jeremyhfht

This explains a lot. I am hereby ending this discussion. I no longer have the patience nor the will to persist.

It's kind of sad how often people format. I haven't needed to format my computer in over two years. It runs just as fast as a recently formatted one (thanks to my changes). Excepting user errors, the only reason you would have to format is because of the registry. As it grows, so too do slowdowns. Since a lot of Microsoft applications end up scanning the whole registry every time they run (or so it seems). Fortunately a registry cleaner does a good job of cleaning out the useless registry entries.

Yes you did: I'm sorry' date=' but no I did not. That paragraph (even though taken out of context) explains that evolution is the cause abilities like telekinetics through evolving our intelligence. If you think otherwise, just realize you're disagreeing with the person that wrote it. As I explained (and you ignored), under my definition they are NOT psychic powers. Under the current vague definition (ergo, belief that they aren't physical but metaphysical), then sure that applies. But I fail to see how any of it applies here when I redefined the terms first and foremost. Therefore, you have to prove it incorrect based on my new definitions. As well as stop using the word "psychic" to describe them since, under the definition, they are not psychic. I already explained them earlier. I absolutely refuse to repeat myself. If you must refresh your memory, reread what I have written. I believe I wrote a very thorough explanation as to why possible telekinetic ability would be tied to our self control. Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I said telekinetics, if it exists, would require us control over the autonomous function it would be a part of. Which would mean self control would be required to use whatever function it's part of. Self control itself does absolutely nothing to prove telekinetics exists. I merely used it to describe how telekinetics could be harnessed. I said nothing about the "therefore" shit. I'm growing impatient with your perpetual inaccuracy. Assumptions based on hard facts. That's the only time I used inductive reasoning. I described those facts quite clearly. Although it seems your apparent dyslexia prevents you from understanding most of what I write. It seems you can't grasp how much speculation I put into the magnetic fields bit. I only mentioned it once. The rest of my descriptions were shifted to more of an explanation without knowledge of what would cause it. One can't speculate the substance without first speculating the existence. It would be best that you drop it. I find it absurd that you are correlating basic primal control to such an advanced concept as telekinetics. My post clarified what I meant by that phrase. Animals do not have anywhere near the level of cognitive control we possess. Training a dog is more of a subconscious control mechanism we instill in them through repetition. Even lab rats can learn similar tricks. As can almost any animal. This, however, does not suggest cognitive thinking in the least. Perhaps you should read up on the philosophy of cognitive thought if you want to get what I'm trying to convey. Do you even know what cognitive means? Pavlov's experiments were the result of training the dogs primal brain to know what meant "food". There's nothing cognitive about it. The dogs did not cognitively control their salivating. Their brains were trained to turn it "on" in preparation for food. We can train ourselves. The dogs cannot. Excuse me. What? "Nearly all other vertebrates"? The human brain is only similar to its biological family. Brain composition can be similar, but its workings are very different from that of many other families. Sufficed to say, homo sapiens do not need anything "novel" or "new" if it's as I described. But it should be obvious that our brains work very differently than other members of the primate family due to its volume and such. I'm not entirely clear on it, as I'm not a neurologist. It does open up a window for further study, though. Indeed. So why hasn't the necessary wiring appeared in other members of the primate family to construct spears, build fires, create agriculture communities, mathematics, and millions of other achievements of humans? It is not only a neurological thing that would allow for telekinetics. In theory it should take years of meditation (varying depending on the individual) to control it at our current stage in evolution. It's nothing we have immediately available, and because of this it's something that requires more conscious effort than other species would be capable of. Which generally only appears in species with highly developed brains (such as ours). The volume (not SIZE) of the neocortex and the frontal lobe is what allows us conscious control over our autonomous functions. We, I believe, have the largest volume versus other animals. Science doesn't answer the "why" part. Philosophy does. I had explained earlier in my posts. I refuse to repeat myself. I mentioned the possibility in good faith. As a possibility. According to my hypothetical explanation, it makes no sense for it to be a genetic mutation. If it was, everyone would have it. Which furthers the point that it isn't a mutation. They have similar compositions (neurons and other cells), but how they are "organized" and evolved are VASTLY different. Also, only mammals tend to have a neocortex. The fact you keep getting things wrong proves your lack of study. VERY loosely, which means it's impossible to correlate anything recent to evolution prior to around 80,000,000 years. Your originally intended point is moot. In fact the only correlation that can be made evolution wise rests with the family of primates. Anything prior to that lacks enough similarities to be considered related to us in any manner but "extremely loose". So if you still have a point, I'm curious as to know what it could be. I meant that as a loose correlation. Immediately, no, it does not. Although I don't see an Ape community using spears against its enemies. Or even basic stone tools to make life easier. Technology is generally evidence of our intelligence capacity. Environmentally caused or not. And included in that explanation is what is required. Since you seemed convinced that we can "do it right away". At this stage in our evolution, we can't. That's why I explained what it would require. To give you a mental image of how "weak" such an ability would be. I advise you read on the advent of agriculture. Prior to agriculture we were forced to spend all our time foraging and hunting because we never had a surplus. And if we did it would be minimal. Surviving only on hunted animals and foraged goods allows very little personal time. Meanwhile, with agriculture, we had many months of free time before and after harvests. Crops did not require constant attention, and throughout history we have invented more and more things that allow us free time. It also allowed us to stop being nomads due to limitations in food supplies, which furthered our civilization achievements. Why don't we see animals with an innate ability for mathematics? Since math training is just changing the way your brain is wired, we should see it in all other animals because it's an evolutionary advantage. I don't insist that only humans are capable. I insist that intelligence is a major factor in it. Something you seem to not wish to believe. I suppose a 5 year old should be doing advanced physics calculations? You need to confirm they exist before you can figure out which materials block it. Hence why it's unscientific. If conducted properly, a test where no materials blocking it could still rule out trickery. If you disagree it's similar to saying "we should have figured out which materials blocked nuclear radiation before we knew it existed". Obviously not. I'm saying that a human will interact with matter differently than most tests done in a lab. Especially if there's some type of matter a human can influence. There are many many substances that influence others, of course. Such as magnets. Were you paying attention, you'd know that the test doesn't depend on statistics analysis but visual. If you can get a pinwheel to move as I described, you do not need sensitive equipment. Just a good speed and the ability to change its direction at will. To explain it simply. Anything less wouldn't be significant enough for study. Since it could be an external source rather than telekinetics. Using advanced equipment for anything prior to that is absolutely needless.

