XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins
From: RaanOne@One.org
"stevefct" wrote in message news:4122F7C7.73EE@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?
Likely untrue.
> > '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.
Duh what a laugh. Guess so!
> 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.
I offered no such explanation for those experiments. The method of
statisitical analysis applied in the experiments to which you refer, is
already problematic and arguably an innacurate means to calculate
probablities. True they seem to show a marginally positive result but this
is far from being proof of psychic power. Especially when they are trying
not to just to prove psychokinetic influence but a retro active supposedly
reverse time effect. If you are so ready to get out on a limb to support
these efforts that does not add to their value as proof but it does tend to
diminish your own credibility.
> 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.
I don't wonder why they hadn't gotten the million dollars Randi offered for
proof of psychic phenomenon in order to further their research and why
instead such research no longer gains the funding necessary to continue.
> > '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?
How arrogant and smug you are to judge and how presumptive to suppose you
know what my conclusions are, if any and especially what you suppose my
picture of reality might be.
If you were to be able to verify actual events other than those evidenced by
some subjective description, laden with interpretations unfounded by the
material of the experience itself, and I would entertain reasonable
speculation.
> 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.
No self respecting skeptic would simply assume dreams are nothing but...
anything. To assume they are direct experience of an objective reality begs
for reliable verification and so far, that has not been forthcoming.
> 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.
This is irrelevant nor did I make any comment on the authors intent.
> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
