From: "alt.theosophy group" <noreply@googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:12:49 +0000
Subject: alt.theosophy - 12 new messages in 2 topics - digest
To: "alt.theosophy digest subscribers" <alt.theosophy@googlegroups.com>
alt.theosophy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy?hl=en
alt.theosophy@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Thrive Premiere, Metropolis, and some other signs of progress - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/e66b6be82e640961?hl=en
* free kabbalah course - 11 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/ccc05d0213ead4a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thrive Premiere, Metropolis, and some other signs of progress
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/e66b6be82e640961?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 9:51 am
From: Collier
Seetha LightInAll Hearts wrote:
> Maitreya, the World Teacher
> www.TheEmergence.org
Emergence my ass! The Maitreya is the worst case of spirtual constipation for
the past 30 years. No Maitreya is coming. Their deceptive cult just wants your
money and will do anything to get it.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: free kabbalah course
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/ccc05d0213ead4a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 5:16 am
From: "{:-])))"
Bassos wrote:
> {:-]))) schreef:
>> Absorbed wrote:
>
>> To have had an experience beyond all doubt
>> does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
>
>This is interesting.
>
>My personal experience with remote viewing is kinda good.
>
>BUT;
>The first card a friend of mine held up and asked about was guessed
>correctly, 1 try 1 win.
>Repeating that feat turned out to not work.
>
>I can do guess which hand holds a red die instead of a blue die.
>(as in the six sided dice thingies)
>
>Even when i was getting messed with by holding both dice in one hand or
>no dice at all, i got that down, but that is merely two options, so
>easily separatable in the mind.
>
>Good training though.
>
>The point here is that repeatability seems to work against accuracy when
>it comes to remote viewing/telepathy.
There appears to be a difficulty
in applying physical science to the paranormal.
This situation may touch, or at least reach,
to what exactly "reality" might be.
I like to assume people tell the truth.
Robert Monroe, for instance, had experiences
which he (along with Tom Campbell et al) depict
as being actual, true, real, etc..
There was one instance where Monroe,
in an OOBE, visited his secretary at a party.
He was able to describe to her, the next day,
what she was wearing, what the conversation was,
and he was able to even pinch her in the OOBE state.
If true, there was no doubt. However, the fact
that it couldn't be repreated casts doubt
on the veracity of the OOBE.
Anecdotes abound which convince those who
have had the experience beyond any doubt.
One guy suggested that even if someone were
to rise from the dead there would be those
who refuse to believe it happened.
On the one hand, "going over"
is simply metaphorical. Otoh, it might be
really real for those who actually go.
Many levels even things out.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 6:02 am
From: "{:-])))"
Absorbed wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Absorbed wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>> Absorbed wrote:
>>>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> We might actually be omniscient
>>>>>> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> From an subjective POV, I'm experiencing the entirety of reality. From
>>>>> an objective POV, I'm only experiencing a small part of the external
>>>>> universe that is presented by my senses.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I'm upstairs on the computer, I cannot check the contents of the
>>>>> the fridge downstairs. If I were omniscient, I could do that. Are you
>>>>> saying that, unknown to me, I actually have the ability to check the
>>>>> contents of the fridge like a God?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if you do
>>>> but you might.
>>>
>>> It seems you believe that at least some people have this ability,
>>
>> I like to believe in possibilities.
>
>That are many things that are possible that we consider so unlikely that
>we practically consider them impossible.
>
>It is possible that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, but given what we know
>about the movement and rotation of the planets and the consistency of
>the laws of physics, and not forgetting past experience as well, you'd
>be an idiot to bet against the Sun rising tomorrow.
>
>So while it's possible, for all intents and purposes practically
>everyone dismisses that possibility.
>
>>>>> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>>>>> in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
>>>>
>>>> Presumably, sure.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of anecdotes
>>>> suggesting such clear visions are possible,
>>>
>>> There also plenty of anecdotes for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, and so
>>> on. Anecdotes aren't a reliable way to determine truth.
>>
>> Personal experience might be a way.
>
>It might. But it might not when you consider how creating an entire
>worldview around one sole experience is likely to mislead you,
>especially if that experience contradicts the majority of your experiences.
Sometimes a mystical experience
changes the life of the "individual"
such that a oneness is known
and life is turned inside out.
So real is this experience
that the former world-view is seen
as being the illusion.
Which way is "real" or "correct"
or delusional can be a matter
that matters most to sum.
Are we really many individuals
or are we really One?
If a\the One can be experienced
then on many levels things make sense.
Holography offers a world-view.
>>>> e.g., a mother knows her son has died
>>>> in a far away land.
>>>
>>> Maybe many mothers thought their sons were safe when they were actually
>>> dead, but those anecdotes aren't as notable. As Francis Bacon said, "The
>>> root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not
>>> when it misses."
>>
>> False positive abound. Definitely.
>> Closed minded skeptics will use this approach
>> in an attempt to disprove what doesn't fit
>> their own particular paradigms.
>
>The quote suggests that one must look at all the evidence, not just the
>evidence that supports your hypothesis. I think that would challenge
>their own particular paradigm rather than confirm it, making one
>open-minded.
>
>I'd say someone who is closed-minded would take a few anecdotal reports
>of mothers predicting their sons' far-away deaths, look at no further
>evidence, and then conclude that some sort of supernatural mumbo-jumbo
>is involved.
>
>>> To determine whether a mother truly has such a power, a strict series of
>>> tests must be done. If the results strongly confirm that they have that
>>> ability, while also firmly disproving all other possible explanations
>>> such as coincidence, then one might have a reasonable basis to believe
>>> that a mother can somehow intuitively know when her son has died.
>>
>> To have had an experience beyond all doubt
>> does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
>
>True. But if it's not repeatable, then the best you can say is it's
>impossible to know with absolute certainty whether someone actually did
>successfully "remotely view" something.
Someone once said
that the point of absolute certainty
is a matter of degree.
> That doesn't make it
>unreasonable to dismiss it, however, given the number of different
>supernatural anecdotes, and how the vast majority of people who attempt
>to remotely view something fail.
Very few infants are able to walk at birth.
>Those who have blind faith in a belief will use this approach so that
>their belief cannot be questioned.
If a two-day old baby stood up
and began to speak, that would be odd.
If on day three he or she could not do it
that too would be odd. Yet true, if ... .
