Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

PCG for President! :)

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:
> Well, I'm with Telmo, and Bruno on the prohibition issue, no surprise, and
> with Craig here in being open to other worldviews, even if their odds seem
> low + I think our tendency to institutionalize and say "these are relevant
> branches of science AND THAT is quackery" deserves a halting problem kick in
> the complacent behind space.
>
> Especially concerning medicine, the pharma + govt complacency to
> increasingly stick to derivation in labs, after political interests in e.g.
> South America saw what foreign pharma was doing for decades, and have
> tightened regulation extremely; this is costing taxpayer new medicines, for
> Pharma to go increasingly the lazy lab-derivation route. It's not that there
> isn't enough money, it's just that we should put 30 or 50% or whatever of
> that money into opening up new branches of less risk-averse research (less
> averse in the sense that uni-departments, pharma boards, govt have less
> conservative leverage and newer branches of inquiry be opened; not less in
> "ethics" sense and yes FAT chance).
>
> The taxpayer deserves more, and better medicines, new anti-biotics, nasal
> decongestants that work etc. And these are not out of reach. We just lack
> the balls because people love their own "that's bullshit, that's real
> science distinctions". My suggestion, turn Western lab tech into a shaman,
> that continually searches for new compounds and runs a broad spectrum of
> tests, "tasting testing" a lot of plants for that broad list of things we
> need to continually develop (new antibiotics to everything crucial). But
> politics, "science", pharma, and public opinion for this is of course what
> it is.
>
> We have the tech to "taste the entire jungle" and, unlike the shaman, don't
> have to put our lives on the line as a living lab. Every second, we waste
> not doing this, we loose lives. But waiting for consensus from the above web
> of interests will produce just derivatives, albeit respectful,
> scientifically viable, profitable, peer-reviewed ones; "not some quackery
> crackpot proposition based on shamans tasting plants". This is too little
> too late, discriminatory, and incredibly stupid, as the old farts in charge,
> will need medicines and their innovation at some point.
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> On 3/24/2013 10:27 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a difference between believing specific propositions and
>>> believing *in* something.
>>>
>>
>> Which would be?
>>
>>
>> If I believed *in* science then I'd believe whatever science said.  I
>> believe many particular things that science says, but only to the extent
>> that if I have to act on them I reason from their truth instead of the
>> contrary.
>>
>
> So some partial transcendental truth that you do and do not believe in.
>
> Thanks for teaching the list how to believe correctly in this sermon. You
> said you're "atheist", right?
>
>>
>>
>>>
 it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca
 cooks, indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing
 ayahuasca use is showing its share of problems), than pharma + ethics 
 boards
 + govt. + medical industry interests blended into this scheme of making
 medicine more and more expensive for the needing, appropriate patients.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who should I
>>> call if I have a burglar?
>>>
>>
>> In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who will in
>> 99% of cases file it + simply not care, unless something/someone concerning
>> the incident can be politicized.
>>
>>
>> That's about as useful as most of your advice.
>>
>
> It is useful: don't waste your time filing stupid reports nobody will go
> after. Spend that time with family or friends.
>
> And no, I didn't bother reporting the last time somebody broke our car
> window to steal things, because it's a waste of time.
>
> When I park on some corner, then I get a ticket and am forced to pay. When I
> get burgled Law doesn't care; like a lazy thief, it will go after the guilty
> party only if it has address and license; or because of politics. It's
> similar the whole world over, exceptions: mediterranean police actually
> smile sometimes, police in Asia + South America are more openly thieves, can
> be more dangerous but can be more "flexible" sometimes. Police in Western
> Europe are zombies unless you know them.
>
> As for the US, taking LA and NY as representative (don't visit bible belt
> much)... The US is police state par excellence. Nowhere, have I ever
> encountered such a high concentration of monitoring by cops, which I see on
> 

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Mar 2013, at 17:29, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 27 Mar 2013, at 15:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Well, I'm with Telmo, and Bruno on the prohibition issue, no  
surprise, and with Craig here in being open to other worldviews,  
even if their odds seem low + I think our tendency to  
institutionalize and say "these are relevant branches of science  
AND THAT is quackery" deserves a halting problem kick in the  
complacent behind space.


Especially concerning medicine, the pharma + govt complacency to  
increasingly stick to derivation in labs, after political interests  
in e.g. South America saw what foreign pharma was doing for  
decades, and have tightened regulation extremely; this is costing  
taxpayer new medicines, for Pharma to go increasingly the lazy lab- 
derivation route. It's not that there isn't enough money, it's just  
that we should put 30 or 50% or whatever of that money into opening  
up new branches of less risk-averse research (less averse in the  
sense that uni-departments, pharma boards, govt have less  
conservative leverage and newer branches of inquiry be opened; not  
less in "ethics" sense and yes FAT chance).


The taxpayer deserves more, and better medicines, new anti-biotics,  
nasal decongestants that work etc. And these are not out of reach.  
We just lack the balls because people love their own "that's  
bullshit, that's real science distinctions". My suggestion, turn  
Western lab tech into a shaman, that continually searches for new  
compounds and runs a broad spectrum of tests, "tasting testing" a  
lot of plants for that broad list of things we need to continually  
develop (new antibiotics to everything crucial). But politics,  
"science", pharma, and public opinion for this is of course what it  
is.


We have the tech to "taste the entire jungle" and, unlike the  
shaman, don't have to put our lives on the line as a living lab.  
Every second, we waste not doing this, we loose lives. But waiting  
for consensus from the above web of interests will produce just  
derivatives, albeit respectful, scientifically viable, profitable,  
peer-reviewed ones; "not some quackery crackpot proposition based  
on shamans tasting plants". This is too little too late,  
discriminatory, and incredibly stupid, as the old farts in charge,  
will need medicines and their innovation at some point.



I agree. But like with creationism, you can have people who fake to  
put the cards on the table, leading to brainwashing style of  
talking. Independently of the truth or falsity of telepathy, there  
are question of protocols and assessment on the way to test the  
statements. Like in playing a game, some does not play with the  
rules, and waste the time of the others. This is even more and more  
present in fundamental discussion.


About the pharmaceutical industries, each day without them admitting  
that the cannabis, and the prohibition of drugs, was a deception,  
add evidences for categorizing it as being mainly, ... hmm, well,  
crackpot. A word I use very rarely, though. We are lied since  
seventeen years.


Drugs are infinitesimally less dangerous than the prohibition of  
drugs. It is a criminal technic to make easy black money, and grey  
money.


I would prefer a green, cheaper, money :)


I meant cheaper in lives, :(

Bruno





Bruno







On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 3/24/2013 10:27 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),

There's a difference between believing specific propositions and  
believing *in* something.



Which would be?


If I believed *in* science then I'd believe whatever science said.   
I believe many particular things that science says, but only to the  
extent that if I have to act on them I reason from their truth  
instead of the contrary.



So some partial transcendental truth that you do and do not believe  
in.


Thanks for teaching the list how to believe correctly in this  
sermon. You said you're "atheist", right?





it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy  
ayahuasca cooks, indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although  
institutionalizing ayahuasca use is showing its share of  
problems), than pharma + ethics boards + govt. + medical industry  
interests blended into this scheme of making medicine more and  
more expensive for the needing, appropriate patients.


Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who  
should I call if I have a burglar?



In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who  
will in 99% of cases file it + simply not care, unless something/ 
someone concerning the incident can be politicized.


That's about as useful as most of your advice.


It is useful: don't waste your time filing stupid reports nobody  
will go after. Spend that time with family or f

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Mar 2013, at 15:02, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Well, I'm with Telmo, and Bruno on the prohibition issue, no  
surprise, and with Craig here in being open to other worldviews,  
even if their odds seem low + I think our tendency to  
institutionalize and say "these are relevant branches of science AND  
THAT is quackery" deserves a halting problem kick in the complacent  
behind space.


Especially concerning medicine, the pharma + govt complacency to  
increasingly stick to derivation in labs, after political interests  
in e.g. South America saw what foreign pharma was doing for decades,  
and have tightened regulation extremely; this is costing taxpayer  
new medicines, for Pharma to go increasingly the lazy lab-derivation  
route. It's not that there isn't enough money, it's just that we  
should put 30 or 50% or whatever of that money into opening up new  
branches of less risk-averse research (less averse in the sense that  
uni-departments, pharma boards, govt have less conservative leverage  
and newer branches of inquiry be opened; not less in "ethics" sense  
and yes FAT chance).


The taxpayer deserves more, and better medicines, new anti-biotics,  
nasal decongestants that work etc. And these are not out of reach.  
We just lack the balls because people love their own "that's  
bullshit, that's real science distinctions". My suggestion, turn  
Western lab tech into a shaman, that continually searches for new  
compounds and runs a broad spectrum of tests, "tasting testing" a  
lot of plants for that broad list of things we need to continually  
develop (new antibiotics to everything crucial). But politics,  
"science", pharma, and public opinion for this is of course what it  
is.


We have the tech to "taste the entire jungle" and, unlike the  
shaman, don't have to put our lives on the line as a living lab.  
Every second, we waste not doing this, we loose lives. But waiting  
for consensus from the above web of interests will produce just  
derivatives, albeit respectful, scientifically viable, profitable,  
peer-reviewed ones; "not some quackery crackpot proposition based on  
shamans tasting plants". This is too little too late,  
discriminatory, and incredibly stupid, as the old farts in charge,  
will need medicines and their innovation at some point.



I agree. But like with creationism, you can have people who fake to  
put the cards on the table, leading to brainwashing style of talking.  
Independently of the truth or falsity of telepathy, there are question  
of protocols and assessment on the way to test the statements. Like in  
playing a game, some does not play with the rules, and waste the time  
of the others. This is even more and more present in fundamental  
discussion.


About the pharmaceutical industries, each day without them admitting  
that the cannabis, and the prohibition of drugs, was a deception, add  
evidences for categorizing it as being mainly, ... hmm, well,  
crackpot. A word I use very rarely, though. We are lied since  
seventeen years.


Drugs are infinitesimally less dangerous than the prohibition of  
drugs. It is a criminal technic to make easy black money, and grey  
money.


I would prefer a green, cheaper, money :)


Bruno







On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 3/24/2013 10:27 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),

There's a difference between believing specific propositions and  
believing *in* something.



Which would be?


If I believed *in* science then I'd believe whatever science said.   
I believe many particular things that science says, but only to the  
extent that if I have to act on them I reason from their truth  
instead of the contrary.



So some partial transcendental truth that you do and do not believe  
in.


Thanks for teaching the list how to believe correctly in this  
sermon. You said you're "atheist", right?





it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy  
ayahuasca cooks, indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although  
institutionalizing ayahuasca use is showing its share of problems),  
than pharma + ethics boards + govt. + medical industry interests  
blended into this scheme of making medicine more and more expensive  
for the needing, appropriate patients.


Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who  
should I call if I have a burglar?



In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who  
will in 99% of cases file it + simply not care, unless something/ 
someone concerning the incident can be politicized.


That's about as useful as most of your advice.


It is useful: don't waste your time filing stupid reports nobody  
will go after. Spend that time with family or friends.


And no, I didn't bother reporting the last time somebody broke our  
car window t

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Well, I'm with Telmo, and Bruno on the prohibition issue, no surprise, and
with Craig here in being open to other worldviews, even if their odds seem
low + I think our tendency to institutionalize and say "these are relevant
branches of science AND THAT is quackery" deserves a halting problem kick
in the complacent behind space.

Especially concerning medicine, the pharma + govt complacency to
increasingly stick to derivation in labs, after political interests in e.g.
South America saw what foreign pharma was doing for decades, and have
tightened regulation extremely; this is costing taxpayer new medicines, for
Pharma to go increasingly the lazy lab-derivation route. It's not that
there isn't enough money, it's just that we should put 30 or 50% or
whatever of that money into opening up new branches of less risk-averse
research (less averse in the sense that uni-departments, pharma boards,
govt have less conservative leverage and newer branches of inquiry be
opened; not less in "ethics" sense and yes FAT chance).

The taxpayer deserves more, and better medicines, new anti-biotics, nasal
decongestants that work etc. And these are not out of reach. We just lack
the balls because people love their own "that's bullshit, that's real
science distinctions". My suggestion, turn Western lab tech into a shaman,
that continually searches for new compounds and runs a broad spectrum of
tests, "tasting testing" a lot of plants for that broad list of things we
need to continually develop (new antibiotics to everything crucial). But
politics, "science", pharma, and public opinion for this is of course what
it is.

We have the tech to "taste the entire jungle" and, unlike the shaman, don't
have to put our lives on the line as a living lab. Every second, we waste
not doing this, we loose lives. But waiting for consensus from the above
web of interests will produce just derivatives, albeit respectful,
scientifically viable, profitable, peer-reviewed ones; "not some quackery
crackpot proposition based on shamans tasting plants". This is too little
too late, discriminatory, and incredibly stupid, as the old farts in
charge, will need medicines and their innovation at some point.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/24/2013 10:27 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>> Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),
>>>
>>
>>  There's a difference between believing specific propositions and
>> believing *in* something.
>>
>>
> Which would be?
>
>
> If I believed *in* science then I'd believe whatever science said.  I
> believe many particular things that science says, but only to the extent
> that if I have to act on them I reason from their truth instead of the
> contrary.
>
>
So some partial transcendental truth that you do and do not believe in.

Thanks for teaching the list how to believe correctly in this sermon. You
said you're "atheist", right?


>
>
>>  it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca
>>> cooks, indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing
>>> ayahuasca use is showing its share of problems), than pharma + ethics
>>> boards + govt. + medical industry interests blended into this scheme of
>>> making medicine more and more expensive for the needing, appropriate
>>> patients.
>>>
>>
>>  Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who should
>> I call if I have a burglar?
>>
>>
> In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who will in
> 99% of cases file it + simply not care, *unless* something/someone
> concerning the incident can be politicized.
>
>
> That's about as useful as most of your advice.
>
>
It is useful: don't waste your time filing stupid reports nobody will go
after. Spend that time with family or friends.

And no, I didn't bother reporting the last time somebody broke our car
window to steal things, because it's a waste of time.

When I park on some corner, then I get a ticket and am forced to pay. When
I get burgled Law doesn't care; like a lazy thief, it will go after the
guilty party only if it has address and license; or because of politics.
It's similar the whole world over, exceptions: mediterranean police
actually smile sometimes, police in Asia + South America are more openly
thieves, can be more dangerous but can be more "flexible" sometimes. Police
in Western Europe are zombies unless you know them.

As for the US, taking LA and NY as representative (don't visit bible belt
much)... The US is police state par excellence. Nowhere, have I ever
encountered such a high concentration of monitoring by cops, which I see on
most drives lurking somewhere, even in suburbs etc. whereas most world
cities this kind of presence is reserved for highly frequented public or
political space. In most places in Europe, most drives I take are cop-free.
But no illusions, US s

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:42 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 3/24/2013 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/24/2013 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 By the way, regulation only "protects us" from accessing effective
 treatments if we are too poor. Quacks can always find some loophole to
 explore.

 Telmo.
>>>
>>>  At what point does the regulation become only a means to suppress
>>> innovation?
>>
>> In my view, this happens when it regulates behaviours that only have
>> personal consequences or consequences within the sphere of a group of
>> consenting people. So 99% of regulation crosses that line.
>
> The trouble with that standard is that almost any regulation will impact
> *something* that is merely personal for *someone*.

That is only troublesome if you have a preconceived notion that a lot
of regulation should exist, so you're begging the question.

> If the government
> regulates the ownership of machine guns that impacts the behavior of a few
> people who like to shoot machine guns at targets.

Sure, but if we are serious about personal freedom we should measure
the impact of restricting machine guns and be willing to revert the
ban if no clear positive effect is found. The real reason why
governments restrict machine guns is self-preservation, not concern
with the population in general. The idea that politicians are more
benevolent than the average person is mysticism. It actually takes a
lot of brainwashing to trust the government. We are biologically wired
not to trust strangers, and yet we blindly trust politicians, who are
complete strangers to almost everybody. The media does the job of
giving us the illusion of knowing them. They understand our biological
triggers very well. That's why the president is usually a tall guy
with good hair, a boring suit and a boring family, who did not inhale.

> So I would say there is a
> question of balance.

That doesn't help because "balance" is a subjective term. What people
always mean by "balance" is how close society is to how they think it
should be. This creates a self-reinforcement loop, where the more
people are pressured to conform, the less they can see the
alternatives. I would prefer a state of self-organized criticality
(e.g the Internet) instead of "balance".

> If the regulation's *main* effect is to restrict
> strictly personal freedoms it is a bad regulation, but some instances of
> personal restriction may have to be tolerated if they are necessary to
> regulate things with much greater public effects.

Agreed, but that would only work if honest scientists were in charge
(which is an utopia like any other). Otherwise we get the current
state of affairs: all regulation is forever, not matter how much hard
evidence is found against it.

Cheers,
Telmo.

> Brent
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Mar 2013, at 18:27, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),

There's a difference between believing specific propositions and  
believing *in* something.



Which would be?


it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy  
ayahuasca cooks, indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although  
institutionalizing ayahuasca use is showing its share of problems),  
than pharma + ethics boards + govt. + medical industry interests  
blended into this scheme of making medicine more and more expensive  
for the needing, appropriate patients.


Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who  
should I call if I have a burglar?



In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who  
will in 99% of cases file it + simply not care, unless something/ 
someone concerning the incident can be politicized.



