Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Zaay, if you don't mind, I am going to present an opening to the second half of our discussion that is a bit intuitive, maybe this will help you see what I mean.

It's sorta like a puzzle. I hope you get it.

>
I am going to name a few names that I'm sure you have heard of.


Rupert Sheldrake
Dr. Shui Yin Lo
Alister Crowley
Ralph Abrams
The Dalai Lama
Adolph Hitler
Pope Benidict what's his name.


Now i am going to state the proposition from OS 0 1 2 you suggest is self evident.

Human Beings are not ideas.

Now, do you really believe the proposition "Human Beings are not Ideas" is self evident?

Dr. Shui Yin Lo is a friend of mine, so I have the benifit, by the way, of actually knowing the man.

Not THE Dr. Shui Yin Lo? Of the ATG (American Technologies Group)? A group which is now largely defunct, due to being busted on numerous scams and multilevel marketing schemes?

Yes. However Doc Lo was not accused of fraud, they were. He resigned from that company after they ingored his report on some laundry ball thing. This has caused him problems. That sucks for marketing himself, but that has nothing to do with his theory.

Not THE Dr. Shui Yin Lo, who falsely claimed to find an electrified crystal of ice that was stable at room temperatures, and whose claims were revealed to be wholly false?

This is false and misleading. It wasnt a 'claim', it was a paper he published in Physics Letters B. No one has repeated his experiment. There were a few online rebuttals that were not presented as formal arguments to Doc Lo, i.e. he wasnt given the respect of a resonse or rebuttal. As you know, stable water clustering is a very controversial topic in physics and chemistry.

I'm sorry, Dr. Shui Yin Lo was discredited over half a decade ago. He's a farce in the scientific community, and a whisper in all but the most empty-headed woo communities. You'll have to find another, qualified authority to appeal to.

he could be a child molester, it would'nt effect his science. He has had a distinguished career, holding professorship and some pretty impressive universities in QM physics. I was at his wedding at cal tec two years ago, he seemed to have the respect of a large body of academia, the place was packed with them.

May I suggest J-Lo, perhaps? She'd be at least as qualified to discuss qi as the 'Doctor' was...

it does not matter who it is, ideas are not people. If someone is a fraud or a sham, thier ideas can still be true, or false, or mystery, not false by default.


Doc Lo is the classic absent minded professor IMHO. He is very naive and pure on one hand, and very eager to do almost anything that will advance his theories and experiments, on the other. he has the excitement of a young boy. He is also very easily misled.

I defend him here because he deserves some defense. He needs help there, he doesnt communicate very well at all, he actually sucks at it pretty bad. The man has 7 patents, over 25 papers he has written, some published, some not, and a whole body of quantum 'philosophy' he has developed from quantum theory. he is eccentric but only in the most charming of ways. he is a good man.

So, doc lo is not his ideas, nor am I doc lo's ideas (for the record, I dont know what to think of many of his ideas yet, I am skeptical about them), nor am I doc lo, so what ever impressions you have, please dont assosciate them with this argument.

It's a piss-poor word that covers its true meaning: let's not get logical, rational, and reasonable! Let's indulge in fantasy and intuitive thinking!

No! Let's get BOTH logical and rational, and intuitive/creative. They work well together you know, and when they do, we are more rational and creative for it

What I mean was, simply, unimportant in any pragmatic sense.

It depends upon what you're being pragmatic about, that's what I mean. We can be pragmatic about having a divine experience that we cannot explain. We can be pragmatic about internal experiences where it 'feels' like energy is being moved and transformed throughout the body.

The closest to luminous ether we've come in terms of valid concepts is the Quantum Foam, and so far, that's unproven as well.

I havent much familiarity with the term 'luminous ether', but a quick note about old ideas and concepts like qi or anything like that. Think about it. A long time ago there simply existed no pure objective language or method like science/logic/mathematics of today, no distinctions for things in the rational sense like we know it today. Metaphor, art, rich poetic description was the only option to describe subtle force/experience. That description could be misinterpreted as something meant to be objective. Alchemy is a perfect example. We assume alchemy was about turning lead into gold, and alchemy is a western 'internal art' like qi kung is to the east, more of a philosophical esoteric thing.

