flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > our thoughts if analyze from quantum subatomic level

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:

if there are scientific studies that show that vibration (anykind) could actually affect human?.. or water? or ...?

thats why people chant, afom said.

yes, it is a bit off the topic of the original submission to this thread, which had inquired about the subatomic basis of thinking, but, to address your most recent question, humans and all other mammals, and most other vertebrates, possess two different kinds of receptors to detect vibration.

The first group are static and dynamic mechanoreceptors and the second group are frequency selective auditory receptors of the cochlea.

I believe, i.e. not fact, that people chant because of a political demand for conformity, as a basis for control and regulation of society.

I perceive no positive therapeutic benefit from chanting, or its cousin, reciting prayer beads, as many claim.

The other day, I was expelled, along with nine other old guys from the gymnasium where we were playing basketball, so that a group of middle aged (to be politically correct--but you know what I mean) old biddies, could "meditate", with the lights off, lying down on the wooden floor of the gymnasium. The point is, they couldn't meditate, with the lights on, and the sound (i.e. vibration) of the basketball, disrupting their "mental" activity, therefore, we were expelled. The gymnasium itself, quite modern, was of magnitude sufficient to accommodate both groups, easily, and had a drop down curtain to segregate the two groups, but the director accepted the argument of the old gals, and we were kicked out. Another victory for the forces of evil--damn religious, superstitious nonsense triumphs again.

Sad
Post 31 May 2009, 19:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Borsuc wrote:
No I meant that, that Masaro guy is much more 'extreme' than what I was talking about in this case.

Is he?

Your source is obviously copied from here: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=28062

It links to some russian movie called "The Water". Link doesn't work any more, but I think I tracked the movie anyway. This russian movie is called Water: The Great Mystery, and it indeed cites our friend Doctor (of alternative medicine Rolling Eyes) Emoto as source of its claims.

Considering that you even doubt honesty of vast majority of scientist when their claim doesn't fall into what I call "new age mindset", how come this time you accepted claimed phenomena as "real" with obviously no fact checking, just because of some forum post? If you did *any* fact checking (eg. look for that movie and watch it), you would know these claims come from the same Emoto you called "much more extreme". I have to repeat myself, this appears to me as a strong bias towards accepting paranormal on your side.

And please don't tell me that you aren't TheDeath from the very same forum, also living in Buchurest, who also goes by nick Borsuc. Razz

Quote:
Or under his trickery. Look at how many rules he added during session with some participants. Actually he disqualified some guy because his "stuff" would have led to "damage" to himself.

As far as I know, in his million dollar challenge, every participant has to sign agreed protocol which gives very exact rules, and cannot be changed later by either side, before any testing starts. Therefor, I would be extremely surprised if Randi really did change some rules later in the challenge testings. Can you please back up your accusation with reference to some particular claimaint, whose rules were changed during the test?

Quote:
Or disqualified before it even gets under the test, because of "new rules" added in the meantime Rolling Eyes

Again, these are pretty strong accusations I have seen no evidence of yet.

Quote:
He's a magician after all. Razz

So, if there is magician in the room amusing supervisors, biological receptors no longer respond to water memory as they did outside double-blind study? hmmm...

vid wrote:
There was one claim of successful replication of at least 5 unsuccessful (see this), yet I am the one cherry-picking, yeah? Surely a claim with such score shouldn't be uncritically presented as established fact, like your source did.
No I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Randi, who says there is NO such successful experiment.[/quote]
Where did he say that? He is well aware that result of some experiments (2 of 7+, cherry picking) were positive, that's what he is reacting to. But he is also aware that experiments can be easily badly designed, misconducted, or even rigged. That's why he wants people who claim to have positive results to repeat the experiment under his supervision. Surely his supervision alone shouldn't affect occurence of this phenomena, if it is "real", and remember that other side is also watching him all the time.


Last edited by vid on 31 May 2009, 23:08; edited 1 time in total
Post 31 May 2009, 23:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
tom tobias wrote:
The other day, I was expelled, along with nine other old guys from the gymnasium where we were playing basketball, so that a group of middle aged (to be politically correct--but you know what I mean) old biddies, could "meditate", with the lights off, lying down on the wooden floor of the gymnasium. The point is, they couldn't meditate, with the lights on, and the sound (i.e. vibration) of the basketball, disrupting their "mental" activity, therefore, we were expelled. The gymnasium itself, quite modern, was of magnitude sufficient to accommodate both groups, easily, and had a drop down curtain to segregate the two groups, but the director accepted the argument of the old gals, and we were kicked out. Another victory for the forces of evil--damn religious, superstitious nonsense triumphs again.

