Leaderboard

Ok. Since you seem to have no problem going public: -Visit a crowded area. -Randomly walk about sending "Would you like to explore telepathy and make a lot of money?" into random peoples' minds. Maybe add an email address as well. -Wait for responses. I'm sure someone that is able to receive the message will believe they have the psychic powers and be willing to explore further?

And this is important. Successful results would show that SOMETHING interesting is happening. Eliminate all the other possibilities (hidden transmitters, cooperation between participants, environmental influences, for instance), and if you can still show an anomalous pattern of success, it's strong evidence in support of the claims, but it's still not proof. Arnold's claims seem pretty strong as I reread them. Cognition with no sensual or experiential input, accurate within 10 meters, and if I read him correctly, he's saying he wouldn't have a problem putting all ten words into the minds of multiple participants, in the correct order, if only he could find willing participants. It seems to me that even if a university or school didn't take him seriously, a local newspaper could have someone spend half an hour running some experiments against what would seem like the story of the century if it were true. But asserting it is a good way to continue your claims without actually supporting them. You'd like to, but gosh, what can you do? Sucks to be psychic.

A man named Rupert Sheldrake had a bunch of ideas for testing these things. He's written many books about what he calls "morphic fields," and one of those books was about experiments (another was called the "Sense of Being Stared at" and "Dogs who know when their owners are coming home"). Ghideon's idea is a good one. There are others. We can't help you find participants. If you can't even figure that part out, then you're sort of screwed. If, however, you manage to figure out the basic social skill of getting help from others, you could try these tests proposed by Sheldrake: https://www.sheldrake.org/participate Note: No good evidence has been found after decades of trying. It's led to some good comedy, though:

I would place you and a willing participant in separate rooms within ten meters of each other, where you couldn't interact (can't see or hear each other). On a paper in front of you is a series of random words (egg shell gobbling underwear collectors jumping sand castles partly sunburned). Then you try to send these exact words directly into the participants mind in the other room. You can't make any sounds. Ideally, the participant shouldn't be told about you, or your alleged ability. They should just be told to relax, open their mind, and write down anything they think they hear. To make it a double blind experiment, you would have a second participant who did the exact same thing, except you wouldn't be anywhere near them. Ideally, you'd be in the next county. I like Ghideon's idea as well, and you can get more data by using actual sounds over the headphones. With a setup like this, I can control the words used, and I can make sure the environment isn't helping you in some way (like somehow the participant can see you, or be influenced by you in some manner), and there would be no other people to interfere with your alleged ability. If the participant, out of all possible words in the language, managed to write down ANY of them in consistent testing, it would show there is something beyond mere chance at work. I'm not sure how one would work out the odds of getting random words correct in this situation, but I used ten words in case someone wanted to figure that out. How extraordinary would it be to get even 30% in this setup? Are you saying you would be able to put those exact words into someone's head, and they'll hear it as if you spoke? Are you claiming they'll hear all ten words? In order? Most importantly, if the participants were NOT able to hear your mental transmissions, would that show you that perhaps you don't have extraordinary mental powers? I'm afraid to ask since it will undoubtedly be completely anecdotal, but what has happened in the past to make you think you can do this extraordinary thing? Hopefully it's a lot more than just having people say things that you were just thinking about. That's actually pretty common, and there are almost always lots of cues that prompt such a thing.

Then you do not need to tell participants about telepathy? Give them a pair of wireless headphones, tell them that communication will be tested and run the test suggested by Strange. Tell the receiver individual to write down messages and estimate ”sound quality”. you could also send some real speech into the headphones as comparison.

It is difficult to discuss Free Will without preconceptions and preconditions. Here is my proposal for an objective (ie without such encumberances) question that is as near to free will as I can get. You need to solve a difficult equation by numerical methods, since there are no known analytical ones. One characteristic of numerical methods is that they require an intitial guess as a seed the method can refine progressively. What will your initial guess be? You can choose from any number whatsoever.

I have an engineer friend who used to work in Saudi Arabia. He says that at certain times over there, condensation would be streaming off the metal roofs of the modern industrial buildings and running down the downpipes from the gutters as if it was raining. I doubt if it would last for long though. The condensation would be bound to warm the metal up past the dew point very rapidly. You would need a combination of very clear skies, and high humidity, to maximise the yield. I'm sure it's been tried over there. If he noticed it, lots of other people would too. I prefer the transpiration bag idea. So long as there are some non-poisonous bushes within range, you can get a lot of water using a few plastic bags, and the local bushes. They suck up the water from below, and deliver it at no cost, other than the effort of collecting it and resetting the bag.