We have powerful minds and we dont neccesarily know how to use them. The mind apparently can be self modeled in numerous ways, creativly or analyitically or both, and a psychological mechanism is just a belief system that produces a result, like placebo.

I'm not sure you're considering that when you say

you think it exists whether it exists or not. Not very critical of a response, I'm afraid.

It is a critical statement when you consider that I have experience on my side. i.e. I am either operating a perinormal mechanism that has repeating and reoccuring patterns in experience and sense of well being or a psychological mechanism, i.e. something like a placebo, with qi.

when it comes to the 2 value, the subjective value, 'success is your proof'.

Consider, when placebos turn up a small percentage of healing in most case studies, how would that be shrugged off as irrelevant? the mind does the healing, but the person doesnt know how they did it. That's worth critically looking into, dont you think?

Anyway, that's what I mean by mechanism, not what your suggesting.

Iron Shirt can and has been taught successfully without ever referring to any concept similar to qi.

links? refrences? studies? personal experiences?

I dont see what difference that makes if true, and it was certainly used extensivly when I was trained in it.

Tell me, how do you describe turning sexual jing and refining it into qi, and then into shen, without using qi as a placeholder?

We don't know if qi is perhaps an unknown phenomena? That's senseless. And most of my arguments were based on the available evidence.

have you experienced qi in the sense where you can move it around your body? have you felt electric or magnetic like polarity in the body? if so can you change the the polarity? can you generate heat? can you cause effect to your physical body structure simply by moving it along your spine?

I ask that because I have, consistantly for years. It's not even a big deal to me, please dont think i say these things to impress anyone, it's natural to me. I dont place objective validity on the experience. those are actual impressions of not what it is, but what it feels like. I don't know what that is. Maybe qi is just our own bioelectrical energy, i still dont know. I call it energy because it moves and feels like energy.

It may be a false idea about energy, but it's certainly a true experience to have. I have also had very disturbing experiences with 'qi', I dont want to give the idea that it's all colors and rainbows.

What did you base your arguments on?

My own direct experience in myself and with others, and considering Dr. Shui Yin Lo's ideas critically to the best of my understanding. Since Doc Lo is about to conduct another set of experiments (he has, again, academics who are assisting him and find his theories interesting), I am open to his suggestions, but skeptical about them.

He has a scientific argument for it as a peri-normal phenomena. I'm a layman, I can't say his physics is correct or not, but I will trust the science when it comes out.

...or? An either usually requires an or...



There really is no other possibility. Either qi exists, or it doesn't. Whether we know which is true or not, is irrelevant.

I think you're still missing the point here. A concept is a real concept. A dream is a real dream. an experience is an experience. ideas dont exist in the material sense either, yet clearly our ideas are influencing more and more of physical reality. Subjective and objective space are not the same thing, they just look like it. If something exists in subjective space, then it can be said to exist relative to it's environment.

So qi is either a physical or conceptual mechanism, that's is all I am saying. I can still do the same thing with it no matter what it is. My experience stays the same.

A blatantly dualist statement.

your confusing my 0's for 1's.

If the mind/awareness is also matter, then it comes pre-synthesized. And I'm pretty sure it comes pre-synthesized, as a matter of fact.

I'm not sure what you mean here, i dont know. The mind is still a very mysterious thing to me, and the QM stuff is just plain weird.

I can make it even shorter, and retain the meaning:

quaddlebaum fingledorp wingnoggle.

There - and it's equally as meaningful.

Then you dont yet catch my meaning......

0=meaning
1=text
2=interpretation

Not at all. Not unless you're making further statements about God that we've not made here.

some statements I make are tongue in cheek, the epistemology of daisies throughout the history of the vatican was a funny image i count not resist. not a critical statement.

I've said an indeterminate value remains irrelevant until it is assigned a true/false value.

Irrelevant to what? Saying that the third value is irrelevant or meaningless does not make it so, that's magical thinking. It's your steps you have taken to get there that appear contradictory and circular, not your conclusion.

"ladies and Gentleman, may i introduce Barak Obama, the next president of the united states" is not an irrelevant idea.

"WMD are being stored and manufactored in Iraq" was not an irrelevant idea in 2003.

Now if this is not what you mean, how is it I arrive with these contradictions when you claim it is irrelevant? I really dont undestand here, this is where we are deadlocked. Both of us cannot possibly be objectivly true here, one of us is clearly mistaken.

