Thread: Psi Related "Debates" are Stupid

hey, you are making me feel vulnerable...how dare you...

In watching the video... he certainly needs to mind meld with Bill Gates to find out how to turn off Auto Update on his Windows computer during the presentation that keeps popping up.

I spent a lifetime avoiding academic discussion, Mzzkc.

Must we really base our discussions on the claims/results/conclusions made by second and third tier thinkers who must make their living repeating what's already been said, minding who is paying them, accepting only what they have allowed themselves to comprehend, and, above all, using YouTube to disseminate their wisdom? I don't think so.

That said, debating with no more backup than "Because I said so" is disingenuous at best. Perhaps we should just change out the word "debate" with words like "discuss," "propose," or "imagine?"

I'd rather have academics call me an ignorant ass-hat than force myself to tread their historically narrow and remarkably blindered path...

Full disclosure: I couldn't link to the lectures you provided above, so I'm shooting from the hip here.

I feel "psi based debates" are stupid even if we all started linking to resources. First Debra tried that and got chewed up for it, so no help there. Second, I spent half my life needing to cite refrences and hope to never do it again. And third, everything Sageous said.
Stupid all around. If someone wants to talk about psi related topics and not debate it looks like they should start it in the "Deep Dreaming" forum so I can enforce the no skeptic rule. The debate idea makes all of us look stupid.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

In watching the video... he certainly needs to mind meld with Bill Gates to find out how to turn off Auto Update on his Windows computer during the presentation that keeps popping up.

Implied ad-hominen.

Also, that wasn't his computer; the update thing was Google's failure.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I spent a lifetime avoiding academic discussion, Mzzkc.

Must we really base our discussions on the claims/results/conclusions made by second and third tier thinkers who must make their living repeating what's already been said, minding who is paying them, accepting only what they have allowed themselves to comprehend, and, above all, using YouTube to disseminate their wisdom? I don't think so.

That said, debating with no more backup than "Because I said so" is disingenuous at best. Perhaps we should just change out the word "debate" with words like "discuss," "propose," or "imagine?"

I'd rather have academics call me an ignorant ass-hat than force myself to tread their historically narrow and remarkably blindered path...

Full disclosure: I couldn't link to the lectures you provided above, so I'm shooting from the hip here.

You really should watch the lecture; I think you'd find it interesting. XP

Originally Posted by sivason

I feel "psi based debates" are stupid even if we all started linking to resources. First Debra tried that and got chewed up for it, so no help there. Second, I spent half my life needing to cite refrences and hope to never do it again. And third, everything Sageous said.
Stupid all around. If someone wants to talk about psi related topics and not debate it looks like they should start it in the "Deep Dreaming" forum so I can enforce the no skeptic rule. The debate idea makes all of us look stupid.

To be fair, her "resources" were pretty sketchy. It helps to have a bunch of bookmarks to relevant, peer-reviewed studies to toss about, but I can understand if you're over the whole research thing.

Of course, this thread isn't just aimed at [sic] "believers." The self-proclaimed "skeptics" are just as guilty in this regard. Especially the ones that propose expensive, lengthy experimentation methods and then claim they wouldn't hesitate to commit academic/career suicide if they had the opportunity to run such an experiment. Shit like that drives me nuts, as it shows an utter lack of academic understanding and stifles actual conversation.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

To be fair, her "resources" were pretty sketchy. It helps to have a bunch of bookmarks to relevant, peer-reviewed studies to toss about, but I can understand if you're over the whole research thing.

LOL! No offense intended to Debra, who seems like a very good person, but I had not actually read the links she posted. I rarely understand Debra so I just skipped them. My bad.

Thank you Mzzkc

I will post this then listen to the one and a half hour talk.

ABSTRACT

Do telepathy, clairvoyance and other "psi" abilities exist? The majority of the general population believes that they do, and yet fewer than one percent of mainstream academic institutions have any faculty known for their interest in these frequently reported experiences.

Why is a topic of enduring and widespread interest met with such resounding silence in academia?

The answer is not due to a lack of scientific evidence, or even to a lack of scientific interest, but rather involves a taboo.

I will discuss the nature of this taboo, some of the empirical evidence and critical responses, and speculate on the implications.

Speaker: Dean Radin

Dean Radin is a researcher and author in the field of parapsychology.

He is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and four-time former President of the Parapsychological Association.

He holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and a masters degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in educational psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

He has worked at AT&T Bell Labs and GTE Labs, mainly on human factors of advanced telecommunications products and services, and held appointments at:

Princeton University,
Edinburgh University,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
SRI International, Interval Research Corporation, and Boundary Institute.

At these facilities he was engaged in basic research on exceptional human capacities, principally psi phenomena.

