IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Bam! | Main | Birth and rebirth »

Comments

Paul Wuwu,

I know you're in troll mode, but this is perhaps a teachable moment about how skeptics argue.

No one here is literally "indoctrinated." That would mean we follow a doctrine, i.e., a particular religion. We don't. We are indeed people who think for ourselves. We may still be incorrect in our beliefs (which are all different, anyway), but we follow no dogma.

Skeptics like you take potshots like that all the time without caring about the accuracy of your words. Doing so damages your credibility and tells us that it is pointless to engage with you in an argument.

It is ironic that claims that science is the study of the natural world, we can smell, see or hear, when we live in a time when the sciences are increasingly moving away from everyday experience. The connection between the theories of modern physics such as string theory, and experience is becoming weaker, to the point that if we continue on here, physics ceases to be an empirical science to be a part of pure mathematics. Actually this is an unresolved problem from ancient Greece:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.es/2009/09/schrodinger-democritus-and-paradox-of.html

Science is the study of the natural world, but who says to you what exist in the natural world? Science has to be metaphysically neutral, so can not prejudge what kind of entities can exist in the world, because this can only be decided by empirical research. And although God is excluded from nature by definition, the question of the afterlife is very different and as we know in this blog is convincing empirical evidence that there is a form of afterlife as part of the natural world. So the idea that the afterlife has to be supernatural and keep a relationship with religion and dogmatism and does not fall within the scope of science we can reject it entirely.

And about exploring the moons and stars, one thing does not remove the other, we can further investigate the sky and investigate the afterlife, although I would say that astronomical research is a bit overrated and we should pay more attention to our own planet.

I come here to spread knowledge and all I get back is a bunch of nonsense.

Science can't prove everything? Oh yea you must be one of those religious nutjobs who think "superstition=truth."

Pathetic. We've advanced because of science and atheism. We gave up religious nonsense and started searching for the truth.

You people with your afterlife, psi, and nonsense is doing nothing more than unraveling what we've accomplished. Everything about the bible is a lie. There was no jesus, there is no god, there is no such thing as a soul, etc. Get a life.

Religion and spiritualism is nothing more than the last bastion of stupidity.

Okay, I think it's clear that Paul isn't interested in intelligent discourse. He also declined to change his username despite my polite request.

If he keeps on trolling, and/or doesn't modify his screen name, the dreaded ban hammer comes down.

The idea that there is an afterlife doesn't seem to make my Nook cease to work, or this laptop. It doesn't make evolution false, or encourage teachers to talk about Creationism or the Flying Spagetti Monster in class. The typical idea of the afterlife expounded here doesn't seem to follow typical beliefs about Abrahamic Heaven. The idea you are pushing, Paul, seems to invovle some magical correlation that can't be seen or tested for in the real world. Forgive us if we seem a little...skeptical.

Does anybody know of any parapsychology books that are of a analytical/academic style. A lot of such books are written in a common audience style, and I prefer dry, academic, and sober explanations and conclusions when I read non-fiction.

someone, I recommend Ian Stevenson's books.

Or, drier still, check out Dean Radin.

Happy reading!

I'm always curious why people choose to troll on boards that are of the viewpoint opposite of what they espouse. That would seem to be the real "get a life" situation. But there always has to be someone, I guess.

Atheism is a religion, as much as any other system of thought carried in our various minds/bodies. Is it just a coincidence that "Paul" was also the name of the Apostle that underwent a drastic conversion to a new truth? Maybe same holds true in the future for our troll buddy.

Irreducible Mind, by Kelly et al., is aimed squarely at the academic audience.

Dear "Paul"
Most of the folks here do not adhere to the believe that there is "a magical person who lives in the sky, who will burn you with fire, forever & ever, if you don't love him exactly the way he wants you to & remember he is stalking you from birth to death keeping track of everything you do.."

However it is equally absurd to believe that the universe burst into being from nothing at all, for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

There is enough (you would call it anecdotal) evidence to suggest that consciousnesses, through some vehicle or method we do not yet understand, seems to be able to
A. detach from the body IE veridical NDE's B. Children w/ past life memories

Why cant folks into this without the militant atheist crowd cowering in the corner pointing shaking fingers accusing us of restarting the inquisition?
Other then some deep inner fear some atheists seem to have that a “God” knows about some sin they did……hmmmmm


Michael what do you think about the idea that Pam Reynolds was able to see the saw, because it sounded like a dental drill and the socket wrench case was similar to one being used to hold dental drills?

