Phi for All

But nobody would think you should change your skin color because it's inappropriate for the venue. I think the OP is wrong. For modern humans, clothing has become the first skin. Nowadays, even when people show you some real skin, it's been adorned by tattoos and piercings, and almost emulates clothing by creating patterns where there were none. I also still don't like all the automatic assumptions the OP loves to take. I definitely don't agree that "attire is the window to your identity". That's ridiculous. Dressing like a policeman doesn't make me a policeman. It won't make others think I'm a policeman either unless I act unnaturally like a policeman.

Thanks for the quote marks around "special". It's a "specially" folded piece of paper, balanced on the head of a toothpick, weighing around 4.5 grams. Unless you're claiming that telekinesis operates by making the air move? I take it you don't think you can move a grain of sand? Why do you think it wouldn't be a thousand times easier?

No. The meme isn't about loving cigars. It's about a ritual fathers go through that has no more function, other than "this is what all fathers do". Have a cigar, it's a boy! It was a ritual to enjoy the cigar with the new dad, but nowadays most people just either pass altogether, or tuck the cigar in their suit pocket, thank and congratulate dad, and throw the cigar away at their earliest convenience. I'm sure there are aficionados who keep this ritual, since there are a lot of premium cigars out there. For the most part though, I think this is a ritual that no longer functions the way it was supposed to. I'm also reminded of tossing the bouquet at weddings. Does anyone still believe in the superstition that you'll be next to marry if you catch it?

The more I think about this, the more I realize how right swansont and Arete are. Tom argued that this whole experiment would be much more credible if it didn't use a paper wheel designed to take advantage of air currents, and Arete is saying this current setup to eliminate air currents won't be valid either. What about this? A grain of sand weighs about a thousand times less than your psiwheel (sheet of A4 paper = 4.5 grams, grain of sand = 4.4 milligrams). Put a grain of sand on top of a layer of graphite (just to show contrast and movement). Try to move the grain of sand with your mind. It should be a thousand times easier to move with a mental force if it exists, and the contrasting graphite will show any movement (kind of like putting flour down on the kitchen floor to see if you have cockroaches - they'll leave trails in it without eating it). Keep the bowl over the whole thing, since you still have to worry about air currents.

Passing out cigars when your wife has a baby. The original function was sharing an expensive, uncommon treat between father and friend, but carcinogen awareness and the proliferation of cheap cigars has made it fairly non-functional.

Are you suggesting your first skin is associated with these same things? I never understand the connections you try to make. Clothes perform a variety of functions, and you have the ability to change them to suit context and situation. You don't have that ability with your first skin. If you want to have yet another thread about sartorial embellishments, that's your choice I guess. But why are you trying to make comparisons with first and second "skin"? Aren't clothes more like our missing fur?

I want to personally thank you for ignoring everything we've said about just how different our situation in America is compared to other countries. Thank you for once again trying to ignore our problems because they're no different from anyone else's problems. Thank you for showing us that corporate media's favorite tactic of making both "sides" equal is dangerously effective on gullible, fearful, math-ignorant conservatives. And thanks for being consistently inconsistent. You, above just about anyone else I know, epitomize the Republican Party ethic of ignoring everything they stand for when it comes to personal responsibility, a strong military, Christian values, and smaller government. Nobody else in the world gets to be as two-faced as an American conservative Republican.

! Moderator Note Let's do this. Moved to Speculations, please read the special rules for that section. Assertive claims should be backed up by evidence. Enjoy!

Be honest here. Private medical insurance is what you want to keep, despite its proven higher costs and mortality rate. Everyone please note that tar supports paying more for getting less, and the destruction of our country's bargaining power. Nobody ever, EVER, talked about getting rid of other types of insurance. More conservative bs.

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks and best of luck. Nothing more for me here.