Sad
Have you actually tried to meditate tom? I don't think you did, considering what you just said.

If you do your homework: for example.

I think the director made a good choice. I can hardly believe that you would choose muscles over brain.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 31 May 2009, 23:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Is he?

Your source is obviously copied from here: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=28062

It links to some russian movie called "The Water". Link doesn't work any more, but I think I tracked the movie anyway. This russian movie is called Water: The Great Mystery, and it indeed cites our friend Doctor (of alternative medicine Rolling Eyes) Emoto as source of its claims.
I didn't watch the movie, the link that you posted must have used the same source (actually, that link WAS the only thing that I could find right now... and I copied the link to the movie Wink).

vid wrote:
If you did *any* fact checking (eg. look for that movie and watch it), you would know these claims come from the same Emoto you called "much more extreme". I have to repeat myself, this appears to me as a strong bias towards accepting paranormal on your side.
How would I watch a russian movie? I don't know Russian.
By the way, I was referring to a documentary. I am not EXACTLY sure if it was called "Water: The Great Mystery" (it was translated after all), but I do not remember any japanese doctor name. Maybe cause I don't remember well. And no, I did not bother to do research into the movie, I couldn't even find it.

vid wrote:
And please don't tell me that you aren't TheDeath from the very same forum, also living in Buchurest, who also goes by nick Borsuc. Razz
What I posted was from my archives, not copied "from a site" (actually of COURSE it was copied, but not RIGHT NOW, but a lot of time ago). Believe me or not, I store interesting stuff I see on the net Razz

vid wrote:
As far as I know, in his million dollar challenge, every participant has to sign agreed protocol which gives very exact rules, and cannot be changed later by either side, before any testing starts. Therefor, I would be extremely surprised if Randi really did change some rules later in the challenge testings. Can you please back up your accusation with reference to some particular claimaint, whose rules were changed during the test?
No, he changes the rules DURING the agreement. When he says "I won't allow you to do the test, too dangerous for you" what the hell are you supposed to do?

Funny thing it's still the 'paranormal' dude who gets the 'he backed off' remark Rolling Eyes

vid wrote:
So, if there is magician in the room amusing supervisors, biological receptors no longer respond to water memory as they did outside double-blind study? hmmm...
Magicians do tricks, it's their job to make illusions.

vid wrote:
Where did he say that? He is well aware that result of some experiments (2 of 7+, cherry picking) were positive, that's what he is reacting to. But he is also aware that experiments can be easily badly designed, misconducted, or even rigged. That's why he wants people who claim to have positive results to repeat the experiment under his supervision. Surely his supervision alone shouldn't affect occurence of this phenomena, if it is "real", and remember that other side is also watching him all the time.
Strange, in normal science you would call for the supervision of an independent researcher, not the biased ones, so Randi and Benveniste are out of the equation.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 31 May 2009, 23:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
How would I watch a russian movie? I don't know Russian.

The movie is in English - either translated, or it was made such, dunno. Sincerely, I doubt that two people could at roughly same time independently come up with same bullshit about water crystal forming influenced by "emotions", and popularize it. So I expect to find not-really-Doctor Emoto at source of every similar claim.

Quote:
And no, I did not bother to do research into the movie, I couldn't even find it.

Yet, you are publicly telling people that phenomena described in that movie is real...

Quote:
No, he changes the rules DURING the agreement. When he says "I won't allow you to do the test, too dangerous for you" what the hell are you supposed to do?

I asked you for some evidence - at least name of million dollar prize claimant to whom this happened.

Quote:
Strange, in normal science you would call for the supervision of an independent researcher, not the biased ones, so Randi and Benveniste are out of the equation.