Does anyone here know what a dental drill case looks like? I have three different sets of socket wrenches and all three have different cases. Two are similar only in that they are plastic. The other is metal. Of the two plastic cases one looks very similar to a case that holds bits for my large classic power drill.

You are funny, someone, but your style is weird.

Send better skepticism and better trolls please.

This blog is now officially a planet, as it has cleared its orbit of troll bodies.

Excuse me no one, I was just asking a question, and I am slightly angered at your name calling, I was just asking a question.

someone,

As I've said before, it sounds like concern trolling. Where one insincerely raises an issue just to get a response. I.e., you have your mind made up about the Pam Reynolds case, but you ask, "Hey, I'm curious about the saw thing."

Trolling on the Web has gotten pretty sophisticated, so people are suspicious. Your posting style is also, in my opinion and apparently no one's, rather odd. You are not joining in the discussion and becoming part of the fun group we have here but are just firing off these questions.

If you are sincere, I suggest you invest a bit in getting to know the very cool people here and communicating with others more fully. Personally, I am not a big fan of circling the wagons and ostracizing people because they are a little different, but so many people are online who enjoy wasting others' time that one does learn to put up defenses.

If you are positive, I say this in all positivity. Cheers.

Someone - I think your question has been answered by Michael's previous posts where Pam Reynolds is discussed, I remember reading about it just recently, specifically addressing the dental drill issue. You should be able to find it pretty easily within the blog with the search options. I've used it for a few topics.

"However it is equally absurd to believe that the universe burst into being from nothing at all, for absolutely no reason whatsoever."

No it's not. According to Dawkins and Hawkins, that's absolutely normal.

We live in a universe that came to be due to probability. Our big bang and universe was created due to probability. There are infinite amount of other universes in this great hyperspace. Just because we have never seen, smelled, or touched another universe does not mean it's there.

How do we know it's there? Because we have a bunch of nice mathematical equations to prove it.

No it's not. According to Dawkins and Hawkins, that's absolutely normal.

Two names that rhyme; hence, it's correct. :|

We live in a universe that came to be due to probability.

Yet... those laws of probability are in place because?!

someone, as Sleepers says, these questions that you keep shooting at Michael have been answered, in length and detail on this blog; often multiple times from multiple perspectives. It seems to me, if you were truly interested in understanding, you would have done some simple research, like using the google search function that appears just below the listing of recent comments.

Similarly, you recently were critical of Ian Stevenson, but clearly had never read Stevenson, relying instead on second or third hand snippets from critiques.

IMO, somone interested in science would at least do the minimum research - meaning referencing original material - when formulating an opinion and/or a question.

Many of us here offer opinions and engage in speculation (myself included big time :-) However, what might not be clear to someone new here is that we have all done substantial reading and participating in much open debate concerning the evidence before formulating our positions and theories. Some participants here that are pro-paranormal used to be hard core athiests prior to the process I just described.

So, I second Matt's recommendation that get involved in the discussions associated with the posts.

Right now it feels to me - and perhaps I am feeling it wrong, in which case I apalogize - that you have come from some skeptical site armed with a few vignettes from the likes of Keith Augustine and James Randi and are just sniping away, but it's poorly aimed fire and you're shooting BBs and the mission has been slackly briefed and is based on bad intel.

How about a fully developed argument? Or, better yet, an informed discussion?


"We live in a universe that came to be due to probability."

Really? What is, exactly, the probability of something spontaneously arising from nothing?

Sounds like the theory of homework completion I had when I was 16. If I stare at the blank paper long enough maybe the essay will magically appear. It never did, though. Based on probabilities, how many times would I have to have repeated 10th grade before those papers wrote themselves?

This reminds me of when I went to church one time. I am just having doubts and want to raise some discussions.

