Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:39 PM
23 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,107 Year: 9,143/19,786 Month: 1,565/2,119 Week: 325/576 Day: 128/98 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
Damouse
Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 61 of 142 (428308)
10-15-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2007 9:53 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Do you think that animals sense this EM radiation when they, say, become distressed about an incoming storm? If that's true, then what of earthquakes, since various animals from fish to dogs to birds have exhibited strange behavior just before a quake hits?

Do you think there is a sensefield, of sorts, being emitted in the form of raw energy? If so, would you classify this phenomena also as EM radiation?

Define sensefield.
Define raw energy.
Step out of the science fiction, and maybe those points can be adressed.

As to the storm example, animals eqaute the sudden and obvious drop in pressure with a storm rather well, having nothing to do with EM radiation at all. The quake example has never been decisively proven; if you have evidance to the contrary then by all means post it.

Human minds recieving and interpereting EM waves other than those outside the visible spectrum is utter bullshit. We do not have the hardware for it, and if we did by some random feat of genetics we would not be able to discern it from all the backround radiation that we are bathed in every single day.


This statement is false.

Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2007 9:53 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2007 12:53 PM Damouse has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 62 of 142 (428321)
10-15-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2007 10:00 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Nem writes:

And isn't this the goal of deep meditation? I have tried to meditate so deeply that, literally, no thoughts come in.


I've tried really deep meditation, too. All I can say is I'm not there yet. May never get there.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2007 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by petrophysics1, posted 10-18-2007 6:17 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 142 (428324)
10-16-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2007 9:53 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Do you think there is a sensefield, of sorts, being emitted in the form of raw energy?

There's no such thing as energy in a "raw" or "pure" form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2007 9:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Damouse, posted 10-16-2007 12:28 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 64 of 142 (428328)
10-16-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 12:13 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Sure there is frog!

And here can it be found with its closely related cousin, the bible! In fact, im sure the latter stems from the former.

I rather liked "sensefield" more, but that cant even be adressed in scientific form.


This statement is false.

Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 12:13 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2465 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 65 of 142 (428336)
10-16-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2007 10:00 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I have tried to meditate so deeply that, literally, no thoughts come in. I find this virtually impossible, as if I'm consciously thinking about not thinking. Seems circular to me. But then again, there is that possibility that I have not been bestowed with such a gift.

No, you were doing it just right. This is what happens to everyone when they meditate. What I find it helpful to do is to let myself be a bystander, to note the coming and going of my thoughts or emotions without following them. In Buddhism this is called mindfulness. And after a while you might just find that you get a few moments of stillness without looking for them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2007 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2465 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 66 of 142 (428337)
10-16-2007 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
10-15-2007 8:26 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
What I don't understand is the people who reject one woo at the same time they defend another.

I think even people who are religious in some way would qualify under your definition of "woo." Because there is little or no empirical proof of it. I suppose if you are a skeptic through and through, then you would consider these people to be deluded.

What happens is that you keep your inner skeptic alert and functioning, but you open yourself to admitting certain possibilities even if there is no proof from the 5 senses.

Who actually decided that all there is to reality is what we can learn with the 5 senses, and that everything else is bunk? There is so much more to the universe than this. Can I prove it empirically? No. Can I explain it to your satisfaction? No. People have a lot of fun here arguing with others who do not subscribe to this view of the world, and it's easy and no doubt satisfying to win debate points with them. That doesn't necessarily mean that the truth has been arrived at.

If someone tells me they have had moments of telepathy, I say "cool." Where is the harm in it, as long as they're not trying to scam anyone? They might just be right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 10-15-2007 8:26 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 8:55 AM Kitsune has responded
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 9:36 AM Kitsune has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 142 (428370)
10-16-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
10-15-2007 8:36 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
Because you're either a chicken-shit or a liar

Or deluded.

That's the most likely explanation.

Also a chicken-shit, though, for refusing to be tested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 10-15-2007 8:36 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 142 (428371)
10-16-2007 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 2:25 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
What happens is that you keep your inner skeptic alert and functioning, but you open yourself to admitting certain possibilities even if there is no proof from the 5 senses.

Anything is possible.

The thing that science helps us do, and that anecdote fails miserably at, is determining how probable something is.

