• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

PK parties

Here we see why it's obvious Ian only tells people they're on ignore in the hopes it will annoy them. As I said from the start. No one is actually ignored.

I see here a picture of a man filled with impotent rage. His name is Ian.
 
Interesting Ian said:
A fool?? After all the contributions I've seen you make in the past 2 years. You really haven't got a clue. And you are just too stupid to understand how stupid you are.
Click to expand...

See? I put it to the audience: Is this tiny being, brimming with impotent rage, a liar? Or is he delusional?

You can see he does not speak the truth.
 
Abstract - In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

A bit off-topic, I know. But it's to counter the the misinformation being touted by Claus and others about people who work in the 'parapsychology' field.
 
Interesting Ian said:


I'm not drunk, but I've started a lot of running and weight training over the past 5 days. Maybe that's having some kind of subtle effect on my body {shrugs}
Click to expand...

OK.

Now please apologise for your "spastic" insult.
 
wow, so like did remote viewing find anything?

And can I have one of those attachments for my PC that gives breathalizer tests? They must only be available for Mac.:D
 
scribble said:


See? I put it to the audience: Is this tiny being, brimming with impotent rage, a liar? Or is he delusional?

You can see he does not speak the truth.
Click to expand...

{farts contemptuously}
 
Hey!

Why is it that the actual, mechanical workings of the brain, don't necessarily have to have anything to do with PK? This is a question to the believers, and Ian, about whom I know nothing.

From where I sit, if there were such a thing as PK, there would have to be some very large something-or-other (to be technical) in the brain, allowing for that sort of thing.

No? Yes? What's the scoop?

I don't mean to further derail this thread, but then again, even mentioning PK in a post is bringing it just a little bit closer to the original point, so, you know, whatevah.

Furthermore, why waste time attacking or defending oneself in a damned-near-anonymous online forum? Is it productive? Does it make you feel better? Just curious.

Peace,
- B
 
Originally posted by Ed


I told you so. You will find that Ian has no knowledge of neuropsychology so any discussion of this area tends to the characteristic wastelands of philosophy.

Ask him if objects of different weight fall at the same rate, I wager that he is ignorant of the experiment too.

Sigh...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ian
What on earth has "neuropsychology" got to do with anything??
Click to expand...

The materialists have rendered the term "consciousness" as ambiguous. People normally understand it as an intrinsic, qualitative phenomenon; that is the raw feel of experience. The materialists however define it as being purely a functional process.

Now I am in absolute agreement that in principle a complete scientific description of the world might be able to incorporate this materialist definition of consciousness i.e one of function. But what it cannot do is incorporate the definition of consciousness understood as an intrinsic, qualitative phenomenon.

Why is this? Because the proper materialist i.e the reductionist materialist, holds that mental properties supervene on physical properties. That is to say that mental properties (the raw feel of experience) are necessarily entailed by certain physical facts. But this simply cannot be done. It cannot be done in principle, not ever, no matter how many thousands of years of advancement in the fundamental sciences. Why? Because physics only ever deals with structure and function. Thousands of years might pass in the advancement of science, millions of years might pass in the advancement of science, but this ain't gonna change cold facts. One cannot (logically) derive qualitative intrinsic experiences from structure and function. To suppose otherwise is to misunderstand what the fundamental science ie physics, is all about.

Materialism is refuted.

It's a stone cold fact.

Can any of you lot understand this though?? :rolleyes:
 
LettristLoon said:
Hey!

Why is it that the actual, mechanical workings of the brain, don't necessarily have to have anything to do with PK? This is a question to the believers, and Ian, about whom I know nothing.
Click to expand...


If you're maintaining that PK has to have something to do with physical processes in the brain, you need to give out your reasoning. Until you do . . .

From where I sit, if there were such a thing as PK, there would have to be some very large something-or-other (to be technical) in the brain, allowing for that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
LettristLoon said:
Hey!

Why is it that the actual, mechanical workings of the brain, don't necessarily have to have anything to do with PK? This is a question to the believers, and Ian, about whom I know nothing.
Click to expand...