Haha, no one, you rock:)

BTW if you guys remember recently I exitedly posted a comment saying that I found out Ransom was misrepresented by Rogo. I also have some doubts about the saw claim. For instant, most dental drills have a flat head (which Pam didn't report), and Pam was able to report a groove like structure at the top. Also I have not seen any dental drills stored in socket wrench cases, they are often stored (at least where the patient sees them). So I don't like being a troll, and as I recall, Michael was find with skeptical comments as long as they are not delivered in a snarky manner. (which I can assure all of mine have been delivered in such a way)!

not been delivered in such a way srry.

"Really? What is, exactly, the probability of something spontaneously arising from nothing?"

Basically Hawkins found that in Quantum mechanics, energy (bundles of pure energy) spontaneously converts into matter (atoms, molecules, etc). It is theorized that at the beginning of this universe, there was a huge explosion (big bang). Sometimes after time and space converged into the time-space continuum. Somewhere after the big bang, energy started converting to matter.

Thus Hawkins and Dawkins argue that there is no god. God did not create the universe, rather it's randomized energy converting to matter.

To support their probability claim, they theorized that our universe is stuck inside a hyperspace of other universe. Think of a glass of beer. The Glass itself and all the beer is the hyperspace. The bubbles are all the other universes.

So for the probability theory to work, there has to be an infinite amount of bubbles and we're in the lucky bubble.

Yes believing in god makes you crazy but believing that there are infinite universes stuck in some container that no one has ever seen or tested isn't crazy. But hey it's math so it must be true.

So while christians have the flying spaghetti monster, atheists have the untestable probabilistic beer glass

Also I have not seen any dental drills stored in socket wrench cases, "they are often stored (at least where the patient sees them)."

I'm confused. This is an unfinished sentence.

You said "they are often stored"
Then you finished (at least where the patients see them).

or are you saying "they are often stored at least where the patients see them"?

In such case we need to get rid of the ()

Srry they are often stored in small plastic containers or they are in stands when the patient sees them.

"Basically Hawkins found that in Quantum mechanics, energy (bundles of pure energy) spontaneously converts into matter (atoms, molecules, etc). It is theorized that at the beginning of this universe....."

That's not something from nothing. That's something from something else - the something else being energy in this case.

Where did the energy come from?

"Think of a glass of beer."

I have been for the past hour. It's hotter than hades today and work has been an endless cluster f___. I'm more than ready for a pint.

I know where beer comes from. It is delivered to me by a smiling buxom bar maid who get's it out of a tap. That's all I need to know about that. My wife won't permit testing of theories of convergences, etc in this field.

I love this place :-p

lol, no one is on a roll today...

passenger, no one,

Hahahaha.

When I read about (X)awkin(y) (replace letters as needed to form scientist's name) thinking they've "figgered out this God thing" with mathematical equations, I chortle a bit and think, "No philosophy much?"

The fact that they can make such pronouncements without even a twinge of doubt is rather scary.

"Basically Hawkins found that in Quantum mechanics ..."

Just for the record, the name is Hawking.

"That's not something from nothing. That's something from something else - the something else being energy in this case."

Well said.

someone,

I think another issue is that, speaking for myself, definitely myself, and speaking for the group, almost definitely the group, find the *perspective* of your posts to be most definitely unclear.

Are you a "believer" who basically believes but just has "some questions" you can have answered so you can believe a bit easier? If so, this isn't the place, since we are constantly testing each other's beliefs and preconceptions here.

If you are a skeptic who thinks all of the phenomena are hogwash and you're trying to throw out details to undermine our "faith," then you're in the wrong place too, as all of us think that *something* is going on and the phenomena are real. I would say that's the thing that unites our perspectives the strongest. A lot of us here, perhaps even most, have had our own personal experiences of the paranormal/spiritual too, so ain't nobody going to convince us it ain't so. If were wrong, there's probably no helping us at this point. We'll die believing something is up.

That's why I kinda shake my head at your posts. What's this guy trying to do?

Just FYI and with all due respect.

The shorter version I guess is,

"Believing that Gawd or a Gawds created the Universe is dumb, because we all know that the Universe is a giant bubble in the ginormous glass of beer we call The Multi-verse"


Well put Matt

Thanks Paul, whichever you are. Paul Wu?!

"Just for the record, the name is Hawking."