Congratulations iNow. You've supported someone who thinks objective observers are by definition not objective.

I don't post in politics. I don't need to. Instead I watch. The quality of discussion for "recent events" in which people have beliefs is normally very low, especially compared to more scientific discussions. I feel that, rather than discussing events singularly, it's better to discuss the whole form of government. America's democracy has its flaws, after all. Such flaws are the driving problem behind most criticism of various politicians or legislations. It makes more sense, therefore, to restrict conversation to the fuller scale. It helps people learn more about the big picture. So far all I've observed in the politics forum is useless discussions of recent events such as the iraq war, upcomming election, word-salad posts, posts without useful content, etc. I've seen barely any useful discussion come from that thread. Even going back quite a ways, the ratio of good quality posts to bad is very low. I think it's a little more than just that. One could discuss the interaction of governments with its populace, the interaction between two governments, etc. It's not such a limited spectrum. It only carves out meaningless posts. Thus the problem. Politics is a science forums most viewed forum. If you do not see what is wrong with that picture, I'm not sure how I can make you. P.S: I've had access to politics for quite a long time. In fact my recent posts are only a fraction of my initial ones. I had over 30 before I stopped posting before, after all.

I'll make it simple. The politics forum. Politics, while it could be discussed in terms of rationality, is just too open to lunatics and people generally uninterested in any science. It would be better replaced with something like "Government & Economy" where discussions will focus on various types of government and economic discussions.

Nevermind. I misunderstood the post. Stupid me. Ignore me. Jesus.