What you are suggesting is that magic really does exist, but nobody can actually detect it.

There is no difference between magic we can't detect and no magic at all, so why believe in magic?

quote:
If someone tells me they have had moments of telepathy, I say "cool." Where is the harm in it, as long as they're not trying to scam anyone? They might just be right.

You don't think there's any harm in self-delusion?
No harm in believing a falsehood?

That very same sort of uncritical acceptance of fantastic claims is, truly, what makes people fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers.

The problem with your attitude is that it is intellectually lazy. It betrays an lack of curiosity in wanting to find out what is really going on and instead settles for what feels good or what we wish were true.

And just how do we determine if someone really does have telepathic powers and isn't self-deluded?

What sort of protocols should we follow to prevent cheating or bias?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 2:25 AM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:05 PM nator has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 142 (428382)
10-16-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 2:25 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I think even people who are religious in some way would qualify under your definition of "woo."

Imagine that.

What happens is that you keep your inner skeptic alert and functioning, but you open yourself to admitting certain possibilities even if there is no proof from the 5 senses.

If there's no proof from the senses, then where are those possibilities coming from?

I can only think of one place - my own imagination. Given the propensity of imagination to create things that aren't at all true, why would I take that at all seriously?

That doesn't necessarily mean that the truth has been arrived at.

It's a good indication. Belief on the basis of no evidence, or no good evidence anyway, has turned out to be false in every single case.

There's a vast weight of precedent against you, LL, when you choose to go "off the rails" and just believe in any old thing at all, just because you'd like to. Nobody has ever been right by jumping to unsupported conclusions, except by happenstance.

If someone tells me they have had moments of telepathy, I say "cool." Where is the harm in it, as long as they're not trying to scam anyone? They might just be right.

So if they're right, why aren't they out there making themselves useful? If someone can read minds, why aren't they out there reading the minds of terrorists and child abductors?

You're all like "oh, telepathy, no big deal" but the capacity to peer into people's inner lives would fundamentally change criminal investigations, potentially for the better. You need to think it through. If someone really has an astounding gift of telepathy, and they're squandering it to fuck around on the internet or whatever, don't you have to ask how someone could be that selfish?

People are literally dying because of the secrets that some people have, 3000 people in the middle of Manhattan as the most immediate example, and fucko over there with his supposed mental telepathy is all like "saving lives...yawn...can't be bothered." I mean, he's either a liar, mistaken, or the world's biggest, most selfish asshole - don't you think? How could it be otherwise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 2:25 AM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:18 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2465 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 70 of 142 (428431)
10-16-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by nator
10-16-2007 8:55 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I'm not intellectually lazy.

What seems to be the underlying issue here is people's idea of "the truth" and how it's arrived at. Many people here believe that it can only be done through empirical physical evidence which is quantifiable, and studies in prestigious journals. Maybe other ways aren't so trustworthy. You therefore always rule them out. I don't. You call it bad science. I call it being open-minded. After all, I am not trying to publish a research paper; and if I were, I would employ skepticism where necessary.

How do you know a mother's love is real if you cannot quantify it? What if there's more to the world than science can describe? Why does anything unscientific automatically qualify as a delusion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 8:55 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 12:24 PM Kitsune has not yet responded
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 10-16-2007 12:31 PM Kitsune has responded

    
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2465 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 71 of 142 (428436)
10-16-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
10-16-2007 9:36 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Why don't you ask Petrophysics how he believes his gift works? I gather that these things aren't always at people's beck and call. They see or know things when they don't expect to; but when they try hard, maybe it just doesn't happen sometimes. What if some of those people who Randi what's-his-name tested really do have some kind of gift, just not one that functions on demand? There are all the skeptics crowing that they've debunked another fraud.

Anyway, do you think there are police forces or other organisations that actively seek out this kind of help? I've heard of psychics sometimes helping with missing person or murder investigations. But on the whole I would have thought most people would run a mile from this for fear of damage to their reputations.

I don't believe in "any old thing." But I try to keep an open mind. There are a lot of people around who aren't 100% skeptics and perhaps their lives are the richer for it.