This is pseudo-science and apparently all these interests are  
working together with a telepathically linked united, benevolent  
interest to better and help the sick and needy.


It's not psuedo-science and it's not science - it's commerce.


I beg to differ: it is institutionalized burglary, with a lot of  
good people caught up in the web beyond their control making bread  
and beyond, granted.


Concrete example from pharma these past few years concerning  
everybody who buys medication for common cold or flu: Phenylephrine  
is marketed in the US and various parts of the world as a nasal  
decongestant, to avoid meth labs getting their hands on unlimited  
amounts of Pseudoephedrine as precursor.


Problem? Phenylephrine doesn't work. Billions of people buying  
something that does not perform better than placebo in clinical  
trials. Without any efficacy upon yours truly either. Sales are  
fine, apparently. Snake-oil-salesman's burglary comes to light every  
time a scandal in this area arises.


This isn't commerce. It's burglary, sanctioned by science, state,  
commerce etc. Believing this is straight commerce/fair trade between  
agents in view of available data is a bet that I give the same odds  
as betting on morphogenetic fields.


Nonetheless indeed, who should we call? The risk-averse idiocy  
result of all these interests combined: companies, federal  
regulatory and ethics boards, the medical industry etc. "compromises  
itself" into something that doesn't work to steal cash from a person  
with cold/flu. Not commerce and not science in my book.


Existence and efficacy of well-prepared ayahuasca is not debatable  
to anybody who has tried + if you need more stronger existential  
proof then Dimethyltryptamine is Schedule 1 in the US and equivalent  
in most countries, even though we all have some in our metabolism.  
Strictly speaking: everybody in every airport and border should be  
arrested.


Religious exemptions if written into law are not implemented, as the  
reports of priests/adherents of concerned South American churches +  
religions being arrested continue to appear. All this in the face of  
science indicating comparative safety of Dimethyltryptamine over  
alcohol and tobacco.



I can' agree more. Applied pharmacology is based on the fact that we  
can patent synthetic products but not natural plant. It is not  
commerce, it is organized crime.


Bruno





PGC




Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013  meekerdb  wrote:

>  On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
>> >>> I couldn't have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have
>> been analyzing charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the
>> most interesting and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my
>> life.
>>
>
> >> GOOD GOD! I think I'm wasting my time.
>
>  >Told you so.
>

Hey don't rub it in, I already feel like a big enough jackass.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:36:24 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>  
>
>> > I couldn't have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been 
>> analyzing charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most 
>> interesting and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life. 
>>
>
> GOOD GOD! I think I'm wasting my time.
>

Actually my own experience with astrology helps me see through people's 
prejudice about paranormal subjects. I have spent a huge amount of time and 
effort on astrology and numerology, without seeking any financial gain or 
influence over others. I have not spent more than a few dollars on it over 
the years, on a book here or there or a chart program. I think that it 
defies your stereotypes to find that there are several outstanding software 
products devoted to astrology, clearly the product of very sophisticated 
and dedicated programmers. There are thousands of books out there and 
websites, but it is very easy to tell the quality of each. The best books 
and sites are extremely thorough, insightful, humble, and filled with 
understanding drawn from decades of experience. Personally, I would say 
that any kind of psychotherapy that does not include astrology, numerology, 
or at least Briggs-Meyers data is working at a disadvantage.

Craig
 

>
>   John K Clark 
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[meekerdb]

On 3/24/2013 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King  wrote:

On 3/24/2013 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

By the way, regulation only "protects us" from accessing effective
treatments if we are too poor. Quacks can always find some loophole to
explore.

Telmo.

 At what point does the regulation become only a means to suppress
innovation?

In my view, this happens when it regulates behaviours that only have
personal consequences or consequences within the sphere of a group of
consenting people. So 99% of regulation crosses that line.
The trouble with that standard is that almost any regulation will impact *something* that 
is merely personal for *someone*.  If the government regulates the ownership of machine 
guns that impacts the behavior of a few people who like to shoot machine guns at targets. 
So I would say there is a question of balance.  If the regulation's *main* effect is to 
restrict strictly personal freedoms it is a bad regulation, but some instances of personal 
restriction may have to be tolerated if they are necessary to regulate things with much 
greater public effects.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[meekerdb]

On 3/24/2013 10:27 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),


There's a difference between believing specific propositions and believing 
*in*
something.


Which would be?


If I believed *in* science then I'd believe whatever science said. I believe many 
particular things that science says, but only to the extent that if I have to act on them 
I reason from their truth instead of the contrary.




it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca 
cooks,
indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing 
ayahuasca use
is showing its share of problems), than pharma + ethics boards + govt. 
+ medical
industry interests blended into this scheme of making medicine more and 
more
expensive for the needing, appropriate patients.


Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who should I 
call if I
have a burglar?


In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who will in 99% of cases 
file it + simply not care, /unless/ something/someone concerning the incident can be 
politicized.


That's about as useful as most of your advice.



This is pseudo-science and apparently all these interests are working 
together
with a telepathically linked united, benevolent interest to better and 
help the
sick and needy.


It's not psuedo-science and it's not science - it's commerce.


I beg to differ: it is institutionalized burglary, with a lot of good people caught up 
in the web beyond their control making bread and beyond, granted.


Concrete example from pharma these past few years concerning everybody who buys 
medication for common cold or flu: Phenylephrine is marketed in the US and various parts 
of the world as a nasal decongestant, to avoid meth labs getting their hands on 
unlimited amounts of Pseudoephedrine as precursor.


Problem? Phenylephrine doesn't work. Billions of people buying something that does not 
perform better than placebo in clinical trials. Without any efficacy upon yours truly 
either. Sales are fine, apparently. Snake-oil-salesman's burglary comes to light every 
time a scandal in this area arises.


Do you propose that the FDA warrant efficacy?  They used to try to do that, but 
libertarians wanted big pharma to be free to sell them placebos.




This isn't commerce. It's burglary, sanctioned by science, state, commerce etc. 
Believing this is straight commerce/fair trade between agents in view of available data 
is a bet that I give the same odds as betting on morphogenetic fields.


You seem informed about the products. Do you have access to data that's not publicly 
available?




Nonetheless indeed, who should we call? The risk-averse idiocy result of all these 
interests combined: companies, federal regulatory and ethics boards, the medical 
industry etc. "compromises itself" into something that doesn't work to steal cash from a 
person with cold/flu. Not commerce and not science in my book.


Well, fraud is a civil as well as criminal cause for action.  Sue them.



Existence and efficacy of well-prepared ayahuasca is not debatable to anybody 
who has tried


Efficacy for what?

+ if you need more stronger existential proof then Dimethyltryptamine is Schedule 1 in 
the US and equivalent in most countries, even though we all have some in our metabolism. 
Strictly speaking: everybody in every airport and border should be arrested.


But they are not.  Is that existential proof it's not banned?



Religious exemptions if written into law are not implemented, as the reports of 
priests/adherents of concerned South American churches + religions being arrested 
continue to appear.


Of course some U.S. judges ruling doesn't control in South America.

All this in the face of science indicating comparative safety of Dimethyltryptamine over 
alcohol and tobacco.


What science is that?

Brent



PGC



Brent

-- 
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this gro

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[meekerdb]

On 3/24/2013 9:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg > wrote:


> I couldn't have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been 
analyzing
charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most interesting 
and
useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life.


GOOD GOD! I think I'm wasting my time.


Told you so.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Stephen P. King  wrote:
>
> On 3/24/2013 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> By the way, regulation only "protects us" from accessing effective
>> treatments if we are too poor. Quacks can always find some loophole to
>> explore.
>>
>> Telmo.
>
> At what point does the regulation become only a means to suppress
> innovation?

In my view, this happens when it regulates behaviours that only have
personal consequences or consequences within the sphere of a group of
consenting people. So 99% of regulation crosses that line.

Best,
Telmo.

> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>> Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ),
>>
>
> There's a difference between believing specific propositions and believing
> *in* something.
>
>
Which would be?


>
>  it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca
>> cooks, indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing
>> ayahuasca use is showing its share of problems), than pharma + ethics
>> boards + govt. + medical industry interests blended into this scheme of
>> making medicine more and more expensive for the needing, appropriate
>> patients.
>>
>
> Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who should I
> call if I have a burglar?
>
>
In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who will in
99% of cases file it + simply not care, *unless* something/someone
concerning the incident can be politicized.


>
>  This is pseudo-science and apparently all these interests are working
>> together with a telepathically linked united, benevolent interest to better
>> and help the sick and needy.
>>
>
> It's not psuedo-science and it's not science - it's commerce.
>
>
I beg to differ: it is institutionalized burglary, with a lot of good
people caught up in the web beyond their control making bread and beyond,
granted.