Many mammals can walk at birth.
Some may even speak.
> Because the experience is a one-off,
>it isn't conducive to scientific testing.
True.
>> There is a report of a controlled experiment
>> wherein a remote viewer was able to actually read
>> a number on a card placed such that it could only be read
>> from a position in which it could not be read
>> except from an OOBE.
>
>There are reports suggesting lots of supernatural phenomena are true.
>There are also reports suggesting they're false as well.
>
>Got a link to the experiment you're referring to?
http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=3&pageid=23&pgtype=1
"A final intriguing part of the research with Miss Z was that she did
indeed correctly identify a random five-digit number which Charles had
put on a high shelf. Unfortunately, he had seen the number so he
failed to control for telepathy, but it was exciting nonetheless."
Between telepathy and remote viewing
there need not be a line drawn. Either way
it is beyond the "physical" realm, sew two-speak.
Projects such as Tart's, PEAR, Monroe's Institute, et al,
include the unique, one of a kind, non-repeatable aspect
of those who experience the experiences.
It is indeed, to me, remarkable
how, if true, the experiences are indeed real
and it is also true they cannot be subjected to the
framework of physical science.
Exactly why that is how things are creates a mystery.
It may reflect what Dennis is saying about intent.
Tom Campbell says the same thing. Intent is the key.
When Campbell worked with Monroe
he had no doubt about the veracity of many
of their experiences. His conclusion is that we live
in a digital world, a virtual learning space.
If intent is the key,
then for those who state something is impossible
for them, their reality will conform to prove it.
If intent is the key
then for those who are open to possibility,
many selective perceptions will open up,
and not-false positives will occur to lend a
hand in their quest to discover what is.
Reality isn't necessarily written in stone
unless one asserts it must be.
>>>> Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
>>>
>>> To be skeptical is to demand that all beliefs are thoroughly tested to
>>> determine their validity.
>>
>> If that is your definition.
>> I always thought that to be skeptical
>> simply meant to entertain an open mind.
>> But I guess that would be called
>> open-minded skepticism.
>>
>> To have doubt
>> does not entail having no doubt
>> that something is possible or impossible.
>>
>>> It doesn't mean that one will necessarily
>>> believe in nothing, but that one's beliefs should be supported by
>>> evidence. This is the sort of evidence that believers in UFOs, ghosts,
>>> and supernatural intuition or telepathy cannot provide.
>>
>> While I have not experienced
>> many things, e.g. remote viewing,
>> I have experienced telepathy beyond doubt.
>
>I thought you like to believe in possibilities?
Very much, yes.
> What about the
>possibility that you've convinced yourself that you have experienced
>telepathy beyond doubt when you actually haven't?
I have considered that.
When I reflect back however,
it is remembered that I was not alone.
The individual who had the capacity was
well known to many others. She could read
minds, and, as she said, "call her shots" knowing
full well she was in their heads, and they also knew.
People would bring their friends around to see and
feel what is was like to be on the hotseat. Very strange.
Skeptics would argue that this "mind-reading" was simply
due to the mind reader being good at reading the body
language. That might be true for some tricksters.
This was different.
When someone is inside your head
and tells you they are inside your head
and you know it is true, there is no doubt.
A skeptic will at times doubt doubt.
To doubt that situation would be odd.
Without a doubt, doubt doubt.
Worlds of words may morph
dissolving and resolving when one
moves beyond words and into worlds
beyond the standard modern physical
scientific explanation of reality.
- fwiw
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 6:20 am
From: Tom
On Sep 15, 5:16 am, "{:-])))" <turtlecross...@apolka.net> wrote:
>
> I like to assume people tell the truth.
Gotta watch those assumptions.
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 6:22 am
From: "{:-])))"
Tom wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>>
>> >> > If you don't know you're omniscient, you're
>> >> >not omniscient.
>>
>> >> There is some truth in that.
>>
>> >Which is why saying that you "might actually be omniscient" is
>> >asinine.
>>
>> When the star known as the Sun
>> is obscured, occulted, by a cloud, to think
>> it does not continue to shine is a funny thought.
>
>To think that the sun shines where it does not is also a funny
>thought.
True.
Below the clouds, no sunshine.
Above the clouds, sunshine.
The sun always shines, so to speak.
As above, sometimes below.
>If you're omniscient, you know everything. If you don't know you're
>omniscient, you don't know everything and therefore you're not
>omniscient. Only by deciding that omniscient means something other
>than omniscient can you disagree.
While below the clouds
there is the potential to rise above.
You seem to be suggesting,
as below, so above. I find that a limiting stance.
It might be true in some ways. Not so true in others.
>> >> It was written, "We cannot become omniscient."
>> >> I could have said in response, "That's an assertion.
>> >> We might become omniscient, and potentially are."
>>
>> >Again, that's asinine. You might as well claim you can "potentially"
>> >count to infinity.
>>
>> I might call that a horse of a different colour.
>
>You might. I call it asinine.
Perhaps a donkey or mule
of a different breed of camel.
>> Suppose, just for the sake of discussion,
>> that there is a library, a record of sorts,
>> in which all of what has ever happened,
>> every single dinosaur bone, all of reality,
>> is buried in the books, so to speak.
>>
>> Suppose you could access that library,
>> a sort of Universe Wide Web. Suppose you
>> were hooked up to it, such that in an instant
>> you could know anything you chose.
>>
>> I'd call that a form of omniscience.
>
>But you're not hooked up to it.
When the computer is unplugged
the internet remains, such as it is,
in the cloud, so to speak.
> You only dream it exists and then
>dream that you can be hooked up to it and then you dream that you
>*will* be hooked up to it. You can dream anything you like, no matter
>how asinine.
I'm not sure if you're putting words in my mouth
or just writing without precision in this case.
I am not dreaming of anything.
I am suggesting there could be a potential.
If Edgar Cayce was in various ways correct
then there is an Akashic Record, Book of Life,
skein of time-space, call it what you will.
>But suppose this "Library of Everything That Is, Was, and Will Be"
>*does* exist and you *are* somehow hooked up to it and able to access
>it at will. You're still only accessing a part of it because your
>brain is far too small to be able to process all of the information it
>contains at once.
To know something, in a sense,
would necessarily be a knowing in particular.
One would have access to all the knowledge
in essence, in reality, at any and all times.
Thinking of oneself as being or having a brain
is a very limited view to adopt of oneself.
It could be said that all
who are a part of the Internet
make up or comprise the World Wide Web.
Each one is, in a sense, the entire thing
when seen from a holographic pov.
Views often turn on semantics.
> All the information in the universe may be
>available to you, but you can't know it all.
One could know anything and everything.
Shifting one's identity, from being a mere node
to being the entirety as being what One actually is,
it could be seen, if one has eyes to see, how,
in a way, the Internet (in this metaphor)
is omniscient, and One is the Internet.
> You're still not omniscient.
If you cling to being a node, then no.
You are not and never will be.
>So let's suppose you dispense with the small-brained user
>idea of yourself and actually become the Library.
Ah-ha! Yes.
Too bad I didn't read this first.
It would have saved me all that Internet
metaphorical crap as written above.
Lettuce returns to what is below.
> Well, then you're
>not you any more. Then there's just the library and there is no you.
>So *you* are still not omniscient.
Semantics.
>This goes on and on. You can alter the meaning of every word so that
>whatever nonsense you spout makes apparent sense in some wildly
>eccentric linguistic contortion, but so what?
What is, is.
You can indeed altar your words
and hold them to be sacred.
> When you actually think
>you're hooked up to this library and can instantly have any knowledge
>you want, let me know and we'll test your claim.
I thought you were posting in a Usenet group
somehow connected to the Internet. Hmm.
> Until then you're
>just braying, asininely.
It was just a possibility. No big deal.
Cayce might have been full of shit
for all I really know. It is interesting tho.
Baba Ram Dass tells a story
about when his guru said, "spleen"
after telling him he was out taking a piss
in the middle of nowhere the night before
while thinking about his mother who
had died of a ruptured spleen.
His guru knew where he was
and what he was thinking. Impossible
you may say. And yet, he says otherwise.
I can see how both are true.
- in ways
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 8:53 am
From: Absorbed
On 15/09/11 14:02, {:-]))) wrote:
> Absorbed wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>> Absorbed wrote:
>>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>>> Absorbed wrote:
>>>>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>>>> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>>>>>> in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of anecdotes
>>>>> suggesting such clear visions are possible,
>>>>
>>>> There also plenty of anecdotes for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, and so
>>>> on. Anecdotes aren't a reliable way to determine truth.
>>>
>>> Personal experience might be a way.
>>
>> It might. But it might not when you consider how creating an entire
>> worldview around one sole experience is likely to mislead you,
>> especially if that experience contradicts the majority of your experiences.
>
> Sometimes a mystical experience
> changes the life of the "individual"
> such that a oneness is known
> and life is turned inside out.
>
> So real is this experience
> that the former world-view is seen
> as being the illusion.
A sole experience may suggest that many of one's previous beliefs are
false -- all the more reason to be incredibly careful when forming new
beliefs based on such an experience.
The sensible course of action is not to make a snap judgement but to
gather more evidence, like trying to recreate the experience, and then
carefully looking at *all* the evidence.
Schizophrenics have world-view-changing experiences regularly, and
despite no longer believing a long line of previous experiences, with
each new experience they are convinced all over again. That is the power
that such experiences have to override rational thought, and why we
should all be wary of them.
>>>> To determine whether a mother truly has such a power, a strict series of
>>>> tests must be done. If the results strongly confirm that they have that
>>>> ability, while also firmly disproving all other possible explanations
>>>> such as coincidence, then one might have a reasonable basis to believe
>>>> that a mother can somehow intuitively know when her son has died.
>>>
>>> To have had an experience beyond all doubt
>>> does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
>>
>> True. But if it's not repeatable, then the best you can say is it's
>> impossible to know with absolute certainty whether someone actually did
>> successfully "remotely view" something.
>
> Someone once said
> that the point of absolute certainty
> is a matter of degree.
I don't understand what you mean.
>> That doesn't make it
>> unreasonable to dismiss it, however, given the number of different
>> supernatural anecdotes, and how the vast majority of people who attempt
>> to remotely view something fail.
>
> Very few infants are able to walk at birth.
Very few infants are able to fly by flapping their hands. That doesn't
mean that it is possible to fly by flapping your hands. Because infants
can learn how to walk doesn't mean we must also be able to learn how to
remotely view.
>> Those who have blind faith in a belief will use this approach so that
>> their belief cannot be questioned.
>
> If a two-day old baby stood up
> and began to speak, that would be odd.
> If on day three he or she could not do it
> that too would be odd. Yet true, if ... .
>
> Many mammals can walk at birth.
> Some may even speak.
>
>> Because the experience is a one-off,
>> it isn't conducive to scientific testing.
>
> True.
Such experiences can be scientifically tested, but nobody is willing to
invest the money or effort required for such experiments to be done to a
standard that will convince others who aren't already convinced. If they
were and they hypothetically found strong evidence for remote viewing,
then the scientific community would embrace it.
>>> There is a report of a controlled experiment
>>> wherein a remote viewer was able to actually read
>>> a number on a card placed such that it could only be read
>>> from a position in which it could not be read
>>> except from an OOBE.
>>
>> There are reports suggesting lots of supernatural phenomena are true.
>> There are also reports suggesting they're false as well.
>>
>> Got a link to the experiment you're referring to?
>
> http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html
>
> http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=3&pageid=23&pgtype=1
>
> "A final intriguing part of the research with Miss Z was that she did
> indeed correctly identify a random five-digit number which Charles had
> put on a high shelf. Unfortunately, he had seen the number so he
> failed to control for telepathy, but it was exciting nonetheless."
You seems to put a lot of weight on the results of this experiment and
others like it. You trust in the conclusion.
However, just because you do doesn't mean others will. Even inside the
scientific community, charlatans and honest-but-careless experimenters
produce seemingly incredible new findings, only to be quickly refuted
when others try to recreate their results.
When considering whether something is true, one must look at all the
evidence. At present, for me and most people, a few experiments
suggesting remote viewing can happen doesn't override the mountains of
evidence to the contrary.
