|
| |
watch_roger_dafremen_lose_grip_on_reality
|
|
|
.
|
.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
daffy's_astrology_test_for_skeptics
That's a good place to start.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
(Although it is very tempting to have more than my fair share of fun here with this poor guy who really probably just wants me to behave like his intellect tells him I'm supposed to..still that's not the purpose. Those of you who know me, know it never has been. There is something here, for those of you who are watching closely. : )
They know, friend usc. They've been watching me lose my grip on "reality" for a very long time. Haven't you read my stuff?
what_the_hands_of_man_hath_wrought
dreams_of_the_false_prophet
fare_thee_well
Who are you calling out to? The only one here that didn't know...was probably you.
The reality of what we are engaging in right now is two layers deeper than you imagine it to be. That is both a metaphor and a literal statement.
Here's to you having a wonderful evening. And I mean that. Just ask anyone that knows me.
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
daxle
|
well i haven't been keeping track much, but from this post you seem more self aware and down to earth than i've ever seen you before, daf
go figure
|
050826
|
| |
... |
|
|
oldephebe
|
dafremen knows astrology
i've been to his astrology site and i gotta say even though i'm a christian, some of that stuff seems to pretty much hit the mark
|
050827
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
my take on astrology is different than yours is, daf, and i'm not going to get into it too much. but if we have differed on many things, i, for one, do not think your discussion about astrology indicates you lost any touch with reality.
i used to be someone who immediately wrote off all talk about astrology and psychic stuff as pure quackery. now i trust it as much as science...probably more. but for myself, i find that the less i try and codify it into this or that, the more guidance i find from the mystic arts.
one cannot "factually prove" that one currently exists (but who cares? i do not need proof of my existence to go about the business of existing and experiencing!!!) ... and if one cannot prove that, of all things, then proof itself is clearly a ruse. even 2+2, given the associative property of addition, can be argued away from 4.
the primary argument against astrology, or psychic stuff, is that it can't be proven. what childish thinking, given proof's dependence on faith in proovability for proof to function!
having noted that humans will often behave in contrarian fashion, it should not seem so surprising that there may be greater forces at work which specifically *deny* the production of evidence.
i've read several studies attempting to test psychicness which used cards marked with five symbols: a heart, a pentagram, a circle, etc. (how cheesy and superficial); the 'psychics' were tested to see how accurately they could guess the symbol on the concealed card (there have been like 10 studies conducted this way from various sources). invariably, the results are no better than probability would suggest of random guessing. so the studies conclude that psychicness is a hoax, or that there is no evidence. BUT WHO THE FUCK HAS PSYCHIC POWERS FOR PREDICTING ONE OF FIVE CARDS IN A STUDY ON PSYCHICNESS?
i often will suddenly know the exact time on a mis-set clock that i have not yet seen. or i'll wake up thinking about the seven of clubs, and later when i'm playing cards, i get dealt the seven of clubs every hand, while no other cards appear with such consistency. or i'll suddenly know that the phone is about to ring, and its someone i haven't talked to for months. i've even had a dozen or so such coincidences that involved 'blather'! i could go on...
but i can't choose when this thing turns on or off. sometimes i just know things...all of the sudden...things that defy all odds of probability. things that i could not know simply because of subconcious processing, etc. i do not call it 'collective subconcious' but someone else might.
i'm hardly alone in this! i watch people have moments like that all the time, and when it happens, they are like, "whoa!" but hours later, they start rationalizing and science-izing it, and they forget how "whoa!" they were when it happened. they talk themselves out of the "whoa!". but the most real part about the whole thing was how "whoa!" it was! the only reason they continue processing it at all is because of the "whoa!" (no one processes why they used a spoon to slurp soup because the "whoa!" from eating soup does not usually come from using a spoon, if "whoa!" comes at all.)
when "psychic" moments strike - and they strike everyone now and then - no one doubts there is something bigger going on than the known forces of existence. but for some people, the doubt returns in seconds, and for others, the doubt only returns hours later.
it's not that different with astrology; one must suspend ones disbelief long enough to actually look at it.
it's easy to laugh at tree huggers if you never have hugged a tree. but if you do go and hug a tree, a tree you like, a tree you love...if you give the tree a good, long hug...after a while you realize the tree is hugging you back. i don't really care if people think that tree hugging sounds stupid. they are stupid, because without the tree they could not breath. the tree doesn't need us! so if nothing else, it is not like tree hugging hurts anyone. if tree hugging pisses you off, if it makes you MAD, you have issues, because if you really thought it was pointless you simply wouldn't care. you'd be apathetic, it wouldn't trigger anything in you at all.
so go hug a tree, anonymous diss-er of daf, because the universe (however you need it to love you: religious, spiritual, scientific...) will hug you right on back! astrology is kind of like that.
