On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Define telepathy, telekinesis, and remote viewing. >> > > No. Buy a dictionary, if you're still confused after that I'll try to help > you out but first you'll need to define define. > > If you continued with the other steps of the universal dovetailer argument, you would realize some of these questions aren't so cut and dry. If your brain has many instantiations in many universes/realities/mathematical structures, then your consciousness is reviewing these remote locations (and may next find itself in such a remote location). > > So we don't have a bet, >> > > I can't say I'm surprised, I've been offering this bet at the beginning of > the year for over a decade but even the staunchest believer in the > paranormal always chickens out when asked to put his money where his mouth > is. > The intention of your bet is unclear. Is it to show that close-minded scientists who have a history of deciding not to even review a paper that disagrees with their presuppositions will continue to decide not even to review papers that disagree with their presuppositions? Even if one strongly believed a surprising result would be made in psi, the prejudice shown by leading journals on the matter would still make such a debt unlikely to pay off. Your insistence that scientists open with welcome arms ground-shaking discoveries is disproved by the case of Hugh Everett, who was met with ridicule and (worse) inattention. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi Einstein was never recognized with a Nobel prize for his discovery of relativity, the council thought his discovery was too controversial. > > BTW, why sending this to the list. I have never heard people defending >> para-psy. >> > > Don't you remember Craig Weinberg? And my attack on parapsychology upset > you so much you called me a bigot. > parapsychology 1. the branch of psychology that deals with the investigation of purportedly *psychic phenomena*, as clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, telepathy, and the like. psychic 1. of or relating to the human soul or mind; mental (opposed to physical). 2. Psychology. pertaining to or noting mental phenomena. 3. outside of natural or scientific knowledge; spiritual. 4. of or relating to some apparently nonphysical force or agency: psychic research; psychic phenomena. 5. sensitive to influences or forces of a nonphysical or supernatural nature. Much of what is discussed on this list concerns ontologies where the mental exists beyond the physical, or is the foundation of the physical, and so would be a "psychic" and accordingly a "parapsychological" phenomenon. > > > most scienstist practice argument of authority, given that they believe >> or not a paper just by the title of a journal >> > > Most scientists believe in reputation and in induction, so even if they > have not personally duplicated the exparament they think that the numbers > published in Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters are probably > correct. > A policy to only publish things that are well established serves to protect the reputation of the journal as a reliable source for probably valid results, but it serves to slow down the rate of progress by hiding from view controversial but nonetheless correct ideas. > But things would be quite different if experimental results were printed > on a processed dead tree in a fifth rate "science journal" that nobody has > ever heard of, or worse just data on a website run by somebody nobody has > heard of, or if they have wished they hadn't. I know how to type too, I > could easily start a website saying perpetual motion is possible and even > provide results of experiments that I say I have performed supporting my > claim. It wouldn't take me 20 minutes. > > I might add that with the exception of religion, a closely related > delusion, no area of human activity has been as riddled with as much fraud > as psi or ESP or spiritualism or whatever buzzword is in fashion today for > that drivel. > > > the interesting question is what is the nature of God: a thing, a >> person, a mathematical reality, etc. >> > > It is none of those things, "God" is a 3 letter ASCII sequence with the > binary value of 01000111 01101111 01100100. And I have to disagree with > you, I don't find that very interesting. > > > atheists are ally to the institutionalized religion. > > > And up is down and black is white and atheism is just a slight variation > of Christianity. > Atheists almost universally use the Christian's conception of God, as the one they deny. Bruno rightly points out that they never go so far as to deny all Gods, they just substitute one "basis for existence" with another, which is also based on faith (and one they're often blind to the fact that this belief rests on faith). > > > You really seem to act that a bishop of religious atheism, >> > > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard > that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. > > > Do you believe in a PRIMARY physical universe? Or are you agnostic on >> this? >> > > I can't answer that until I understand the question. I know what you mean > by "primary", it's a brute fact, the end of a long chain of "why?" > questions, but I'm a little fuzzy about "physical universe", and I don't > want definitions I want examples. Are only nouns part of the physical > universe or are adjectives and adverbs part of it too? Are quarks or > superstrings part of the physical universe? Is information part of the > physical universe? Are thoughts part of the physical universe? Are the > integers part of the physical universe? What about the Real Numbers or > Complex Numbers? And if all these things are part of the physical universe > you need to give me at least one example of something that isn't. > > Where do you think "the buck stops" when it comes to explaining our apparent existence in a physical world? Below are some examples. I've underlined the "ultimate cause" inherent in these different belief systems: Idealists: *God*->Mind Christians: *God*->Universe->Brains->Mind Physicalists/Atheists: *Universe*->Brains->Mind Platonists: *Mathematical Truth*->Number relations->Minds Tegmark: *Math*->Mathematical Objects->Self Aware Sub-structures What does the ontological chain in your would view look like, and what do you place at the far left? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