There's a problem with your whole "reorganization of Jung archetypes". It doesn't explain human behaviors so much as it "recategorizes" them in a confusing and unnecessary manner. It's more like a superficial categorization of personality types that only exists for mild amusement with no real applicability. There seems to be no point to them whatsoever. In fact what it does do is end up limiting views into archetypes rather than a broad view of diagnosis. I'll use the archetypes provided as an example: The archetypes are also misleading by name. "The Child" for example, brings up thoughts of curiosity, energy, creativity, ignorance, etc. Not "lacks restraint". While it's all well and good if you want to lump charactaristics into something like "The child" (as I provided in those thoughts), it's important to realize that various disorders have deeper sides to them. Such as a person having an outward appearance of some archetypes, but an inward disagreement with said outward archetype. So someone may be like "the child" in that they lack mental/physical restraint. But there could be environmental factors causing them to do so. Ergo, inwardly they'd love nothing more than to be a mix of "the child" and "The wise old man" (and internally they are). Which brings up another problem with archetypes. Cross-"pollenization" of the various types to create unique types. In the end, it's much more efficient to skip adhering to archetypes and go straight to analysis of the personality. Which means archetypes have no practical application. I'm not exactly sure what you went on to do. You completely lost focus while writing and went off on a non-sequitur tangent only to bring it back with some further examples at the bottom of the page that furthers my confusion.

Incorrect. I'm not implying that A occurred then B occurred, therefore A caused B. Since it's a fact that sunspots are directly correlated to temperature. And that solar radiation is just one of the many things sunspots cause. If you have the audacity to claim I make that fallacy, then why does that fallacy not apply to CO2 and warming trends? "CO2 increased, then temperature increased, therefore CO2 caused the temperature increase" (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy) One need merely look at sunspot activity during the little ice age or the medieval warm period. Since the graphs show such a strong correlation between sunspots and temperature, it doesn't matter exactly what about the sun is causing it. Since sunspots seem to be an accurate gauge of it. Although it is a good idea, nonetheless, to try and graph all the sun activities. Perhaps I'll make a few other graphs dealing with solar radiation and temperature.

I'm skeptical. Using electricity like that might cause some damage to our neurons and other parts of our brain.

As I explained, I provided inductive reasoning based on various sciences and scientific evidence. Thus, I have "suffered" the burden of proof. If you disagree with my definitions, then you must take on the burden of proof and prove them incorrect. If I had claimed to be able to do telekinetics, the burden of proof would be on me to prove I can. Instead, I hypothesized that telekinetics is possible. The burden of proof is on me to prove how it could be.

Logical Fallacy 101: Misquoting. I conceded that I had made a statistical error after I was corrected. Quoting a post after I conceded it was incorrect is somewhat in bad taste. Also, what I did was not imply something before the statistics. What I did was say what the statistics implied. They did do that, which is also why they were incorrect. Solar irradiance is very closely tied with Sunspot activity. This is a proven fact. Since all I am now doing is attempting to make two graphs that show sunspot activity and earth temperature in better detail, I don't need a degree in solar physics. Which is why it's a good idea to use the former to gauge the effects on earths climate system. Since the latter is still a very complex issue that is difficult to measure. I knew there was a loose correlation between sunspots and earths climate anyway. Not a direct one. Which is why, as I explained, sometimes the climate does the opposite of what the sunspots do (pre-industrial). Logical Fallacy: Straw man. I did not set out to contradict established science. My initial post probably did, but it was from a flaw I corrected immediately. Currently what I'm doing is simply making a graph that allows for better detail than ones in circulation. I wish to do this myself for the experience. Which is why, finally, the thread can live up to its name of objectivity.

