Why does JG continue to believe ??

[apoger]

If you are genuinely interested, rather than on a debunking crusade, then PM me.

What's wrong with a debunking crusade?
I don't like bunk. In fact I hate it! I prefer validity and reality.
You claim to have knowledge of a great undiscovered phenomena! I want to know if it's real or bunk.

Why would you resist debunking? If the event is real it would open up new avenues of discovery. If bunk... at least you would know.

The alternative is to be content with ignorance.
Sadly this seems to be your method.

 

[Lucianarchy]

What would you do if someone here posted your daughter's personal contact information on these forums?

 

[CFLarsen]

What would you do if someone here posted your daughter's personal contact information on these forums?

You are way out of control.

 

[Lucianarchy]

You are way out of control.

That's what happens when you threaten my family you lousy scum-sucking stalking freak and I am going to stop you.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's what happens when you threaten my family you lousy scum-sucking stalking freak and I am going to stop you.

I repeat: You are way out of control.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I repeat: You are way out of control.

Yep.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yep.

In that case, I would suggest that the moderators suspend you, until you cool off.

At the very least.

 

[Lucianarchy]

In that case, I would suggest that the moderators suspend you, until you cool off.

At the very least.

You think that'll stop me? Why would they suspend me, when I am defending my family against sick low-life scum like you? You have been free to insult, lible, defame, and now post personal contact details about a female member of my family. and you want them to ban me?

I have provided the evidence to just about anyone who has asked. You now have no one to lie to but yourself.

Your time has come.

 

[CFLarsen]

You think that'll stop me? Why would they suspend me, when I am defending my family against sick low-life scum like you? You have been free to insult, lible, defame, and now post personal contact details about a female member of my family. and you want them to ban me?

I have provided the evidence to just about anyone who has asked. You now have no one to lie to but yourself.

Your time has come.

Thread saved.

 

[Pragmatist]

No. They asked plenty of questions. They just weren't the questions you would ask. By "capable" I mean already possessing a sufficiently advanced understanding of either mysticism or metaphysics or both to be able to get past the blockages you would experience. Basically, some of the things you believe are wrong, and these things would create a conflict between what I tell you and what you believe is possible. You would then try to resolve that conflict within the boundaries of your own belief system.. Because these people do not share the particular belief-system errors that you do (they may have others, as not doubt do I) they were able to comprehend what I was telling them and make some sort of sense of it with respect to their own belief system. They did not share your scientism, Claus. They were capable of accepting non-scientific information without it causing an allergic reaction.

Geoff, for what it's worth, *I* couldn't care less whether you tell us about the "wide ranging reverse causality" or not. I am MUCH more interested in your other paranormal claims.

For example, you say that you only tell people who are capable of believing or understanding such things. What I want to know is HOW you know that any particular person is capable of believing or understanding it - especially BEFORE you have told them? That seems like a paranormal claim to me. And before you pull your "let's redefine the meaning of the words" trick on me, I think most people have a generally accepted sense of what is "normal" or "paranormal" and redefining the claim as "normal" doesn't avoid the issue that it goes way beyond what is "reasonably normal for most people".

And not only that, in this thread you told me numerous times what *I* thought or believed. That's paranormal too. Although it's pretty flaky because I don't agree that I believe or think the things you claimed I do!

And now, above, you tell us what Claus believes is wrong, that you know what he believes is possible, what conflicts he has in his psyche and what his belief system is. Thinking about that, I realise you must be exercising your paranormal omniscience yet again, because *I* don't know any of these things about Claus. In fact, the only evidence I have seen that gives me any basis to draw any conclusion is what Claus SAYS. And what Claus SAYS (other than what he says about what he believes) doesn't necessarily tell me what he personally BELIEVES/KNOWS etc.

From this I draw the inference that you are claiming a special kind of pre-cognitive power, a kind of omniscience. And that is something I would like to see evidence in support of. Since you HAVE made the claim or its equivalent MANY times on this thread, I don't think I am being unreasonable to ask for THAT evidence.

 

[Pragmatist]

You've already made an error, as far as I am concerned. Pragmatist understood this when he said (something like) :

"If a real personal reality (as opposed to an imaginary one) can override parts of a consensus reality, then very strange things are possible."

He was prepared to go so far as making this "If...then" connection, even though he does not personally believe that the IF condition is true. Are you?

If you are going to quote me, then I would rather be quoted ACCURATELY and COMPLETELY. It's not very reasonable to ONLY quote half of a composite statement.

What I originally said was a complete statement of logic, I will make it clearer what I MEANT by that. That if a "personal reality" (that you call a "REAL" personal reality) can override parts of an OBJECTIVE reality, then strange things must be possible. BUT, if those strange things are NOT possible, then it logically follows that what you call a "real personal reality" is indistinguishable from delusion.