It's not that mysterious. Answers are coming in every year about the individual bits of consciousness. It's clearly an emergent property of the matter which comprises our brains, when in the pattern of our brains. The mystery is fading fast.

That's far from agreed upon scientifically! It's not true, that's philosophy about consciousness, most likely supplied by Dennet, who leads the reductionism charge. I think to make a statement like that is magical thinking.

http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?topic=conscious&speaker=dennett

http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=fukuyama&topic=conscious

http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=pinker&topic=conscious

and you're also assuming that the objective mystery of consciousness, once solved, will solve the mystery of consciousness, and not so, the subjective side of consciousness will always be a mystery by it's very nature alone, unless you believe in a psi-future of mind readers.

That sentence is nothing short of breathtakingly meaningless.

you could have said "Bubblefish, what do you mean here?" and it would have been a more honest response and more accurate appraisal. Instead, you gave us personal opinion.

For if my phrase was purely meaningless, then I could not have possibly meant anything by it. And I can assure you I am very clear about the meaning I prescribe.

Ahhhhh... so mystery is IGNORANCE.

no, mystery is mystery. ignorance is ignorance, and ignorance means, in the objective sense, 'not knowing' or 'knowing not'. 'I know that I do not know" is the socratic appeal to the third value and ignorance. it does not mean stupidity, it is not shameful. It is delusional to assume we are not ignorant.

You cant define something as what it is objectivly just by calling it a name and expect that to make it true, that is magical thinking.

Ignorance is itself a horrible thing, a thing to be removed as soon as possible. Once ignorance is removed, we can embrace available evidence and construct a useful operational theory of what is, and what is not.

magical thinking again, you just turned 'not knowing' into something like a monster, a bad thing to be avoided. now your telling me it's shameful to not know.

Many things could be described as precognitive. But that doesn't make them so.

agreed, but that's not the point. one could argue that intuition was pre-cognitive.

We're speaking from pragmatism, here. A thing which has no demonstrable affect is irrelevant.

I only can understand you here if you mean Pragmatism in the philosophical sense, and if you are, it's applied to science, it's not comprehensive. It's specific to a point of view. That was the meaning of my joke, academio-centric. That's fine if that's your philosophy, sure, I just dont think it's as critical as it once was, i think the 21st century gives us too much novelty to consider pragmatism as the sole approach to truth, we need both rationality and intuition, creativity and technology

Hardly. We know consciousness exists. We have objective evidence of the physical nature of what is required for consciousness.
We have a set of behaviors which appear only in a conscious being. If you demonstrate those behaviors, you are conscious.

that's a pretty general statement, and could be interpretted many ways. You're simply saying human beings have consciousness, and since we can prove human beings exist, consciousness exists by default, and no one is arguing with that.

It's not the existence of consciousness that is the mystery, we know it exists simply by self reflection and being, it is the experience of consciousness that is the mystery. We dont understand consciousness yet, and consciousness is both subjective and objective, we cannot understand consciousness by science alone.

Mystery sells books. Mystery sells lectures. People are willing to be conned by mystery.

So there was no mystery before commerce, is that what you're trying to pedal here?

Mystery is the inspiration for the scientist and the artist.

Zaay, your suggesting mystery = that thing in your head that your reacting to when you see the word 'mystery'. that's only the false side of mystery. the other side of mystery, we dont know. And in an almost infinite universe with an unknown number of possible points of view, the mystery is constant simply due to human nature alone.

Change that to ignorance and see what it gets you.

Well look what it gets you! it gets you reacting and not thinking critical. We dont know what mystery is, if we did, it would not be mystery. We only know what images we have in our heads when we encounter mystery, and we can only know that's not the mystery either.

Look, Bubble, you're making some very common mistakes - including assuming your conclusions beforehand.

You will have to bring that conclusion to my attention then, until then, please note we seem to be having a similar point of view of each other, that is my observation of you too.

You speak of how qi is relevant to qi kung, which assumes qi kung itself is relevant.

qi kung is certainly relevant to me and about a few million others.

You speak of consciousness as mysterious, when in fact it is only difficult to comprehend, not mysterious.