I think it is easy to understand where 'climate skepticism' comes from: climate deniers are simply afraid that they have to step back in in the luxury they are used to, that others will tell what they are still allowed to do, and what not. (not talking about oil companies, where it is clearly they want to squeeze every bit of fossile fuel from the earth to prolong the time they can make easy profit.) Only a small minority of people are prepared to step back (a bit...) for the greater good of all. In this sense, I am afraid I am also a kind of 'bad guy'. I go to work with my car (a small car, not using much gas, but I can't deny it uses gas...), live my life as nearly anybody else. No, in this respect I am not proud of myself. It's a kind of herd behaviour, I am afraid: I do not want to live a life that is much more difficult than that of my friends and colleagues. So it is my conviction that only collective action works: on basis of voluntariness nothing substantial will happen. But then the denialists draw the trump (😨!) card of 'socialism': every law that impacts the freedom how to spend your money is called socialistic and thus bad. (I assume many Americans would call Europe socialist, if they only knew...). Fact for me is that we really live in a climate crisis, and in time of crisis all people should hold together for the greater common good. The problem is that the climate change is relatively slow (compared to a human life, not geologically), and not visible clearly in daily life. Only pictures of glaciers make a real visible case. For the rest we have statistics. When the crisis would be clearly visible, and threaten our way of life on very short notice, people would act. Think e.g. about Great Britain and WW II. The whole economy was transformed into a 'war economy'. And I am convinced that only a 'climate economy' possibly could save us. Thereby I am afraid we are already too late: we already passed several tipping points, like melting of tundras, glaciers and ice shelves, maybe even methane ice. Even if we would stop emitting CO2 today, I think global heating would go on. And so I am back at the article I linked to in the OP: I think the climate scientists of 25 years ago on one side could not believe what their (maybe still rough) estimates told them; on the other side they might have been afraid for plainly telling what their estimates say. Telling there is a crisis, and nearly nobody sees it, would have more or less disqualified them. One last point: mistermack calls climate science 'religion'. Fact is that many people see it that way. But those are the same who say evolution is religion, or even science as a whole. They simply do not (want to) understand the empirical basis of science, and that science develops as more and more evidence becomes available. I think that generally in such oppositions one can say that somebody who throws the 'religion' argument against established science is the one that argues religiously himself. They only see the 'world view aspect' of science, but not the substance it is based on. No, I am not very optimistic.

I'm in for the tweed jackets and scotch ( single malt Lagavulin please ), but can we make it Cuban cigars instead of pipes. Oh, and you win an argument ( or convince someone to your point-of-view ), by reason and evidence, not by clobbering them over the head with demerit points. Just sayin'.

That we are thinking in the wrong way about it. We are still living with the religious concept of free will, meaning that humans can act completely independent of their (neural) physiology, which of course is pertinent nonsense. This concept was needed in Christian theology to make humans ultimate responsible for their actions. The problem was that otherwise God would be responsible, because He is almighty, all-knowing, and just. Now sure, this kind of free will does not exist. But it is also irrelevant in modern days. The modern concept of free will is different: a short version of it is 'being able to act according your own wishes and beliefs'. This definition is fully compatible with determinism, event stronger, without determinism free will would be impossible. It would break the connection between what you are and want on one side, and your actions on the other. Also, if you are striving for something, you'd better know the causality involved to get this something done. Without strict causality we would not be able to anticipate possible futures dependent on our actions, because we would simply not know what the consequences of our actions would be: without causality it could be anything.

Apparently, Marcus Aurelius commented on Pascal's wager about 2,000 years ago:

Wulphstein - Pascals wager as presented is missing believing/not believing in Krishna, Odin, Zeus etc. Achieving/missing out on better re-birth rather than eternal joy/suffering should be considered, or not getting to Valhalla; it is a very narrowly Christian kind of question, with biases built in. Also I understand a lot of Christians are "no-Hellers", that do not promote any belief in eternal suffering as an outcome.

Does no one here actually read what the bible says about the soul? I may not be a biblical scholar but at one time I was religious, a christian, but always a "doubting Thomas" eventually the doubts become far too thick to be ignored but that is independent of the OT. If you want to discuss this we have to show some evidence of a god at the very least much less a soul... Yes Gees I am calling you out, I ate my bowl of stupid this morning and I am ready to digest it thoroughly... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible In some translations or interpretations the soul is nothing more than air, the breath of life, once that air stopped moving in and out of the body it was considered dead. The soul having left the body. None of this makes any sense in the light of science, no evidence for a soul exists that I am aware of, and when "doG" put it in humans is a nonsensical question. Could we rationally argue about when during evolution did "doG" put eyes in Humans? At the very least we know humans have eyes...

Which is irrelevant, since the quality of someone's posts is not at issue. The topic of the original thread is quoted in the OP. However, much of JB's discussion has nothing to do with that, and instead is a discussion about the nature of the soul, in his interpretation, and on other subjects. There's only about two sentences that pertain to the original thread, and there was much followup discussion that focused on the off-topic material. That's why it was split. I was being generous. The denial was in the interpretation of the soul, and he admits it was a personal interpretation, which makes it all irrelevant. Respondents do not get to redefine terms given by a thread starter, in order to advance their own agenda. They need to start a new thread of their own. Since he did not, it was done for him. And that doesn't matter because it was posted in a thread where evolution had been introduced. Vexen started the thread, meaning they got to define its scope. Nobody responding gets to take the thread over and redefine that based on their own views. The responses have to be interpreted in the context of having been posted in the original thread, and evolution was very much a part of that discussion. The context given in the OP rules these out, but you admit to not having read it. So this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. ! Moderator Note You are free to open up a new thread and back these claims up. As for the rest, this isn't a negotiation. Stick to the topic of this thread, and stop trying to litigate matters. And TO ALL: the sniping can stop. Implications about others' intelligence being low, etc. is all off-topic.