I unfortunately am a member of neither set, but I'll pipe in here. I would imagine that, in the end, we would find a link between the brain and PK, if PK is real. As Ian points out, reductive materialism is certainly not the only camp, so perhaps we'll only find a link between mind and PK. But I don't want to speculate just yet. No sense in making my brain hurt before I get them videos.


Furthermore, why waste time attacking or defending oneself in a damned-near-anonymous online forum? Is it productive? Does it make you feel better? Just curious.

Peace,
- B
Click to expand...

I think some of these clowns actually know each other ;)
 
flyboy217 said:


I unfortunately am a member of neither set, but I'll pipe in here. I would imagine that, in the end, we would find a link between the brain and PK, if PK is real. As Ian points out, reductive materialism is certainly not the only camp, so perhaps we'll only find a link between mind and PK. But I don't want to speculate just yet. No sense in making my brain hurt before I get them videos.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that reductive materialism is unintelligible, even if it were not I do not believe it could possibly accommodate psi phenomena. If psi phenomena exists, then we need, at a minimum to embrace interactive dualism, and these phenomena actually strongly suggest the correctness of an idealist metaphysic. Indeed, as I argued in the other thread, retro-psychokinesis seems to be to only be explicable under idealism.
 
Lucianarchy said:
A bit off-topic, I know. But it's to counter the the misinformation being touted by Claus and others about people who work in the 'parapsychology' field.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's very off-topic. We are still waiting for your own examples.
 
Interesting Ian, et al...

Okay, I get you, but I disagree. Now, keep in mind, we're not really talking about hypotheses which are provable, at this particular moment. Rather, we're talking about quite a metaphysical debate which may or may not ever be answered.

I don't think that consciousness is necessarily anything more than this gooey material in my head. Note--I didn't say it's "not," just that it's "not necessarily." For example--if you were a pantheist of the least theistic sort, you might say, "Well, matter is special, and in certain formations, it could, very well, enjoy qualitative, 'intrinsic' experience. Why not?"

I guess you're not a pantheist, though, which is all right, too.

But, I'll explain here--if you're a materialist, as I suppose it appears I must be, then there would very much need to be a ray-gun apparatus located in the brain for PK to exist, unless it was a function of some other body part. Spleen?

And even under your hypothesis, you've never said there was a point of interaction between "spirit" and matter, or whatever--only vice verse (matter letting your "spirit," or whatever, know what's going on).

By the way, you didn't use those words, and I hate using them, myself. It's just shorthand, please ignore. You get the drift.

But if PK exists (and, again, in my opinion it probably doesn't), and it has nothing to do with the physical processes of the body, then you'd be looking for a point of interaction between "spirit" and matter. Because, in the final analysis, if the proverbial spoon is getting bent, something has gotta be bending it, and if it ain't an object...?

See, you're kind of stuck, either way. No matter what cosmology you put yer stock in, PK should be easily demonstrable, if only it exists. Look for a point of interaction, anywhere, between matter and seemingly immaterial things, or else cut someone open and look for a raygun. No matter what, it shouldn't be too hard.

- B
 
LettristLoon said:
Interesting Ian, et al...

Okay, I get you, but I disagree. Now, keep in mind, we're not really talking about hypotheses which are provable, at this particular moment. Rather, we're talking about quite a metaphysical debate which may or may not ever be answered.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


I don't think that consciousness is necessarily anything more than this gooey material in my head. Note--I didn't say it's "not," just that it's "not necessarily." For example--if you were a pantheist of the least theistic sort, you might say, "Well, matter is special, and in certain formations, it could, very well, enjoy qualitative, 'intrinsic' experience. Why not?"

I guess you're not a pantheist, though, which is all right, too.

But, I'll explain here--if you're a materialist, as I suppose it appears I must be, then there would very much need to be a ray-gun apparatus located in the brain for PK to exist, unless it was a function of some other body part. Spleen?
Click to expand...

