Re: [Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
Hello Abd, I wanted to offer more re the most important part of your post here yesterday: I just finished the Landmark Education Advanced Course, and one of the Landmark distinctions is Life is empty and meaningless and it is empty and meaningless that life is empty and meaningless. Yet what happened is real, it is only our *interpretations* of what happened that leave behind reality. When they say that life is empty and meaningless, they are not claiming that this is true, but that it is useful as a distinction that allows us to leave behind the traps of belief in assumed or created meaning. This is not mere philosophy in Landmark, it's demonstrated and observed and learned as a functional distinction that is liberating. Landmark is considered by some to be a cult. It's been fascinating for me to explore this, I can easily understand why some would think that. Rich, someone we both know very well has long been involved with Landmark. Were you ever invited to check it out? If so, what happened? It sounds like you have been quickly guided into direct experience within ordinary identity awareness into the enlightment level of emptiness as aware presence -- the pearl of great price, waiting to be found within the empty field, as Jesus of Nazarus put it. The first daily lesson of A Course In Miracles, dictated by Jesus, starting in October, 1965, Nothing I see (perceive, feel, sense, recall, think, imagine) means anything. http://www.nonduality.com/ free info on all aspects of this level of exploration of experience What is, surely, is ising, so I sing Each of us is already always all ways single entire unified creative fractal hyperinfinity So, to each and all, I sing I accept all of your power I let you all the way in to share spontaneously at every level and aspect for fun and the best service of all open to inspiration and guidance forgiving and leaving behind all previous notions... The fundamental practice of Buddhism is to cultivate awareness that experience is 1. always changing, with no fundamental causality (codependent coorigination) 2. unable to satisfy 3. unable to confirm the actual existence of any individual self within person, place, process, anything Miracles magically saturate both ordinary and scientific processes In mutual service, Rich
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
http://www.jcim.net/acim_us/Acim.php for free access to entire manuscript and adroit commentaries Course In Miracles Society
[Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ? https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2shva=1#label/Fusion2011/130bdafaefd392d9 Jed said to Joshua: So you will stick to the Krivit demo and ignore the others. You look at one piece of data at a time while ignoring other pieces. That is a common technique used by people who are determined to deny reality. Rich: This is denigrating Joshua. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2shva=1#label/Fusion2011/130bf3abecbfc708 On June 23 -- I believe Jed later admitted to getting too heated: You can nitpick Rossi. Anyone can. But you cannot find an error in any mainstream scientific paper. You never have, you never will. You are a faker. A pseudo-skeptic true believer! You think the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, but you have no reason. You think you can compare a Loch Ness photo to SRI calorimetry and that's a valid argument. You don't get a free pass. Anyone can see you have zero credibility. I am sick of your puerile nonsense. I will not respond to you again. If you ever have the guts to write a real paper, let us know. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2shva=1#label/Fusion2011/130b734895c2f2ec Abd, June 22, talking about Joshua, actually is pretty skeptical about the Rossi claims: The Krivit video does not show the steam production rate, that's the problem. It shows what's left after the steam runs through three meters of rubber hose. We know that steam will condense in this hose, and some estimates have been made of how much. It's quite enough to explain that weak showing. All this means is that the demo is a piece of crap. It would only convince someone who is inclined to believe. It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power. That conclusion would only come from someone who is inclined to disbelieve. My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky. The sad thing about this is that a convincing demo -- absent true and serious fraud -- could be easily done. I've pointed out many times that there is no way, with a demo controlled by the inventor or close allies of the inventor, to rule out a sophisticated fraud. But the demo Krivit video'd, that isn't a sophisticated fraud, it's an obviously deficient demo! If Rossi were interested in fooling people, he could manage much better than this! Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. Maybe. I'm skeptical. I suspect that Rossi is smarter than that, that he knows how he looks and is deliberately creating the impressions that he's creating. I can think of a number of reasons for this, both psychological and practical or economic. And, of course, none of this helps us to actually know how much power this kitten is producing. Kullander and Essen did see a more convincing demo, and apparently did see (directly) the quality of the steam, at least at one point. Unfortunately, their report doesn't allow us to rule out that significant water may have been flowing out the outlet tube, consider the possibility that their inspection of this tube was controlled precisely how Rossi controlled it with Krivit. Measuring steam quality with their meter, even if it actually worked for that purpose, would not rule out this water flow problem. I love it, in a way. The situation causes many observers to reveal their biases, by how they respond. However, I'll caution myself that Rothwell, for example, does claim to have private information that he trusts, and private information can create an appearance of bias. Still, Jed's attachment to the expert testimony here is not a good sign, I urge him to quickly climb down from that! The sooner the better! It's fascinating to me that the Levi paper included detailed information about the calibration of the fundamentally irrelevant radiation measurements, and nothing, in fact, on the steam quality measurements. The results of those measurements was not even reported, it was merely *implied* that the issue was addressed. And then everone is falling all over themselves over whether the non-reported measurements were based on mass or volume! It would be like arguing over the result of zero divided by zero. Hey! my result checks correctly and perfectly, therefore your different result is wrong! Rich: So I couldn't manage to find any quotes by Abd that were Ad Psdudonym against Joshua, so I retract that claim and regret my error and remind myself how very easy it is to shift into criticizing and judging our fellows... I like his humorous, wry appreciation of how we all get tangled up in the Rossi web. In mutual service, Rich
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Rich: So I couldn't manage to find any quotes by Abd that were Ad Psdudonym against Joshua, so I retract that claim and regret my error and remind myself how very easy it is to shift into criticizing and judging our fellows... I like his humorous, wry appreciation of how we all get tangled up in the Rossi web. Lomax hasn't called me anything worse than a liar and a pseudo-skeptic, and I think he'd argue those were supportable labels. Water off a duck... I've called him a CF advocate, and a pathological believer, and probably dishonest too, and I'd argue they are supportable too. No harm either way, as far as I can see. It adds a little color to some pretty dull gibberish.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
I was concerned there might be a group think dynamic of applying dismissive labels to Joshua Cude to establish a group social norm of just dismissing an extremely capable person who brings unusual clarity and celerity of thought to our table...
[Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
At 02:40 AM 6/30/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ? Rich: So I couldn't manage to find any quotes by Abd that were Ad Psdudonym against Joshua, so I retract that claim and regret my error and remind myself how very easy it is to shift into criticizing and judging our fellows... I like his humorous, wry appreciation of how we all get tangled up in the Rossi web. Thanks, Rich. My operating position has become that the public information does not allow us to come to clear conclusions about the Rossi claims. If I'm correct, then those who do, in fact, make claims of clear conclusion, either way, are merely displaying bias. It shouldn't be suprising, bias is normal for human beings. We tend to see what we want to see, and it's a constant effort for anyone interested in science to overcome this, and we fail, often. I've come to a hypothesis regarding how the Rossi excess heat results -- in the public demos -- could be *very* incorrect, but that hypothesis has not been tested, even though it would be easy to test, should Rossi care to clear this up. Jed is aware that there are problems with the demos, and that Rossi has effectively refused to address them. Krivit's latest report seems sober to me (somewhat to my surprise), what I see is that Krivit reported what has been called gossip, without fixing or claiming some conclusion from that. The gossip addresses reasons to suspect Rossi, on character grounds. That human interest is actually important, for much depends, here, on our judgment of the character of the claimant and his associates. In the end, though, Rossi is correct in that if he succeeds with the Defkalion demo, it's all moot. I've mentioned that there may be both psychological and economic reasons for Rossi's apparent con game character here. Consider this: Rossi was heavily attacked, prosecuted, and even jailed for alleged fraud or illegal activity. It would be a device to recover from that, to create an impression of a repeat, to make his behavior seem really, really fishy, and then pull the sheet off the hidden proof, vindicating himself. If he's playing that game, he loves it when he's attacked, because he believes that all these attacks will look like idiocy, later. Of course, this is unfair, because he's creating the appearance that attracts those attacks. But people are perfectly capable of thinking and acting like this. In a sense, he's attempting to vindicate himself, because if it is revealed that his appearance of fraud now was an illusion, it will carry with it, by association, his past. Perhaps his intentions were good then, too. Perhaps the old allegations were also false. Perhaps his factory fire was truly an accident. Etc. Joshua has played a useful role in the discussions on the Vortex list. I'm hoping that there will be further cooperation, in exploring what is behind the overall cold fusion controversy. I have, in the past, excoriated Joshua for pseudoskepticism combined with anonymity. I'm not going to belabor whether or not that was justified, but I'd urge him to abandon the anonymity, if possible. There is nothing shameful about real skepticism. I am aware, though, of a certain risk to him if he does so. I've had correspondence with some skeptics who are afraid of retaliation from *other skeptics,* for even giving cold fusion the time of day. It was something like if it became known that I debated cold fusion, my career would be over. Which I find fascinating as a window into the oppressive character of orthodoxy. If that kind of pressure exists, much is explained. I've encountered a taste of this, myself, where a long-time colleague went ballistic over my mention that cold fusion might be real. The man had no knowledge or understanding of the research work that has led me to that possibility, all he knew was theory. (He's a mathematician, who has some substantial knowledge of quantum mechanics.) It seemed impossible to penetrate his firm conviction. He believed I'd been conned. When I mentioned that I'd put thousands of dollars into cold fusion kits, he assumed that I'd bought kits from some fraudster, he clearly believes that anyone involved with cold fusion is either massively deluded or a con artist. When I explained that, no, I was making kits for sale, to replicate a published experiment, he advised me, firmly, to get my money back, as much as possible, by selling the materials and equipment, since there could be no possible value to actually experimenting with this. A mutual friend, a close associate of the mathematician, who became privy to the correspondence, could see what was going on and tried to mediate, to no avail. I was consigned, by this long-time friend, to the outer darkness, and there were consequences within the organization where we had cooperated. His kind of science is cargo cult science, where belief
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