|
050827
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
my take on astrology is different than yours is, daf, and i'm not going to get into it too much. but if we have differed on many things, i, for one, do not think your discussion about astrology indicates you lost any touch with reality.
i used to be someone who immediately wrote off all talk about astrology and psychic stuff as pure quackery. now i trust it as much as science...probably more. but for myself, i find that the less i try and codify it into this or that, the more guidance i find from the mystic arts.
one cannot "factually prove" that one currently exists (but who cares? i do not need proof of my existence to go about the business of existing and experiencing!!!) ... and if one cannot prove that, of all things, then proof itself is clearly a ruse. even 2+2, given the associative property of addition, can be argued away from 4.
the primary argument against astrology, or psychic stuff, is that it can't be proven. what childish thinking, given proof's dependence on faith in proovability for proof to function!
having noted that humans will often behave in contrarian fashion, it should not seem so surprising that there may be greater forces at work which specifically *deny* the production of evidence.
i've read several studies attempting to test psychicness which used cards marked with five symbols: a heart, a pentagram, a circle, etc. (how cheesy and superficial); the 'psychics' were tested to see how accurately they could guess the symbol on the concealed card (there have been like 10 studies conducted this way from various sources). invariably, the results are no better than probability would suggest of random guessing. so the studies conclude that psychicness is a hoax, or that there is no evidence. BUT WHO THE FUCK HAS PSYCHIC POWERS FOR PREDICTING ONE OF FIVE CARDS IN A STUDY ON PSYCHICNESS?
i often will suddenly know the exact time on a mis-set clock that i have not yet seen. or i'll wake up thinking about the seven of clubs, and later when i'm playing cards, i get dealt the seven of clubs every hand, while no other cards appear with such consistency. or i'll suddenly know that the phone is about to ring, and its someone i haven't talked to for months. i've even had a dozen or so such coincidences that involved 'blather'! i could go on...
but i can't choose when this thing turns on or off. sometimes i just know things...all of the sudden...things that defy all odds of probability. things that i could not know simply because of subconcious processing, etc. i do not call it 'collective subconcious' but someone else might.
i'm hardly alone in this! i watch people have moments like that all the time, and when it happens, they are like, "whoa!" but hours later, they start rationalizing and science-izing it, and they forget how "whoa!" they were when it happened. they talk themselves out of the "whoa!". but the most real part about the whole thing was how "whoa!" it was! the only reason they continue processing it at all is because of the "whoa!" (no one processes why they used a spoon to slurp soup because the "whoa!" from eating soup does not usually come from using a spoon, if "whoa!" comes at all.)
when "psychic" moments strike - and they strike everyone now and then - no one doubts there is something bigger going on than the known forces of existence. but for some people, the doubt returns in seconds, and for others, the doubt only returns hours later.
it's not that different with astrology; one must suspend ones disbelief long enough to actually look at it.
it's easy to laugh at tree huggers if you never have hugged a tree. but if you do go and hug a tree, a tree you like, a tree you love...if you give the tree a good, long hug...after a while you realize the tree is hugging you back. i don't really care if people think that tree hugging sounds stupid. they are stupid, because without the tree they could not breath. the tree doesn't need us! so if nothing else, it is not like tree hugging hurts anyone. if tree hugging pisses you off, if it makes you MAD, you have issues, because if you really thought it was pointless you simply wouldn't care. you'd be apathetic, it wouldn't trigger anything in you at all.
so go hug a tree, anonymous diss-er of daf, because the universe (however you need it to love you: religious, spiritual, scientific...) will hug you right on back! astrology is kind of like that.
|
050827
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
andru, i know what you mean. Yes. If anyone here has been really really right about how one gets more in touch with these "unseen" phenomena that we can't exactly explain but know are there, it's you in that last blathe.
However, I almost feel like I have a second task in front of me. That of meeting the blessed skeptics on THEIR turf. (Yea I know. Just asking for abuse. Oh well, I can take it. I was made for that kinda thing.) So we try to quantify and qualify for them. We try to give them SOME little thing for their analytical minds to become attached to. They need this is much as anyone...more than most. Besides, it's very challenging and I think I'm doing a pretty derned good job (toot toot) if I do say so myself. : )
|
050827
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
P.S. I laughed my ass off about the psychic cards. Who the f**k indeed? The universe does not share her secrets with those who cannot be responsible with them, nor does she waste her energies on foolishness. : )
P.P.S. I know what you mean about the trees. I fell very deeply in brotherly love with two trees. It was a VERY strange sensation to say the least. But to just reach out and touch them. I felt a connection. A very real connection. I mention both trees in these poems:
to_a_tree_i_know is to a tree that any one of you could see if you cross the San Ysidro international border. She is the large tree in front of the weird curvy shaped building. There is a pedestrian crosswalk just after her and a guy who sells fruit just before her.
She sits there, very noble and proud although the world has turned to cement and sh*t around her.(tears) She is a very beautiful thing that deserves a lot better than what we've done to her home.
