XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: sfct@aol.com   
      
   Raan wrote:   
   >   
   > "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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)