You are confusing mystery with something else, that thing in your head. Mystery is difficult to comprehend by default, it's a tangled hierarchy of true and false.

You make many claims with an underlying assumption that all monisms are false.

I dont know what to tell you other than what I have here. I am stating nothing more than the law of identity, A=A. The map is not the territory. the menu is not the meal.

You're not, in fact, applying much critical thought here. I would hope that, if you are honestly here to discuss, you could attempt to do so.

I am doing so the best I can, please continue to challenge me as I challenge you. We are beginning to see similar things in each other, which is an often occuring phenomena in this process. Only one of us can be true in the objective sense, and the other true in the subjective sense, or both of us are simply wrong!

I want to see where I make my error here.

as you can see, we come from completly two distinct schools of thought. we both have appeared to have thought through what we discuss here, so let's both acknowledge that in each other.

I dont think you have modeled my school of thought properly yet. When i say mystery, you see woo, yet when I see objective reality, I see mystery, not woo! Objective and common reality is far more mysterious to me than qi. I consider everything, dont judge me or this point of view by one set of considerations, you wont get a fair picture if you do.

I think you should start by learning the history and evolution of modern qi mythologies. Don't just consult the woo books and chat with your instructors; actually do the historical digging; look at the anthropology and archaeology papers; dig into the really academic research. You'd be amazed at how things actually came to be.

I'm only interested in my experiences and the actual science when it becomes available for right now. this is not my life's work, qi or qi research, it's just a hobby of mine, a past time. I'm not attached to it.

And, please, stop referring to the scam artist and fraud Shui Yin Lo.

please stop referring to him as a scam artist and fraud, that is libelous and misleading. He has a distinguished career in academia, is published, holds patents, listed in the 'who's who' numerous times, and works very very hard at his research. He may be wrong about some things, or he may be right, just like any other scientist. Your making the same error here as James Randi is about Steorn. I dont understand how someone needs to be a fraud or a scam artist for someone else to be right about thier philosophy.

BF

 

[sinnikal]

Well, as bone-headed stubbornness or, as Bubba would probably term it, 'consistency of position', seems to be his only strong suit and drawing on my unfortunately vast experience of observing his tactics, I suggest that we're not too far away from him self-declaring a 'win' for himself.
Bunch of arse.

 

[WWHP]

Guys,

Can we just crown him Christophera 2.0, and go home? We have as much chance of making him think or concede a point as we do of ever persuading
Christophera on the non-existance of a concrete core.

Just a "don't feed the Troll" thought.

basilio

when you're arguments have a difficult time advancing with someone with an opposing point of view, calling them a troll doesnt assist your arguments.

trolls disrupt topics and relate insignificance to the discussion. you're officially trolling my discussion now, and then have the balls to project that on me.

You dont like this discussion? then dont read it and dont come here, I can assure you I have no desire to have a personal chat with you.

 

[WWHP]

Well, as bone-headed stubbornness or, as Bubba would probably term it, 'consistency of position', seems to be his only strong suit and drawing on my unfortunately vast experience of observing his tactics, I suggest that we're not too far away from him self-declaring a 'win' for himself.
Bunch of arse.

you still don't get it.

in the search for truth, I win no matter if I find myself correct or incorrect, either way I either retain a truth or win a new one.

by the way, cynical is not skeptical, it's resignation.

 

[WWHP]

Are you going to admit you have a problem with your own arguments as a whole? Or are we simply going to consign you to the dustbin of trolldom. Your call, BF.

You can do what ever you wish, and I can do what ever i wish.

If you dont understand, you can ask questions. If your not interested, then you can leave.

BF

 

[Zep]

Yep, major fumble and drop on that one, BF. We've seen that tripe months ago - it was crap then and it's still crap now. Seems you aren't interested in discussion either.

*SIGH*

OK, I'll go find a pic to link for the offical tagging...

http://vikid.blogharbor.com/Misc/Troll.jpg

 

[WWHP]

You mean the way that each and every poster on this thead - barring you - realises that you're an idiot, drowning in your own stupidity?
If you can see that objectively, as I can, I congratulate your persistence in the face of all reason.
Thanks for the promotion, though!

I dont care what people think about me, I dont expect you to like me, I think different than you and that is upsetting to fundamentalists, I accept that.