Concrete example from pharma these past few years concerning everybody who
buys medication for common cold or flu: Phenylephrine is marketed in the US
and various parts of the world as a nasal decongestant, to avoid meth labs
getting their hands on unlimited amounts of Pseudoephedrine as precursor.

Problem? Phenylephrine doesn't work. Billions of people buying something
that does not perform better than placebo in clinical trials. Without any
efficacy upon yours truly either. Sales are fine, apparently.
Snake-oil-salesman's burglary comes to light every time a scandal in this
area arises.

This isn't commerce. It's burglary, sanctioned by science, state, commerce
etc. Believing this is straight commerce/fair trade between agents in view
of available data is a bet that I give the same odds as betting on
morphogenetic fields.

Nonetheless indeed, who should we call? The risk-averse idiocy result of
all these interests combined: companies, federal regulatory and ethics
boards, the medical industry etc. "compromises itself" into something that
doesn't work to steal cash from a person with cold/flu. Not commerce and
not science in my book.

Existence and efficacy of well-prepared ayahuasca is not debatable to
anybody who has tried + if you need more stronger existential proof then
Dimethyltryptamine is Schedule 1 in the US and equivalent in most
countries, even though we all have some in our metabolism. Strictly
speaking: everybody in every airport and border should be arrested.

Religious exemptions if written into law are not implemented, as the
reports of priests/adherents of concerned South American churches +
religions being arrested continue to appear. All this in the face of
science indicating comparative safety of Dimethyltryptamine over alcohol
and tobacco.

PGC





>  Brent
>
> --
> 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 
> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com
> .
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> Visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Stephen P. King]

On 3/24/2013 7:12 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> By the way, regulation only "protects us" from accessing effective
> treatments if we are too poor. Quacks can always find some loophole to
> explore.
>
> Telmo.

At what point does the regulation become only a means to suppress
innovation?

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg  wrote:


> > I couldn't have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been
> analyzing charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most
> interesting and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life.
>

GOOD GOD! I think I'm wasting my time.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Mar 2013, at 01:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:

My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector?  
Fantastic
claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap  
just reeks

of junk science!


I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
experimental results.


I think he is an hoinest guy, but I don't follow him, as its basic  
argupent is that we can't expain some things from some theory, which  
is very difficult to verify. Gödel made the same mistake by thinking  
that we might find evidence against evolution by showing that the  
species have not the time to evolved, but that argument is logically  
refuted by many-worlds ontologies. Then Shedrake add something even  
more difficult to understand (the morphic fields). But is dark matter  
really any better?
It is of course still traditional aristotelianism, and who knows. No  
reason to censor him, of course.






Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
with ideas.

You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction.


The many who invest in the drug war, really hate the idea that  
addiction can be cured with some drugs.
It illustrates too much well that abuse of a substance is an heath  
issue, nor a penal issue.
The fact is that many drugs can help, and sometimes cure, many  
addiction and habituation.






We are legally
forbidden from testing this claim. Can you claim with a straight face
that there is freedom of scientific inquiry?


The domain of health is rotten deep inside the bones. (It can be worse  
in some other domain since a much longer period, like theology).


The very notion of drug makes no sense at all. It is an invention of  
criminals to put criminals into power. It leads to the nationalization  
of health politics, and the unfair and unsane abandon of competition,  
and a tyranny at the medical level.


There is no reason to not treat the medication like the cosmetic. Even  
if a medication appears to have some side--effect, the laws should  
enforce only the presence of warning notice, not the illegality.


There has never been any serious problem with drugs, except since  
prohibition. When drugs are prohibited, the goal is political. In  
Turkey they have always smoked a lot of tobacco, but from time to time  
some sultans have made it illegal (with death penalty) just to  
persecute some people.


The statistics done in all countries, and available in multiple places  
on the net, shows clearly that when a drug is prohibited, the  
consumption of the drug is multiplied by a huge factor.


Here most of the science is done correctly, but the information is  
hidden, and politics uses pseudo-science at its place.  I have studied  
hundreds of papers on tobacco, cannabis and heroin which are chef- 
d'oeuvre of delibarate crackpotery. *Some* publishers are passive or  
active accomplices. It shows also that the notion of peer-reviewing  
has many defects, especially around industrial products, where  
conflict of interest are numerous.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:05:04 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes  >wrote:
>  
>
>> What bothers me, though, is precisely what is necessary to do nowadays to 
>> protect one's reputation. 
>
>
> To protect your scientific reputation you just need to get things right, 
> or at least don't give experimental evidence that later turns out to be 
> fraudulently or incompetently obtained.
>
> > Graham Hancock is talking about his personal experiences with ayahuasca. 
>> Do you believe he is lying?
>>
>
> I don't know if he is a fool or a liar or both nor do I care about Graham 
> Hancock's claimed subjective experiences. 
>
> > I'm not sure what it feels like, but it doesn't feel like freedom.
>>
>
> Mr. Sheldrake is perfectly free to continue peddling his junk science as 
> much as he likes, its just that the TED organization has judged that his 
> talk does not meet their minimum quality standards and so will not sponsor 
> it. If you believe that TED's judgement was in error then you shouldn't 
> listen to TED talks in the future; I think TED  demonstrated very good 
> judgement in this matter so I will continue to listen to talks they 
> sponsor.
>

What if you think that TED's judgment was not merely 'in error' but 
intolerant and authoritarian?
 

>
>   John K Clark
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:58:52 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013  Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>  >> In the first place with the exception of organized religion no area of 
>>> human activity has as long a history of fraud as psi research.
>>>
>>
>> > Not banking, not patent medicine, not pyramid schemes, not politics, 
>> not war profiteers, but psi research.
>>
>
> That is correct.
>  
>
>>  >> In the second place if you knew you had great experimental ability 
>>> you'd never go into a field as dead and moribund as psi that hasn't moved 
>>> an inch in well over a century.
>>>
>>
>> > Your usual condemnation of people you deem 'not winners'...because 
>> understanding nature is a sport, apparently. [...] Winners winning always 
>> win. Go team!
>>
>
> You seem to have a unusual fondness for losers and being on the wrong side 
> of history, so I would suggest you just keep going on your present course, 
> although a tad more interest in astrology and flying saucers and bigfoot 
> and creationism wouldn't hurt.   
>

I couldn't have any more interest in astrology if I tried. I have been 
analyzing charts since 1988. Astrology and numerology are by far the most 
interesting and useful subjects that I have ever encountered in my life. 
Considering how history has turned out, I think that being on the wrong 
side is probably a good bet.
 

>
>  >> On the other hand if you knew you were all thumbs in the lab then psi 
>>> research would be a perfect career choice for you because a bad 
>>> experimentalist is better than a good one if you're looking for something 
>>> that doesn't exist. 
>>>
>>
>> > Because there's so many juicy grants out there? Because it's such a 
>> great way to attain prestige? Hah.
>>
>
> A junk science book is far far more likely to make it onto the best seller 
> list than even a very good science book, and there has always been big 
> money to be made with quack medicine. 
>

Maybe it's because people are being told that their lives are an illusion 
and what matters is dark, quantum, and mechanically undead in a vacuum. 


> > The fact that this line of inquiry refuses to go away might be true for 
>> a reason.
>
>
> There is a reason it won't go away, everybody including yours truly would 
> just love for it to be true, but unfortunately wishing does not make it so. 
>   
>
> > If we had the Everything List in 1070 and it was suggesting that disease 
>> were caused by invisibly small beasts multiplying in our flesh, the 
>> skeptical position would have held that this nonsense should be stamped out.
>>
>
> In 1070 there was zero evidence for the existence of invisibly small 
> beasts multiplying in our flesh but today there is; 
>

And if you had your way, anyone who was looking for that evidence would be 
banished or blamed for angering God.
 

> In 1070 there was zero evidence for the existence of the paranormal and 
> exactly the same thing is true today. 
>

You wouldn't know if there was evidence, because you would accuse anyone 
who finds any of lying before considering it.
 

> Although you will chastise me for saying I prefer life over death 
> paranormal research is a dead field; and you don't need a 10 billion dollar 
> particle accelerator to investigate this stuff, if these simple easy 
> experiments were valid then today the paranormal would not be controversial 
> because its existence would have been proven to everyone's satisfaction way 
> back in the time of Newton if not earlier, and today high school kids, 
> perhaps grade school kids, would be repeating these classic 17'th century 
> experiments in their science fair projects. They're not. 
>

They had radiation shielded safe rooms and MRIs in Newton's day?

Craig
 

>
> > Did you even look at the MRI's?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>  
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

John,

> You seem to have a unusual fondness for losers and being on the wrong side
> of history, so I would suggest you just keep going on your present course,
> although a tad more interest in astrology and flying saucers and bigfoot and
> creationism wouldn't hurt.

For someone who positions himself as a champion of science and
rationality, you sure seem to have a preference for highly subjective
and loaded terms when you argue.

