Can modern systems be Paranormal...?

Kumar....dear deluded kumar...
In all the world...all those billions of people could select to discuss just about anything. And you...you start a long debate about the definition of the term "paranormal"?

Are you really that confused so you don't understand what it means? Nonsense...you just like the attention, that's my guess.
 
Mojo said:
The systems you describe as "Modern Systems" work within established and predictable scientific laws (often referred to as "laws of nature"). They are therefore clearly neither supernatural nor paranormal.
Click to expand...

EinstieinQuota.gif


The history of science has shown that the Laws of Science are not identical with Nature since our so called Laws are constantly shifting and evolving as new methods and instruments improve our ability to probe the Universe. As disconcerting as it may be, it would be folly to believe that the current Laws of Science represent some absolute truth about nature that will not be superseded in the future.

Rather than being the TRUTH, the Laws of Science reflect a mathematical, conceptual model - constructed by man from empirical observations - to fatefully mirror phenomenon as closely as possible. There may be absolute Laws of Nature, but the Laws of Science are only approximations of the order by which Nature operates.
Link.
Click to expand...

This is the position of your natural law. Natural Law as least should be "natural".

Btw, do you/science go according to:

Law of Extrema;Eg: Law of Entropy

Conservation of Matter and Energy; that matter and/or energy are neither created nor destroyed over time; they merely change form, and their sum total always remains the same.

Law of Entropy; in any real-world situation, entropy irreversibly increases for an isolated system : all systems, by themselves, tend toward a state of minimum energy.

I mean; are you moving towards higher to lower energy, conserving energy OR want to furthur increase it ny new additions of theories & substances. Are you not going against these of your laws by trying to hijeck, discreding others to add to yours...meant desire to increase, increase alike adiction of alcohol/drugs? :(
 
Donks said:
I didn't want to get into dictionary definitions, but here we go again.

Kumar, you are getting confused. Forget about the definitions for "natural" and "normal." If you want to see if modern systems are "supernatural" and "paranormal" then look at the definitions for "supernatural" and "paranormal." From Merriam Webster:


So you see, if you use the proper definitions, there is no reason to think that modern medicine is either supernatural or paranormal.
Click to expand...

:) :)

Donks, mine & yours both are dict. definitions. Means, both have evidances of these definitions, but we used as per our selfish purposes. Alike it, we may get so many pro-evidances telling both sides, for any or most of the concepts liked or desired by us. We can fight on that--as both are right with evidances Eg;

One Man with gun & one Lion are standing opposite to each other. Humans saying 'kill the lion', lion/other lions thinking, to 'kill the man'. Man have one natural purpose; self defence by unnatural means whereas Lion has two natural purposes; food & self defence by natural means. Nature has made lion physically more stronger than man, whereas humans are made mentally, more stronger than lions. WHO is right & who is wrong--man/humans OR lions/animals, in natural sense not just in self/human's sense?

Just look on internet, kumar is intelligent AND kumar is idiot. You will get both results( surprising inteliiigent one got 542,000 links & idiot one got just 30100 links ;) ). You have evidances of 30100 links againt 542,000 links, so still you can aruge if like it. This will be called as Law of self interest/selfishness, if not by illitracy, ignorances..etc.

It indicates 'evidances may have doubtful/self interest/illitracy type bases--so practical experiances, time testing can be important.
 
Kumar said:
Just look on internet, kumar is intelligent AND kumar is idiot. You will get both results( surprising inteliiigent one got 542,000 links & idiot one got just 30100 links ;) ). You have evidances of 30100 links againt 542,000 links, so still you can aruge if like it. This will be called as Law of self interest/selfishness, if not by illitracy, ignorances..etc.

It indicates 'evidances may have doubtful/self interest/illitracy type bases--so practical experiances, time testing can be important.
Click to expand...
None of the hits in your first search had the words together. The word "intelligent" in them was not describing Kumar.

I've just googled the phrase "Kumar is intelligent."
Your search - "kumar is intelligent" - did not match any documents.
Click to expand...

The phrase "Kumar is an idiot," on the other hand, found 5 hits.

Res ipsa loquitur.
 