But this isn't normal science, this is a challenge where Randi is giving out 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate something Randi deems as "paranormal" (according to protocol agreed in advance by both sides). If he is giving *million dollars* to someone, asking to be able to check the experiment himself is the least. Of course, if someone is afraid that Randi will mess with his experiment/results, he can formulate the protocol in a way to prevent Randi from doing so, and/or invite someone to supervise Randi - I bet he would easily agree to both such options (but even after reading couple of dozens of protocol brokering for his challenge, I haven't seen anyone to attack Randi's honesty).
Post 31 May 2009, 23:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
The movie is in English - either translated, or it was made such, dunno. Sincerely, I doubt that two people could at roughly same time independently come up with same bullshit about water crystal forming influenced by "emotions", and popularize it. So I expect to find not-really-Doctor Emoto at source of every similar claim.
Maybe, the movie didn't even work for me tbh but most videos don't work here so I suspected it was at my end. (but the movie itself wasn't even what I wanted to post, just the only thing I found when searched -- that is before posting the rest from my archives).

vid wrote:
Yet, you are publicly telling people that phenomena described in that movie is real...
Ok, I thought this thing was more widespread after seeing that documentary -- can't believe I came up with nothing when I searched. (even if it was false) Confused
so I'm kinda dropping this argument then cause it seems, it's not as popular (again, even if wrong) as I thought, at least for sources/link.

vid wrote:
I asked you for some evidence - at least name of million dollar prize claimant to whom this happened.
At least according to wikipedia (I know, not a very reliable source...):

wikipedia wrote:
Randi rejected applicant Rico Kolodzey, stating in the rejection letter that the applicant was "a liar and a fraud." The applicant in question claimed to survive without food via Breatharianism.

Randi's response to criticism of his handling of the Kolodzey application raised by the Alternative Science website was somewhat inconsistent. For example, Randi and the JREF explained their outright rejection of Kolodzey based on a policy to reject any applicants who put themselves in grave physical danger. However, this clause was not added to the official Challenge rules until years after the incident.

However, on May 19, 2006, Randi made a special exception to that rule due to all of the "raucous fuss" and began private negotiations for testing with Kolodzey. After 100 days of negotiations a test procedure still could not be agreed upon by both parties. In response to the stalled negotiations, Randi publicly commented that Kolodzey was retreating from testing after strenuously objecting to the rejection of his initial application.
He expects him to agree with it after what show he has done when it wasn't even in the official rules? Gimme a break.

(scroll a bit from here)

vid wrote:
But this isn't normal science, this is a challenge where Randi is giving out 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate something Randi deems as "paranormal" (according to protocol agreed in advance by both sides). If he is giving *million dollars* to someone, asking to be able to check the experiment himself is the least. Of course, if someone is afraid that Randi will mess with his experiment/results, he can formulate the protocol in a way to prevent Randi from doing so, and/or invite someone to supervise Randi - I bet he would easily agree to both such options (but even after reading couple of dozens of protocol brokering for his challenge, I haven't seen anyone to attack Randi's honesty).
Why the hell did he distract the supervisors themselves then? Couldn't he just stay quiet for that "special moment", he has all the rest of his life to talk. It seems fishy.

By the way, Matt Blaze and others used their "paranormal" abilities to crack Randi's code once but never got the money Razz
(ok he admits he just used cryptology tricks, but still, rules are rules aren't them? Razz)

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 01 Jun 2009, 00:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Randi rejected applicant Rico Kolodzey, stating in the rejection letter that the applicant was "a liar and a fraud." The applicant in question claimed to survive without food via Breatharianism.

But you also wrote "Look at how many rules he added during session with some participants". This was failure to agree on testing rules, not changing of rules during session. If this is the only example you have of "adding many rules during session", then I think you owe Randi an apology.

Btw, how you think his claim would be testable? How could his claim be falsified without letting the man die? Randi gives example of applicants who claimed to be able to survive 15 minutes in Zyklon B, would you expect him to test them too?

Quote:
Randi's response to criticism of his handling of the Kolodzey application raised by the Alternative Science website was somewhat inconsistent. For example, Randi and the JREF explained their outright rejection of Kolodzey based on a policy to reject any applicants who put themselves in grave physical danger. However, this clause was not added to the official Challenge rules until years after the incident.

Of course there are claims for which protocol cannot be mutually agreed to satisfy both sides, even for reasons not explicitly stated in challenge rules. Calling this inhonesty, or "adding rules during session" (like you did) is soo wrong. I would like to check if Randi's rejection really reffered to non-existing challenge rule, and thus whether it was really inconsistent. In fact, the wiki reference for "official challenge rules" only goes to FAQ question, not rules. IMO a clear case of anti-Randi wiki editor manipulation of facts.

Quote:
Why the hell did he distract the supervisors themselves then? Couldn't he just stay quiet for that "special moment", he has all the rest of his life to talk. It seems fishy.

Carefully - we don't really know if he did, you again accepted claim you'd like to be true without doubt. It is only a claim by someone whose supposed results (of ill-performed experiments, according to Nature) were not replicated by majority of experiments. And remember this guy based his company on those claims. What else would you expect than scapegoating his critic for failure to reproduce his experiment? How does he explain that all but one experiment failed to reproduce his results? Was there in every case someone rigging them (eg. back to doubting majority of scientists, while accepting paranormal claims easily)?

Quote:
By the way, Matt Blaze and others used their "paranormal" abilities to crack Randi's code once but never got the money
(ok he admits he just used cryptology tricks, but still, rules are rules aren't them? )

You completely misrepresented this. Cryptography cannot be called paranormal abilities even when in quotation marks, and the challenge wasn't to crack the code (that was meant only for later verification), but to "learn contents of sealed box by remote viewing". Also note that he refused the prize.

Quote:
Ok, I thought this thing was more widespread after seeing that documentary -- can't believe I came up with nothing when I searched. (even if it was false)
so I'm kinda dropping this argument then cause it seems, it's not as popular (again, even if wrong) as I thought, at least for sources/link.

That was my point - to show you how much biased you are towards easily accepting paranormal claims without evidence, even though you are extremely skeptical of well-evidenced mainstream claims when they oppose some paranormal claims you seem to accept. Maybe you remember that you called me biased in past: I think you still have to provide as clear example of my bias, as this is example of your bias.
Post 01 Jun 2009, 15:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
But you also wrote "Look at how many rules he added during session with some participants". This was failure to agree on testing rules, not changing of rules during session. If this is the only example you have of "adding many rules during session", then I think you owe Randi an apology.
Look at the criticism (also on wikipedia) about the challenge, like for example Dennis Rawlins.

vid wrote:
Btw, how you think his claim would be testable? How could his claim be falsified without letting the man die? Randi gives example of applicants who claimed to be able to survive 15 minutes in Zyklon B, would you expect him to test them too?
People are free to kill themselves, are they not?
So what if he dies? It's his choice anyway, not Randi's. I mean Randi isn't exactly his father or mother so why would he care? Razz

He also forgot that these people who claim to have these 'hidden powers' probably DID make them, false or not, before (like most). Why would the challenge be so much different (in the dangerous department, not in the fraud department)?

vid wrote:
Of course there are claims for which protocol cannot be mutually agreed to satisfy both sides, even for reasons not explicitly stated in challenge rules. Calling this inhonesty, or "adding rules during session" (like you did) is soo wrong. I would like to check if Randi's rejection really reffered to non-existing challenge rule, and thus whether it was really inconsistent. In fact, the wiki reference for "official challenge rules" only goes to FAQ question, not rules. IMO a clear case of anti-Randi wiki editor manipulation of facts.
The rule was added afterwards, so obviously yes, it is a rule, and can be classified as a rule, since it already is right now.

vid wrote:
Carefully - we don't really know if he did, you again accepted claim you'd like to be true without doubt. It is only a claim by someone whose supposed results (of ill-performed experiments, according to Nature) were not replicated by majority of experiments. And remember this guy based his company on those claims. What else would you expect than scapegoating his critic for failure to reproduce his experiment? How does he explain that all but one experiment failed to reproduce his results? Was there in every case someone rigging them (eg. back to doubting majority of scientists, while accepting paranormal claims easily)?
No one negated it, at least as far as I saw. So why wouldn't I take his claim?

And no, you see, the difference between this and a normal 'challenge' for Randi was that this was much more plausible, in reproducible cases, not a "hidden human power". Frankly I cannot see why this WOULD be considered PARAnormal... Confused

vid wrote:
You completely misrepresented this. Cryptography cannot be called paranormal abilities.
Why not? Razz
And yes I know he refused the prize, that was just for kicks.

vid wrote:
That was my point - to show you how much biased you are towards easily accepting paranormal claims without evidence, even though you are extremely skeptical of well-evidenced mainstream claims when they oppose some paranormal claims you seem to accept. Maybe you remember that you called me biased in past: I think you still have to provide as clear example of my bias, as this is example of your bias.
I cannot possibly comprehend why you would consider this paranormal Confused
Is cold fusion "paranormal" too? (it has as much scientific backup as this one)
What about living cells? They 'react' to emotions, in a way (after all we are made of cells). Are those paranormal too?

Why the hell do you think this is paranormal?



By the way this is a quote from randi's page you linked:
Quote:
A letter states that no lion will bite the writer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48126); do you investigate?
(I can't read the forum cause it requires login Confused)
Sorry Randi but a dude already isn't biten by lions, his name is Kevin Richardson.
Search on YouTube. Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 01 Jun 2009, 21:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Borsuc wrote:
vid wrote:
But you also wrote "Look at how many rules he added during session with some participants". This was failure to agree on testing rules, not changing of rules during session. If this is the only example you have of "adding many rules during session", then I think you owe Randi an apology.

Look at the criticism (also on wikipedia) about the challenge, like for example Dennis Rawlins.

I quess you mean this:
wiki wrote:
Dennis Rawlins claims the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out".[10] Others, noting this magazine article grew out of political infighting among the members of CSICOP, believe this quote is being misapplied, and that it refers to the fact that Randi employs safeguards against cheating. Randi has stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation.[5] Randi actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"[6],[11] which carries a quite different meaning. Randi claims that the phrase "I always have an out" refers to the fact that he does not allow test subjects to cheat,[12] and others have interpreted it to mean that Randi regards the chances of him having to pay out as zero due to his a priori assumption that so-called "paranormal phenomena" do not exist. On Larry King Live Randi stated that if such phenomena did exist and someone accurately demonstrated it, he would give them one million dollars.

I don't see anything about Randi adding rules during the session. So, third time, do you have something to back up your accusation that Randi added rules during sessions ("look how many times")? I am not asking about random attacks on Randi, I am asking for evidence of your particular accusation. If you have made this accusation up, or misunderstood some other accusation, I think it would be better to admit it than keep dodging. If you really have seen this accusation somewhere, please let us know where.

Quote:
People are free to kill themselves, are they not?
So what if he dies? It's his choice anyway, not Randi's. I mean Randi isn't exactly his father or mother so why would he care?

Assisting people in killing themselves because of their delusion is something few would willingly participate in. Read 2.4 in JREF FAQ

Quote:
The rule was added afterwards, so obviously yes, it is a rule, and can be classified as a rule, since it already is right now.

Is it? I don't see it anywhere in rules, I only see it as hint towards what kind of tests won't be agreed upon in FAQ. Note that rules says since beginning that claimant can ONLY be tested if both sides can agree on protocol.

And even if he added such rule (he didn't), so what? Changing rules for who can apply for his $1000000 prize is very different from your accusation of changing rules during testing session.

Quote:
I cannot possibly comprehend why you would consider this paranormal. Is cold fusion "paranormal" too? (it has as much scientific backup as this one). What about living cells? They 'react' to emotions, in a way (after all we are made of cells). Are those paranormal too?

I understand that word paranormal is problematic, I use it only because of lack of better term (something like when you called our subject phenomena "real", just not as bad Razz). By "paranormal" I mean stuff popular in todays mysticists circles - third eye, telepathy, souls, ghosts, higher dimensions, etc.

The difference between cold fusion and these "paranormal" stuff is that latter are usualy old mythological concepts redressed into somewhat scientific coat (soul acting through "quantum brain", third eye in pineal gland, ...), in order to lend them some credence that science has won (by actually making it claims obvious to be real to everyone, unlike aforementioned). Cold fusion was simply a hypothesis in scientific process, that gained some experimental support due to flawed experiments, but was later shown to don't have experimental support.