Of course this poses a problem for the material reductionist view. I think Ian is trying to make the point that material reductionism is untenable in light of qualia. Subjective experience is not made up of the same "stuff" that matter is. I understand the materialist attempt to correlate mental and physical states, but I'm as of yet undecided on the matter. The qualia argument is a terrifically powerful one, I think.

Even if mental states could ever be proven to always correlate to specific physical states (something that can never be proven), it doesn't mean that mental states ARE physical states. But in light of such a correlation, it would make sense to ask where the ray-gun is.

Maybe it's related to microtubules, as Penrose and Hameroff suggest. Or maybe some particular attribute of our brain structure causes quantum collapse in a special fashion that most inanimate forms of matter do not. Maybe it's that special ability to collapse that gives rise to both consciousness and psi. Who knows.

Personally, I'm not interested in looking for the ray-gun, even hypothetically, unless I see some effects of it. Even if it exists, I don't think it's in a way that we could elucidate in conversations like these.
 
I'm curious: Does PK in the case of, say, an experiment involving spoon-bending require the object (the spoon) that is to be affected by PK to be in physical contact with the "bender"?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then why not put the "bender" in a straitjacket, tape over his mouth and rest the spoon on his forehead - he should still be able to bend the spoon, no problem. If he cannot bend the spoon under these circumstances, but needs to have his hands clear, then I smell something fishy...

If the answer to the above question is "no", he does not need to be in physical contact with the object, then lay out a number of, preferably identical, spoons at various distances to test the effect of distance, and whether the "bender" is able, upon request, to focus his PK on one or more spoons at various distances. (The "bender" should remain tied to a post in his straitjacket, but the duct tape may now be removed from his mouth, unless the "bender" is one U. Geller).

If the "bender" can't do this either, then I'd say that spoon-bending to demonstrate the possible existence of PK-phenomena seems to be a dead end...

PS: No, I'm not a metallurgist but an aircraft structures design engineer.

PPS: "Metal is metal..." - Says who? ;)

PPPS: IMHO, If JREF were to part with the million, Randi would at an instant get far more exposure than he has accumulated until now by NOT losing the million. So, even though Randi has nothing to do with this discussion, Targ would stand to gain by the provision of evidence (underhand or not) for the existence of PK and/or other PSI - but so would Randi...
 
Anders W. Bonde said:
I'm curious: Does PK in the case of, say, an experiment involving spoon-bending require the object (the spoon) that is to be affected by PK to be in physical contact with the "bender"?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then why not put the "bender" in a straitjacket, tape over his mouth and rest the spoon on his forehead - he should still be able to bend the spoon, no problem. If he cannot bend the spoon under these circumstances, but needs to have his hands clear, then I smell something fishy...
Click to expand...

I think you will find that it is just due to your lack of personal hygeine, because no one even claims to be able to do what you suggest. :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you did the same thing to chess-player, no doubt he would knock the whole board over before his opening move. You won't catch a butterfly in a bear trap.

Still, it gave you the chance to use the word "bender" quite a bit, eh?
 
Anders W. Bonde said:
I'm curious: Does PK in the case of, say, an experiment involving spoon-bending require the object (the spoon) that is to be affected by PK to be in physical contact with the "bender"?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the hypothesis is that the spoon becomes "soft."


If the answer to this question is "yes", then why not put the "bender" in a straitjacket, tape over his mouth and rest the spoon on his forehead - he should still be able to bend the spoon, no problem. If he cannot bend the spoon under these circumstances, but needs to have his hands clear, then I smell something fishy...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I'd bend a soft spoon with my forehead. But I could do that with my hands. I'm also not sure what kind of fishy tricks would allow many participants (not the coordinator, who could be tricky) to bend the heads of spoons with their bare hands. Suggestions?

The only suggestions made so far involve an uknown alloy being distributed. But considering he has shown me which spoons to order from the internet, I don't think I'll have that trouble.


PPS: "Metal is metal..." - Says who? ;)
Click to expand...

Where'd you get the quote from? I think CFLarsen was the only one to say this, facetiously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom