On Dec 26, 2007 5:07 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:07 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: More Crap with John Edward
> >
> > I don't like people getting tooken (heh) advantage of any more than
> > the next guy (hopefully the next guy, well.:)
> >
> > But-
> >
> > I feel like we jump to discredit, and perhaps go out of our way
> > to discredit, as in, make up false, discrediting information, the
> > um, like, ya know -- the mysterious.
>
> "The Mysterious" is around us all the time and perfectly valid. Where is
> Dark Matter? What started the Big Bang? How are memories REALLY stored in
> brain tissue?
>
> No skeptic tries to discredit the mysterious just because it's mysterious -
> we discredit it because it's bullshit. And often because it's downright
> hurtful.
I'm not for hurting, man! (I voted against it!)
Bullshit is an interesting word to pick-- what do you think about
"spontaneous healing", documented, not-exactly-controverted cases of
"wow, some of this "bullshit" is documented"? Not saying one has to
say "god did it", but there are people who would rather think that
there was some clerical error than that something fantastic (and
perhaps reproducible? Wouldn't that be swell?) had occurred.
> > I'm not like, hey, magic and science are separate, or whatever --
> > I honestly believe things that people would call magic, probably
> > have "scientific" explanations. And I also honestly believe, that
> > there are truths out there that are just mind-blowing.
> >
> > To prevent one's mind from being blown, one would naturally
> > do whatever type of rationalization needed.
>
> That's ridiculous. Scientists love (ABSOLUTELY LOVE!) to get "their minds
> blown" - there's really no other reason to get into science. They just want
> to be sure that their getting excited over something real.
And thus, the crux! What is "real"? Does something have to "jive"
with something else to become "solid"? I've brought up the history of
the Incompleteness Theorems before, and we all know about relativity
and the sound barrier, etc.. There's plenty of "real" math out there,
that has yet to be, um, "real-ized", right? (Some of it gets
"debunked", too)
I'm sure there are great scientists who "passed on" firmly believing
that, I don't know, that the world is flat, or whatever. Even after
seeing first hand proof.
What is Real? =]
If someone came to you with what you would consider incontrovertible
evidence that, say, there is such a thing as mental telepathy (by say
a direct demonstration), would you then believe, or would a tiny part
of your head still sorta quietly say "maybe it's just a really firm
grasp of communication, and the ideas were actually implanted".
Can you suspend your disbelief?
> > Like, I'll try to dig up the data on those ESP experiments that
> > have been done, that if I recall, sorta said that there was *cough*
> > "incontrovertible evidence" that /something/ was going on, statistic-
> > wise, as in, most folks have some type of "ESP".
>
> There are none. Dig it up - try. ;^)
I have first hand experience, but I could just as well chalk it up to
something "verified" as to "ESP"-- ESP is sorta like ADHD-- too damn
general to be much real good-- we don't even have "sensory" nailed
down yet. "Extra" is asking a bit much. ;-)
There's plenty of data for all kinds of avenues, like non-verbal
communication, electro-magnetic whosi-what-sis, a "group
consciousness", or the plain old, quite common, psychosis of picking
and choosing what to BELIEVE. =]
Have you ever had a premonition? One impossible to rationalize?
Do you believe that there is anything impossible to rationalize?
How do you feel about coincidence?
I guess a bunch of this boils down to randomness.
I've always loved the play we get out of "random". It's not really
nailed down either, right? Have I mentioned I love cryptology? I'm
no sick math-head, and it's actually been an acquired taste for me,
but, it's pretty darn cool, I reckon. At least stuff like randomness,
and them "funner" theories :-)
> Oh - there are a lot of studies which have been quoted (and will continue to
> be) but NONE of them have shown anything like "proof". Most need to be
> eliminated simply because of poor science (single blind instead of
> double-blind studies, poor test conditions or a failure to predict results).
> Many need to be because of poor math and others get the boot because of
> technical issues (as when one major study used a "random number generator"
> that wasn't really random).
Hey, are you down to dome some experimentation? I know you've got the
head to keep it pretty "blind", and I happen to know that some of
these pretty far-out experiments are easy to do oneself-- How do you
feel about remote viewing? Wanna give it a shot? We could try like
10-20 times or something... enough to give it a fair shake, and see
what happens. Maybe a few of the other ones too, and we can see if
our stats are anything other than "purely random" (you could come up
with what that spread would be, right?).
Would that be interesting to you at all?
> > What's that bit about energy conservation or thermodynamic law
> > or something along doze lines? What is consciousness, man,
> > and from where does it spring? And to where does it Flow?
> > Simple stuff, right.
>
> That's too close to quantum quackery. The laws of conservation do NOT apply
> to the mind. It sounds great on paper and might get you laid at the right
> kind of parties but it's nothing but nonsense.
Heh. I wish I'd know what the right kind of party was, back in the day. :-)
Quantum stuff doesn't have to be "spooky", although it is pretty far out.
You don't think quantum physics is involved with, like thinking, and whatnot?
It still trips me out that electrons "tunnel"... sheesh! Don't get me
started on the entanglement stuff, or the simply crazy crazy
experiments that are, like, reproducible.
> > Science has already shown us that...-- Fucking Wow! Ya know?
> >
> > But yeah, that South Park cracked me up, whatever the Real
> > Truth of the matter is.
> >
> > Biggest Douche. Heh.
> >
> > But don't discount the mysterious, Jim. The Truth is Out There.
>
> All around us - and reality is more gratifying and inspiring than any hokey,
> made-up crap ever could be!
I'm just saying, man. What if there is, say, a particle that is only
observable if one "believes" in it? Could you do it? =]
I love this stuff. Sorry if I come off all kooky and non-skeptical--
I just know that I don't know, ya know? Skeptical of being skeptical,
even.
Yes, a strange bird, from certain perspectives, I'd wager (if I was
feeling "lucky" ;).
--
Each decision we make, each action we take, is born out of an intention.
Sharon Salzberg, O Magazine, The Power of Intention, January 2004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:249129
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