Telmo.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>> On 3/23/2013 3:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:30 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

 On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector?
 Fantastic
 claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just
 reeks
 of junk science!

 I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
 experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
 lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
 incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
 degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
 degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
 lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
 don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
 results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
 I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
 listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
 with ideas.

 You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
 psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
 idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
 the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
 ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
 forbidden from testing this claim.


 Actually ayahuasca is exempted from the ban on DMT on the grounds of
 religious freedom.
>>>
>>> I don' think it's that simple. From my limited understanding of laws,
>>> my impression is that the plants themselves are exempted from the
>>> international conventions, but creating a preparation with active DMT
>>> from them is illegal.
>>>
>>> União do Vegetal won a court case in the USA that allows them to use
>>> it for religious purposes. I'm not American and not used to case law,
>>> so I don't really understand what that means.
>>
>>
>> It just means that the law allowed for religious exceptions and a judge
>> ruled in a particular case that ayahuasca was such an exception.  Other
>> courts are bound by this decision unless it is overturned by a higher court
>> on appeal.
>>
>>
>>>
 Also, it's one thing to be prohibited from using a drug as treatment.
 But
 it's something else to study it scientifically.
>>>
>>> Agreed. I guess the distinction is important if you are in favor of
>>> such restrictions to begin with.
>>
>>
>> I am in favor of some regulation of drugs used as treatment - to avoid
>> dangerous fraud as in the old days of traveling snake-oil salesmen.
>>
>
> Yes, thank goodness for Pfizer, Bayer, and the rest of them + the regulatory
> systems that ensure patients' safety. Good to see also that health insurance
> are not keeping black lists right now, because doing so would be transparent
> discrimination. Maybe fifty years ago such a position was tenable; don't
> know, wasn't around then.
>
> But what we have now is institutionalized, your-local-pharmacy + Doc + Govt.
> snake-oil salesman.
>
> Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ), it is
> redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca cooks,
> indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing ayahuasca
> use is showing its share of problems), than pharma + ethics boards + govt. +
> medical industry interests blended into this scheme of making medicine more
> and more expensive for the needing, appropriate patients. This is
> pseudo-science and apparently all these interests are working together with
> a telepathically linked united, benevolent interest to better and help the
> sick and needy.
>
> PGC

Exactly!

I wonder how many people died because they couldn't afford medication
(which could be dirt-cheap) compared to how many died from trusting a
quack.

By the way, regulation only "protects us" from accessing effective
treatments if we are too poor. Quacks can always find some loophole to
explore.

Telmo.

> PGC---
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 every

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[meekerdb]

On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ), 


There's a difference between believing specific propositions and believing *in* 
something.

it is redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca cooks, indeed 
traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing ayahuasca use is showing its 
share of problems), than pharma + ethics boards + govt. + medical industry interests 
blended into this scheme of making medicine more and more expensive for the needing, 
appropriate patients. 


Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who should I call if I have a 
burglar?


This is pseudo-science and apparently all these interests are working together with a 
telepathically linked united, benevolent interest to better and help the sick and needy.


It's not psuedo-science and it's not science - it's commerce.

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 3/23/2013 3:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:30 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector?
>>> Fantastic
>>> claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just
>>> reeks
>>> of junk science!
>>>
>>> I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
>>> experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
>>> lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
>>> incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
>>> degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
>>> degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
>>> lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
>>> don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
>>> results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
>>> I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
>>> listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
>>> with ideas.
>>>
>>> You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
>>> psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
>>> idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
>>> the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
>>> ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
>>> forbidden from testing this claim.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually ayahuasca is exempted from the ban on DMT on the grounds of
>>> religious freedom.
>>>
>> I don' think it's that simple. From my limited understanding of laws,
>> my impression is that the plants themselves are exempted from the
>> international conventions, but creating a preparation with active DMT
>> from them is illegal.
>>
>> União do Vegetal won a court case in the USA that allows them to use
>> it for religious purposes. I'm not American and not used to case law,
>> so I don't really understand what that means.
>>
>
> It just means that the law allowed for religious exceptions and a judge
> ruled in a particular case that ayahuasca was such an exception.  Other
> courts are bound by this decision unless it is overturned by a higher court
> on appeal.
>
>
>
>>  Also, it's one thing to be prohibited from using a drug as treatment.
>>>  But
>>> it's something else to study it scientifically.
>>>
>> Agreed. I guess the distinction is important if you are in favor of
>> such restrictions to begin with.
>>
>
> I am in favor of some regulation of drugs used as treatment - to avoid
> dangerous fraud as in the old days of traveling snake-oil salesmen.
>
>
Yes, thank goodness for Pfizer, Bayer, and the rest of them + the
regulatory systems that ensure patients' safety. Good to see also that
health insurance are not keeping black lists right now, because doing so
would be transparent discrimination. Maybe fifty years ago such a position
was tenable; don't know, wasn't around then.

But what we have now is institutionalized, your-local-pharmacy + Doc +
Govt. snake-oil salesman.

Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ), it is
redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca cooks,
indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing ayahuasca
use is showing its share of problems), than pharma + ethics boards + govt.
+ medical industry interests blended into this scheme of making medicine
more and more expensive for the needing, appropriate patients. This is
pseudo-science and apparently all these interests are working together with
a telepathically linked united, benevolent interest to better and help the
sick and needy.

PGC

PGC---

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[meekerdb]

On 3/23/2013 3:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:30 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic
claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just reeks
of junk science!

I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
with ideas.

You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
forbidden from testing this claim.


Actually ayahuasca is exempted from the ban on DMT on the grounds of
religious freedom.

I don' think it's that simple. From my limited understanding of laws,
my impression is that the plants themselves are exempted from the
international conventions, but creating a preparation with active DMT
from them is illegal.

União do Vegetal won a court case in the USA that allows them to use
it for religious purposes. I'm not American and not used to case law,
so I don't really understand what that means.


It just means that the law allowed for religious exceptions and a judge ruled in a 
particular case that ayahuasca was such an exception.  Other courts are bound by this 
decision unless it is overturned by a higher court on appeal.





Also, it's one thing to be prohibited from using a drug as treatment.  But
it's something else to study it scientifically.

Agreed. I guess the distinction is important if you are in favor of
such restrictions to begin with.


I am in favor of some regulation of drugs used as treatment - to avoid dangerous fraud as 
in the old days of traveling snake-oil salesmen.





Marijuana is a schedule 1
drug, but it can still be studied in scientific experiments.

Under special permissions. To obtain these permission you have to
submit a research program to some political body.


Not a political body, a government regulatory body.


Ultimately,
political decisions control what research gets done, and strongly hint
at what results are expected.


Of course in any democracy political decisions can intrude into anything - that's why 
constitutional restrictions are important and need to be enforced vigilantly (but sadly 
aren't).





Can you claim with a straight face
that there is freedom of scientific inquiry?


Can you claim with a straight face that *any* restriction on scientific
inquiry means there is no freedom?

Any restriction means less freedom. Pretending this is not the case is
a form of doublespeak.


Less freedom still means there is freedom.  All society entails giving up some 
freedom.


The cost of freedom in some cases is so high that most people agree
with the restriction. I prefer to live in a world where it's illegal
to kill people, and prefer to not have that freedom. But language is a
powerful thing, and once we start pretending that restrictions and
freedom are compatible, we start getting more and more restrictions --
as we see nowadays. Importantly, these restrictions spread to
activities that are personal or involve only consenting adults and
affect no one else.


Once we start pretending that there is no middle ground between freedom and no-freedom we 
will be driven to either anarchy or totalitarianism.




So yes, any restriction on scientific inquiry compromises scientific
freedom -- in some cases it's justifiable, but we should be extremely
careful in considering those cases.


Should we allow experiments to see if
Ebola virus can be made airborne?

Would you be very surprised to learn that the military is funding this
research?


Actually I would.  It would certainly be illegal under current U.S. law (which is not to 
say the military never does anything illegal).



They would not ask for our permission, by the way. The
permission thing only works one way.


Develop more addictive tobacco plants?

I'm sure that's being done this very moment, and I suspect it's perfectly legal.


Actually it was done and it was found to be illegal.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" g

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>> In the first place with the exception of organized religion no area of
>> human activity has as long a history of fraud as psi research.
>>
>
> > Not banking, not patent medicine, not pyramid schemes, not politics, not
> war profiteers, but psi research.
>

That is correct.


> >> In the second place if you knew you had great experimental ability
>> you'd never go into a field as dead and moribund as psi that hasn't moved
>> an inch in well over a century.
>>
>
> > Your usual condemnation of people you deem 'not winners'...because
> understanding nature is a sport, apparently. [...] Winners winning always
> win. Go team!
>

You seem to have a unusual fondness for losers and being on the wrong side
of history, so I would suggest you just keep going on your present course,
although a tad more interest in astrology and flying saucers and bigfoot
and creationism wouldn't hurt.