The second poem is called the_call. It is another of those Tijuana trees. This one you can ALSO see if you walk across the border and take the bridge to downtown TJ. He is the little tree JUST before you start to climb the very first steps that leads to the ramp that goes up to the bridge. They've hacked him into a little cube on the end of a stick. He has about a 2 x 2 opening in the cement that he can get rain and air and stuff through. I'm, sure they pump him full of some sort of chemicals to keep him alive. I can't imagine that there are enough nutrients in that little square of dirt he lives in.
|
050827
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
First off, Andru, I'm no more anonymous than you. Second, I wasn't "dissing" anyone. I was just trying to have a discussion and pass some time, and Dafremen started in with the "look I caught this ego-shark" stuff. Third, I'd rather hug my girlfriend than a tree. Fourth, it's not childish to believe in proof. I mean, philosphically, sure, in some technical sense we can never be anything but totally ignorant about everthing, including cause and effect. But practically, to think that everything is as mysterious and unknowable as everything else--that is childish. In other words, I think Hume is great fun, and it's an interesting proposition that you are not logically justified in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow, but in reality, we rely on such assumptions, derived from the proof of our everyday experience, to get things done and make things work. It's not just that there's no proof of astrology's claims, either. The claims of astrology are testable, and many credible studies disprove those claims. And all those studies come down to is common sense: testing something to see if it works.
Also, about your psychic moments: Let's take just one, the one where you're thinking about a person and she calls you. Well, isn't it just as likely that you think about that person a lot, and that most times when you think about her she doesn't call? Might it be possible that the times when you do think about her and she calls are just more memorable and stick in your mind, whereas the times when you think about her and she doesn't call are instantly forgettable? For the record, you're entitled to believe that you're psychic. That's fine with me. I'm just saying, the non-magic reason makes way more sense to me.
|
050828
|
| |
... |
|
|
.
|
confirmation bias
|
050828
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
I dont think anyone doubts that the sun will rise tomorrow. What is in doubt is whether or not YOU or I will rise tomorrow.
As for the title of this blathe. I HAVE been watching. It's somewhat frightening, but very exciting and interesting from this side of the loss of grip. But all that aside..is there any need to rub it in? : )
|
050829
|
| |
... |
|
|
andrew
|
dearest, beloved 42 usc 1983:
it was the '.' poster whose anonymity i was mildly (only mildly) inclined to protest. perhaps it was you, perhaps it wasn't. obviously that person is wholly entitled to do so. but let us not pretend that hit-and-run tactics against someone's ego constitutes 'valor'. which you weren't pretending, i know.
of course, it is possible to hug both your girlfriend _and_ hug a tree. i'm not saying you have to do either. but the fact that you sometimes hug your girlfriend does not mean that you cannot hug your [insert loved one here], simply because you do not enjoy it as much.
you say that it isn't childish to believe in proof. i wholly agree. it isn't childish to BELIEVE in proof, because that is the only route to it. and what is 'childish'? as if anything we mortals do *isn't* childish! show me a man and i'll usually be able to show you a boy. but that's neither here nor there.
i agree that we rely on assumptions such as the sun coming up. we put our faith into the continuance of such patterns; indeed, it would be silly to do otherwise. but silliness has its place in the world, equal to seriousness.
it's risky to say that the claims of astrology are testable, because first, you assume to know the claims of all astrologies. not all astrologies are zodiac-based! however, they have stole the show and run away with the camera, so i can't blame ya. and for my part, i refer to it as 'astral-divination' because i don't side with the -ological suffix.
regarding the testing-to-see-if-it-works, i do realize this is the basis of much scientific knowledge. thus, the source of my departure from all those years of scientific-style thinking. critical: if something could *not* be discerned by testing to see if it worked, then we would not even know what to test, nor what we were testing...and as a result, we'd "logically" conclude that it wasn't there, or assign unto it various other explanations.
now, i'm going to be really picky on this last point. you offer, as an explanation to one 'psychicness', that perhaps it is someone i think of often. where, oh where, did you pick that up? yet that shows exactly what i'm saying! people, at a loss to explain the unexplainable, grab for an obvious possibility and assume it to be the cause. and since the event happens only once, never to repeat identically, there can be no cross-examination.
and of course, i agree with basically everything you are saying. my poor brain is divided between two warring factions, and half of it is in line with your thoughts, even as i type this, and type that, here and there.
so you are no more obligated to believe in psychicness i am obligated to not so believe. all i'm saying is that the available evidence shifts radically when one changes beliefs.
i'm not saying this makes me right and you wrong! of course, to make any argument persuasive, we must subtly behave otherwise.
but i recently read the "pensees" of blaise pascal - the 'pascal's' triangle guy - and was totally shocked to find that he, this great mathmatician, writes incessantly of this proof of jesus and that proof of christ, and how it is so obvious that He is the saviour, blah blah blah. if i ever am at a loss for ipecac, i will employ pascal's pensees as a susbstitute.
|
050829
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
wow. i haven't done that before.