I am discussing a specific idea, and I am interested in the arguments against the idea, nothing more.

Please go troll some homeopaths and bigfoot supporters, you know, what you're good at. Please go somewhere where your sense of shaming others actually gets you somewhere in an argument. It doesnt work in this thread, you are the one who looks like an ass in my eyes when you do it.

 

[WWHP]

OK:

It doesn't add anything to discussion, as Bubblefish himself uses his logic to classify aesthetic opininion that by its nature is unverifiable with unkown ("there is a pattern to all prime numbers") which by its nature is unverified, and unfalsiable statements ("God exists"), and probably sefveral others. (All are supposedly mystery").


Jim

You have to explain that another way, I dont understand you here.

 

[WWHP]

I request critical discussion. I dont mind rudeness, teasing, but I politely ask for critical reasonable debate.


BF

 

[Mojo]

please stop referring to him as a scam artist and fraud, that is libelous and misleading.

It ill-behoves you to complain about this when you yourself have cast doubt upon the veracity of statements made by Dr. Lo.

Because what you originally said, in response to the question "Has Dr. Lo published any evidence for the actuality of Qi in any peer-reviewed journals," was this:

Dr. Lo has published his evidence in peer reviewed journals. I am not sure if they are available on the web or not. Would you care to read them?

Yes, I did say that because that is what Dr. Lo informed me.

You have conceded that the evidence had not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Lo is, as you say, an experienced scientist, so he surely knows what peer-review is, and he surely knows where his own papers have been published. We can only conclude that if Dr. Lo informed you that his evidence had been published in peer-reviewed journals then he was lying. I am quite prepared to accept your evidence on this since, as you say, you "have the benifit [sic], by the way, of actually knowing the man".

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Wewillfixit is the refrain of some small mice.

Professor Yaffle is a carved wooden bookend in the shape of a woodpecker.

And even Bagpuss himself, once he was asleep, was just a saggy old cloth cat; baggy and a bit loose at the seams.

 

[WWHP]

Mystery is not a value. Undetermined is much more useful.

Again, making an assertion does not make reality change for all of us, just yourself. if you can argue that succesfully, i will update OS 0 1 2 to include your terminology.

Mystery is a third value. It is true that somethings are unknown. If it wasnt a value, then it wouldnt be true that some things were unknown.

Or by +1, -1, 0. Or by 00, 01, and 10. Or by any other arbitrary number system on earth.

No, it's not arbitrary, it's precise. I understand that I should explain this number set in relationship to natural number as dividing number sets into three categories: the null set(0), non null finite set (1), and the infinite set(2), and that this number system is based on their respective cardinalities.

Define 'perfect'.

in this sense self refrential to it's claim, precise, a pefect mathematical fingerprint of these meta distinctions found in number.

So you say 0 carries the sense of true, 1 of false, and 2 of unknown?

the three values of perceptible truth used in ordering and counting are:

0=mystery, 1=true, 2=false.

How so? I'm sorry, I've done mathematics for years and never seen such values applied, except in some of the more lame versions of 'new math' - which usually ended up by telling you that 1 plus 1 equals whatever you need it to be today.

It's not math how I use those numbers, at least as far as i know, it's just that those same exact distinctions we use in truth values, we also use to distinguish the basic sets of number in ordering and counting, i.e. common use.

And how is it possible for all sides to win, when some ideas are naturally in conflict?

In the conflict of idea, finding or refining truth is the sole objective, right? We all want to be or have truth, no one wants to be false, everybody wants to be right.

truth is eternally replenishing, meaning two or more people can have the same truth. truth is not a limited resource, thus a discussion, when rational and intuitive, is by default a non zero sum game when truth is the value.

If you have two points of view, working through these three values (0, 1, 2),let's assume that (to make it easier to explain) both are honest, and soley seek truth. Both enter a dialectic, a discussion for serious consideration, then what would occur would most likely be similar to one reasonable human being realizing he or she simply reassigned an inappropiate truth value, i.e was incorrect, and lost thier false idea believed to be true, i.e. 'won' the more objective truth, and the other individual retains there truth through honest and reasonable exchange.