>> On the other hand if you knew you were all thumbs in the lab then psi
>> research would be a perfect career choice for you because a bad
>> experimentalist is better than a good one if you're looking for something
>> that doesn't exist.
>>
>
> > Because there's so many juicy grants out there? Because it's such a
> great way to attain prestige? Hah.
>

A junk science book is far far more likely to make it onto the best seller
list than even a very good science book, and there has always been big
money to be made with quack medicine.

> The fact that this line of inquiry refuses to go away might be true for a
> reason.


There is a reason it won't go away, everybody including yours truly would
just love for it to be true, but unfortunately wishing does not make it so.


> If we had the Everything List in 1070 and it was suggesting that disease
> were caused by invisibly small beasts multiplying in our flesh, the
> skeptical position would have held that this nonsense should be stamped out.
>

In 1070 there was zero evidence for the existence of invisibly small beasts
multiplying in our flesh but today there is; In 1070 there was zero
evidence for the existence of the paranormal and exactly the same thing is
true today. Although you will chastise me for saying I prefer life over
death paranormal research is a dead field; and you don't need a 10 billion
dollar particle accelerator to investigate this stuff, if these simple easy
experiments were valid then today the paranormal would not be controversial
because its existence would have been proven to everyone's satisfaction way
back in the time of Newton if not earlier, and today high school kids,
perhaps grade school kids, would be repeating these classic 17'th century
experiments in their science fair projects. They're not.

> Did you even look at the MRI's?
>

Yes.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:


> What bothers me, though, is precisely what is necessary to do nowadays to
> protect one's reputation.


To protect your scientific reputation you just need to get things right, or
at least don't give experimental evidence that later turns out to be
fraudulently or incompetently obtained.

> Graham Hancock is talking about his personal experiences with ayahuasca.
> Do you believe he is lying?
>

I don't know if he is a fool or a liar or both nor do I care about Graham
Hancock's claimed subjective experiences.

> I'm not sure what it feels like, but it doesn't feel like freedom.
>

Mr. Sheldrake is perfectly free to continue peddling his junk science as
much as he likes, its just that the TED organization has judged that his
talk does not meet their minimum quality standards and so will not sponsor
it. If you believe that TED's judgement was in error then you shouldn't
listen to TED talks in the future; I think TED  demonstrated very good
judgement in this matter so I will continue to listen to talks they
sponsor.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:30 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic
> claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just reeks
> of junk science!
>
> I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
> experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
> lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
> incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
> degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
> degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
> lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
> don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
> results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
> I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
> listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
> with ideas.
>
> You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
> psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
> idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
> the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
> ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
> forbidden from testing this claim.
>
>
> Actually ayahuasca is exempted from the ban on DMT on the grounds of
> religious freedom.

I don' think it's that simple. From my limited understanding of laws,
my impression is that the plants themselves are exempted from the
international conventions, but creating a preparation with active DMT
from them is illegal.

União do Vegetal won a court case in the USA that allows them to use
it for religious purposes. I'm not American and not used to case law,
so I don't really understand what that means.

> Also, it's one thing to be prohibited from using a drug as treatment.  But
> it's something else to study it scientifically.

Agreed. I guess the distinction is important if you are in favor of
such restrictions to begin with.

> Marijuana is a schedule 1
> drug, but it can still be studied in scientific experiments.

Under special permissions. To obtain these permission you have to
submit a research program to some political body. Ultimately,
political decisions control what research gets done, and strongly hint
at what results are expected.

> Can you claim with a straight face
> that there is freedom of scientific inquiry?
>
>
> Can you claim with a straight face that *any* restriction on scientific
> inquiry means there is no freedom?

Any restriction means less freedom. Pretending this is not the case is
a form of doublespeak.
The cost of freedom in some cases is so high that most people agree
with the restriction. I prefer to live in a world where it's illegal
to kill people, and prefer to not have that freedom. But language is a
powerful thing, and once we start pretending that restrictions and
freedom are compatible, we start getting more and more restrictions --
as we see nowadays. Importantly, these restrictions spread to
activities that are personal or involve only consenting adults and
affect no one else.

So yes, any restriction on scientific inquiry compromises scientific
freedom -- in some cases it's justifiable, but we should be extremely
careful in considering those cases.

> Should we allow experiments to see if
> Ebola virus can be made airborne?

Would you be very surprised to learn that the military is funding this
research? They would not ask for our permission, by the way. The
permission thing only works one way.

> Develop more addictive tobacco plants?

I'm sure that's being done this very moment, and I suspect it's perfectly legal.

Cheers,
Telmo.

> Brent
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Stephen P. King]

On 3/22/2013 11:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic
>>> claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just reeks
>>> of junk science!
>> I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
>> experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
>> lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
>> incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
>> degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
>> degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
>> lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
>> don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
>> results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
>> I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
>> listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
>> with ideas.
>>
>> You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
>> psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
>> idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
>> the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
>> ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
>> forbidden from testing this claim. 
>
I think that Sheldrake is seeing macroscopic quantum effects.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[meekerdb]

On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic
claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just reeks
of junk science!

I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
with ideas.

You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
forbidden from testing this claim.


Actually ayahuasca is exempted from the ban on DMT on the grounds of religious 
freedom.

Also, it's one thing to be prohibited from using a drug as treatment.  But it's something 
else to study it scientifically. Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug, but it can still be 
studied in scientific experiments.



Can you claim with a straight face
that there is freedom of scientific inquiry?



Can you claim with a straight face that *any* restriction on scientific inquiry means 
there is no freedom?  Should we allow experiments to see if Ebola virus can be made 
airborne?  Develop more addictive tobacco plants?


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

> My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic
> claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just reeks
> of junk science!

I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
with ideas.

You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
forbidden from testing this claim. Can you claim with a straight face
that there is freedom of scientific inquiry?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[meekerdb]

On 3/22/2013 5:10 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Hi John,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>

>>

>> >TED recently censured two talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock.
>> >Did did it one the grounds of

>>classifying their claims as pseudo-science.

>
>
>My respect for TED just went up several notches.
>

>>

>> >I find this disturbing

>
>
>Ted has a good reputation. They want to keep it.

Sure, and with a strong incentive to do so, at 6000$+ a ticket. They
don't pay the speakers and have major sponsors, so I'm sure it's a
quite profitable business. What bothers me, though, is precisely what
is necessary to do nowadays to protect one's reputation. I'm not sure
what it feels like, but it doesn't feel like freedom.


TED is techo-entertainment, and as far as I'm concerned they don't have much of a 
reputation in science education.  I'm all for using some gee-whiz presentations to get 
people interested in science; but it shouldn't be mistaken for science.





>> >they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience.

>
>
>They are proposing a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that, despite the
>best efforts of many for well over a century, nobody can show exists.

Possibly because it doesn't, but that's a very narrow view of what
Sheldrake is talking about. Graham Hancock is talking about his
personal experiences with ayahuasca. Do you believe he is lying?



Is he lying when he says what?  He says he's not claiming any referents outside subjective 
experience.  So I have no reason to doubt that he's reporting what he experienced.  If 
there are interpersonal consistencies in those experiences it may tell us something 
interesting about the human brain.


Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi John,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>>
>> > TED recently censured two talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock.
>> > Did did it one the grounds of
>> classifying their claims as pseudo-science.
>
>
> My respect for TED just went up several notches.
>
>>
>> > I find this disturbing
>
>
> Ted has a good reputation. They want to keep it.

Sure, and with a strong incentive to do so, at 6000$+ a ticket. They
don't pay the speakers and have major sponsors, so I'm sure it's a
quite profitable business. What bothers me, though, is precisely what
is necessary to do nowadays to protect one's reputation. I'm not sure
what it feels like, but it doesn't feel like freedom.

>> > they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience.
>
>
> They are proposing a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that, despite the
> best efforts of many for well over a century, nobody can show exists.

Possibly because it doesn't, but that's a very narrow view of what
Sheldrake is talking about. Graham Hancock is talking about his
personal experiences with ayahuasca. Do you believe he is lying?

>I will
> make a bet with you or with anyone else on this list that if either of the 2
> most respected  science journals on planet earth, Science and Nature,
> publish a pro parapsychology article before March 22 2014 I will give you
> $100, if they don't you only have to pay me $10. Do we have a bet?

No, I agree with your odds.
More importantly, this bet proposal worries me. I don't think we have
the same understanding of what science is.

> And speaking of Science magazine, if you like wild and wacky stuff, and who
> doesn't, you don't need to read supermarket tabloids and listen to junk
> science by Rupert Sheldrake, Science Magazine has plenty of weird wonderful
> stuff, and what's more this is stuff that could change  our world beyond all
> recognition; Rupert Sheldrake never will.