"andrew". hah! do excuse me.
|
050829
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
you're quickly becoming the reason I read around here andru. Keep up the good work.
|
050830
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
Oh...and pass me a bottle of pascal's pensees. I've got a lot to purge.
|
050830
|
| |
... |
|
|
Arwyn
|
this is mildly entertaining... But since I'm Daffy's personal cheerleader, I do denounce all the bad shit that's been said that I'm too lazy to read... so um... fuck you assholes, you don't know him etc etc etc.
There ya go kiddo... defended ya 'n' stuff. ;)
|
050830
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
I just KNEW you were gunna make me smile today. You always do chicklette.
|
050830
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
Andru Andru Andru, I didn't say that I couldn't both hug my girlfriend and a tree. That was your assumption. I only stated my preference. And to be technical, hugging any person or thing precludes my hugging another person or thing for the duration of said hug (the exception being group hugs, but then, group hugs with trees carry the risk of unattractive and painful bark abraisons). In conclusion, a person has only so many hugs to give in any given day. So no, I'm not hugging any fucking trees. But don't let my preference stop you.
As for my non-magical explanation for your psychic ability to remember a time when you thought about a person and she called you shortly thereafter, well, I'd go with that explantion because it makes sense. I mean, do you remember distinctly all the times you thought about that person and she didn't call? Probably not. And come on, if this person wasn't important to you, I bet you wouldn't find the call so meaningful, so my guess is that the time just prior to the call wasn't the first time you thought of this girl. Maybe I'm off base, but I bet you think of this person fairly frequently. And I bet the vast majority off times you think about this person, she doesn't call. So her call seems less magical in that light. But that's just a guess and I could be wrong. Unfortunately I have no psychic ability.
|
050830
|
| |
... |
|
|
Dafremen
|
How did this argumentative nockwurst turn your brief (and hilarious) illustration about psychicness into a DEBATE about psychicness?
Dafremen: Hey, usc. Do you realize that you're contrary?
18 usc 1030: no i'm not! you're contrary, and stupid. and superstitious.
Dafremen: Don't you think arguing like this is kinda stupid? i'm on yer side man, I just looked into it a little further and believe that it might warrant more investigation. I'm pretty well convinced.
18 usc 1030: sounds to me like yer an idiot who has been duped.
Dafremen: I looked into this, seriously. I may not have been as objective as you'd be if you investigated it...but YOU won't investigate it. Besides, I DO have a reputation for finding correct answers. I do have a reputation for unconventional methods and thinking, and if you just looked at what I'm saying, you'd see that when you LOOK at it in this unconventional way, you see something you can't see from where you are. Come on. Just Look! That's all anyone's asking.
18 usc 1030: fuck that. i dont wanna risk looking stupid if you're wrong. and everyone says you're wrong. thats why theyve never gone over there to look either.
Dafremen: !
18 usc 1030: id rather not look. no thanks. if it cant be seen from right here then it doesn't exist. i'd rather die than go over there and look.
: !
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
dear 42 usc 1983;
you will not like this one bit; but it would seem that you have just 'proven' psychicness exists. for it seems that -although i hadn't attached any gender to the mysterious caller whose ringing i forsaw - you knew the caller to be a 'she'. why, even i didn't know the caller's gender! i was operating under the sheer delusion that i was making a hypothetical example, but it would appear otherwise. thank you for straightening me out. at any rate, i hope you are either ignoring or enjoying your newfound powers. :D
but seriously, it isn't that i deny your argument for some instances. but the scenario has played out in many a permutation. part of me wants to start listing examples of this and that. but what would be the point. it is always easy to offer possible explanations for the events in someone else's life, isn't it? i am the only person on the planet who is not guilty of this. joking! i'm joking. of course i have done that; anyone has.
i don't, however, view 'psychicness' as 'magical'. it's just an extra sense, like touch. or rather, they are just extra senseS, liking smell or sight. only more vague. less tangible. abstract-er.
and i also do not think that i am particularly unique in having extra-senses. i've known various people who exhibit varying degrees of various ESPs.
also, it's not like i'm in possession of x-men-like attack powers. my psychicness seems to be knowing exactly where in the box the donut with pink-frosting will be. and i don't even like donuts with pink frosting. so there is a high element of triviality in this 'psychic power' of mine.
and i have only twice visited psychics. however, both times i had a tarot card reading, and both times i knew the first card that was turned over. thats 1/72 x 1/72. not huge odds! but it's not like this means i win a million dollars. however, it does mean i win something else:
congratulation! i am the winner of a trivial psychic skill that i can either closet away, or argue about with everyone! hooray! it's a draw-draw situation! no winners, no losers! just plain irritating no matter what!congratulation andru235!
but i must say that i agree with you on one point - i was assuming that your preference for hugging your lover was meant to confer an inability to hug large arboreal towers. do excuse me. maybe if i'm lucky, someday when you are making sweet, passionate love with your girlfriend, you will think of me, making sweet, passionate love to a blue spruce! oh, please! i sure hope you'll do that for me! for me? please? oh alright, don't. see if i care. let's pretend we're cousins, k?
congratu, cousin! hooray! let's all pretend we're cousins!
dafreman and 42 usc 1983 and andru235! cousins for the next eleven minutes! congratulation!
