Phi for All

Is "how" a person thinks different from "what" a person is thinking? I define "what a person is thinking" using the experiment mississippichem suggested. One simple sentence in English that I can send to mississippichem for verification. You use your telepathy to say exactly what the sentence is, then I reveal my sentence and mississippichem corroborates. If you could do that a few times in a row, we could move on to another experiment that didn't involve the computers you know best. So people couldn't say you hacked our PM system.

And the Republican response: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/cain-calls-occupy-wall-street-protesters-ant Nice to know Newt is still very much on message about the privatization of American education. Wasn't TARP and the bank bailouts established during the last days of the Bush administration? Did I miss the memo where we're supposed to forget about those eight years? So, since the Tea Party is protesting American taxes, they're basically saying they're anti-American too. I mean, you know, we have to avoid the double standard, right? I think it's sad that these people don't have to work any harder than this to appeal to their base.

Correct. There has never been a successfully reproduced experiment involving telepathy. Even if someone answered 100% correctly, if it can't be reproduced then it must be a random occurrence of a low probability. Feelings are too indeterminate to use for an experiment in telepathy. I don't think many scientists would accept such a subjectively vague criteria. What people are thinking is a different matter. If I picked a sentence from a book I was reading and thought about it very hard, could you tell me what the sentence is, or at least get close to what it's about? If you could do that twenty times in a row, I could almost guarantee some notice from the scientific community. How many times have you personally won the lottery?

Well, maybe he just doesn't want to.

If an architect asks me to see the great new building plans he has for a 40-story office building, I might first ask what materials he plans on using. If he tells me he's using only wood, with no concrete or steel, I don't need to see his plans to know it won't work. You asked if what you did in your pdf was science, so I asked some questions first. I'm not yet at the point where I need to understand your ideas. If you didn't follow the proper methodology, then your ideas won't be considered science. Does that make sense? You say you can predict anything. If I sat you in a room and asked you to predict which card I was going to pull from the top of a standard deck of 52 playing cards, how would you score by the end of the deck? If I did this 100 times, would you still score as well? Keep in mind that, for this experiment to be successful, you are not allowed to say, "I could have guessed correctly, I just didn't want to". Also keep in mind that, if you have to be struck by lightning to prove your point, the costs for the experiment will have to come out of your pocket.

We see a lot of symmetry in nature, and I think it just represents the simplest way for evolutionary efforts to manifest themselves. Beyond that though, there would seem to be a high survival value in dentition that discourages matter from being caught between them. This means more food gets successfully eaten and appropriately digested, with less decay of the enamel, and fewer teeth get broken off due to torque or pressure from the sides.

Liviu, I confess I have not yet read your 35 page journal. Let me ask this first: Were any of the experiments you did repeatable by others? Could they set up the same test you did and achieve the same results? If not, then your conclusions may be false. Can you make a prediction (not in the psychic sense - just something along the line of, "If I do x, then y will happen")? If you can make a prediction, then you can set up an experiment to test it. If you do it many times with the same results, you can form a conclusion. If others can repeat your experiments and draw the same conclusions, then you have something the scientific community can measure. The results don't even have to be successful. Science doesn't have to be right every time, but it always needs to be methodical.

Irrelevant. Think how tedious it would be having to flip back and forth between multiple threads for replies. This eliminates most redundancy and is most efficient in terms of reading and the effort involved in response. Please don't take this the wrong way; other forums may encourage this but we don't. And it's off-topic to respond to Moderator Notes. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

What kind of mechanism could be used for omnipresence or omniscience? The M theory extension of string theory proposes 11 dimensions. Could a dimension higher than the 3rd give a perspective over the first three that could be considered omnipresence? Unfortunately, M theory isn't predictive so you're left with more untestable ideas.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please. It's easier for those interested in the discussion.

No. I did not assume that. I stated: If you're going to ask for responses, please read them thoroughly. And so we're clear on this thread, in order to stay in Speculations, we're going to need to provide something beyond a framework for discussion. We need to make some testable predictions about these ideas or it's going to get moved to the Religion section.

Omnipotence has to be off the table, imo. If God created the physical laws of the universe, how can it break them? If it didn't create them, then it must be ruled by them. Omnipotence has always posed a paradox to me. Omnipresence and omniscience would be hard to prove scientifically. How would we know it knew everything and could be everywhere? God would have to be observable in order to be treated scientifically, or leave evidence that can't be attributed to anything else but God. It would need to be testable in a predictable way. This is going to be a major hurdle, one that I don't think you could ever overcome without having God show up and say, "Go ahead, run your tests, ask your questions, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon". I do agree that God doesn't necessarily have to be the creator of everything. Nor does it have to answer our prayers for its benevolence or guide our lives in any way. In the end, I think only a natural being with vastly superior knowledge of the universe and its capabilities could be a god science could recognize. Is it still a god if it just turns out to be a creature that knows a very, very, very great deal more than we do?

Do you mean good features as in beautiful features? Beauty is subjective. Do you mean healthy features? AFAIK, there is no direct correlation between the zygomatic bone structure and good health. Do you mean evolutionarily advantageous features? Slim waists coupled with slim hips can be bad for women giving birth. Please explain what is right and wrong about buttocks shape by gender. Good specimen for evolutionary success? There are too many variables. The biggest of which is environment. Do these beautiful people live in a city or in a rural setting? A twiggy model type might be more successful in a city setting but fail to a more muscular rival if they lived on a ranch somewhere. I think you're making too many generalizations. Whoa. Can you give us an example of what you mean here? Because it sounds like you're trying to get parents to snub their ugly children based on whether their looks alone will trigger an evolutionary mechanism that makes them more successful.

This was posted by atinymonkey 7 years and a month ago to the day. On this same day, he was involved in a fatal late afternoon spinally compressed skiing accident. It was a terrible tragedy, but he did pop nicely into the coffin. We miss you awfully, cheeky one!

This brings up the problem of "the wasted vote". You'd like to vote for the person who represents you best but the thought of allowing the person you hate to win forces you to compromise. Solution? Abolish the "winner-takes-all" plurality voting system in favor of an alternative. That is an incoherent and completely inappropriate solution in context. If you are stating a message you are NOT being clear. Why is this relevant? Was he corrupt? Was he an elitist? Was he a martini drinker? I've tried looking at your post all together and I've tried breaking it down and I still don't get your point. I know you like the OWS movement but that's all I really get. Perhaps it's just me. I like it smooth and straight while driving on the road with others, and prefer a similar experience when reading and discussing online. I find these fuzzy lines and sudden turns off-putting. I begin to see why some people think it's better to stifle the message of those who might do the OWS movement more harm than good. When the topic you're responding to is "Do the OWS protesters lack a clear message", why do you respond this way? I still think protest in general should not be discouraged, but when the message is an incomprehensible retch of stream-of-consciousness blather, support may wander off in search of clarity. QFT. You would trigger a "might makes right" response and I don't think that would be good for anyone except those with a large current amount of might. Rather than dragging the rich down, what about bringing the poorest up considerably? I've often thought there should be some kind of minimum subsistence level enacted to eliminate homelessness and starvation at the very least. Food, clothing and shelter that anyone could take advantage of no matter what. Because I think you run into some major snags with the concept of wealth redistribution and what is "fair" compensation without considering a market economy. There are easier political fixes that have been suggested that might make things fairer. It's a known equation that needs to be balanced to be effective. For that you need even better organization. Amen, brother. Perhaps it's not the concept that's bad, just the methodology. And maybe we're not asking for proper recompense. I don't have a solution but I'm reminded of the fact that the US has built hydroelectric dams in foreign countries where it would have been more advantageous and economically sound for us to simply give every household more efficient appliances. This would simultaneously obviate the need for more power, provide a better distributed boost to our own economy, save the ecology of the foreign country and endear us to the native people in a way that a fat contract to a single company never could.

! Moderator Note Personal attacks are not allowed at SFN. Answering direct questions is a requirement. Your warning level is reaching a critical stage and you are now under Staff review for suspension.

There may be method to the madness, even if the method was unplanned and unorganized. By not singling out certain fixes early on, OWS has managed to garner support from major areas that do have certain fixes in mind, like the labor and teacher's unions. As pointed out in this ABC interview, they have now declared what some of their objectives and complaints are, but reserve the right to append more as the movement grows. And as this piece from John Wellington Ennis at the Huffington Post points out, much of their early work has been aimed at declaring what they are NOT about: they are NOT anti-capitalism, they are NOT another PAC-based special interest extremist white group like the Tea Party, and they are NOT a Democrat response to recent Republican obstructionism. Perhaps, in the end, the best thing OWS can do for us is provide low-cost coverage for independent campaigns that might otherwise get buried by the billion dollar budgets the major parties are putting together for next year's election. But if they can grab the attention of those who normally wouldn't glance at a story about some "radical protest", they might do what is increasingly harder to do, get people to act on what they care about. Right now though, I don't see as much of this 1% -- 99% stuff that was mentioned earlier. I'm not sure what could ever be done about the distribution of wealth unless it's over a period of time. What I see taking the spotlight now are objections to excessive corporate influence on US politics and lack of response to the financial sector's contribution to the current global economic crisis. These are objectives the vast majority of Americans understand and agree are major problems. This could very well be personal bias, though.

Hey, please keep the personal insults out of this discussion. It's against the rules and you're degrading your own arguments by stooping that low. Attack the idea, not the person. Push the Report button on the post. Since swansont and I are both involved in this discussion, another moderator will check it out. More personal attacks. You are demeaning yourself, amanda more. This makes YOU look bad, not your opponent.