Why do you assume I don't read it?

> For example, almost all of the March 8 2013 issue of Science Magazine is
> devoted to articles about Quantum Computers, and a working Quantum Computer
> would stand the world on its head like nothing seen before. Here are what
> world class physicists have to report on the latest developments:
>
> "The concept of solving problems with the use of quantum algorithms,
> introduced in the early 1990s was welcomed as a revolutionary change in the
> theory of computational complexity, but the feat of actually building a
> quantum computer was then thought to be impossible. The invention of quantum
> error correction introduced hope that a quantum computer might one day be
> built, most likely by future generations of physicists and engineers.
> However, less than 20 years later, we have witnessed so many advances that
> successful quantum computations, and other applications of quantum
> information processing such as quantum simulation and long distance quantum
> communication appear reachable within our lifetime"
>
> "A final measurement of the system can then yield information pertaining to
> all 2^N states. For merely N= 400 qubits, we find that the encoded
> information of 2^ 400 = 10^120 values is more than the number of fundamental
> particles in the universe; such a computation could never be performed
> without the parallel processing enabled by quantum mechanics. In a sense,
> entanglement between qubits acts as an invisible wiring that can potentially
> be exploited to solve certain problems that are intractable otherwise. [...]
> Remarkably, we have not yet encountered any fundamental physical principles
> that would prohibit the building of quite large quantum processors."
>
> "The past decade has seen remarkable progress in isolating and controlling
> quantum coherence using charges and spins in semiconductors. Quantum control
> has been established at room temperature, and electron spin coherence times
> now exceed several seconds, a nine order-of-magnitude increase in coherence
> compared with the first semiconductor qubits."
>
> "Although many challenges remain on the road to constructing a useful
> quantum computer, the pace of discovery seems to be accelerating, and spins
> in semiconductors are poised to play a major role."
>
>
> There was even a article on the most radical sort of Quantum computer, a
> Topological Quantum Computer using non-Abelian pseudo-particles, and even
> here they report "substantial progress in this field".

Yes, I eagerly follow the advances in the field. I don't understand
what this has to do with the topic.

Cheers,
Telmo.

>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 22, 2013 5:10:40 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/22/2013 6:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>  
> Hi Craig,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> On a somewhat related note, TED recently censured two talks by Rupert
> Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. Did did it one the grounds of
> classifying their claims as pseudo-science. I find this disturbing
> because they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience. One
> can help but feel that we live in a very intellectually restrictive
> era. The "anonymous scientific board" whose identity cannot be
> revealed only adds to the uneasy feeling.
> http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
>
> I disagree with some of Sheldrake's ideas, mainly that protein
> structure is not enough to explain morphogenesis, but I would rather
> see him engaged in a debate than censored. Being 100% sure of a
> scientific theory and not willing to discuss alternatives is exactly
> what pseudoscience is.
>
>  
> You don't have to 100% sure of anything to limit the use of resources 
> (like TED) to that which seems most useful.  The place to present data and 
> theories of morphogensis is in scientific papers where the data can be 
> evaluated and replication attempted.  By your standard TED should be 
> hosting talks on all of these:
>
>
>
> I'd place morphogenetic fields somewhere around chiropractic and dowsing.
>

If these things are quackery, what better way to expose them than public 
dialogue with them and about the problems with their field? 

Craig
 

>
> Brent  
>
>
>  Hancock's ideas on the value of psychedelics are clearly verboten...
>
> Cheers,
> Telmo.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg  
>  wrote:
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM
>
> DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1 | EU 2013
>
> Skip to the last 10 minutes for the brain evidence if you like.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>   
>  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 22, 2013 4:19:22 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> > What did you think of the evidence in the Dean Radin video? 
>
>
> Evidence? I saw no evidence, all I saw was a man making noises with his 
> mouth and some slides he made himself. 
>

Why do you think that he made the slides and not the other PhDs on his 
staff? Have you some other means of seeing evidence other than with seeing 
data and hearing or reading someone explain it?
 

> Although it would be great if we all has some hidden superhero ability 
> just like in the comic books until somebody I respect duplicates those 
> results I don't believe a word of it.
>

That won't help you if you respect the wrong people.
 

> In the first place with the exception of organized religion no area of 
> human activity has as long a history of fraud as psi research.
>

Not banking, not patent medicine, not pyramid schemes, not politics, not 
war profiteers, but psi research. That's the culprit. Who can save us from 
this plague of fraudulent researchers - reaping millions on their 
incredibly lucrative activities, haha.
 

> In the second place if you knew you had great experimental ability you'd 
> never go into a field as dead and moribund as psi that hasn't moved an inch 
> in well over a century.
>

Your usual condemnation of people you deem 'not winners'...because 
understanding nature is a sport, apparently.
 

> On the other hand if you knew you were all thumbs in the lab then psi 
> research would be a perfect career choice for you because a bad 
> experimentalist is better than a good one if you're looking for something 
> that doesn't exist. 
>

Because there's so many juicy grants out there? Because it's such a great 
way to attain prestige? Hah.
 

>
> Suppose the Everything list existed in 1870 and we were having this same 
> conversation. What would be different? Well, we'd be using Morse Code and a 
> telegraph key instead of the Internet (with a lot less quoted material I'll 
> bet). Also, some names have gone in and out of fashion in that time. 
> Spiritualism became ESP which became PSI, but other than that the substance 
> of our conversation would be virtually identical. It's time to move on!
>

The fact that this line of inquiry refuses to go away might be true for a 
reason. If we had the Everything List in 1070 and it was suggesting that 
disease were caused by invisibly small beasts multiplying in our flesh, the 
skeptical position would have held that this nonsense should be stamped 
out. Everyone knows that disease is caused by sin! Read your bible!


> This entire field is like a fly frozen in amber that hasn't moved a 
> nanometer in centuries; 
>

Did you even look at the MRI's?
 

> I don't expect anything about this to change anytime soon, nor does anyone 
> else on this list. 
>

Winners winning always win. Go team!
 

> I add that last part because it is the only explanation I can think of to 
> explain why nobody has accepted my bet.
>
> My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector? 
> Fantastic claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap 
> just reeks of junk science!
>

So to sum up, you have absolutely no scientific criticism of the results of 
the studies, other than that you know before you saw them that they must be 
lies made by liars to trick the foolish masses and become filthy rich.

Craig



>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> What did you think of the evidence in the Dean Radin video?


Evidence? I saw no evidence, all I saw was a man making noises with his
mouth and some slides he made himself. Although it would be great if we all
has some hidden superhero ability just like in the comic books until
somebody I respect duplicates those results I don't believe a word of it.
In the first place with the exception of organized religion no area of
human activity has as long a history of fraud as psi research. In the
second place if you knew you had great experimental ability you'd never go
into a field as dead and moribund as psi that hasn't moved an inch in well
over a century. On the other hand if you knew you were all thumbs in the
lab then psi research would be a perfect career choice for you because a
bad experimentalist is better than a good one if you're looking for
something that doesn't exist.

Suppose the Everything list existed in 1870 and we were having this same
conversation. What would be different? Well, we'd be using Morse Code and a
telegraph key instead of the Internet (with a lot less quoted material I'll
bet). Also, some names have gone in and out of fashion in that time.
Spiritualism became ESP which became PSI, but other than that the substance
of our conversation would be virtually identical. It's time to move on!

This entire field is like a fly frozen in amber that hasn't moved a
nanometer in centuries; I don't expect anything about this to change
anytime soon, nor does anyone else on this list. I add that last part
because it is the only explanation I can think of to explain why nobody has
accepted my bet.

My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector?
Fantastic claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap
just reeks of junk science!

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, March 22, 2013 2:20:36 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes  >wrote:
>  
>
>> > TED recently censured two talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. 
>> Did did it one the grounds of
>> classifying their claims as pseudo-science.
>
>
> My respect for TED just went up several notches.
>  
>
>> > I find this disturbing
>
>
> Ted has a good reputation. They want to keep it. 
>
> > they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience.
>
>
> They are proposing a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that, despite the 
> best efforts of many for well over a century, nobody can show exists. 
>

What did you think of the evidence in the Dean Radin video? I mean, I know 
what you think of it, but I'm curious if you have any legitimate scientific 
reason to doubt their conclusions?