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
dear 42 usc 1983;
you will not like this one bit; but it would seem that you have just 'proven' psychicness exists. for it seems that -although i hadn't attached any gender to the mysterious caller whose ringing i forsaw - you knew the caller to be a 'she'. why, even i didn't know the caller's gender! i was operating under the sheer delusion that i was making a hypothetical example, but it would appear otherwise. thank you for straightening me out. at any rate, i hope you are either ignoring or enjoying your newfound powers. :D
but seriously, it isn't that i deny your argument for some instances. but the scenario has played out in many a permutation. part of me wants to start listing examples of this and that. but what would be the point. it is always easy to offer possible explanations for the events in someone else's life, isn't it? i am the only person on the planet who is not guilty of this. joking! i'm joking. of course i have done that; anyone has.
i don't, however, view 'psychicness' as 'magical'. it's just an extra sense, like touch. or rather, they are just extra senseS, liking smell or sight. only more vague. less tangible. abstract-er.
and i also do not think that i am particularly unique in having extra-senses. i've known various people who exhibit varying degrees of various ESPs.
also, it's not like i'm in possession of x-men-like attack powers. my psychicness seems to be knowing exactly where in the box the donut with pink-frosting will be. and i don't even like donuts with pink frosting. so there is a high element of triviality in this 'psychic power' of mine.
and i have only twice visited psychics. however, both times i had a tarot card reading, and both times i knew the first card that was turned over. thats 1/72 x 1/72. not huge odds! but it's not like this means i win a million dollars. however, it does mean i win something else:
congratulation! i am the winner of a trivial psychic skill that i can either closet away, or argue about with everyone! hooray! it's a draw-draw situation! no winners, no losers! just plain irritating no matter what!congratulation andru235!
but i must say that i agree with you on one point - i was assuming that your preference for hugging your lover was meant to confer an inability to hug large arboreal towers. do excuse me. maybe if i'm lucky, someday when you are making sweet, passionate love with your girlfriend, you will think of me, making sweet, passionate love to a blue spruce! oh, please! i sure hope you'll do that for me! for me? please? oh alright, don't. see if i care. let's pretend we're cousins, k?
congra-tu, cousin! hooray! let's all pretend we're cousins!
dafreman and 42 usc 1983 and andru235! cousins for the next eleven minutes! congratulation!
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
another double post! confound it.
watch ME lose MY grip on reality. it's fun!
hooray!
congratulation!
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
daffy joe coonskinner
|
Haddy Cuz! (slaps andru on the back) N Yo0 To0 Cuz! (slaps usc on the to0sh)
Wheerz the vittlez? Ahm starvin'! Hyuk!
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
"part of me wants to start listing examples of this and that."
I don't know, I think that people tend to remember the coincidences that seem significant and forget the rest (ie, the instances where there should be meaning coincidences but there are none). Like if you did that same tarot thing again, do you think you'd know the card for a third time? I think the odds would be 1 out of whatever it was, 72 I think. Have you ever heard that bullshit about how if you play Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon over the muted "Wizard of Oz" the two are eerily in sync? It's kind of the same principle there. There are some odd things to notice, odd coincidences like changes in music at scene changes. For instance, there is a chime when the scene opens on the black-and-white human witch lady's bike. So if you pay attention to only the stuff that's in sync, it really does seem like maybe Pink Floyd intentionally scored "The Wizard of Oz." However, if you pay attention to all the many more scene changes and events where one would expect corresponding music changes but there are none, like when the color floods in after Dorothy lands in Oz, or when the witch appears (in color) for the first time, then in that context the other smattering of apparent music/scene syncs seems merely coincidental and not even unlikely. I mean, odds are, some things will be in sync like that regardless of the album or the film. In fact, it would be more odd if nothing at all was in sync. So I think it's the same way with other coincidences. That's just how I see it.
And Dafremen, I'm not hurting or insulting you here or even talking to you, so stop the trolling. "Nockwurst"? Why do you want to imagine me as a phallic meat product? Oh, and computer fraud? You couldn't find a better statute? For the record, I didn't even make this page.
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
the dafremen goes
|
You didn't REALLY need to ask me why I would describe you as a phallic food product did you? : )
I like that prim, proper legal eagle style. All smooth and clean, like a coffee bean. Do they charge extra for that? Does it come in any other styles?