So yeah, from strictly scientific-evidence point of view, cold fusion is on par with water memory. Difference for me is the motivation: cold fusion hypothesis was result of error in scientific quest for knowledge, while water memory hypothesis is just apologetics to lend some credence to homeopathy. Another difference is that cold fusion hypothesis was build up contemporary knowledge, while water memory hypothesis requires presupposition of some completely unknown mechanism that influences mass on a large scale, but one that even though its claimed scale wasn't yet ever properly scientifically observed (contrast to how the just-as-controversial quantum phenomena was properly observer and reproduced, even though it is apparent only on way lesser scale than water memory claims).
Post 01 Jun 2009, 23:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
I quess you mean this:
wiki wrote:
Dennis Rawlins claims the challenge is insincere, and that Randi will ensure he never has to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out".[10] Others, noting this magazine article grew out of political infighting among the members of CSICOP, believe this quote is being misapplied, and that it refers to the fact that Randi employs safeguards against cheating. Randi has stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation.[5] Randi actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"[6],[11] which carries a quite different meaning. Randi claims that the phrase "I always have an out" refers to the fact that he does not allow test subjects to cheat,[12] and others have interpreted it to mean that Randi regards the chances of him having to pay out as zero due to his a priori assumption that so-called "paranormal phenomena" do not exist. On Larry King Live Randi stated that if such phenomena did exist and someone accurately demonstrated it, he would give them one million dollars.

I don't see anything about Randi adding rules during the session. So, third time, do you have something to back up your accusation that Randi added rules during sessions ("look how many times")? I am not asking about random attacks on Randi, I am asking for evidence of your particular accusation. If you have made this accusation up, or misunderstood some other accusation, I think it would be better to admit it than keep dodging. If you really have seen this accusation somewhere, please let us know where.
that wasn't my point. My point was that he does something to avoid some scenarios. Sometimes, as in that case, some participants are obviously deluded and he uses that fact to not allow others which may or may not be deluded (at least to that extent, even if fake). Right now, if he would allow that "ridiculous" thing with the lions, Kevin would walk out with the money Razz

It IS pretty obvious why he puts that in the same ridiculous scale as the others where "he doesn't want to test, too ridiculous and a waste of time" Rolling Eyes

vid wrote:
Assisting people in killing themselves because of their delusion is something few would willingly participate in. Read 2.4 in JREF FAQ
Isn't that what I said, that they already established such 'rule'?

vid wrote:
Is it? I don't see it anywhere in rules, I only see it as hint towards what kind of tests won't be agreed upon in FAQ. Note that rules says since beginning that claimant can ONLY be tested if both sides can agree on protocol.

And even if he added such rule (he didn't), so what? Changing rules for who can apply for his $1000000 prize is very different from your accusation of changing rules during testing session.
Adding rules isn't a problem. It's when you add rules because of a former participant or in the middle of such case.

Example: I say "I'll give you $1000 if you'll stay under water 10 minutes."
"I'll do it, no problemo!"
"No, actually, I changed my mind. That would be too dangerous. Sorry."
"Man I said, no problemo! I have already been into that situation, that's how I got famous dude!"
"Doesn't matter, sorry. Bye!"

I mean seriously what the heck does he really think such people weren't in those situation before? Even if fake, they will fake it in the experiment too, like they do in "real life" before. No one says "I have discovered my hidden powers" without actually doing it before, that would be stupid.

vid wrote:
So yeah, from strictly scientific-evidence point of view, cold fusion is on par with water memory. Difference for me is the motivation: cold fusion hypothesis was result of error in scientific quest for knowledge, while water memory hypothesis is just apologetics to lend some credence to homeopathy. Another difference is that cold fusion hypothesis was build up contemporary knowledge, while water memory hypothesis requires presupposition of some completely unknown mechanism that influences mass on a large scale, but one that even though its claimed scale wasn't yet ever properly scientifically observed (contrast to how the just-as-controversial quantum phenomena was properly observer and reproduced, even though it is apparent only on way lesser scale than water memory claims).
Tell you what: physics will remain stuck forever without drastic changes, as it is obvious from quantum/relativity conflict.
Why are people so afraid of a big change in our theories? Why do people cling so much to them like some kind of a commandment Confused

There are so many examples like this, where stubborn scientists which unfortunately are the majority of the "scientific community" exhibit religious behavior. Here is one example about the Big Bang theory:

http://lege.net/blog.lege.net/cosmology/An_Open_Letter_to_Closed_Minds.html

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 02 Jun 2009, 01:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
that wasn't my point. My point was that he does something to avoid some scenarios.

That *was* your point. You literaly said "look at how many times he added rules during session". That is a very important accusation, and this is third time you dodge backing it up with evidence. I am now repeating myself (4th time) If you don't have any evidence, be honest, and admit your accusation was untrue. And please don't doge the answer again, otherwise this conversation is pointless.