Like my IQ, what a coincidence.

Prometheus; You might want to study Hume. He lived many centuries ago, is a well respected philosopher, and had a lot to say about "should be". Of course he called it "ought to be" because that was the terminology used in his time; you can find his work in Wiki under "is and ought". In a nutshell, he explained that people will take what "is" and replace it with what "ought to be" so they can always be right. imo No. The only thing I assumed was that when you used the word "pretence", you meant pretense. This is what you stated: "All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science." "Pretense at academia" means that they are pretending to be academic. It is not real, whereas you validate with Science which you believe to be real. Do we need another English lesson? I am not sure what you are observing. Religion has been around for tens of thousands of years all over the world as validated by archeology and still permeates cultures and societies today. If that is failure, what would be success? One of it's values lies in the study of consciousness. Of course I would value another perspective, but it would have to be on topic. We already discussed this in another thread, and I did not find that you had more to offer on the subject of souls. Oh, but it is so much fun to watch you build your reputation on nonsense. Arguing with me is always good for an up-vote. Gee

Strange; Philosophy is not Philosophy? What? Religion is not in the Philosophy section? What? So stop supporting them. A few points to consider: 1) You did not post in this thread prior to my comments, so I was not referencing your posts. 2) Pretty much everything you know comes from "educational sources", because that is what you trust. That is why you are a "science guy" because you only trust the "known" as being valid. Philosophy deals with the as yet "unknown", or not yet validated. 3) You recently asked me to prove a negative and even called it a "reasonable" request. Logic is not your forte, so you don't trust it, which is why you are not a philosopher. Philosophy uses logic, analysis, and critical thinking to put parameters around the unknown. 4) I have often wished that I could have a discussion with you, Prometheus, and even dimreepr, as you all have knowledge about Religion that I would like to learn about and discuss. But I can't get past the downvoting, bias, and ignorance that permeates this forum, so I gave up. There are other forums and other people, who have studied Religion. Gee Prometheus; What is wrong with laymen vehemently arguing a point with a person educated in the subject matter? Let's say that I took my layman's understanding of Physics to the Physics forum (like that would ever happen), and then I told Swansont that he had no idea of what he was talking about. What kind of fool would I look like? Well, that is the kind of fool some members in this thread looked like. Compassion is not the subject of this thread, and since you admittedly don't care (underlined by me) what the subject is, you are off-topic. Your inability to discipline your mind to the subject at hand is one of the reasons why I do not relish discussion with you. Your opinion is noted and worthless. It is based on the premise that "academia" belongs solely to Science. Nonsense. I just want to study consciousness. It is an elusive subject that has defied understanding by some of the greatest minds we have ever known. Early on I learned that a person has to throw out their biases, discipline their thoughts, and reexamine their "truths" in order to learn anything about this subject. I wanted to talk to Quiet in the NDE thread, as he made some interesting and intelligent comments, but I was loath to draw him into a discussion in a thread that quickly turned into a "witch hunt". I wanted to talk to John Bauer as he also made some interesting and intelligent comments, but I did not get to him before he left the forum. My greatest fear is that I will become as sloppy in my thinking as others have become. That is why I have been looking at other forums, because there is no one here who can help me. Gee

What's wrong with that? Compassion is a huge part of many religions: the academic study of compassion might be useful - but it's not the same as the practice of compassion. When was the soul put into humans? Who cares - the answer won't make you a better human being, which is what religious teaching should be trying to help with. All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science. Spiritual practices should stand on their own merits, anything that needs propping up with pseudo-pseudoscience should be left to fall. And honestly Gees, though there are some aloof people on this site, likely including myself, you are among the worst for it. Look at yourself before casting stones.

Moontanman; Please note that I stated "many" members, not all members. You did not post in this thread prior to my comments, and as far as I know, you have never communicated with John Bauer, so it is a little presumptuous to assume that I was talking about you. So you are saying that the above comments are examples of your cool logic? your deep analysis? your critical thinking? What should I say to that? What can I say to that? I rest my case? Gee dimreepr; It is really very simple; I got tired of apologetics. When I first joined Science forums, I had a real respect for Science, you could even say that I was in awe of much of Science. A few years in this forum has taught me that there are two Sciences -- the real one that I still respect -- and the other wannabe one that I see displayed in the Philosophy and Religion forums. There is no Science in the comments in this thread, just a lot of arrogance, ignorance, and bias. It is obvious as a nose on a face that the members posting here have no real education as regards Religion, and learned their religious ideas at their mother's knee or in their local churches. They have a very layman's understanding and did not even know what John Bauer was talking about. I am simply tired of apologizing for wannabe scientists. Gee

Ok. :-). Why?. This Is THE Title: Fire, Iron, And Matter: The Three Laws Of Everything. Why?. Reasons, please. With References.

This is the Title of My Theory Of Everything. Physical Plane.