Sayonara

I didn't say anything about light changing states. Not even close. That's all irrelevant to the question of whether or not light has to make a decision before propagating in a certain direction. All of it. IRRELEVANT.

Fair enough, but your assumption is that light travelling from a source along a path that an observer intercepts is always making a decision, which is not evidenced by that experiment.

It's not really a model for all transmission of light in the universe though, is it?

The simpler explanation is "Light travels. Observers get in the way."

lol http://www.godsendinstitute.org/testimonials.html

There must be reasons, otherwise Mars' core wouldn't be considered to be long-cooled and 'frozen'. Although the MSG found Mars may have a liguid-like outer core, even that would not necessarily mean significant temperature changes in the crust.

It's a clear example of why sales of gin need to be regulated.

It's not the first time you've stated that as a plain fact.

It's unethical to clone a person because if it is unethical then we shouldn't do it? What?

How many runs did it take to pick out your 5 numbers?

Perhaps he meant "drugs don't make winners"? Unless of course they're a winner due to the large piles of cash from selling drugs.

Regardless, any results from experiments in telekinesis are not evidence of psychic abilities, which is what he was proposing to Glider. ESP is a horribly broad term for this sort of discussion.

Telekinesis is the ability to actively manipulate matter in the physical world. Psychic senses are considered to be the passive reception of indeterminate 'signals' that are not part of the physical world. In no way are they similar. Your stone analogy is flawed. In both cases same effect occurs, with different causes; whereas in our discussion there are different effects occuring with different causes. As Glider already pointed out, psychic abilities are not a part of neuroscience, so I'm not sure where you get that last point from.

Obvious jibes notwithstanding, I consider antagonistic replies that are patronising and condescending towards the posters who have been active in a long thread and actually read the arguments presented in it to be flaming. After all, if you just read the conclusions and not the justifications, you can't really be interested in the issues and therefore there's no reason we'd care what you think unless you make it into an attack. Do you see? FLAMING. That's what it is.

Telekinesis is not a psychic ability.

If you don't know how sets will apply, me rephrasing the comment won't help. I'm all for discussing topics like this and offer my views, extra information etc, but I'm not going to sit here all day and teach you (well, anyone) about things like sets, or how to think critically. You also asked me to rephrase "Exactly what is it you think I'm saying? I'm getting pretty sick of having the actual structure of an argument ignored or misdirected". Seeing as the part I quoted directly before that was the pertinent part of your post it doesn't really look like that much of a crazy question. The part where you described what I seemed to be opposed to (and thereafter) didn't seem to sit well with what I'd actually said in the thread, hence me checking if you and I are talking about the same things.

I think he, she, or it has gone now...

It's not my job to make you know more stuff.

He probably should have tried telepathy instead then. In the digitally remastered DVD of Star Wars: A New Hope that's coming out soon, I heard George Lucas has changed the Death Star trench dialogue for Gold Leader to "stay on topic; Stay On Topic!"

1) Yes, of course. 2) I see no reason why not. 3) No, of course not. 4) Why?

That's the reason the rights issue exists, not justification for taking rights away from clones.

It's been like that for a while. It's still URL'd correctly though, as you can see from this quote ^ The missing number will be because of a change in a variable's name or some similar problem.

:offtopic:

Kindly don't take what I said and butcher it to serve a different purpose (last para). I had no intention of saying any such thing and do not believe there is any evidence for it, especially not "philosophical evidence". It would appear that we are largely in agreement, if for different reasons. However you ought to be more careful in your interpretation of his 3 options, because they are carefully worded so as not to be an exhaustive list. No they aren't. Sets, you see. Exactly what is it you think I'm saying? I'm getting pretty sick of having the actual structure of an argument ignored or misdirected.

Then stop flaming the members who want to use the site for its intended purpose.