Abd wrote: My operating position has become that the public information does not allow us to come to clear conclusions about the Rossi claims. If I'm correct, then those who do, in fact, make claims of clear conclusion, either way, are merely displaying bias. It shouldn't be suprising, bias is normal for human beings. We tend to see what we want to see, and it's a constant effort for anyone interested in science to overcome this, and we fail, often. This is the very point of whole discussion. Besides Levi's private 18 hour test, there is absolutely not even a single one valid test made. Therefore we can only trust or distrust Rossi as a person. It is just plain foolishness to suggest that Rossi is incompetent to make appropriate measurements that can be done with high school chemistry skills. If Rossi is malicious as a person, there are better and easier ways to fake results, e.g. cleverly placed heating element near thermometer sensor renders all calculations meaningless. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
!!! Abd, I enjoyed the clarity, flow, eloquence, dignity, and reasonableness of your sharing. You cast a net that readily includes me and Joshua Cude. Again, I submit that the many setups that report transmutations and isotopic shifts are the easiest and swiftest routes to repeatable runs that generate samples that can be precisely examined in the micro to nano region by competent labs forever -- hopefully, many samples have been archived since 1989 and from previous anomaly reports. One barrier is cost. But in our world hundreds of thousands of people are showing interest this year in LENR -- couldn't a wiki group be evolved to sell stock as a reasonable profit public service corporation to specifically finance accurate testing of samples with complete open to the public real-time access to all aspects of daily operations, including a searchable archive of all public comments? I have a brilliant friend who already owns a scanning electron microscope and has his own supercomputer, made of 23 wirelessly networked computers. Probably, certain venture capitalists would be willing to help launch this. Within a month, samples from a few setups can be tested -- Rossi, Dash, SPAWAR, your DPd electrolysis runs, milk tree corrosion in high density polyethylene high voltage runs -- verified anomalies would generate specific data for theorizing, and galvanize science exponentially. Sell books, videos, and feature length films to expand financing. How can ownership and patent rights be protected for the world public good? I think his friends should explain to Rossi that he has to immediately verify dry steam output in one of his cells. Whether or not the excess heat claim fails, the possibility of transmutations can be quickly explored -- after all, what time and cost does it take to run a few expert micro and nano measures? I went to a few Landmark events with our wonderful friend in early 1995, and thought they were a typical cult group think process, like Mormon Church, early Christian Science, Arica Training, Da Free John, TM, Andrew Cohen, Scientology, blue green algae, Atkins Diet, Gary Renard, Endeavor Academy in Wisconsin, early Naropa Institute, Rajneesh, Muktananda, Babaji, Dahn Yoga -- as unpredictably dangerous and beneficial as anything else in actual life -- no way I would devote my limited funds -- my experience is that such groups always expel me fairly quickly -- so for decades I just visit and run -- EST evolved into The Forum evolved into Landmark -- exponential multilevel schemes are a fatal symptom -- if not democratic without secrets, I would never join -- I am keenly interested in how you apply it. In mutual service, Rich
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ad Hominem against Joshua Cude, or is that Ad Pseudonym against Joshua Cude ?
At 03:44 AM 6/30/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Rich: So I couldn't manage to find any quotes by Abd that were Ad Psdudonym against Joshua, so I retract that claim and regret my error and remind myself how very easy it is to shift into criticizing and judging our fellows... I like his humorous, wry appreciation of how we all get tangled up in the Rossi web. Lomax hasn't called me anything worse than a liar and a pseudo-skeptic, and I think he'd argue those were supportable labels. Water off a duck... I've called him a CF advocate, and a pathological believer, and probably dishonest too, and I'd argue they are supportable too. No harm either way, as far as I can see. It adds a little color to some pretty dull gibberish. Thanks, Joshua. I agree completely, though dull is not an objective evaluation, whether it's true or false depends on the individuals involved. Your account is not complete, though. I recently said I'd be willing to drop pseudo from skeptic, based on some things you said, and liar was referring to old stuff, and I'm not interested in going back to check out the basis, so I'm *not* arguing that those labels were supportable. Maybe they were at the time, and maybe not, and so what? If you were upset, or someone else was upset, I'd be willing to look back. You don't sound very upset. You've here asserted, de novo, CF advocate, pathological believer, and probably dishonest to boot, but if you want to believe these stories, so what? Believing your own stories would be your problem, not mine. Good luck with it.