Really?! Often made? More than just the times you've made it on other forums (since those are the only places I found it on a Google search). I've never heard anyone say that it's wrong to tax the wealthy (not even the wealthy people I know). I've heard people say taxes in general are wrong, or too high, but they never seem able to tell me where the roads they drive on would come from. I've also never heard anyone say the poor have no right to any wealth. I've heard people say the poor have no right to THEIR wealth, and I can understand that viewpoint. However, I don't think enough of the common people would give a portion of their wealth for the poor unless it was mandated by taxes. Who is withholding land and natural resources from the poor? I think it's rather the case that education is being withheld, something that could help the poor get rich enough to buy some land. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to give everyone a better education so they could become as wealthy as they wanted to? And can you define "land", please? Is the quarter acre most suburban homes sit on enough, or are we talking about several acres? 160 acres? Who gets to decide where my land is? Is this land going to have utilities on it so I can build a home? Will there be roads connecting my land to the nearest city? I guess I would have to say that, if my taxes could pay for a K through college level education for everyone who wanted it, then, barring some disability, I think a person doesn't deserve the land he should have the right to buy if he won't earn the money required by law.

She didn't clarify that one. I couldn't figure out any way to blame science for the fact that the system isn't working. Or that you're personally to blame for not understanding the specific deeper message behind the 1%-------99% blurb that seems to have so many interpretations. We've had similar measures here, mostly due to the lovely Focus on the Family think tank south of where I live. It's a lot like them wanting anti-abortion, life-begins-at-conception legislation but never thinking about the legal morass you create giving a zygote the full rights of a human being. Much of it is the short attention span of the average voter, coupled with the tempting quickie sound byte offerings from the media. It's like... fellistening. It's pleasant, makes you feel good, you don't have to work much at it and it's over quickly so you have time to go do something else. People do need to understand that a big reason we're in this leaky boat is because we haven't been willing to do the hard work of digging for the details, figuring out what we want from our society and then finding someone who actually represents our view. People gripe every presidential election that they don't want to throw their vote away on an independent who doesn't have a chance, but then they gripe when the major party doesn't represent them. And if they aren't willing to do that much, the very least they should be able to figure out is that scientists are probably a better source of information on what works than politicians or special interests are.

Well, they're young, they're in place and they've got momentum. You can eventually get up to speed on the right path if you're moving but you'll never get people's attention with a gag shoved in your mouth. It's not your tone; your "STFU" sounds eerily similar to the ignorant Tea Party shit-for-brains who shout down people asking legitimate questions at a town hall meeting. It sounds like an old lady I know who told her kids, "You'll never be a Mozart so why bother taking piano lessons?" It sounds like a fascist trying to silence the dissenters. I don't agree with STFU.

Is that what amanda more was doing when she quoted you, implying that it was the fault of scientifically literate people?! That couldn't be further from the truth. How many times has the government and the mega-corporate special interests ignored, misquoted or even outright falsified scientific data in the last ten years? Scientists get misquoted on the front page but retractions are printed days later near the obituaries, if at all.

Perhaps part of the appeal that is garnering support from many varied groups is the very fact that Occupy Wall Street is so far leaderless and unfocused. That actually may be a good thing since it can still be an unspecified identity focus for the vast majority that feel the US is simply "headed in the wrong direction". If it solidifies too quickly behind a certain approach or leadership message, it could lose groups that might otherwise be drawn to its nebulous goals. I meant to comment on this earlier. I think it's very important right now, especially for those who lean more left of center, to encourage dialogue about these issues which can start out unspecifically. And I think it is absolutely mandatory to acknowledge the patriotism involved in protest, and the efforts to which these people have gone to make sure their voices are heard. I do not agree with "STFU". Given the quote to which this is attached, I have no idea what you're saying here. It makes no sense to me. I hope you can forgive me, I've followed many of your posts and I've meant to comment on your style but I didn't wish to derail the threads. I have to make these comments now though before I go mental. You've used this reference a few times now and I don't get it at all. Usually stress makes blood pressure rise. If you could explain this too, I would appreciate it. Who seems "soothed" here to you? I understand the reference but not why you use it in this context. This could just be a straw man argument. I'm sorry, when I hear word salad like this it makes me think a computer is putting these sentences together. No offense meant, perhaps I'm too old to understand your style of writing. Do you mean financially or literally, as in dying? What?! Why would someone applaud when their children are failing or dying? Who is doing this? Obama is trying to get some money for infrastructure improvements, investing while interest rates are low, putting lots of people to work and strengthening our future. I don't see where anyone was disagreeing with you here about this. What is a "weird mouthpiece"? That sounds like something translated from another language to English. But isn't that what a single comic is, a "lucid picture"?

Boo! You sound like the type of person who thinks shoplifting doesn't hurt anybody.

You may consider Wikipedia to be unreliable in the conclusions it draws due to bias, but they do list several source material notes and references, which are usually excellent. You should check into the online ones at least, in addition to replies you get here, of course.