Science and the Taboo of Psi
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
(1 hour and 35 minutes) 144,946 views

Uploaded by GoogleTechTalks on 18-Jan-2008

I am on my phone so link might not take you to Youtube site so use Mzzkc's link in opening thread.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

Implied ad-hominen.

*chuckle*, let's just have a little fun, and leave all that anger on the other thread. *Whew* I don't know what it is about the deep-dreaming debate thread...

Originally Posted by debrajane

Do telepathy, clairvoyance and other "psi" abilities exist? The majority of the general population believes that they do

Since when?

Statistics? Polls? Links?

Never mind, I'll just take your word for it.

Originally Posted by Gills

Since when?

Statistics? Polls? Links?

Never mind, I'll just take your word for it.

Wow.

She linked you right to the source.

^^ Seriously, Gills, whether you agree with it or not, the lecture Mzzkc (& DebraJane) asks us to look at is exactly what you are demanding.

I know sarcasm and flat-out rudeness is a lot easier, empowering, and just plain fun than listening, but maybe you can find some time and look at some of this video. Then, when you disagree, you can have real scientific studies to attack, and not just the word of believers here.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Seriously, Gills, whether you agree with it or not, the lecture Mzzkc (& DebraJane) asks us to look at is exactly what you are demanding.

I know sarcasm and flat-out rudeness is a lot easier, empowering, and just plain fun than listening, but maybe you can find some time and look at some of this video. Then, when you disagree, you can have real scientific studies to attack, and not just the word of believers here.

More accurately, it's a starting point for further research and a good foundation on the current state of Psi in academia.

You'll have to do the legwork to find/read some of these studies yourself (you're all grown up; I'm not gonna hold your hand), but it's as easy as plugging a few search terms into Google Scholar.

My apologies, I didn't see the link because it was at the very bottom of her post, so please calm down everyone.

FYI, I stated many times in the shared dreaming debate thread that I believe in ESP and other psychic abilities. I just thought her comment came out of nowhere, and that's why I responded the way I did.

Originally Posted by Gills

My apologies, I didn't see the link because it was at the very bottom of her post, so please calm down everyone.

FYI, I stated many times in the shared dreaming debate thread that I believe in ESP and other psychic abilities. I just thought her comment came out of nowhere, and that's why I responded the way I did.

If you had listened to the lecture (it was posted in two places, including the OP, so your excuse is moot) you would have understood she was writing a transcript.

This thread isn't about believing in Psi or not believing in Psi; it's about doing some legwork before typing an ill-informed response.

ESP and psychic abilities are connected to shared dreaming. It's in the same page. If whoever doesn't see this?
Then i don't know what else to say and just really leave whoever thinks it's not, and let them be in their own selfish doubt.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

If you had listened to the lecture (it was posted in two places, including the OP, so your excuse is moot) you would have understood she was writing a transcript.

I really didn't see the link. What problems are you having with that? Here's a similar occurrence:

Originally Posted by sivason

LOL! No offense intended to Debra, who seems like a very good person, but I had not actually read the links she posted. I rarely understand Debra so I just skipped them. My bad.

Is sivason a liar, too?

This thread isn't about believing in Psi or not believing in Psi; it's about doing some legwork before typing an ill-informed response.

I didn't see the link. Believe it or not, I couldn't care less.

Originally Posted by Gills

I really didn't see the link. What problems are you having with that?

You commented in this thread with a clear lack of regard to the original post and the topic of discussion. That is, quite simply, rude and reveals a certain level of ineptitude. Hence why I took issue with your posts.

(I will provide definitions and explanations for each "rude" and "ineptitude" if anyone feel these assessments were used in error.)

Originally Posted by Gills

Is sivason a liar, too?

Strawman and implied ad-hominen.

Originally Posted by Gills

I didn't see the link. Believe it or not, I couldn't care less.

If you couldn't care less about valid sources (or doing your own research), why do you bother asking for them in the first place?



Full disclosure in good faith: Good sir, you have fallen into a rather obvious trap that anyone who has gone over the material presented in the OP (original post) would have seen. I had postulated you were the type that didn't bother to read through sources or do your own research before ripping into something, even when such resources are easily accessible. This line of conversation only confirms my hypothesis. Feel free to protest or disagree with this assessment, but you'll only continue to tarnish any respectability you may have had.

So in conclusion: even threads about psi-debates beging stupid, end up being stupid. Just joking and not a slam on this thread, just saying,,,

What if we all just pretend we dont have anything to prove............


.........


.........
oh ya, thats what we are doing.

Everything will be as it is anyways, so what is there to prove? Despite our total connectedness psi or not, we still must prove it to ourselves.

The truth is in your face...

