tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You can conclude whatever you want. I have no idea whay it appeared different to you. It looks normal on my browser. The transferrence was the only thing I did differently in that post...if that wasn't the case, then I have no idea.
But it is NOT silly to understand that believing entanglement is a possibility to expalin telepathy on a macro-level is non-sensical and shows a lack of understanding of what entanglement is, or how difficult it is to create and/or maintain. Let's put it this way: while not technically impossible for two individuals to be entangled to some degree that allows communication, the odds of this happening are similar to the odds of a person quantum tunneling through a solid wall. You'd have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for a single instance to occur.
Yes. They are mis-routings of sense data. Sounds do NOT have color. If they tell me my voice is green, that is not correct. I would agree that they experience it as green, based on their say-so (we know synesthasia exists, and "seeing" sounds is not an unusual form).
No, but I would say that their observations are only valid by understanding the limitations of their senses. Because they see a voice as a purple oval doesn't give the voice a shape or color. Personal perception is only valid to the individual.
It's an indication that their perception is altered. It would depend on the specific example. If a person detects bass notes as green, for example, then when they "see" a "green" sound I'd believe it was a bass note. I would not believe there was actually a green sound. And this is exactly the point we've been attempting to make. You're simply brushing aside the documented and solid evidence of the falliability of memory as if it doesn't apply. In any case, even by your own argument, your evidence only applies to you, andwe should not, in any way shape or form, accept it based on your word (as you stated, we have no direct experience of your consciousness).
Because scientific studies detail the experimental controls used and the methodology. You can examine this to find where opportunities for problems appeared. In various stories (as opposed to controlled conditions) and such, there simply isn't enough information available to know if there was no chance for non-paranormal inforation exchange or other possibilities. I'm not saying they are all false. I'm saying the studies have yet to provide positive proof and eliminate all non-paranormal explanations, and therefore can't be accepted as evidence of the paranormal. Disbelief is the default position; it's not on us to disprove the paranormal or experiences like yours (whether you want to call it paranormal or not). There should be positive evidence for it...yet that hasn't appeared.
I'll review and see if this is the case, and if so, I apologize. With days between posts and the speed of the thread, I do lose track.
I'm saying that, as far as I am aware, Newton had no Theory of Gravity (using theory in the scientific sense). Wiki is, well, wrong. What Newton had was a Law of Gravity. And understanding the difference between teh two will tell you why it does not support your arguments.
And Newton wasn't overturned, just found not to be complete. In other words, GR did NOT suddenly invalidate the results of Newton's laws, except in the case of high speeds or large masses.
Well, this is actually going pretty well for me. Your claim is that, essentially, personal observation is the ultimate authority for that individual. That if you personally experience something then that trumps whatever theories or studies are out there.
In science a theory is a description of and explanation for phenomena. It gives both a way to model an interaction and an explanation for how that occurs. GR, for example, explains gravitational force as a curvature of space and time, and makes specifc predictions based on this (such as gravitational lensing).
In science a Law (such as Newton's Gravity or his Laws of Motion) is a description of phenomena based on observation. It simply states "if you do this, that will happen".
Newton never offerred a theory of gravity. Newton's Law of Gravity, which you have said was found to be wrong, was based on his personal, direct experience. It's a good example to show why an individual's experience, even your own, is not to be taken as truth if it can't be examined.
No, we know it isn't complete. Science tells us that.
It depends on iof they contradict what's already there and known to be true. There ARE known limitations to what can be added to the Standard Model, and for it to still give us the correct results that it does.
If the current theories predict that nothing should be there, and having something there would change the results calculated using those theories, the results that have been experimentally verified, then yes.
How about just formulate a theory? So far, that hasn't been done to any meaningful degree in paranormal research. But that isn't precisely what my comemnt stated. To have a theory accepted, it should have more evidence for it than the theory (or theories) it will be invalidating.
I am open to honest investigation. There are no studies that I am aware of that meat the criteria I listed. That was a challenge to you to put your money where your mouth is. The studies you posted to Pure Argent, which you mentioned earlier, have already been adddressed by him. These are simply retellings, collections of stories, and there were no controls in place to eliminate more normal explanations.
Where did I say anythign remotely like what you are implying? I've mentioned several times that there are none I'm aware of. You've yet to present any, I've yet to be made aware of any. I know I don't have all the answers, which is why I am so passionate about science. I believ it to be the best way to find the answers without getting dragged into a bunch of nonsense. It's not perfect, I think everyone here will admit that, but so far we've found nothing better.
How about this; instead of details, let's focus on something that might actually get somewhere, and clarify arguments on both sides (because I stil fail to see how solipsism is not the logical end-point of your views, as expressed here).
You calim that science needs to include the subjective. What specific changes should be made to do this? What do you mean by this? What should be accepted as evidence (and evidence for what) under your method as opposed to what is done now? You've spent a lot of time arguing about how scienc is missing out on something, yet then seem to change your argument to scientists being biased and ignoring proof that is already there. Can you calrify this a bit? Are you arguing that scientists are biased, or that the method needs to be changed?
AMM isn't arguing with what you've said, he's arguing with what he thinks you've said.
