Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Tomtomkent]

Metaresearch is a valid, well-accepted form of doing science.

And a quick and easy way to show the breadth of knowledge. The complaint boils down to "Oh no! There are so many case studies Tom posted the Meta Studies!"

 

[Anders Lindman]

Then when I said it wasn't possible, or required, but false memories can be established with known techniques, why say:
"No that's not what I meant"? Surely it would have been more correct to say:
"Yes I agree. That is a more reasonable methodology for the mind control I proposed?"

False memories for short events, such as for covering up gaps in memory timelines may be possible to implant in people. But longer and more extensive false memories would require extreme sci-fi technology in my opinion.

 

[Tomtomkent]

False memories for short events, such as for covering up gaps in memory timelines may be possible to implant in people. But longer and more extensive false memories would require extreme sci-fi technology in my opinion.

Yes, but my point was the whole new personality implant is not required to achieve what you described. The only time you hit on something remotely close to real, workable science, you flunked out and said it was not what you meant. Why?

Why did you not just agree there were more viable alternatives known to have happened in the real world, and why are you continuing to argue against it now?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Metaresearch is a valid, well-accepted form of doing science.

One of the quotes I posted was a firsthand examples of mind control. Sure, I think the meta research about mind control is valid, but I doubt that it will convince skeptics that mind control is real.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, but my point was the whole new personality implant is not required to achieve what you described. The only time you hit on something remotely close to real, workable science, you flunked out and said it was not what you meant. Why?

Why did you not just agree there were more viable alternatives known to have happened in the real world, and why are you continuing to argue against it now?

You lost me there. What exactly are you asking?

 

[Tomtomkent]

One of the quotes I posted was a firsthand examples of mind control. Sure, I think the meta research about mind control is valid, but I doubt that it will convince skeptics that mind control is real.

No it was somebody making a first hand claim to have seen mind control work.

The meta-studies have actual science in. You may notice a significant difference.

 

[JayUtah]

My point is that I don't even automatically trust mainstream scientific evidence.

And my point is that you judge the validity of evidence based on its characterization of fringe versus mainstream. That's a form of ad hominem belief. You don't consider that some evidence is in the mainstream because it is objectively the most persuasive. You knee-jerkedly consider that it's in the mainstream only because someone nefariously wants it to be.

For example, I believe all evidence for Einstein's relativity is faked. In that sense I'm more skeptical than most skeptics.

No, you confuse skepticism with irrational denial. Belief in elaborate, unevidenced hoax theories is not in any way skepticism.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You lost me there. What exactly are you asking?

Hmm, not sure how you can get lost in such a small sentence but:

If you didn't mean to argue that the mind control being used is "Replicant Like." If you infact agreed with me when I pointed out that total personality change is not required, that subtle use of false memories was in fact (as I stated) all that was required for your unproven cabal to use your unproven methods... If you AGREED with me, why did you say: "NO that's not what I meant" and not "YES I agree"....

 

[JayUtah]

One of the quotes I posted was a firsthand examples of mind control. Sure, I think the meta research about mind control is valid, but I doubt that it will convince skeptics that mind control is real.

You tried to dismiss contrary evidence on the grounds that it was not scientifically valid. Your dismissal fails and you don't know what scientific validity consists of.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No it was somebody making a first hand claim to have seen mind control work.

The meta-studies have actual science in. You may notice a significant difference.

Yes, but at least it was a firsthand claim. That's as close to firsthand evidence we can expect, UNLESS there is some documentation of previously secret experiments that has been released. That could be possible now that I think about it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Hmm, not sure how you can get lost in such a small sentence but:

If you didn't mean to argue that the mind control being used is "Replicant Like." If you infact agreed with me when I pointed out that total personality change is not required, that subtle use of false memories was in fact (as I stated) all that was required for your unproven cabal to use your unproven methods... If you AGREED with me, why did you say: "NO that's not what I meant" and not "YES I agree"....

I still don't get it, sorry.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, but at least it was a firsthand claim. That's as close to firsthand evidence we can expect, UNLESS there is some documentation of previously secret experiments that has been released. That could be possible now that I think about it.

Or, unless you count the case studies and experiments cited in the meta studies. Or historical prescedents. Or other forms of actual first hand experiments.

A first hand claim is just a claim. Not evidence.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, you confuse skepticism with irrational denial. Belief in elaborate, unevidenced hoax theories is not in any way skepticism.

Oh yes it is. Here is a definition of skepticism:

"1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty.

2. Philosophy.

The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.

The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.

A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets."

From: http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism#ixzz1kyTbchfU

 

[Tomtomkent]

I still don't get it, sorry.

If you agreed faking a lifetime of memories was rubbissh, why did you DISAGREE with me on the issue?

Seriously, there is no way to simplify it beyond that....


You claim you were saying BladeRunner mind control was rubbish.

Why did you DISAGREE when I said that, and ACTUALLY HELPED YOU BY SUGGESTING A MORE REALISTIC APPROACH BY WHICH YOUR FAIRY TALE CAME CLOSE TO REAL SCIENCE?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Or, unless you count the case studies and experiments cited in the meta studies. Or historical prescedents. Or other forms of actual first hand experiments.

A first hand claim is just a claim. Not evidence.

But there are no peer-reviewed experiments of mind control. Because that's illegal. Hmm... I read somewhere that intelligence agencies like the NSA have their own peer-review processes! So maybe the following evidence has been peer-reviewed, by that kind of peer-review and then this is firsthand evidence:

"ARTICHOKE operations involved detailed, systematic creation of specific amnesia barriers, new identities and hypnotically implanted codes and triggers. An ARTICHOKE document dated 7 January 1953 [15] describes the experimental creation of multiple personality in two 19-year old girls by the CIA. "H" is used as shorthand for hypnotic, hypnotized, or hypnotism:

"These subjects have clearly demonstrated that they can pass from a fully awake state to a deep H controlled state via the telephone, via some very subtle signal that cannot be detected by other persons in the room, and without the other individuals being able to note the change. It has been clearly shown that individuals can be induced into H by telephone, by receiving written matter, or by the use of code, signal, or words. Control of those hypnotized can be passed from one individual to another without great difficulty. It has also been shown by experimentation with these girls that they can act as unwilling couriers for information purposes, and that they can be conditioned to a point where they believe a change in identity on their part even on the polygraph." P. 32" -- http://www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh yes it is. Here is a definition of skepticism:

"1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty.

2. Philosophy.

The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.

The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.

A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets."

From: http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism#ixzz1kyTbchfU

Which of those do you feel applies to your statement.

You claimed not to DOUBT the theory of relitivity, you claimed to DISBELIEVE the evidence. So 3, is out as we not discussing religion, 2 is out because your philosophy is not to doubt dogma and base your belief on evidence it is to simply reject the evidence and 1 is out becasue you are not dubious or uncertain. You are certain, you disblieve.


Ergo, you are not sceptical, you are blindly denying.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If you agreed faking a lifetime of memories was rubbissh, why did you DISAGREE with me on the issue?

Seriously, there is no way to simplify it beyond that....


You claim you were saying BladeRunner mind control was rubbish.

Why did you DISAGREE when I said that, and ACTUALLY HELPED YOU BY SUGGESTING A MORE REALISTIC APPROACH BY WHICH YOUR FAIRY TALE CAME CLOSE TO REAL SCIENCE?

Ok, sorry I misunderstood that. Yes, I agree that Bladerunner mind control is science fiction.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Which of those do you feel applies to your statement.

You claimed not to DOUBT the theory of relitivity, you claimed to DISBELIEVE the evidence.

The first definition fits what I meant:

"1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety."

I doubt that Einstein's relativity is real.

 

[Tomtomkent]

But there are no peer-reviewed experiments of mind control. Because that's illegal.

Actually, there are no peer review studies because "mind control" is a nonsense term in science. There are, as I have shown you, pleanty of data on behavioural controls and flase memories.

Now, address what the issue is with the case stuidies cited in the meta-studies, or are you only willing to address the aspect you are lazily denouncing as illegal (with out showing it is so)?

By and large, if you insist on the term "mind control" there are a LOT of experiments that fit the bill. Take for example pscho-active drugs. Used to "control" the "mind" of the patient. How do those get tested by the FDA if they are illegal? How about some of the most simple and fundamental psychological experiments that show basic manipulation (as simple as dressing an authority figure in a lab coat) can be used to push people towards abnormal behaviour (such as believeing they are punishing other participants for giving wrong answers to a test with electric shocks)?

How about the stamford prison experiment? http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=pdf&file=PSP2006039002087 Pure control of behaviour towards the abnormal through environment and circumstantial control? The very thing you claim your cabal has to use?

Your ignorance does not mean the evidence is unavailable. It just means you are too lazy to find it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The first definition fits what I meant:

"1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety."

I doubt that Einstein's relativity is real.

Then why id you claim you DISBELIEVE the evidence.

To doubt means you can reasonably be convinced by looking at the evidence. Instead you simply deny it.