Maybe lots of evidence for remote viewing will be produced in the
future. You could consider performing your own experiments to prove to
others that such phenomena happen. That's what Susan Blackmore did:
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si87.html
"The other key to my failures seemed to be belief. I was told that I
didn't get results because I didn't believe strongly enough in psi,
because I didn't have an open mind! But what could I do about that? I
couldn't just change my beliefs overnight or test ten subjects while
believing and another ten while not! I argued that in the beginning I
had believed in psi and still had got no results, but I couldn't prove
this against the counter-argument that I had never really believed at all.
However, I did have an idea. There were still things in which I did
believe. [...] It worked! The results were actually significant. You can
imagine my excitement—perhaps I had at last found something. Perhaps
there was no psi to be found in the standard laboratory experiments, but
something paranormal could appear when the conditions were closer to
real life. But then I talked to Carl Sargent. He pointed out that all my
subjects knew one another, and if they knew one another their ratings
and rankings could not be independent. So I had violated an assumption
of the statistical test I was using. [...] So I repeated the experiment
twice more with subjects who did not know one another. I expect you can
predict the results I obtained—entirely nonsignificant."
> Between telepathy and remote viewing
> there need not be a line drawn. Either way
> it is beyond the "physical" realm, sew two-speak.
>
> Projects such as Tart's, PEAR, Monroe's Institute, et al,
> include the unique, one of a kind, non-repeatable aspect
> of those who experience the experiences.
>
> It is indeed, to me, remarkable
> how, if true, the experiences are indeed real
> and it is also true they cannot be subjected to the
> framework of physical science.
>
> Exactly why that is how things are creates a mystery.
> It may reflect what Dennis is saying about intent.
> Tom Campbell says the same thing. Intent is the key.
>
> When Campbell worked with Monroe
> he had no doubt about the veracity of many
> of their experiences. His conclusion is that we live
> in a digital world, a virtual learning space.
>
> If intent is the key,
> then for those who state something is impossible
> for them, their reality will conform to prove it.
>
> If intent is the key
> then for those who are open to possibility,
> many selective perceptions will open up,
> and not-false positives will occur to lend a
> hand in their quest to discover what is.
>
> Reality isn't necessarily written in stone
> unless one asserts it must be.
I'm not saying that I know with absolute certainty that what you're
claiming is false. What I'm saying is that, based on the available
evidence, it is highly unlikely.
>>>>> Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
>>>>
>>>> To be skeptical is to demand that all beliefs are thoroughly tested to
>>>> determine their validity.
>>>
>>> If that is your definition.
>>> I always thought that to be skeptical
>>> simply meant to entertain an open mind.
>>> But I guess that would be called
>>> open-minded skepticism.
>>>
>>> To have doubt
>>> does not entail having no doubt
>>> that something is possible or impossible.
>>>
>>>> It doesn't mean that one will necessarily
>>>> believe in nothing, but that one's beliefs should be supported by
>>>> evidence. This is the sort of evidence that believers in UFOs, ghosts,
>>>> and supernatural intuition or telepathy cannot provide.
>>>
>>> While I have not experienced
>>> many things, e.g. remote viewing,
>>> I have experienced telepathy beyond doubt.
>>
>> I thought you like to believe in possibilities?
>
> Very much, yes.
>
>> What about the
>> possibility that you've convinced yourself that you have experienced
>> telepathy beyond doubt when you actually haven't?
>
> I have considered that.
You've considered and dismissed it, since you say you've experienced
telepathy beyond doubt. That means you believe it with absolute
certainty and nothing can change your mind.
> When I reflect back however,
> it is remembered that I was not alone.
> The individual who had the capacity was
> well known to many others. She could read
> minds, and, as she said, "call her shots" knowing
> full well she was in their heads, and they also knew.
>
> People would bring their friends around to see and
> feel what is was like to be on the hotseat. Very strange.
>
> Skeptics would argue that this "mind-reading" was simply
> due to the mind reader being good at reading the body
> language. That might be true for some tricksters.
> This was different.
>
> When someone is inside your head
> and tells you they are inside your head
> and you know it is true, there is no doubt.
>
> A skeptic will at times doubt doubt.
> To doubt that situation would be odd.
> Without a doubt, doubt doubt.
I think your usage of "skepticism" is different to mine. Yes, a skeptic
doubts everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't think the Earth
revolves around the Sun. If there is sufficient evidence, then the
skeptic will believe in something, even if it isn't with absolute certainty.
You seem to think that the reason "skeptics" don't believe as you do is
because they somehow prevented due to doubt. You're dismissing the
possibility that your conclusion is faulty. Perhaps other people don't
believe as you do because they have more carefully evaluated all the
evidence, not because of being closed-minded. Perhaps the difference in
opinion is due to your faulty evaluation of the available evidence.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm
"I am sick of being told that I do not have a open mind. Long ago I
wrote about the difficulty of having a truly open mind - or even knowing
what this means. I called it 'the elusive open mind' (Blackmore 1987)
because I know, after years and years of struggling with competing
beliefs, searching for evidence, and looking deep into my own
motivations and fears, that having an open mind is not easy. To me an
open mind means this - that you are prepared to change your mind if the
evidence suggests you should. This sounds simple, but is not. It is a
balancing act between having a mind so open that it changes every time
the wind blows, and so closed that impossible standards of evidence are
required to change it. It is a world away from the kind of 'open mind'
that critics love to flaunt - the kind that really means "If you agree
with me you have an open mind - if you agree with scientists you don't"."
> Worlds of words may morph
> dissolving and resolving when one
> moves beyond words and into worlds
> beyond the standard modern physical
> scientific explanation of reality.
I'm inclined to believe the many independently verified experiments that
have led to the the technology of computers and skyscrapers over the few
experiments that aren't independently verifiable that suggest telepathy
and remote viewing happen in very specific and rare circumstances. This
isn't a belief that I consider beyond doubt, but given the evidence
available, I consider it the most sensible.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 12:49 pm
From: Bassos
Op 15-9-2011 17:53, Absorbed schreef:
> http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si87.html
> "The other key to my failures seemed to be belief. I was told that I
> didn�t get results because I didn�t believe strongly enough in psi,
> because I didn�t have an open mind! But what could I do about that? I
> couldn�t just change my beliefs overnight or test ten subjects while
> believing and another ten while not! I argued that in the beginning I
> had believed in psi and still had got no results, but I couldn�t prove
> this against the counter-argument that I had never really believed at all.