Human beings are not ideas, and are not in conflict. Our perception of conflict is irrational, we are delusional, it's not real, we are confusing ourselves as the ideas at the conceptual level. ideas must conflict for their to be synthesis and resolution, and memetic evolution. there can only be one '1', since truth relates directly to objective reality, our 1 environment we all can agree on.

only ideas that are true conflict with other ideas believed to be true. False and mysterious ideas are not in conflict with true ideas unless when misasigned.

When the distinctions are perfectly understood, tit for tat exchange slowly reveals where one idea that was false or mysterious was simply believed to be true or vice versa to honest points of view. That is how this framework has a very conservative objective criteria for what is true, false, and mystery.

This last statement is your most troubling, because it doesn't emerge from any of your prior ideas, has the sound of pop-philosophy or religion/cult thought, gives no means of providing 'win-win' solutions, and is blatantly obvious.

All of these 'points' are interdependent on each other, 6 is not a conclusion, they are all conclusions independent of each other yet it is how they all relate when considered.

All sides win is a strategy, not a hug or a kiss or an incense burner, and it's the most rational strategy and result to find. Note Robert Wright's 'Non Zero, the Logic of Human Destiny'. A Non Zero Sum Game.

By the way, those are you own false ideas about 'win-win' the religious (wtf?) cult stuff or pop psych, or what have you. that's not OS 012, those were your ideas about OS 0 1 2.

This is a dialectic, and this is an actual strategy that can be mapped out inside of a rational framework, a discussion can be structured like a game.

It also, in essence, says nothing.

I'm sorry, but that's not an informed statement. You just havent considered what it means yet, and then you're assuming the meaning is what your interpretation of the text is.

It says that all problems are solved for certain when all sides can win is true, so such a goal can be argued to be the consistant rational solution to be sought after, i.e. it is the most rational ethic and effective strategy, the highest ideal and the most effective platform.

So, again, what are you saying? OK, let me rephrase: what are you saying that's actually worth discussion?

Discussion can be structured into a game that can produce win win outcomes for ideological conflicts, troubleshooting, and negotiation.

IMHO, only points 1, 2 and 4 bear any discussion.

that's fine, that's all you can see right now.

Point 1, to understand what it is you're really getting at it, and why you choose to use buzzwords for unknown that carry additional emotional baggage, and why use the numbers you selected.

there is recaptitulation throughout this framework, it's very elegant. So you have to consider how mystery, true and false is specifically defined.

mystery is defined as both of them at once, like a tangled hierarchy.

1 relates to truth, simplicity, the thinking and honest mind, mutual viewability, and objectivity, dialectic.

2 relates to falseness, art, conceptual, the 'feeling' and subjective intuitions, rhetoric.

Mystery as a word has two things in a tangled hiearchy, an emotional charge; each person's is soley unique, for example you revealed your private emotional charges with this word via text already. as well as a determinite value, it simply means 'unknown' (objective), not what our emotional charges are telling us (subjective)

This is key. When we encounter something which is an objective and honest unknown, in the most strictest of sense, our minds 'fills in the blank' with a concept. the conceptual is the false.

From experience with this process for over four years, and observing the behavior of others and myself, I can say we live in our conceptual false ideas the majority of the time and confuse that as the '1'. And it really makes no difference in education either, I have been field testing this process for quite awhile.

Point 2 has been discussed extensively, and continues to be discussed extensively; so we should lean more towards joining existing discussions of memetics, than starting new ones and retreading the same old paths.

that's how I found badscience....

Point 4, IMO, is worth a thread to itself.

this thread is the evidence. that is the strategy I play inside of, that's is what I am trying to get others to 'see' for themselves, as a process to observe. It's another tangled hierarchy, 'we create them and they create us'. ideas affect our behavior, distinct to the three values, and then back again.

a simple example.

take the idea

'I am going to kill you' as text, and imagine someone scary, like a gangmember, saying that to you.

Now take that same idea, and this time it is inspector, no, sorry, chief inspector cleaseu from the pink panther movies, and he threatens his karate chop to murder you to death, with that zany french accent. same idea, not so scary anymore, it's kinda funny.

now imagine it's in your fortune cookie!

our behavior stems from response to ideas, ideas are maps of environment, internal and external. We live in a world of ideas and confuse the ideas as the ding an sich, all because we have forgotten the use of the third value.