Where else can evidence come from, if not the 5 senses? Meditation. The subconscious. The collective unconscious. The universe. Entities, ghosts, gods, I don't know. Where do ideas and inspiration really come from? What patterns might the world be working within, that we are not at all aware of? Don't know. Of course you won't take any of this seriously, you're a skeptic. But not being 100% skeptical doesn't necessarily make me deluded.

How's things in the corn belt BTW? I lived in Omaha for a while and went to college in Hastings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 9:36 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 10-16-2007 12:29 PM Kitsune has not yet responded
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2007 3:40 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 142 (428437)
10-16-2007 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 12:05 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
What seems to be the underlying issue here is people's idea of "the truth" and how it's arrived at. Many people here believe that it can only be done through empirical physical evidence which is quantifiable, and studies in prestigious journals. Maybe other ways aren't so trustworthy. You therefore always rule them out. I don't. You call it bad science. I call it being open-minded.

So, when Creationists use "other ways" of determining natural history, or Biological processes other than "empirical physical evidence which is quantifiable, and studies in prestigious journals", are they just being "open minded"?

Are all of us mean, ol' science-minded folks just ignoring all of these other paths to "the truth" about the natural world that Creationists are showing us?

You are using the identical argument as the Creationists do, LindaLou.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:05 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 73 of 142 (428438)
10-16-2007 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 12:18 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
They see or know things when they don't expect to; but when they try hard, maybe it just doesn't happen sometimes. What if some of those people who Randi what's-his-name tested really do have some kind of gift, just not one that functions on demand? There are all the skeptics crowing that they've debunked another fraud.

What is the practical difference between undetectable magic and no magic at all?

How do we tell the difference between coincidence and real paranormal ability?

quote:
There are a lot of people around who aren't 100% skeptics and perhaps their lives are the richer for it.

"Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars - mere globs of gas atoms. I, too, can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more?" Richard Feynman

quote:
Where else can evidence come from, if not the 5 senses? Meditation. The subconscious. The collective unconscious. The universe. Entities, ghosts, gods, I don't know. Where do ideas and inspiration really come from? What patterns might the world be working within, that we are not at all aware of? Don't know. Of course you won't take any of this seriously, you're a skeptic. But not being 100% skeptical doesn't necessarily make me deluded.

No. But it will often make you wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:18 PM Kitsune has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16634
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 74 of 142 (428440)
10-16-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Kitsune
10-16-2007 12:05 PM


On Car Repair
LindaLou writes:

Maybe other ways aren't so trustworthy. You therefore always rule them out. I don't. You call it bad science. I call it being open-minded.

If I offered to fix your car by the laying-on of hands, how open-minded would you be? How much would you be willing to pay for unmeasurable amounts of chemicals "added" to your gasoline? (Better yet, let me fix your car from across the ocean by the power of prayer. Just send money.)

Why not be "open-minded" about the mundane things too?


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 12:05 PM Kitsune has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 1:39 PM ringo has responded
 Message 78 by Kitsune, posted 10-16-2007 2:06 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5663
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 75 of 142 (428451)
10-16-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Damouse
10-15-2007 10:16 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Define sensefield.

Its another word for "aura," which some people claim is the ability to sense electromagnetic properties coming off of a living being.

Define raw energy.

Kinetic energy.

As to the storm example, animals eqaute the sudden and obvious drop in pressure

Yes, I suppose this makes more sense.

The quake example has never been decisively proven; if you have evidance to the contrary then by all means post it.

No I don't, which is why I asked if anyone knows. Perhaps they can feel minor tremors, which are imperceptible to humans, just considerable seizmic activity begins.

Human minds recieving and interpereting EM waves other than those outside the visible spectrum is utter bullshit. We do not have the hardware for it, and if we did by some random feat of genetics we would not be able to discern it from all the backround radiation that we are bathed in every single day.

Yes, you make a very good point. I carry a radiation pager much of the day which is almost always registering some background radiation, especially onshore. And I always get a huge SMAC reading when I board vessels carrying bananas because the large quantity of potassium usually gives a false reading. If his EM wave theory stands up to scrutiny, one would think he'd be going berzerk around bananas.

So, maybe it isn't EM waves. Would you say that you are completely unconvinced of any other possibilities, or do you find Petro's claim to be total hokum?

Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Damouse, posted 10-15-2007 10:16 PM Damouse has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-16-2007 1:45 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019