Kumar said:
:) :)

Donks, mine & yours both are dict. definitions. Means, both have evidances of these definitions, but we used as per our selfish purposes. Alike it, we may get so many pro-evidances telling both sides, for any or most of the concepts liked or desired by us. We can fight on that--as both are right with evidances
Click to expand...
The only problem for you is that you are applying the wrong definition.
It indicates 'evidances may have doubtful/self interest/illitracy type bases--so practical experiances, time testing can be important.
Click to expand...
Argument by Googlefight? Man, grow up already.
 
Mojo said:
None of the hits in your first search had the words together. The word "intelligent" in them was not describing Kumar.

I've just googled the phrase "Kumar is intelligent."

The phrase "Kumar is an idiot," on the other hand, found 5 hits.

Res ipsa loquitur.
Click to expand...

Because your reach/belief is bit limited. I don't understand, how you get so low hits & manage so much narrrow mindedness. Try to be bit open.
 
Kumar said:
Because your reach/belief is bit limited. I don't understand, how you get so low hits
Click to expand...
I got a small number of hits because I restricted my search to find only relevant results.
 
Kumar said:
Give me the link with url.
Click to expand...
OK.

And the other one.

You see? By putting the words in quotation marks to search for them as a phrase, I have eliminated 542,000 irrelevant hits from your first search and 30095 irrelevant hits from the second one.

Perhaps you could extend this approach to some of the Google searches you post.

Edited to add: Of course, once this thread has been indexed there should be a hit for "Kumar is intelligent" as well.
 
Mojo said:
OK.

And the other one.

You see? By putting the words in quotation marks to search for them as a phrase, I have eliminated 542,000 irrelevant hits from your first search and 30095 irrelevant hits from the second one.

Perhaps you could extend this approach to some of the Google searches you post.

Edited to add: Of course, once this thread has been indexed there should be a hit for "Kumar is intelligent" as well.
Click to expand...

I can understad now, how you manipulate by keeping a result in inverted commas. :D Any way, I didn't asked/written in inverted commas which you have only manipulated. Anyway, as per science/your style:-

Intelligent still shows 17 results & Idot show nil results. Is, an words being very common so not taken. :D ;) :p

If you woluld have not manipulated for vested interests you would have searched as:-

'kumar is idiot' & 'kumar is intelligent' and then you would have syncronized with me.;)

This also tells we study/see micro(each words/energy) level & you macro(whole sentence/molecular presence) level.
 
Kumar said:
If you woluld have not manipulated for vested interests you would have searched as:-

'kumar is idiot' & 'kumar is intelligent' and then you would have syncronized with me.;)
Click to expand...
He 'manipulated' the results by making Google search for exactly what you suggested he search for - it is you who have manipulated the results by searching for something different.

I have so totally forgot where all of this was leading.
 
Kumar said:

If you woluld have not manipulated for vested interests you would have searched as:-

'kumar is idiot' & 'kumar is intelligent' and then you would have syncronized with me.;)
Click to expand...
Not really. For starters, "Kumar is idiot" is not proper English. "Idiot" is a noun. So the proper phrase is "Kumar is an idiot." "Intelligent" is an adjective, so your phrase ("Kumar is intelligent") is correct.
Second, to search for a phrase you use " not ' as you did.
So, if you plan on basing your arguments on Google searches and Googlefights from now on, at least learn how to use Google. And hope noone googlebombs "Kumar is an idiot" to your profile here.
 
I think I can understand Kumar if his sentences are 3 words or less...most of the time.
 
Kumar said:
If you woluld have not manipulated for vested interests you would have searched as:-

'kumar is idiot' & 'kumar is intelligent' and then you would have syncronized with me.;)
Click to expand...
To search for a phrase, you need to put the words in quotation marks (i.e. double inverted commas), not single inverted commas. Note that in the hits found in these searches, the phrases "Kumar is idiot" and "Kumar is intelligent" do not actually appear.

Try to get it right, for Ed's sake.
 
For some reason I am thoroughly amused by the idea of argument by googlefight.

I've posted a link to this thread on my LJ so that all my friends can have a good chuckle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom