Cosmin:
Your "gut feeling" that the exchange with your girl friend on facebook
was telepathy - is an example of raw belief in telepathy, not rigor. You
believed that your facebook exchange was a sample of unification of you
and your girl friend's sub-consciousnesses. (I did get what you meant by
unification, but generalized it.)
How much raw faith does it take to totally ignore your own first rule
(/1) Such precise sharable details. ) /in favor of raw believing that
that exchange was telepathy? How could she fail to mention Italy, and
how is "castles" representative of Italy? And almost every city I've
visited in Europe, even small ones, sometimes have street parties.
Doesn't uniqueness count? That's where the precognition hotlines
failed. Of the 10's of thousands of events "predicted" - not one was
uniquely separable from the millions of events not submitted to such
hotlines.
If you would bother to examine a few of the many thousands of studies on
ESP (books, articles, etc.) - you would see that many of them are done
with extreme rigor and preciseness, correctly using statistics to
eliminate random chance and "lucky guesses." You brought up, in your
list of "proofs" - many, many studies. Follow them through, even a
little bit. Look for rigor. Many report failures.
A great example of a super thorough study/project I mentioned elsewhere
on this thread. Called "Operation Stargate," it was very well-funded by
the US Government, was called and lasted more than a year. Research it.
I've talked with people that participated in it. (My father asked me
to.) It crashed and burned.
On 5/27/2019 3:19 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
After such a long post, you only showed that you failed to understand
what unification is. The details are precise in the sense that
sub-consciousnesses unified. Then, on top of that unification,
different new qualia have been emerged on the 2 different
consciousnesses. The fact that the final result is not 100% identical
doesn't disprove telepathy, but rather shows that telepathy happens at
the sub-consciousnesses level, and not at the highest level of
consciousness. See ? This is the difference between a real scientists
and a random "skeptic". A scientists try to understand a phenomenon
for what it is, while a "skeptic" dismisses everything he doesn't like.
On Sunday, 26 May 2019 23:59:29 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
Endless experiments of what you suggest about
unification/telepathy/precognition/etc. together/separate/etc. has
been tested and tested and tested, under all sorts of
circumstances under all conditions thinkable. My father was a
lifelong believer things like telepathy and failure to confirm his
beliefs didn't deter him from believing, even though he was a
good-thinking electronic engineer with >12 patents (you can look
him up in USPTO.gov , Meyer Marks, before year 1975).
_
Phenomenology infers that there is a phenomenon_, and in the case
of telepathy and precognition, no phenomena can be demonstrated,
whether "unified" with emotion/communication etc., when
falsifiable experiments show every claim to be a "lookalike," such
as conjuring (magician's tricks), fakers like Uri Geller, random
chance, liars, clever opportunity seekers, coincidences, or flat
misinterpretations, etc. The total failure of precognition
hotlines demonstrate that precognition is unlikely to be a
phenomenon - with a score of zero hits in probably millions of
submissions over maybe 20 years.
There are "treasure chests" of experiments, extremely thoroughly
investigated and documented by thousands of investigators for
centuries, including your suggested "unification." Look up the
files in the archives of randi.org <http://randi.org> , Dr
Shermer's Skeptical Inquirer, Joseph Nichol's work, CSICOP (now
CSI, Committee for skeptical Inquiry) and a dozen more, most
discoverable with web searching. Randi has an excellent library in
Florida that should be accessible for research.
Cosmin, your example of your girlfriend and you "connecting" thru
facebook fails your own criteria, point 1:/ 1) Such precise
sharable details./
The only way to reconcile the failure to be specific - is to
"believe anyway."
Cheers! Howard Marks
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d7ca18b-910d-4bd8-8f81-e4c8ae26ce6b%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d7ca18b-910d-4bd8-8f81-e4c8ae26ce6b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f1b32e12-be55-45be-fb6a-41f4c0363b84%40doitnow.com.