In theory that is. I believe that I have proved this to my satisfaction in practice for over four years, pretty much 100%. I can account for pretty much all behavior in all of my discussions. Badscience was a classic, and the best, example, yet all OS 0 1 2 disussions are alarmingly similar, especially in terms of behavior, they are STILL following the laws of the conflict of idea, it's influencing their behavior, they still want to discuss with me, even though they said they wanted me to shut up, ban me, or what have you.

I havent gone into much detail about how this works yet, so if you think it's meaningless, watch those conceptual ideas believed to be true!

This is what I am really doing, by the way, like I said, 'qi' is just a hobby to me, I am not attached to it philosophically. OS 0 1 2 is my baby, although I am the founding developer, it is not my sole creation, far from it, I am not nearly that smart or intelligent. It was actually created by the very same process that it prescribes, with a number of other people and other people's ideas. It's free of charge and in the public domain, it's only a website, not a organization or anything like that.

Sheesh, I'm tired......hope this made sense, those were important questions. I quit smoking today, so if this is fuzzy, so am I.




BF

 

[Curnir]

I am discussing a specific idea, and I am interested in the arguments against the idea, nothing more.

Good for you.

Please go troll some homeopaths and bigfoot supporters, you know, what you're good at. Please go somewhere where your sense of shaming others actually gets you somewhere in an argument.

Oh little starfish, remember what I said about throwing stones in a glass house?

It doesnt work in this thread, you are the one who looks like an ass in my eyes when you do it.

And there we have it.

"in my eyes"

There there starfish. It must be hard to KNOW that you are right, and all us dumb suckers just won't listen to you and your (oh see the correct usage of your...) marvelous theories.

*Curnir give the little starfish a BIIIIIIIG hug*

 

[WWHP]

It ill-behoves you to complain about this when you yourself have cast doubt upon the veracity of statements made by Dr. Lo.

Mojo, I have never had the intentions of misleading anyone about anything. Doc Lo does have published papers, when I came here a year and a half ago, I also wasnt so sure what it means when things are published, or not, etc etc. He has written papers on his theory on qi, and he has his book which is published, but it is not published in peer reviewed journals, he hasnt proven it yet! What is published is his paper on water clusters (physics letters b), which is the foundation for his qi theory. Perhaps I was confused back then, I dont remember, I'm not going to re-read that thread. Why berate on this point? I'm not here to mislead or decieve anyone, I dont appreciate that charge over and over. I'm just a layman doing the best I can.


If i have mistated factual information, it was unintentional. I have made the clarification publically based on what I understand. I am not his representative, i dont speak for him. I just think he is an interesting character, and both him and his wife have been really wonderful to my family, he is a good man. Dr. Lo is a fumbling, charming,aloof, and unusually intelligent, obsessive man who is excited just like any 23 year old kid in a rock band who wants to make his big dreams happen. There is no reason to defame him, disagree with him yes, defame him no.

 

[WWHP]

*Curnir give the little starfish a BIIIIIIIG hug*

i'm touched with such passive aggressivness. like I said, critique the ideas, not the person, or critique the ideas and the person, but at least critically discuss the idea.

or start a blog, hoser


Bubblefish

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Now, humpty dumpty, you have said that you consider that outright false statements (like someone stating that they would not talk to you and then that person apparently talking to you again) are in the same truth category as subjective statements such as "Apples are delicious". In reacting very differently to what you percieve as an outright falsehood than you would to a subjective statement, you have shown that you do not in fact apply your own categories and methods on your own thinking.

And by the way you might want to learn the difference between equivocal and unequivocal...

 

[The Atheist]

... you are the one who looks like an ass in my eyes when you do it.

Thank god for that. When people like you think I'm a good guy, I'd be ####-scared.

 

[WWHP]

by the way, my bad, the full proposition from OS 0 1 2 is

Human Beings are not ideas, and are not in conflict, ideas are.

 

[The Atheist]

I hope that both of us will find a higher synthesis of our opposing schools of thought throughout this exchange.

 

[WWHP]

Thank god for that. When people like you think I'm a good guy, I'd be ####-scared.

when are all of you fundamentalists going to get over your 'us vs them' way of thinking?

actually, I'm not interested in you're answer, you think small, and i'm not looking for you're acceptance.

keep posting trivialities and irrelevant comments, I could use as many bumps as possible


BF