(Takes a coin from usc's hand and crawls back under the bridge.)
grunt.
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
Dafremen
|
(Heheh. Ok for those of you that like nose wrinklingly cute moments.. Look up there at usc's last blathe. You see the stuff about "computer fraud" and "couldn't find a better statute?"
He knows what 18 usc 1030 means and his combative ego must posture and let me know this. I am as smart as you, his words say! And then, to make sure that I understand that his mighty intellect is SUPERIOR to mine. He tries to give the impression that my choice of statutes wasn't clever..so that the audience will believe he is the clever and knowledgeable one about law. Which is probably true, but isn't it cute the way they go through the motions when their eyes are still closed?)
Hey let's ALL throw our big fat egos into the ring!!
EGO! Yuuummmmaaay!
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
Well the reason it's not clever is because it doesn't play off of any of your insults. You should have used section 1001 of the same title. Your homework: look it up and tell me why.
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
Dafremen
|
(Rests head on folded hands)
I've got a better idea. Instead of me jumping through hoops for you, why don't I just let YOU bring it to me?
18 usc 1001 Prohibits the alteration of government owned computer keyboards. Specifically it prohibits the removal of keys for purposes of hiding keystroke recording devices.
You believe this is a clever joke because you have hidden a keystroke recording routine on my PC.
What you don't realize is that I wrote an interrupt hook to grab that information before it's relayed to you. That's why your log files indicate that I've been typing the lyrics to "Yellow Submarine" for the last 4 weeks.
Any OTHER questions, Mr. doesn't-know-half-as much-as-he-thinks-he-does-about-law? (Heheeh he didn't think I knew the answer)
Hey, I know my law, man.
(High fives Perry Mason)
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
TK
|
Since when is ones "reality" or lack they’re of so important?
Besides why should we have to "Grip" grasp at, and grab a hold of "reality" anyway? If "reality" were so freakin ~real~ to begin with than shouldn’t it just be and exzist w/o all the trying to hold onto it for dear life?
I think "reality" is over-rated.
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
stork daddy
|
seriously. reality is definetly overrated. but boy does it hurt!
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
TK
|
"TK You guys in Britain seem to know a heck of a lot more..."
Grammar for instance
Typo:
than I (a U.S. Citizen) DO
|
050831
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
42 usc 1983,
that the meaning of things might evade us doesn't mean it isn't there. when a coincidence occurs and i cannot find immediate meaning, i assume i don't know how to see it. i could just as well assume there is no meaning to it. really, it is a question of which of these ways has had more influence on making my earthly sentient experience worth it. and coincidences have been a recurrent source of insight and understanding. should i dismiss insight and understanding that has later served me well, because that some people do not believe in coincidence?
negate, negate, negate. it is easy to answer inexplicables with negation. because science cannot see nor effectively test psychicness, or genuine coincidence, it strikes them both down with negation. but that doesn't change the fact that i (and b-b-b-billions of others) experience them both regularily.
you are quick to dismiss my personal experience with coincidence according to what your personal experience has tought you, and i, for my part, have been quick to do the same to you. you hastily find easy reasons why my professed coincidences aren't meaningful, but you weren't there, nor is the whole scope of it known to you. and i hastily attribute your doing this to not having been struck with a strong enough coincidence, or of not being able to see them because of your disbelief in them, or whatever. but i have decided that i am the winner.
just kidding. you are really the winner. there isn't any meaning to the coincidences i've experienced, i now see the error of my ways. i will abandon the only regular influx of hope i have known, and return to my nihilistic, scientific ways. though it brings me only despair and the desire to exit existence at once, i shall cease in my delusions of there being anything that science cannot see, do, or accomplish. for clearly science is infallible. clearly the scientific process can do no wrong, and those who believe otherwise are heretics. science is the new god! and the scientist is the priest who shall bless us! we must put our faith in proof! we must believe in science!
from one hell to the next. from one dark room to another. it's like the_dark_cave all over again.
excuse my sardonic tone. it's just that for myself, and my soul (whatever that is), the more i take up science, the more i feel i am losing my grip on reality. the feeling is very similar to that of trying to believe in christianity or any religion known to me; neither comes close to explaining the world i see before me, let alone myself. i'm not saying that coincidences are regular sources of epiphanies, either. i'm just saying that each of these seems important in a little way. they are each one piece of a sixty-octillion piece puzzle. but none of them can account everything.
ultimately, people take up belief systems that explain the world around them while making them feel secure in their understanding. for you (maybe) it is science that does that, for joe schmoe it is religion x, and for me it is something i haven't a word for. can it really be that 2/3rds of us are wrong?
|
050901
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
"can it really be that 2/3rds of us are wrong?"