Craig

  John K Clark 





   

>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Stephen P. King]

On 3/22/2013 2:20 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
>  
>
> > TED recently censured two talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham
> Hancock. Did did it one the grounds of
> classifying their claims as pseudo-science.
>
>
> My respect for TED just went up several notches.
>  
>
> > I find this disturbing
>
>
> Ted has a good reputation. They want to keep it.
>
> > they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience.
>
>
> They are proposing a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that, despite
> the best efforts of many for well over a century, nobody can show
> exists. I will make a bet with you or with anyone else on this list
> that if either of the 2 most respected  science journals on planet
> earth, Science and Nature, publish a pro parapsychology article before
> March 22 2014 I will give you $100, if they don't you only have to pay
> me $10. Do we have a bet?
>
> And speaking of Science magazine, if you like wild and wacky stuff,
> and who doesn't, you don't need to read supermarket tabloids and
> listen to junk science by Rupert Sheldrake, Science Magazine has
> plenty of weird wonderful stuff, and what's more this is stuff that
> could change  our world beyond all recognition; Rupert Sheldrake never
> will.
>
> For example, almost all of the March 8 2013 issue of Science Magazine
> is devoted to articles about Quantum Computers, and a working Quantum
> Computer would stand the world on its head like nothing seen before.
> Here are what world class physicists have to report on the latest
> developments:
>
> "The concept of solving problems with the use of quantum algorithms,
> introduced in the early 1990s was welcomed as a revolutionary change
> in the theory of computational complexity, but the feat of actually
> building a quantum computer was then thought to be impossible. The
> invention of quantum error correction introduced hope that a quantum
> computer might one day be built, most likely by future generations of
> physicists and engineers. However, less than 20 years later, we have
> witnessed so many advances that successful quantum computations, and
> other applications of quantum information processing such as quantum
> simulation and long distance quantum communication appear reachable
> within our lifetime"
>
> "A final measurement of the system can then yield information
> pertaining to all 2^N states. For merely N= 400 qubits, we find that
> the encoded information of 2^ 400 = 10^120 values is more than the
> number of fundamental particles in the universe; such a computation
> could never be performed without the parallel processing enabled by
> quantum mechanics. In a sense, entanglement between qubits acts as an
> invisible wiring that can potentially be exploited to solve certain
> problems that are intractable otherwise. [...] Remarkably, we have not
> yet encountered any fundamental physical principles that would
> prohibit the building of quite large quantum processors."
>
> "The past decade has seen remarkable progress in isolating and
> controlling quantum coherence using charges and spins in
> semiconductors. Quantum control has been established at room
> temperature, and electron spin coherence times now exceed several
> seconds, a nine order-of-magnitude increase in coherence compared with
> the first semiconductor qubits."
>
> "Although many challenges remain on the road to constructing a useful
> quantum computer, the pace of discovery seems to be accelerating, and
> spins in semiconductors are poised to play a major role."
>
>
> There was even a article on the most radical sort of Quantum computer,
> a Topological Quantum Computer using non-Abelian pseudo-particles, and
> even here they report "substantial progress in this field".
>
>   John K Clark
>

I am sure that you know the exact temperature at which paper
combusts as well!

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes  wrote:


> > TED recently censured two talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock.
> Did did it one the grounds of
> classifying their claims as pseudo-science.


My respect for TED just went up several notches.


> > I find this disturbing


Ted has a good reputation. They want to keep it.

> they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience.


They are proposing a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that, despite the
best efforts of many for well over a century, nobody can show exists. I
will make a bet with you or with anyone else on this list that if either of
the 2 most respected  science journals on planet earth, Science and Nature,
publish a pro parapsychology article before March 22 2014 I will give you
$100, if they don't you only have to pay me $10. Do we have a bet?

And speaking of Science magazine, if you like wild and wacky stuff, and who
doesn't, you don't need to read supermarket tabloids and listen to junk
science by Rupert Sheldrake, Science Magazine has plenty of weird wonderful
stuff, and what's more this is stuff that could change  our world beyond
all recognition; Rupert Sheldrake never will.

For example, almost all of the March 8 2013 issue of Science Magazine is
devoted to articles about Quantum Computers, and a working Quantum Computer
would stand the world on its head like nothing seen before. Here are what
world class physicists have to report on the latest developments:

"The concept of solving problems with the use of quantum algorithms,
introduced in the early 1990s was welcomed as a revolutionary change in the
theory of computational complexity, but the feat of actually building a
quantum computer was then thought to be impossible. The invention of
quantum error correction introduced hope that a quantum computer might one
day be built, most likely by future generations of physicists and
engineers. However, less than 20 years later, we have witnessed so many
advances that successful quantum computations, and other applications of
quantum information processing such as quantum simulation and long distance
quantum communication appear reachable within our lifetime"

"A final measurement of the system can then yield information pertaining to
all 2^N states. For merely N= 400 qubits, we find that the encoded
information of 2^ 400 = 10^120 values is more than the number of
fundamental particles in the universe; such a computation could never be
performed without the parallel processing enabled by quantum mechanics. In
a sense, entanglement between qubits acts as an invisible wiring that can
potentially be exploited to solve certain problems that are intractable
otherwise. [...] Remarkably, we have not yet encountered any fundamental
physical principles that would prohibit the building of quite large quantum
processors."

"The past decade has seen remarkable progress in isolating and controlling
quantum coherence using charges and spins in semiconductors. Quantum
control has been established at room temperature, and electron spin
coherence times now exceed several seconds, a nine order-of-magnitude
increase in coherence compared with the first semiconductor qubits."

"Although many challenges remain on the road to constructing a useful
quantum computer, the pace of discovery seems to be accelerating, and spins
in semiconductors are poised to play a major role."


There was even a article on the most radical sort of Quantum computer, a
Topological Quantum Computer using non-Abelian pseudo-particles, and even
here they report "substantial progress in this field".

  John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Stephen P. King]

On 3/22/2013 9:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> On a somewhat related note, TED recently censured two talks by Rupert
> Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. Did did it one the grounds of
> classifying their claims as pseudo-science. I find this disturbing
> because they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience. One
> can help but feel that we live in a very intellectually restrictive
> era. The "anonymous scientific board" whose identity cannot be
> revealed only adds to the uneasy feeling.
>
> http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
>
> I disagree with some of Sheldrake's ideas, mainly that protein
> structure is not enough to explain morphogenesis, but I would rather
> see him engaged in a debate than censored. Being 100% sure of a
> scientific theory and not willing to discuss alternatives is exactly
> what pseudoscience is.
>
> Hancock's ideas on the value of psychedelics are clearly verboten...
>
> Cheers,
> Telmo.

I agree, Telmo. Censoring people like Sheldrake is a bad sign...


>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg  
> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM
>>
>> DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1 | EU 2013
>>
>> Skip to the last 10 minutes for the brain evidence if you like.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> --
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>

-- 
Onward!

Stephen


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

Thanks Telmo,

Yes I've been following the TED fiasco, and chiming in here and there. 
Actually that's where I saw this video posted was on that thread. I agree 
completely that it is disturbing (though not surprising) to see the 
censorship, although I'm impressed with so many smart people standing up 
for freedom of thought there. It seems like Burning Man or something out 
there, hah.

Craig

On Friday, March 22, 2013 9:15:03 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Craig, 
>
> Thanks for this. 
>
> On a somewhat related note, TED recently censured two talks by Rupert 
> Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. Did did it one the grounds of 
> classifying their claims as pseudo-science. I find this disturbing 
> because they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience. One 
> can help but feel that we live in a very intellectually restrictive 
> era. The "anonymous scientific board" whose identity cannot be 
> revealed only adds to the uneasy feeling. 
>
>
> http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
>  
>
> I disagree with some of Sheldrake's ideas, mainly that protein 
> structure is not enough to explain morphogenesis, but I would rather 
> see him engaged in a debate than censored. Being 100% sure of a 
> scientific theory and not willing to discuss alternatives is exactly 
> what pseudoscience is. 
>
> Hancock's ideas on the value of psychedelics are clearly verboten... 
>
> Cheers, 
> Telmo. 
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> wrote: 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM 
> > 
> > DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1 | EU 2013 
> > 
> > Skip to the last 10 minutes for the brain evidence if you like. 
> > 
> > Craig 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 
>
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 
> > 
> > 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Good video on telepathy studies

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Craig,

Thanks for this.

On a somewhat related note, TED recently censured two talks by Rupert
Sheldrake and Graham Hancock. Did did it one the grounds of
classifying their claims as pseudo-science. I find this disturbing
because they are just proposing hypothesis based on experience. One
can help but feel that we live in a very intellectually restrictive
era. The "anonymous scientific board" whose identity cannot be
revealed only adds to the uneasy feeling.

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/

I disagree with some of Sheldrake's ideas, mainly that protein
structure is not enough to explain morphogenesis, but I would rather
see him engaged in a debate than censored. Being 100% sure of a
scientific theory and not willing to discuss alternatives is exactly
what pseudoscience is.

Hancock's ideas on the value of psychedelics are clearly verboten...

Cheers,
Telmo.


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM
>
> DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1 | EU 2013
>
> Skip to the last 10 minutes for the brain evidence if you like.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Good video on telepathy studies

[Craig Weinberg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM

DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1 | EU 2013 

Skip to the last 10 minutes for the brain evidence if you like.

Craig

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.