Welcome to logical fallacies 101: Straw man. I did not say that our intelligence evolving is proof of psychic abilities. I did explain that evolution of intelligence could allow us some abilities we falsely consider metaphysical or "psychic". You're completely redefining what "psychic" is. Also, "psychic power" in no way relates to what the description of those two abilities are. The word psychic is defined as: In a sense you are correct. Intelligence doesn't equal psychic potential. It does tend to equal better awareness/control though. Even so, you based it on a fallacious premise (that of a straw man). There is proof that those two abilities are not what I hypothesized them to be? Where is it? You keep referring to them as "psychic". Can you prove this? My evidence was already presented through the use of inductive reasoning. I used the premise of various bodies of science and research to support a conclusion but not confirm it. From here, you can falsify it by experimenting or learning of some factual flaw. Like how dreams might not be what I described. Fallacy: Apples to Oranges. Animals do not have the ability to cognitively control their actions. An example would again be the slowing of the heart by cognitive effort. To a very lesser degree. Humans have a higher evolved frontal lobe and cerebral cortex, after all. The frontal lobe being important because it's involved in self control. The closest in size would be our relatives, but function and composition are very different. Also important is that humans have the largest frontal cortex volume . Logical Fallacy 101: Straw Man. I did not claim that only humans have the potential for visions and telekinetics as I described/defined them. Only a sentient species with sufficient control over themselves would be sufficed. Then again, the opposite could be true. Maybe there is some odd mutation that can cause it while at the same time leaving the species primal. I don't know. And neither do you. You're basing this conclusion on a number of false and illogical premises. Thus the problem with your conclusion. Factual errors 101: The closest we can say humans began evolving to their current state is from the last mass extinction 65,000,000 years ago. Then again, scientists think that the earliest human ancestor appeared 85,000,000 years ago. The first stone tools are found 2,000,000 years ago "developed" by H. habilis. Homo Habilis is argued to be the first species of "Homo" to appear. They existed from 2.4-1.6 million years ago. Which means the first appearance of human-like ancestors is 2.4 million years ago. It has taken us 2.4 million years to go from stone tools to our current level of technology. Most of which happened in the last 10,000 years. This means we have hardly had enough time to evolve our intelligence to very high levels. Keep in mind that the AVERAGE person is still pretty stupid compared to the rest of us. Most of our advancements were from a select few brilliant people. There's also a psychological element to consider. The more intelligent people generally have a better ability of self control. Excluding religiously influenced parties (Buddhist monks for example). Why? Better use of our intelligence. We're more aware of consequences and connections. Going from there I can induce that intelligence, through making us more aware, can allow us better self control. The rest is hard practice. It can take years of meditation to control some autonomous functions. Since it takes a lot of time to train neural pathways that control heartbeats, breathing, and a lot of other factors. From an example of the work involved with controlling autonomous functions, I can then induce that even minor things like dream "visions" or minor telekinetics requires a lot of intelligence (first to discover a working method), then a lot of practice and training. Admittedly that's a best case scenario, but again it's speculative reasoning based on various assumptions, factual premises, and so on. Logical Fallacy: Factual error. Our prior conditions would not allow for our intelligence to evolve as it has in the past 10,000 years because we were too busy dying before age 40. Prehistoric conditions were far too savage for any of what I've described. We never really had time to sit and think when we were busy hunting and gathering every hour we were awake. Factual errors 101: As I have explained, our ability to make even basic tools has been very recent. I assume that our neural cortex volume has spent the past two million years increasing quite rapidly. As a result we inevitably became intelligent enough to make way for agriculture. I do know that we have had "about" this level of intelligence for a long time. Yet as I explained, it also requires a stable environment to achieve better awareness/control. We are in the beginning in that we can barely achieve this with years of training. Which should only be done AFTER an experiment proves successful. Doing so beforehand is a bit...unscientific. Where's Dark Matter? One of the problems with this line of reasoning is assuming enough tests have been done. I can assure you they haven't in regards to these abilities, as I've did quite a bit of study regarding what has been done. Normally it's limited to measuring brain activity or magnetic fields. Something to consider is the human effect on some types of matter. Some things might not, "naturally", cause such an effect. Then when affected by other substances it isn't in lab situations, it will react differently. If you have the equipment: Go for it. The problem is said equipment is also TOO sensitive. It will read a "positive" when it's not you generating movement. I advise a pinwheel because it's a practical observation solution that doesn't require scientific equipment. What would require scientific equipment is when one would go "public" with their findings or somesuch. I advised it as a simple private solution. Logical fallacy: Ad Hominem. For your conversation partner: Negative Proof Fallacy.

Cute. The entire point of this IS to learn. I am also well versed in what is said about global warming, which is why I found it highly insulting for someone to give me a link on it. The reason I've not posted the graphs yet, is because I've ended up needing to create custom graphs in excel (also because I just started using excel two days ago). Kind of annoying, really.

And yet you've not pointed out a flaw? The closest anyone came was throwing evolution at it.