Definitely. But I just don't see science as equivalent to religion. I mean, ideally, the scientific method isn't dogma, it's a practical process that we use to figure out our world. To me, science is not a religion because it is based on empirical evidence, whereas religion is based on faith.
And as for the call you anticipated, I guess no one can prove that you didn't psychically anticipate it, but come on, Andru, which explanation seems more likely to you: that you are or were temporarily psychic or that you were thinking of someone who you care about and think of fairly frequently and she just happened to call you?
|
050902
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
you still think it is a 'she', and that it was a one time thing, and that i cared about the person and thought of them often. i have never said any of these things. arrogation!
i suppose this is your demonstration of the scientific process?
you really think that 2/3s of us can be wrong, huh? as there simply isn't any proof of such a claim to be had, you can only feel sure of that because of faith. but you aren't a 'faith' type, so you'll tell me now that you have based this assertion based on goddess-knows-what.
any observation at all of humans, or of subatomic particles (esp. quarks), or of gravity's effects on antimatter, will see that "the probable explanation" is seldom an accurate one. indeed, there is often nothing probable about the eventual explanation. i.e. "the truth is stranger than fiction".
if you looked down from the galactic cluster at little earth, you'd see all these little dots (humans) moving about in seemingly orderly fashion. but would you have even the slightest idea what it was like to be one of the little dots (humans)? and what is more real, the external perspective of something, or actually being it? (of course, they are both real.) how much could the galactic being really claim to know about the little dots, when it didn't have the faintest clue about what it was like to be one?
is this relevant? definetly. it's biology looking at atoms. it's science allowing only knowledge based upon observation. i can watch you closely all day, from your birth until your death, but even if i am the most empathetic and logical watcher ever known to humankind, i still will be in the dark about what it was actually like to *be* you. extrapolation is not synonymous with knowing. far from it!
nescient
|
050902
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
and yes, i do think that in those moments i was "temporarily psychic," as you call it, or having "extra-sensory perception," as i call it. it's not that big a deal, really. b-b-b-billions of people claim to have occasional or regular extra-sensory perception(s).
have you seen what_the_bleep? a good film, and science based. deeply religious people might freak out a little bit, though.
|
050902
|
| |
... |
|
|
42 usc 1983
|
“you still think it is a 'she', and that it was a one time thing, and that i cared about the person and thought of them often. i have never said any of these things. arrogation! i suppose this is your demonstration of the scientific process?”
Absolutely. It’s trial and error. I’m testing out my reasonable assumptions. Your name suggests you’re a guy, and knowing nothing else about you, chances are you’re heterosexual. Also, I assume you’re young, because most people who post here are young. So what phone calls are most significant to young, heterosexual males? Calls from girls. Such calls seem particularly meaningful, especially if you love or think you love the girl. Could I be wrong about my assumptions? Sure, but you still haven’t told me whether and how I’m wrong. Was it a he? Did you not care about the person? Did you rarely think of the person? You still haven’t said one way or the other. All you’ve said so far is that my assumptions were assumptions, and, well, no shit those were my assumptions, so tell me where I was wrong so I can reevaluate my assumptions. Or don’t, since all I was doing was casually presenting an alternate explanation for your experience that didn’t require us to invent an unseen psychic world. Ultimately, the sex of the person of whom you spoke is irrelevant for the purpose of my example. All I was saying is that if you think about it, thinking about a person just before that person calls is not that strange and requires no psychic ability on your part.
“you really think that 2/3s of us can be wrong, huh?”
Are you really so incredulous that I believe that 2/3rds of all people could be wrong about something? Two-thirds of any pool of people and more are routinely wrong about lots of things. Are _you_ actually saying that if two-thirds of the population believes something it has to be true? Perhaps you are only saying that popular belief correlates with objective truth, which might be true, but we have to be careful about assigning a direction of causality. I think it should be, “If something is true, then many people will believe it” rather than the converse. So people believe that fire is hot because fire is (demonstrably) hot; fire isn't hot because people believe it is hot. More generally, though, the fact that a lot of people believe something is not very good proof.
“as there simply isn't any proof of such a claim [that 2/3rds of people are wrong about the existence of paranormal forces] to be had, you can only feel sure of that because of faith. but you aren't a 'faith' type, so you'll tell me now that you have based this assertion based on goddess-knows-what.”
Are you kidding? No, it’s not based on faith, it’s based on proof. We’re not simply dealing with a nonexistence-of-proof-is-not-proof-of-nonexistence situation here. We’re dealing with a situation where in credible studies, psychics have been unable to prove their claims. For instance, researchers have tested self-professed clairvoyants’ ability to “read auras” and said clairvoyants have failed. Look, I found this from doing a quick Google search: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/i-files.html. That’s not the same thing as having no proof one way or the other. If you don’t believe that there is a difference between believing something based on proof and accepting something on faith, then I don’t know what to say to you.