Unless Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins through the miracle of science created a cloned-baby known as Hawkins. That would be pretty rad.

sorry typed that a bit fast.

"Does anybody know of any parapsychology books that are of a analytical/academic style. A lot of such books are written in a common audience style, and I prefer dry, academic, and sober explanations and conclusions when I read non-fiction."

Posted by: someone |


The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science by Stephen Braude

Anyhooo.... I intend to purchase the Sherwood book. The material resonnates with me as well as challenges me in that the concepts, those that I have seen so far, agree with my perspective (who doesn't like to be confirmed once in a while?) or are variations on a theme that cause me to reconsider some personal nuances and perhaps tune up a little.

Also, as some body above noted, there are many points in common with the Seth material and, again, from what I've seen so far, with Edgar Cayce as well as a few other channeled sources. I've noticed that channeled material (and I include Silver Birch in this category) is quite consistent on some points, yet is often at odds on the same points with afterlife communications, spiritualism, etc.

I'm curious and I want to think about this; Is there something about the process and/or sources of channeling that results in similar product - product that is often at odds with that which results from other methodologies - or is there a normal mundane explanation (i.e. the material isn't really from a paranormal source, but is, instead, a composite, probably subconsciously arranged, of materials read and stored in the memory)?

I think not the latter because why would other material stored in the memory - say spiritualist or Sunday school - not intrude and appear in the final product? Still I need to think about it.

Then there is also a need to consider outright fraud. Yet it seems that fraud would also render channeled material less internally consistent.

What would be cool is a probability grid (multi variant study) containing key points of the material (e.g. reincarnation, origins of man, personal god/no personal god...etc, etc, etc) in detail, as columns, with the rows being divided into categories by method (channeled, seance/spirit communication, NDE, OBE, rational deduction, etc) and subcategories by century/time period and source (Cayce, Sherwood, cardiac patient #147, etc, etc).

Independent variables would be 1. Method 2. Time period 3. Source

Then we sort the columns in descending order by the resulting probability score. So in the upper left cell we would have the element most agreed on regardless of method, source or time period. At the lower right we would have the most contentious element.

We would also be able to see if there are any significant changes over time in the probability of a method containing a given element (e.g. is it more likely now that seance spirit communications are positive regarding reincarnation than they were a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago).

Of course, the first step would be to build a comprehensive and accurate database. Difficult as that sounds, I think that it could be done in a couple years time, max with one or two totally dedicated human resources.

I wonder if there are any grants out there?

Hi Matt - I am the original Paul (no shouts of "I'm Spartacus please..." :)

Sorry - it's the OCD, I have to fix the previous comment;meant to say - No shouts of "I'm Spartacus" please

@someone - in addition to Roger's recommendation, I would suggest Immortal Remains, also by Braud, is worth a read too.

I'm more interested in learning how we learn. Neurologist have often argued that it's all in the brain, we can stimulate a brain to induce pain, happiness, etc.

But yet we have yet to stimulate a brain to cause it to understand the law of quantum mechanics..

What are you seeking to achieve passenger?

And now the board is full of loonies. Religious nonsense, pseudoscience, and indoctrinated people.

Perfect

@paul (real?)

I've been curious as how we learn. Neurologists say everything we feel, think, etc is in our brain.

I was wondering if we can induce a certain thought or a certain why of thinking. For example, materialists often argue that if you stimulate a certain spot of the brain, pain/happiness occurs.

Well can we do the same with thought? Can we stimulate a certain part of the brain and make the individual think the same way?

think of it like this, If you think about a certain subject (say quantum mechanics), a certain part of your brain lights up.

Let's say we have a patient who has never taken a quantum mechanics class. If you stimulate the same part of the brain (above)shouldn't your patient automatically know quantum mechanics?

Think of it like his, a lot of skeptics say we can create OBEs by stimulating a certain part of the brain, thus NDEs are caused the same way.

Question: why can't we cause knowledge the same way? Why can't we shock a certain part of your brain and invoke thought?

This is strict materialism. I'm surprised no one as wonder about this before.

Here's something odd: both Passenger and fake Paul have the same IP address, though they list different email addresses. Are they roommates? Two sides of a split personality? Enquiring minds want to know!

I'm on the NYU server....

The comments to this entry are closed.