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

You commented in this thread with a clear lack of regard to the original post and the topic of discussion. That is, quite simply, rude and reveals a certain level of ineptitude. Hence why I took issue with your posts.

(I will provide definitions and explanations for each "rude" and "ineptitude" if anyone feel these assessments were used in error.)



Strawman and implied ad-hominen.



If you couldn't care less about valid sources (or doing your own research), why do you bother asking for them in the first place?



Full disclosure in good faith: Good sir, you have fallen into a rather obvious trap that anyone who has gone over the material presented in the OP (original post) would have seen. I had postulated you were the type that didn't bother to read through sources or do your own research before ripping into something, even when such resources are easily accessible. This line of conversation only confirms my hypothesis. Feel free to protest or disagree with this assessment, but you'll only continue to tarnish any respectability you may have had.

Don't you think you are overreacting a little? He apologized and your next response is to further chastise him? I think you need to take a step back and take a deep breath, you're taking this a bit personal, it seems.

Originally Posted by snoop

Don't you think you are overreacting a little?

I do not.

Originally Posted by snoop

He apologized and your next response is to further chastise him?

Correct.

His apology and previous comment revealed that not only did he disregard some of Debra Jane's post, but the OP (where the same link and purpose of this thread was posted), and much of the conversation between as well.

It bears chastising because Gills illustrated the very problem this thread was addressing, as sivason candidly pointed out.

Originally Posted by snoop

I think you need to take a step back and take a deep breath, you're taking this a bit personal, it seems.

I'm not taking things personally; I'm calling out BS where I see it. Gills should be familiar the concept.

Right, he did something wrong then apologized for it. Then, instead of accepting his apology like a mature person you respond with arrogance and condescension. There's a difference between calling out BS and talking down to someone for said BS. You took it a step further. Clearly your problem with him runs deeper than this particular "transgression" of his, perhaps because his views differ from yours in respect to shared dreaming. Whatever the reason, you come across as pretentious and demeaning. What exactly is the point of all this aggression?

Originally Posted by snoop

Right, he did something wrong then apologized for it.

He did several things wrong and apologized for one of them. There is a difference.

Originally Posted by snoop

Then, instead of accepting his apology like a mature person you respond with arrogance and condescension.

No. I pointed out that had he actually read through this thread, he never would have made the mistake he did.

There are several references to the video before Debra's remark, as well as a discourse on doing basic research before initiating or participating in a debate.

There are two plausible ways Gills could have missed the existence of the video Debra was transcribing. One, he has extraordinarily poor reading comprehension skills (unlikely). Two, he skimmed through, or disregarded, the majority of this thread.

Originally Posted by snoop

There's a difference between calling out BS and talking down to someone for said BS. You took it a step further.

I kept in line with my position. The original post states my belief regarding the behavior Gills demonstrated.

If he had seen just how deep his transgression ran, I'd have left it alone (as I did when sivason and Sageous admitted their errors). But his excuse and statement "I just thought her comment came out of nowhere" revealed, quite plainly, that he had no idea how bad he screwed up. And though I kept things civil, I will admit to pulling no punches in the discourse that followed.

Originally Posted by snoop

Clearly your problem with him runs deeper than this particular "transgression" of his

Not really.

This is just the latest in a long line of such events. But unlike the others, the way this one played out highlighted the underlying issue.

Put your feelings aside, and look at the facts.

4 of the 7 posts made before Debra's reference the video posted in the OP.
5 of the 7 share a discourse on doing research before debates.
In the "Shared Dreaming Debate" thread, Gills makes numerous calls for links to sources.
The link he was asking for in this thread was already posted in 2 places, referenced in 5 (including Debra's post), and quoted in the post Gills called out.
Gills is made aware that he did something wrong.
He apologizes for not seeing the link, implies he didn't bother reading much of Debra's post, and states he believed her comment to have come out of nowhere.

If we assume he is telling the truth (and I have no reason to expect he is lying), for his belief to hold water he would have needed to ignore over half of the thread including the OP.
I don't know if you've read the OP, but it very clearly expresses my viewpoints on this matter.

Originally Posted by snoop

perhaps because his views differ from yours in respect to shared dreaming.

Do you even know what my views "in respect to shared dreaming" are? I think you'd be surprised.

Originally Posted by snoop

Whatever the reason, you come across as pretentious and demeaning.

This whole time, I have been emulating Gills' style of discourse for effect. Are you calling Gills pretentious and demeaning?

Originally Posted by snoop

What exactly is the point of all this aggression?

See above.

I'm still watching through the entirety of the lecture in the OP, but so far have found it very enlightening. I knew there was some experiments out there that pointed to psi phenomenon, but I had no idea the amount of research there is by reputable scientist with statistically significant results. Thanks for posting, Mzzk.