Quote:
Sometimes, as in that case, some participants are obviously deluded and he uses that fact to not allow others which may or may not be deluded (at least to that extent, even if fake).

It is his 1 million dollar, he can choose who can apply for them. He never said he is willing to test every single paranormal claimant. He only promised to test those who accept his rules (and those say nothing about refusing possibly self-damaging claims), and with whom he can mutually agree on testing protocol (that's where the self-damaging causes a problem). What is so hard to comprehend about that?

Quote:
Right now, if he would allow that "ridiculous" thing with the lions, Kevin would walk out with the money

Or, he would end up bitten to half-dead. But *yet again*, you accepted such claim as true without doubt... I agree that lions not biting human on few particular occasions under specific conditions is not exactly something i would call paranormal. Maybe lions not biting particular human EVER would be (even when they are extra-hungry etc.), but that is hardly practically testable, and involves great risk.

But still, this is a weak attack on Randi as a whole. Great majority of paranormal claims are testable without risk of hurting claimant, and you seem to readily accept lot of them. Why didn't THEY apply and succeed?

Quote:
Adding rules isn't a problem. It's when you add rules because of a former participant or in the middle of such case.

Example: I say "I'll give you $1000 if you'll stay under water 10 minutes."
"I'll do it, no problemo!"
"No, actually, I changed my mind. That would be too dangerous. Sorry."
"Man I said, no problemo! I have already been into that situation, that's how I got famous dude!"
"Doesn't matter, sorry. Bye!"

Did he ever do this? When did he say "I'll give you $1000 if you'll stay under water 10 minutes" and then later refuse it? It seems to me you are yet again repeating your accusation that you failed to back up three times already.

Quote:
Why are people so afraid of a big change in our theories? Why do people cling so much to them like some kind of a commandment

First of all, because people who push hypotheses like water memory fail to provide convicing experimental support for their claims. Quantum theory and theory of relativity were at the time just as controversial, but they were accepted thanks to experimental support for their predictions. Lack of experimental support is reason why water memory is not accepted, not stubborness of scientist.

Btw, again you repeated your conviction that majority of scientific community is "stubborn & exhibiting religious behavior", but when ONE not-even-scientist claimed water crystal formation is influenced by emotions, you readily accepted it without doubt (as you did with water memory, lion-proofness, and other things). Don't you really see your bias in this?

My response to your attack on science are the examples of relativity and quantum phenomena. Both were regarded as "heretical" by majority of scientists, and yet science accepted them. How come? Because, unlike other heretical hypotheses that would like to claim same status, they had a convicing experimental support. These two serve as a good example how science *is* able to reform itself and refuse dogmas that are demonstrated to be incorrect. Yes, it is slow (due to skepticism), and yes, some scientist never accept them (due to dogmatism). But eventually what is demonstrated as real has to be accepted.
Post 02 Jun 2009, 12:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
That *was* your point. You literaly said "look at how many times he added rules during session". That is a very important accusation, and this is third time you dodge backing it up with evidence. I am now repeating myself (4th time) If you don't have any evidence, be honest, and admit your accusation was untrue. And please don't doge the answer again, otherwise this conversation is pointless.
Ok it does sound like that accusation what you're saying, what I meant with 'adding rules' I did NOT mean the "rules on the webpage". Even a rejection is for me an 'adding of a rule'.

I have no idea why that thing is in the faq and not in the rules, but from MY viewpoint, it IS part of the rules, because he FOLLOWS it (Randi). Who cares if it's in the official rules or not? That's not what I was accusing him of, that he puts rules on that webpage. I was accusing him of adding rules. The "I won't allow testing of people who will hurt themselves" is a rule in my book. So is "I don't believe that anyone can be friendly and not attacked by lions, so I won't allow that either" (which as I said, he would lose his money if he did).

vid wrote:
It is his 1 million dollar, he can choose who can apply for them. He never said he is willing to test every single paranormal claimant. He only promised to test those who accept his rules (and those say nothing about refusing possibly self-damaging claims), and with whom he can mutually agree on testing protocol (that's where the self-damaging causes a problem). What is so hard to comprehend about that?
True he never said he is willing to test every claimant, but he never said that he is not going to either (at least, I'm speaking before he added those 'rules' which are in the faq).