 

[Pragmatist]

"Schrodinger's Cat, whose past state is undetermined until observed."
I've never understood the big deal here . If the cat is dead it will still be dead even if nobody looks and if it's alive then it will remain alive until somebody looks . Sounds to me just like the usual ' If a tree falls in the forest and theres nobody there to observe it ,willl it still make a noise ? . Of course it will .
The real mystery is how does a single photon 'know' that there are two slits ?

That's a good question. Although I dislike speculating aloud about things I don't know, I'll tell you in outline a personal theory of mine - it's just an opinion so don't take it too seriously, but it may be worth some thought.

Remember that the diffraction only occurs when the two slits are EXTREMELY close together and the size of slits is comparable to the Compton wavelength of the electron. So the slits themselves are in the quantum scale. One of the QM theories is that all complex systems (of multiple objects) like the material in which the slit is made, is a superposition of a series of quantum wavefunctions of its constituents. But a wavefunction is description of energy eigenstates. And in classical mechanics, the equivalent is a set of superposed harmonic oscillators. The final "geometry" of the classical system is the Fourier transform of the oscillators. So why shoudn't the quantum slits actually BE the Fourier transform of the combined eigenstates? If that is the case, then a slit, at the quantum scale, isn't REALLY a "slit" at all. It is a complex object with geometry equivalent to the Fourier transform of a slit. And the geometric FT of a pair of slits is a diffraction pattern. Therefore, as the electron interacts with the "slit" it is actually encountering a complex object or quantum field which ALREADY has the shape of a diffraction pattern. And all that happens then is that the electron naturally follows the "path of least resistance" which will cause it to follow the path of constructive interference in that diffraction pattern. And that will cause the distribution of MANY electrons following the path to take the general shape of the diffraction pattern.

 

[lifegazer]

And you cannot have an :"unreal reality", no matter how much lifegazer tries to tell us you can. I think the realism/anti-realism question is silly. This IS reality. Even if it only exists when observed, it is no less REAL. I would still have to get up and go to work tomorrow, if I still had a job.

Dreams really happen - to the dreamer - but the objects/things within those dreams are not real in themselves.
... Hence, dreams are real, but are unreal in themselves. Only the dreamer can be viewed as 'real' - nothing within the dream itself is.

My philosophy can be viewed in the same sense: what we sense/perceive WITHIN AWARENESS is really happening, but the objects/things therein are not real in themselves (abstract objects derived from the senses).
So, there is no logical contradiction when contemplating an "unreal reality" within this context.

Your objection to my philosophy is not just unjustified, it's incorrect. (emphasis fullstop)

 

[mgdwcb]

Dreams really happen - to the dreamer - but the objects/things within those dreams are not real in themselves.

Would it not be more accurate to say that the object/things within dreams are just not physical/material? They are `real' in the sense that they exist. Its just the nature of their existence which is fundamentaly different from waking reality. Perhaps I'm being pedantic or its a case of mataphysical semantics But it seems to me that although dream worlds dissapear and are different for each person they are undenlably real and exist.

 

[apoger]

So, there is no logical contradiction when contemplating an "unreal reality" within this context.

Perhaps you would be better off describing this as an "abstract reality" or a "conceptual reality".

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Yes. I'm not sure posting it here would be a particularly good idea though. I don't know you. If you are genuinely interested, rather than on a debunking crusade, then PM me.

You are a moron and more cowardly than a coward. It doesn't take any courage to reveal known truths to the public, just a sense of compassion.

JG obviously wants to avoid being accused of proselytising or of having ulterior motives for being here. Yet he says he is willing to PM 'receptive' folk with details of his life-changeing experience.

How do we join this exclusive club?

Is there a secret handshake?

Is there a secret password?

How does he know that the enquirer is not a hardnosed skeptic in disguise?

What would you call someone who says they may have the answer to life, the universe, and everything, but wouldn't share it?

JG is obviously a tease of the worst kind -- a narcissistical timewaster.

My guess is he saw Jesus, so there!

I have an older cousin who started going to a Pentacostal Church. He said folk were talking in tongues -- in French, German, Hebrew etc. I knew he had no languages other than English, so I asked how he knew that these folk were speaking in foreign tongues, other than just babbling rubbish.

He said that it sounded foreign to him!

Brilliant!

Oh, and of course, he made sure he got all his sinning done before he joined

 

[CFLarsen]

JG obviously wants to avoid being accused of proselytising or of having ulterior motives for being here. Yet he says he is willing to PM 'receptive' folk with details of his life-changeing experience.

How do we join this exclusive club?

Very good question. We see this secretive behavior in other situations as well from the Superstitious:

• Indicates a superior knowledge.
• Focuses the attention on the Superstitious. The superior knowledge lies with him/her.
• Promises the superior knowledge is attainable.
• The superior knowledge can only be attained, if you obey the Superstitious. The siller the demand, the more power.
• Even if you attain this superior knowledge, it will never be quite enough. More is needed, more is promised. It can go on.

It is no accident that it is called the "occult" - the hidden, the secret, the obscure. Such a demand is designed for the same reasons: Inflating the ego. Power over other people.