Perhaps I misunderstand your terms. These two sentences seem to oppose each other directly. In your view, the paranormal is real, "scientists in general don't even believe in the paranormal, if they found out something about it it would probably be by chance", so you imply they're wrong and more needs to be done to uncover what you think is obvious. You kept saying we need to study this as if we weren't already, then you imply it's not enough because we haven't discovered evidence to back up your belief. I'm trying to warn you how dangerous it is to think this way. You'll always take "no evidence" to mean we haven't studied it hard enough. You need a good critical reasoning mechanism that tells you eventually "no evidence" means you might be wrong.

Really? You continually talk about how science really needs to study the brain, but ignore when we point out that we do study it. Most of your posts that talk about science describe how it's not doing enough, not learning about this phenomena in a way that they should. This is what leads me to believe you're really thinking science isn't doing it right because they haven't found it and YOU HAVE! You're 100%, concrete-convinced you're doing this with your mind, so science is obviously wrong if they claim otherwise. So I'm not putting words or thoughts into your brain. What do you mean when you say we should study this? We have, we found nothing, but you say we should study it because it's origins are "yet not known to science". Isn't that just saying we aren't doing it right because it conflicts with what you believe?

You're looking for the word "valid". In order to be valid, your argument just needs to be constructed properly, but it doesn't need to be true. The argument that working for a company is like slavery isn't even valid, just using standard definitions of both terms. I made no argument of my own. I just pointed out that yours wasn't valid. You wasted a perfectly good strawman. I responded to your comment that it was "time to move on" from the question of slavery vs working, so it's difficult to accede to your request to move the goalpost to "SERFDOM". That was really my only point, and I'm sorry you feel the need to drag the rest of your arguments into this specific reply. Most would just say something along the lines of "OK, maybe I was wrong about that particular part", instead of doubling down with fallacious reasoning.

I don't respect the religious folks who try to mix their Church in with my State. I don't respect bankers who support predatory lending, looser regulation in finance, and continuing to do what they do with impunity and apparent immunity. I don't respect drug companies who do what bankers do. To me, these people aren't equal Americans either in spirit or deed. They've shown no respect for the country that gives them their corporate charters, and demand respect as a job-giver. They have no allegiance to America, as they've shown repeatedly by their actions. Business is a one-way, take-only street these days, where the corporations make sure the representative government of the People they're about to pillage has no teeth at the bargaining table. To me, your arguments are like insisting we have to keep everything we've ever bought. You would argue that medical insurers have a right to their profits even though it's been shown to you that we can have a great healthcare system without them. You argue that's not fair, like we should still be riding horses or traveling by balloon because cars and jets are unfair. Progress terrifies you so much you horde systems and behaviors that have become less than adequate. Why don't you let private healthcare insurance go the way of the dodo, Blockbuster, and the Edsel? Isn't that how capitalism should work? Also, your arguments against a government sponsored healthcare system similar to what so many successful countries have are so bizarre, I have to try one more time to make you understand. You keep talking about the cost, and how we'll pay for it, and when people show you it will be cheaper (no question about it if we follow an established model), and more effective and efficient, you keep yammering about how we'll pay for it. GODDAMMIT, what is your problem with math?! You'll pay less in increased taxes than what you'd pay to an employer for coverage, so you actually save money, SO WILL YOU PLEASE STOP QUESTIONING HOW WE'LL PAY FOR IT?!?! It's like you let your distrust of change block all your reasoning skills.

More confirmation bias. You first claim we need to study the brain, then claim of course we study it, but obviously we're not doing enough because we haven't found anything to support your claim. Do you see how awful this situation is? It's basically the No True Scotsman fallacy. "If you studied the brain the right way (no examples given), you'd find evidence of psychokinesis." This is a horrible foundation for scientific investigation.

The brain is where all this imaginative thinking comes from. It's also what allows you to fool yourself into thinking you've discovered an ability nobody else can show they possess. Reason tells us if it were true, we'd see more of it. We don't, but you want this to be true so badly (who wouldn't?), you invent excuses for it (doesn't happen all the time, something blocking you, still trying to get the hang of it). Cognitive bias is something science has to fight every day. When we don't have all the right data to form meaningful information about something, and we don't follow a good methodology for gathering that information, guesswork can fill the void. Unfortunately, it seems to be one of our flaws that when we guess at something, we convince ourselves we're right, usually with a "gut feeling" that you've somehow managed to hit the nail exactly on the head, 100% concrete. When you have the right information, it's easy to see where you went wrong, but cognitive bias messes us up there too. It often causes us to reject the very information we need to make a more objective judgement, because we're so convinced we're right.

I'd say no. Your argument is NOT sound. No matter how similar you think slavery and your current working environment are, you have choices a slave rarely has, like finding a new job. Let's be honest with our definitions here. Otherwise Tom is right, comparing "working for the man" to slavery is insulting. It makes no difference if you've never participated in slavery.

Unfairly?! So 25 pages of what's-our-problem, and you think the reasons given for our contempt of conservative Republican leadership and the general non-emphasis on doing anything about it by voters like you is unfair? You go on about a general unfairness, but you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER address the specific points made about your party's insane leadership behavior (oops, don't stop reading because I said "insane"). You can't provide a list of liberal craziness to compare, and you ignore the fact that that's a HUGE problem. AND you keep saying it's balanced. You've never shown there's a balance in that kind of craziness, yet you always claim it. We, on the other hand, who have been trying to argue specifically about instances of insanity, are still waiting for you to defend those crazy acts. You don't, so we assume you probably think they're crazy too. YET, you continue to claim it's all good, we're balanced, conservative Republicans are doing the right thing. What's unfair is YOU getting to sit in smug and waffle your way through these discussions. I think it's unfair that you don't address the specifics of what's being argued, and instead get to distract with homilies and never answer why you support the inanity that's being revealed to you.

More media influence, imo. They seem to love taking every concept down to the studs so you can Bring Your Own Nuance. We see it everywhere. They only have to put up a banner saying "WELFARE" or "TERRORISM" and immediately everybody polarizes into their own perspectives. This isn't informative the way it should be. Science should be different, more accurately descriptive of the natural universe.

How much of a sound would something like this make? Perhaps a non-lethal weapon that disorients?

I think you have this a bit backwards. It's not the "view" that's important, it's the accuracy of describing the nature. "Views" are open to interpretation, whereas accuracy can be measured by anyone with the skills. And accuracy almost always improves over time, whereas views might not change at all. I hope I'm right in defining "their view" as "personal perspective".

Isn't dumbing things down to single words and sound bytes what causes most of the problems with lack of rigor we see here? Why is a single word to describe multiple disciplines cooperating to advance human knowledge relevant to anything? The fewer words you use to describe something (a la popsci attention-span brevity), the more open to interpretation it is. Science tries to minimize subjectivity, and coming up with a word or two to encompass science is the exact opposite of reducing personal interpretations.

It sounds like the OP is trying to justify behavior of any type based on the small probability that such behavior will one day become the norm. I think this is trying to nitpick the definition of "universal good/bad". There are certainly situations that contradict the normal universal acceptance of just about any behavior. But just because one person thinks slavery is a good thing, that shouldn't affect its status as a universally bad thing. What about serial killing? Are you saying that since there are those who do it, it's not considered universally bad? What about feeding starving people? Are you saying that since there are those who may not like those people, it's not considered universally good?

This should be a warning flag for you. No scientist calls any evidence "concrete" unless it's actually made of concrete. It's never about "proof", it's about the preponderance of evidence. No evidence you collect without being thorough and rigorous about your methods will be accepted. And even if you do all the things we've suggested, NOBODY will mention anything about the evidence being "concrete". Seriously, the only reason the crackpot label has come out is because you're exhibiting all the classic signs. Only a crackpot is 100% convinced he's right. A scientist always knows there's a chance of being wrong, and works to minimize that chance.

How long are these "stages"? People have been claiming what you're claiming since the 19th century. When does "the beginning of its potential" end, and the evidence of its existence start?