But I wasn't talking about that. This guy knows how to trick people, it's his profession Razz
I mean, sure, he may word his rules in a way to make him always have a choice not to let the money (just an example, not sure if it's real as I won't bother), but I'm really not expecting him to be using lawyer behavior and exploit any tricks behind it.

One possible example if someone would pass the preliminary test and then he would use excuses about "not agreeing" with the protocol so he rejects him from the challenge. I expect him to have more honor than that (remember: this was an example, as no one passed the preliminary test yet, or so I heard)

We all know the basic intent, but if one starts to abuse the wordings or find tricks in it, it starts to smell fishy in my opinion.

vid wrote:
Or, he would end up bitten to half-dead. But *yet again*, you accepted such claim as true without doubt... I agree that lions not biting human on few particular occasions under specific conditions is not exactly something i would call paranormal. Maybe lions not biting particular human EVER would be (even when they are extra-hungry etc.), but that is hardly practically testable, and involves great risk.

But still, this is a weak attack on Randi as a whole. Great majority of paranormal claims are testable without risk of hurting claimant, and you seem to readily accept lot of them. Why didn't THEY apply and succeed?
Ah, you should know I'm a very agnostic-type of person. When I "readily accept" them I actually don't, which is the reason I am always interested in articles or debates about stuff. I just don't dismiss them out of hand, but surely you don't say I actually think that everyone does it for real and no one is fake? (in other words, that such people are infallible?)

That's not my philosophy at all.

By the way, for the lion thing, search "Kevin Richardson", maybe on youtube for videos. example. Think he would have gotten the money? Razz

vid wrote:
Did he ever do this? When did he say "I'll give you $1000 if you'll stay under water 10 minutes" and then later refuse it? It seems to me you are yet again repeating your accusation that you failed to back up three times already.
No, he used 1 million $, if someone proves paranormal case, and then he rejected him based on those reasons (which weren't in the rules before -- but you see, this is where you are wrong about it not being a rule because it WAS added to the rules/faq later).

vid wrote:
Btw, again you repeated your conviction that majority of scientific community is "stubborn & exhibiting religious behavior", but when ONE not-even-scientist claimed water crystal formation is influenced by emotions, you readily accepted it without doubt (as you did with water memory, lion-proofness, and other things). Don't you really see your bias in this?
How much bias did people have when NASA went to the Moon first time? I mean they all "readily accepted" it?
No, actually, I just don't reject it. I never said that it's 100% true (because no science is 100% true) which is why I even asked for opinions/debates, else what would have been the point?

vid wrote:
My response to your attack on science are the examples of relativity and quantum phenomena. Both were regarded as "heretical" by majority of scientists, and yet science accepted them. How come? Because, unlike other heretical hypotheses that would like to claim same status, they had a convicing experimental support. These two serve as a good example how science *is* able to reform itself and refuse dogmas that are demonstrated to be incorrect. Yes, it is slow (due to skepticism), and yes, some scientist never accept them (due to dogmatism). But eventually what is demonstrated as real has to be accepted.
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future." - Max Planck

Wink

It all depends if the stubborn people are the height of the scientific community though. And this water theory isn't old either, maybe in 20-30 years we'll have some (other, new, 'improved') experiments on it like in QM? Razz

By the way, the reason I 'accepted' this theory (well, at least more than 50% on the scale) is because of a simple philosophy:

1) we have difficulties, extreme difficulties, in adding even basic emotions to our AIs and machines
2) human bodies are mostly made of water
3) couldn't it be that water is responsible for emotions?

There's nothing really magical/paranormal to it (unless you think Life itself is...) but like you said it doesn't have much experimental support and I agree. Here's me hoping it would simply for the reason that we would understand emotions better if it was. Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Jun 2009, 00:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
tom tobias wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
...assume energy never created and never destroyed.
This assumption is clearly invalid in the case of the nervous system. Neurons and muscle cells, i.e. the two cell types which engage in signalling in animals, including humans of course, both create energy, i.e. synthesize ATP, and consume energy (those signals are not sent for free)
No, thermodynamics don't violate conversation of energy.

When you use energy to do something, you aren't "destroying the energy you were given" and "creating new energy to do X". You are transferring energy.
Post 07 Jun 2009, 10:05
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.