>
> However, I did have an idea. There were still things in which I did
> believe. [...] It worked! The results were actually significant. You can
> imagine my excitement�perhaps I had at last found something. Perhaps
> there was no psi to be found in the standard laboratory experiments, but
> something paranormal could appear when the conditions were closer to
> real life. But then I talked to Carl Sargent. He pointed out that all my
> subjects knew one another, and if they knew one another their ratings
> and rankings could not be independent. So I had violated an assumption
> of the statistical test I was using.
Lol.
Susan Blackmore did not understand the scientific method ?
And people still use her as evidence.
(and yeah, i read she claims to have repeated with more controls, but lol)
Looking for confirmation of non-existence is extremely non-scientific.
So i guess Susan still does not understand the scientific method, and
neither does anyone who cites her work as convincing evidence.
And i did not read her work, just the tommiedarling ways of using her,
which make that totally suspect.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 1:52 pm
From: "{:-])))"
Absorbed wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Absorbed wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>> Absorbed wrote:
>>>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>>>> Absorbed wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>>>>>>> in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably, sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of anecdotes
>>>>>> suggesting such clear visions are possible,
>>>>>
>>>>> There also plenty of anecdotes for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, and so
>>>>> on. Anecdotes aren't a reliable way to determine truth.
>>>>
>>>> Personal experience might be a way.
>>>
>>> It might. But it might not when you consider how creating an entire
>>> worldview around one sole experience is likely to mislead you,
>>> especially if that experience contradicts the majority of your experiences.
>>
>> Sometimes a mystical experience
>> changes the life of the "individual"
>> such that a oneness is known
>> and life is turned inside out.
>>
>> So real is this experience
>> that the former world-view is seen
>> as being the illusion.
>
>A sole experience may suggest that many of one's previous beliefs are
>false -- all the more reason to be incredibly careful when forming new
>beliefs based on such an experience.
>
>The sensible course of action is not to make a snap judgement but to
>gather more evidence, like trying to recreate the experience, and then
>carefully looking at *all* the evidence.
>
>Schizophrenics have world-view-changing experiences regularly, and
>despite no longer believing a long line of previous experiences, with
>each new experience they are convinced all over again. That is the power
>that such experiences have to override rational thought, and why we
>should all be wary of them.
A guy once said
to be wise as serpents
and gentle as doves.
Rationality can be a fine tool.
To create a ratio between things
is to carve after a fashion.
To think of oneself as an individual,
a free-willed, independent, agent separate
from all other apparent unique organisms
might be a rational fashion to view
so-called things.
To think all individuals are unique
might shine a light on the replicability
of anything and everything, as an aside.
To think of oneself as being
the arms and legs and hands and feet
and eyes and ears of Being, of the Universe,
might be as rational, after a fashion, of thought.
To experience all things as being not separate, not-two,
might be an experience some folks have at times.
To recreate it can be a curious quest.
To prove it by means of science, hmm, I am
not sure how One would go about it.
Such a quest could be doomed out the gate.
To assume two-ness in order to prove not-twoness
might be something Zhuangzi spoke of
in terms of a white horse.
Axioms might prove to be
the stuff paradigms are made of.
>>>>> To determine whether a mother truly has such a power, a strict series of
>>>>> tests must be done. If the results strongly confirm that they have that
>>>>> ability, while also firmly disproving all other possible explanations
>>>>> such as coincidence, then one might have a reasonable basis to believe
>>>>> that a mother can somehow intuitively know when her son has died.
>>>>
>>>> To have had an experience beyond all doubt
>>>> does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
>>>
>>> True. But if it's not repeatable, then the best you can say is it's
>>> impossible to know with absolute certainty whether someone actually did
>>> successfully "remotely view" something.
>>
>> Someone once said
>> that the point of absolute certainty
>> is a matter of degree.
>
>I don't understand what you mean.
The point was that the point is never reached.
Absolute certainty, I suppose, would need to be
defined by some standard, possibly arbitrary.
>>> That doesn't make it
>>> unreasonable to dismiss it, however, given the number of different
>>> supernatural anecdotes, and how the vast majority of people who attempt
>>> to remotely view something fail.
>>
>> Very few infants are able to walk at birth.
>
>Very few infants are able to fly by flapping their hands. That doesn't
>mean that it is possible to fly by flapping your hands. Because infants
>can learn how to walk doesn't mean we must also be able to learn how to
>remotely view.
To think an infant must learn to walk
differs from an infant learning to walk.
It's possible that some folks can run 100 meters
in some fraction of time. While that might be true,
that does not entail all people have the same ability.
Time and space, as we know it,
suggests there are fractions, rationals, thereof.
If so, seams to me that there would be
a whole of sorts, which kinda goes
unsaid, taken for granted
as it were.
How this presumed whole
is able to be carved, sliced, diced,
and put under a microscope or thru a
double-slit, so as to appear in a fashion
or not able to appear in some other fashion
might be the cloth from which paradigms are cut.
>>> Those who have blind faith in a belief will use this approach so that
>>> their belief cannot be questioned.
>>
>> If a two-day old baby stood up
>> and began to speak, that would be odd.
>> If on day three he or she could not do it
>> that too would be odd. Yet true, if ... .
>>
>> Many mammals can walk at birth.
>> Some may even speak.
>>
>>> Because the experience is a one-off,
>>> it isn't conducive to scientific testing.
>>
>> True.
>
>Such experiences can be scientifically tested, but nobody is willing to
>invest the money or effort required for such experiments to be done to a
>standard that will convince others who aren't already convinced. If they
>were and they hypothetically found strong evidence for remote viewing,
>then the scientific community would embrace it.
It's really rather strange to me
that someone who might have the ability
would be unable to manifest it under lab conditions.
I would think that if one could walk on water
one would be able to do so at will.
So much for how I would think.
Tom Campbell suggests that isn't how our reality works.
His view, as I understand it, is that such things are possible
but they do not manifest on demand. They occur at times
apparently to inform those who experience them.
For those who are sufficiently capable,
there is a greater capacity. But even then
it may be the case that Randi's offer will remain
uncollectable by nature of how the paranormal functions.
>>>> There is a report of a controlled experiment
>>>> wherein a remote viewer was able to actually read
>>>> a number on a card placed such that it could only be read
>>>> from a position in which it could not be read
>>>> except from an OOBE.
>>>
>>> There are reports suggesting lots of supernatural phenomena are true.
