from what the average student might be taught in your average   
   psychology course in an average college. So far.   
      
   Was the author Rudy making any claim to be psychic in his book on set   
   theory? Duh?! Who knows? He wrote the book for people interested in  SET   
   theory, not psychic readings. He just happened to write in his books,   
   what he dreamt about on the night Godel happened to die. A mathematician   
   he was set up to meet again on mutual mathematical research.   
      
   His dream includes Godel sweeping chess pictures off his chest, then a   
   random play of what seemed to be symbolic figures, and then a brilliant   
   white light. When did he dream it? The very night Godel died. The odds   
   of  'coincidence' are too low in my mind to be taken seriously. It might   
   be the explanation, but I'll play the mathematical odds, which suggests   
   otherwise.  I'll gamble smart, you stay stupid.   
      
   You see, it would take a real lack of imagination on my part to ignore a   
   possible connection. It would take a real lack of imagination on my part   
   to not try to read into the dream further to explore for important   
   insights on what Godel might have been trying to tell Rudy. From soul to   
   soul, what it was like to die and see the other side on the night he   
   died.   
      
   No can say Rudy's dream meant anything with complete 100% certainty. But   
   I'll play the smarter odds it isn't ascribed to coincidence.  Examine   
   the natural laws we believe in. The very laws we take to be immutable. A   
   causes B, every fucking time, time after time, doesn't it?  But is it   
   100% certain always? NO!!!  Even our trust in what seems to be immutable   
   natural laws is based on coincidence isn't it. But I bet you trust them   
   to be real because you're playing the smarter odds on you believe to be   
   real. So am I in believing in psychic dreams happen. Trouble is, your   
   insight is still too swallow to see it.   
      
      
   I don't share your limited vision or your lack of imagination which has   
   already buried your mind.  You don't come across as an expert, but as an   
   idiot, just smart enough to not see he is an idiot.   
      
      
   >   
   > > > "rogerst"  wrote in message   
   > news:40E498A2.33DB@yahoo.com...   
   > > > > Actually you guys there is someone famous in math, generally not read   
   > I   
   > > > > know, who experienced the white light, BUT WHEN HE DIED, but when   
   > > > > somebody much more famous than him died. Let me repeat it as I did at   
   > my   
   > > > > site here : read past the short build-up.   
   > > > >   
   > > > >   
   > > > > During the turn of the century some scientists conducted experiments   
   > > > > hoping to discover the speed of light. Of course, it would be the same   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)