“any observation at all of humans, or of subatomic particles (esp. quarks), or of gravity's effects on antimatter, will see that ‘the probable explanation’ is seldom an accurate one.”
Observations of humans show that the probable explanation is “seldom” accurate? Really? Seldom? Are you honestly saying that people “seldom” behave as we would expect them to? I would say that although people often behave erratically or strangely, they also frequently do and say exactly or approximately what we expect them to. If you say something mean to a person, you expect them to become upset, right? Now, is it seldom or often that someone gets upset when you say something mean?
“indeed, there is often nothing probable about the eventual explanation. i.e. ‘the truth is stranger than fiction’.”
How is the eventual explanation probable or not? Isn’t an explanation either accurate or not? I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say, but if what you’re saying is that the end result is unlikely, then I both agree and disagree with you. There is nothing probable about the outcome of lottery numbers, either, in the sense that any given combination is unlikely to come up, and yet every possible sequence of numbers is just as likely to come up as every other sequence. Honestly, though, I’m not sure what that has to do with the likelihood of paranormal phenomena. I’d say that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, but more often, truth is mundane and predictable, even if the exact outcome is difficult to determine. I mean, I will more likely become a lawyer than a rock star.
“if you looked down from the galactic cluster at little earth, you'd see all these little dots (humans) moving about in seemingly orderly fashion. but would you have even the slightest idea what it was like to be one of the little dots (humans)? and what is more real, the external perspective of something, or actually being it? (of course, they are both real.) how much could the galactic being really claim to know about the little dots, when it didn't have the faintest clue about what it was like to be one?”
I must confess, I have no idea what you mean by any of that. Are you saying that in order to know whether people are psychic I have to be psychic? I don’t know what this analogy refers to. Also, I think the galactic being is supposed to be omniscient, so by definition his perspective is infinite. But if he’s not omniscient, then maybe he can’t know what it’s like to be a human, unless maybe at one point he was human. Are you saying I have to believe in psychic ability or be psychic to assess the veracity of psychic claims? I disagree with that statement, but is it enough that when I was younger I used to believe in God and the Devil and all sorts of magic?
“it's science allowing only knowledge based upon observation. i can watch you closely all day, from your birth until your death, but even if i am the most empathetic and logical watcher ever known to humankind, i still will be in the dark about what it was actually like to *be* you.”
Okay, but science doesn’t claim to capture any subjective perspective. That’s not what science is about. Science is supposed to be objective. So who cares if I never know what it’s like to be an apple or a quark or Tim Robbins? I really don’t care at all. That’s not what I want to know about those things. I want to know whether or not certain chemicals, when mixed together, relieve my headache, but I couldn’t care less what those chemicals were feeling when they were mixed together. Science is science because it works. It’s not perfect, just like knowledge isn’t perfect, but it gets shit done. It makes medicine, rocket ships, and my computer. Even though you’ll never know what it’s like to be me, you can still make meaningful observations about me. Similarly, researchers can make meaningful observations about psychics and the paranormal, ie, can the claims of psychics be proven. Of course, qualitative research is all about subjective perspectives. I’m not saying that qualitative research is not science. I was just using the term “science” in the way that I think we were both using it.
“b-b-b-billions of people claim to have occasional or regular extra-sensory perception(s).”
Is that your best evidence? You’re just going to appeal to numbers without evaluating the plausibility of such claims? Wouldn’t an objective test, like the one in that aura study above, be a better way to evaluate whether psychic powers exist or not? I remember reading either on this page or another where you spoke of testing psychic ability by guessing playing cards, and how that method is flawed because no one has the psychic power to guess cards. And to me, that seemed kind of like someone saying, “Well of course I can’t bench press that 300 pound bar! I lift boulders in the desert, pal, not barbells in an air conditioned gym!” It’s a little different, of course, because I guess you’re supposedly not just able to turn psychic power on and off, but at the same time, isn’t it convenient that psychics aren’t psychic all the time for all purposes? Because if, say, putative mind readers could read every mind every time they tried, we would be able to test this ability. The card test would be perfectly valid. So it’s all just a little convenient to me, that the very best that proponents of the paranormal can come up with to defend their belief is the idea that there is no way to test psychic abilities. I don’t believe this is true. I believe that tests such as the aura test are good evidence that no such thing as psychic power exists. Nevertheless, some say that it’s impossible to know whether psychic powers exist, that such tests are somehow flawed, because a psychic can’t just turn her powers on and off. But like I said, isn’t that just a little convenient? Isn’t that exactly what someone would say if she had no psychic power and were trying to trick you?
“have you seen what_the_bleep? a good film, and science based. deeply religious people might freak out a little bit, though.”
Haven’t seen it but I’ve heard about it. And I’m all about freaking out religious people.
|
050904
|
| |
... |
|
|
andru235
|
42 usc 1983, i have continued our discussion at:
psychic_phenomena_and_science
:D
|
050904
|