>>> There are also reports suggesting they're false as well.
>>>
>>> Got a link to the experiment you're referring to?
>>
>> http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html
>>
>> http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=3&pageid=23&pgtype=1
>>
>> "A final intriguing part of the research with Miss Z was that she did
>> indeed correctly identify a random five-digit number which Charles had
>> put on a high shelf. Unfortunately, he had seen the number so he
>> failed to control for telepathy, but it was exciting nonetheless."
>
>You seems to put a lot of weight on the results of this experiment and
>others like it. You trust in the conclusion.
I trust in possibilities.
I like to believe folks tell the truth.
I also have my doubts.
>However, just because you do doesn't mean others will.
True.
Particularly physical\material scientists.
> Even inside the
>scientific community, charlatans and honest-but-careless experimenters
>produce seemingly incredible new findings, only to be quickly refuted
>when others try to recreate their results.
Yes.
>When considering whether something is true, one must look at all the
>evidence. At present, for me and most people, a few experiments
>suggesting remote viewing can happen doesn't override the mountains of
>evidence to the contrary.
In terms of physical scientific proof,
experimental verifiability, sure.
>Maybe lots of evidence for remote viewing will be produced in the
>future. You could consider performing your own experiments to prove to
>others that such phenomena happen.
I've had exactly zero luck in that area.
The closest I got was once, long ago, experiencing
the vibration spoken of prior to leaving the body.
I immediately snapped back.
Since then, nada.
There was a recent, what I'd call dream,
in which I was outside and realized I was,
but, upon awakening, considered it a dream.
That was under the influence of hemi-sync.
An interesting instrument, for sure.
> That's what Susan Blackmore did:
>
>http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si87.html
>"The other key to my failures seemed to be belief. I was told that I
>didn�t get results because I didn�t believe strongly enough in psi,
>because I didn�t have an open mind! But what could I do about that? I
>couldn�t just change my beliefs overnight or test ten subjects while
>believing and another ten while not! I argued that in the beginning I
>had believed in psi and still had got no results, but I couldn�t prove
>this against the counter-argument that I had never really believed at all.
>
>However, I did have an idea. There were still things in which I did
>believe. [...] It worked! The results were actually significant. You can
>imagine my excitement�perhaps I had at last found something. Perhaps
>there was no psi to be found in the standard laboratory experiments, but
>something paranormal could appear when the conditions were closer to
>real life. But then I talked to Carl Sargent. He pointed out that all my
>subjects knew one another, and if they knew one another their ratings
>and rankings could not be independent. So I had violated an assumption
>of the statistical test I was using. [...] So I repeated the experiment
>twice more with subjects who did not know one another. I expect you can
>predict the results I obtained�entirely nonsignificant."
She writes, "You may have heard about an isolated incident of an OBE
when someone correctly read a five-digit number (Tart 1968), or when a
cat responded to its owner�s out-of-body presence (Morris et al.
1978), but I prefer to look at the whole body of evidence (see
Blackmore 1982)."
Looking at the whole body of evidence
things appear in a particular fashion.
If that is the litmus test, then that's that.
The whole body of evidence suggests unicorns
do not exist. And yet, all it takes is one.
Proving the absence of something
has been said to be impossible. And yet,
apparently, some skeptics reach conclusions which
to them are absolutely certain. I find that odd.
She writes about OBEs and it is asked
why they seem so real. She then concludes
whatever it is she concludes.
It reminds me of another anecdote
from the Monroe labs, in which a guy has a dream
wherein he wants to leave the Institute. Problem is
he can't find his keys. In the dream he speaks with
another guy at the lab who is working on OBEs.
Next morning, at breakfast, during a conversation
in which there was no mention of the keys, the guy
who had a bit more experience with OBEs asked
with a smile on his face, if the guy who was dreaming
ever found his keys. Pretty amazing, if true.
Tom Campbell tells a story of when he and his
co-worker both went out of body and agreed to
meet up in that state. Monroe, supposedly, taped
various questions and answers posed to both of them
who were each in a separate sound-proof room.
Their responses indicated, without a doubt,
that they did indeed share a non-physical space.
To replicate such experiences would make them science.
Without the ability for replication puts them into a
different sort of sphere. Call it, paranormal, or psi.
>> Between telepathy and remote viewing
>> there need not be a line drawn. Either way
>> it is beyond the "physical" realm, sew two-speak.
>>
>> Projects such as Tart's, PEAR, Monroe's Institute, et al,
>> include the unique, one of a kind, non-repeatable aspect
>> of those who experience the experiences.
>>
>> It is indeed, to me, remarkable
>> how, if true, the experiences are indeed real
>> and it is also true they cannot be subjected to the
>> framework of physical science.
>>
>> Exactly why that is how things are creates a mystery.
>> It may reflect what Dennis is saying about intent.
>> Tom Campbell says the same thing. Intent is the key.
>>
>> When Campbell worked with Monroe
>> he had no doubt about the veracity of many
>> of their experiences. His conclusion is that we live
>> in a digital world, a virtual learning space.
>>
>> If intent is the key,
>> then for those who state something is impossible
>> for them, their reality will conform to prove it.
>>
>> If intent is the key
>> then for those who are open to possibility,
>> many selective perceptions will open up,
>> and not-false positives will occur to lend a
>> hand in their quest to discover what is.
>>
>> Reality isn't necessarily written in stone
>> unless one asserts it must be.
>
>I'm not saying that I know with absolute certainty that what you're
>claiming is false. What I'm saying is that, based on the available
>evidence, it is highly unlikely.
Life itself is highly unlikely.
And, yet, here we are.
On a ball of rock, supposedly,
out in the middle of vast emptiness.
How odd. None-the-less, even if Earth
could not be replicated on a trillion worlds,
here is where we find ourselves, more or less.
So goes the modern version of a story.
In the future, so to speak, assuming such a thing
actually exists as the future, people may think
in other modes. Everything might change,
perhaps in the blink of a virtual aye.
>>>>>> Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be skeptical is to demand that all beliefs are thoroughly tested to
>>>>> determine their validity.
>>>>
>>>> If that is your definition.
>>>> I always thought that to be skeptical
>>>> simply meant to entertain an open mind.
>>>> But I guess that would be called
>>>> open-minded skepticism.
>>>>
>>>> To have doubt
>>>> does not entail having no doubt
>>>> that something is possible or impossible.
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't mean that one will necessarily
>>>>> believe in nothing, but that one's beliefs should be supported by
>>>>> evidence. This is the sort of evidence that believers in UFOs, ghosts,
>>>>> and supernatural intuition or telepathy cannot provide.
>>>>
>>>> While I have not experienced
>>>> many things, e.g. remote viewing,
>>>> I have experienced telepathy beyond doubt.
>>>
>>> I thought you like to believe in possibilities?
>>
>> Very much, yes.
>>
>>> What about the
>>> possibility that you've convinced yourself that you have experienced
>>> telepathy beyond doubt when you actually haven't?
>>
>> I have considered that.
>
>You've considered and dismissed it,
Yes. Many times.
> since you say you've experienced
>telepathy beyond doubt. That means you believe it with absolute
>certainty and nothing can change your mind.
My mind could be changed.
At the moment however, it is clear to me.
>> When I reflect back however,
>> it is remembered that I was not alone.
>> The individual who had the capacity was
>> well known to many others. She could read
>> minds, and, as she said, "call her shots" knowing
>> full well she was in their heads, and they also knew.
>>
>> People would bring their friends around to see and
>> feel what is was like to be on the hotseat. Very strange.
>>
>> Skeptics would argue that this "mind-reading" was simply
>> due to the mind reader being good at reading the body
>> language. That might be true for some tricksters.
>> This was different.
>>
>> When someone is inside your head
>> and tells you they are inside your head
>> and you know it is true, there is no doubt.
>>
>> A skeptic will at times doubt doubt.
>> To doubt that situation would be odd.
>> Without a doubt, doubt doubt.
>
>I think your usage of "skepticism" is different to mine. Yes, a skeptic
>doubts everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't think the Earth
>revolves around the Sun. If there is sufficient evidence, then the
>skeptic will believe in something, even if it isn't with absolute certainty.
>
>You seem to think that the reason "skeptics" don't believe as you do is
>because they somehow prevented due to doubt. You're dismissing the
>possibility that your conclusion is faulty. Perhaps other people don't
>believe as you do because they have more carefully evaluated all the
>evidence, not because of being closed-minded. Perhaps the difference in
>opinion is due to your faulty evaluation of the available evidence.
Many things are possible.
>http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm
>"I am sick of being told that I do not have a open mind. Long ago I
>wrote about the difficulty of having a truly open mind - or even knowing
>what this means. I called it �the elusive open mind� (Blackmore 1987)
>because I know, after years and years of struggling with competing
>beliefs, searching for evidence, and looking deep into my own
>motivations and fears, that having an open mind is not easy. To me an
>open mind means this - that you are prepared to change your mind if the
>evidence suggests you should. This sounds simple, but is not. It is a
>balancing act between having a mind so open that it changes every time
>the wind blows, and so closed that impossible standards of evidence are
>required to change it. It is a world away from the kind of �open mind�
>that critics love to flaunt - the kind that really means �If you agree
>with me you have an open mind - if you agree with scientists you don�t�."
I imagine that if Susan had an experience,
which to her was inexplicable and non-reproducible,
yet none-the-less was factually determined as true,
she would simply shrug it off somehow.
It's entirely possible that some folks never see
nor experience what some other folks do.
>> Worlds of words may morph
>> dissolving and resolving when one
>> moves beyond words and into worlds
>> beyond the standard modern physical
>> scientific explanation of reality.
>
>I'm inclined to believe the many independently verified experiments that
>have led to the the technology of computers and skyscrapers over the few
>experiments that aren't independently verifiable that suggest telepathy
>and remote viewing happen in very specific and rare circumstances. This
>isn't a belief that I consider beyond doubt, but given the evidence
>available, I consider it the most sensible.
Your senses are probably reliable enuf for you
to get you through your daze and knights
as you venture out and about
in your world.
- tilting at windmills
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 2:55 pm
From: Tom
On Sep 15, 12:49 pm, Bassos <root@wan> wrote:
> Op 15-9-2011 17:53, Absorbed schreef:
>
> > However, I did have an idea. There were still things in which I did
> > believe. [...] It worked! The results were actually significant. You can
> > imagine my excitement perhaps I had at last found something. Perhaps
> > there was no psi to be found in the standard laboratory experiments, but
> > something paranormal could appear when the conditions were closer to
> > real life. But then I talked to Carl Sargent. He pointed out that all my
> > subjects knew one another, and if they knew one another their ratings
> > and rankings could not be independent. So I had violated an assumption
> > of the statistical test I was using.
>
> Lol.
>
> Susan Blackmore did not understand the scientific method ?
Your conclusion is incorrect. This particular experiment had a
methodological flaw. Many pilot studies do, which is why they are
pilot studies in the first place. She didn't spot the flaw until it
was pointed out by colleague with a fresh perspective. This also is
part of the scientific method. You don't do your work in isolation.
You invite other researchers in to see if they can spot errors you
missed. When a flaw is discovered, you don't just make excuses. You
fix the problem and run the experiment again. Now, someone who did
not understand the scientific method would have objected to the
criticism, then ignored it and accepted the study results that pleased
her anyway.
> And people still use her as evidence.
Yes they do. Because you can count on her checking her work and not
tolerating errors.
> Looking for confirmation of non-existence is extremely non-scientific.
> So i guess Susan still does not understand the scientific method, and
> neither does anyone who cites her work as convincing evidence.
Not just a wrong conclusion but a baseless and erroneous claim as
well.
Blackmore's research most emphatically did *not* "look for
confirmation of non-existence". She explicitly says this many times,
but, since you admit that you have never read any of her work, you
missed it.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si87.html
"No amount of negative results can prove the nonexistence of psi."
"Now we finally come to the question: 'What do these negative results
tell us?' Of course the one thing they do not tell us is that psi does
not exist. However long I went on looking for psi and not finding it
they could not tell us that."
"I have said rather a lot about what negative results do not tell us,
but is there anything they do tell us? I think we are now in a
position to see that there is. I suggest that, wherever you start in
parapsychology, if you base your research on the psi hypothesis then
you will be forced to do ever more and more restricted research, to
back up into ever less and less testable positions, and to produce
ever more feeble and flimsy buttresses to hold your theory together.
In the end, whatever the questions you started with, you are forced to
ask more and more boring questions until there is only one question
left: Does psi exist? That question, I submit, is unanswerable.
This process is not restricted to those who get negative results.
Helmut Schmidt is among the best researchers in parapsychology, and he
has been forced to ask the question "Does psi exist?" Charles Honorton
is another example. He is working on fraud-proof, fully automated
procedures, even though he might prefer, as do most people in
parapsychology, to do process oriented research, as I did when I
started with my question 'Is ESP like memory?'
I think that is the problem with parapsychology, and it is a problem
that starts from the very hypothesis of psi. The structure and
definitions of parapsychology are to blame. The negative definition of
psi, the hundred years of bolstering failing theories, and the
powerful will to find something are at fault. They not only force us
to ask, 'Does psi exist?' but force us to answer in terms of
belief."
Susan Blackmore considered the entire argument about whether or not
psi exists to be a fruitless exercise. I agree.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 3:27 pm
From: Absorbed
On 15/09/11 21:52, {:-]))) wrote:
> Absorbed wrote:
>> A sole experience may suggest that many of one's previous beliefs are
>> false -- all the more reason to be incredibly careful when forming new
>> beliefs based on such an experience.
>>
>> The sensible course of action is not to make a snap judgement but to
>> gather more evidence, like trying to recreate the experience, and then
>> carefully looking at *all* the evidence.
>>
>> Schizophrenics have world-view-changing experiences regularly, and
>> despite no longer believing a long line of previous experiences, with
>> each new experience they are convinced all over again. That is the power
>> that such experiences have to override rational thought, and why we
>> should all be wary of them.
>
> A guy once said
> to be wise as serpents
> and gentle as doves.
>
> Rationality can be a fine tool.
> To create a ratio between things
> is to carve after a fashion.
>
> To think of oneself as an individual,
> a free-willed, independent, agent separate
> from all other apparent unique organisms
> might be a rational fashion to view
> so-called things.
>
> To think all individuals are unique
> might shine a light on the replicability
> of anything and everything, as an aside.
>
> To think of oneself as being
> the arms and legs and hands and feet
> and eyes and ears of Being, of the Universe,
> might be as rational, after a fashion, of thought.
>
> To experience all things as being not separate, not-two,
> might be an experience some folks have at times.
> To recreate it can be a curious quest.
> To prove it by means of science, hmm, I am
> not sure how One would go about it.
>
> Such a quest could be doomed out the gate.
> To assume two-ness in order to prove not-twoness
> might be something Zhuangzi spoke of
> in terms of a white horse.
>
> Axioms might prove to be
> the stuff paradigms are made of.
Argumentum verbosium.
> It's possible that some folks can run 100 meters
> in some fraction of time. While that might be true,
> that does not entail all people have the same ability.
And sometimes none of us have a particular ability, like the ability to
fly unassisted by flapping our arms.
> Time and space, as we know it,
> suggests there are fractions, rationals, thereof.
> If so, seams to me that there would be
> a whole of sorts, which kinda goes
> unsaid, taken for granted
> as it were.
>
> How this presumed whole
> is able to be carved, sliced, diced,
> and put under a microscope or thru a
> double-slit, so as to appear in a fashion
> or not able to appear in some other fashion
> might be the cloth from which paradigms are cut.
I have no idea what you're discussing in these two paragraphs.
>> Maybe lots of evidence for remote viewing will be produced in the
>> future. You could consider performing your own experiments to prove to
>> others that such phenomena happen.
>
> I've had exactly zero luck in that area.
> The closest I got was once, long ago, experiencing
> the vibration spoken of prior to leaving the body.
> I immediately snapped back.
>
> Since then, nada.
You can always join the scientific community. Study for a degree in a
relevant field and attempt to prove your professors wrong.
I'll end my post with this.
Many different people have their worldview changed by a sole experience.
It seems that such an experience changed your worldview: you now believe
in telepathy.
There are people out there who believe they've been abducted by aliens.
I presume that you don't believe in their accounts of their experiences,
just as you won't believe in the accounts of thousands of other people's
life-changing experiences.
Why do you consider your account to be more valid than the accounts of
people you dismiss?
"He develops upon his own world the responsibility of being in the right
against the dissentient worlds of other people; and it never troubles
him that mere accident has decided which of these numerous worlds is the
object of his reliance, and that the same cause which make him a
Churchman in London, would have made him a Buddhist or a Confucian in
Pekin." John Stuart Mill
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 3:37 pm
From: Bassos
Op 15-9-2011 23:55, Tom schreef:
> On Sep 15, 12:49 pm, Bassos<root@wan> wrote:
>> Op 15-9-2011 17:53, Absorbed schreef:
>>
>>> However, I did have an idea. There were still things in which I did
>>> believe. [...] It worked! The results were actually significant. You can
>>> imagine my excitement perhaps I had at last found something. Perhaps
>>> there was no psi to be found in the standard laboratory experiments, but
>>> something paranormal could appear when the conditions were closer to
>>> real life. But then I talked to Carl Sargent. He pointed out that all my
>>> subjects knew one another, and if they knew one another their ratings
>>> and rankings could not be independent. So I had violated an assumption
>>> of the statistical test I was using.
>>
>> Lol.
>>
>> Susan Blackmore did not understand the scientific method ?
>
> Your conclusion is incorrect.
Heh.
No, my conclusion is accurate.
> This particular experiment had a methodological flaw.
A fundamental flaw so great that not seeing it before doing testing
means she really had no clue then.
And any subsequent tweaking means little to nothing for someone who made
such a gigantic mistake in procedure.
(or at least that is what a scientist would conclude)
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 15 2011 8:56 pm
From: Tom
On Sep 15, 3:37 pm, Bassos <root@wan> wrote:
> Op 15-9-2011 23:55, Tom schreef:
>
>
> > Your conclusion is incorrect.
>
> Heh.
>
> No, my conclusion is accurate.
But incorrect.
> And any subsequent tweaking means little to nothing for someone who made
> such a gigantic mistake in procedure.
> (or at least that is what a scientist would conclude)
No, that's what an ignoramus would conclude.
But don't worry. No matter how big an ass you make of yourself, Daddy
still loves you.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "alt.theosophy"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
alt.theosophy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
--
http://sites.google.com/site/autoverflownow/free-globaltel
No comments:
Post a Comment