Thread: But It Defies The Laws Of Physics!

So where does he believe the mind resides, if it encompasses more than the physical senses? [/b]

He doesn't address where it resides that I've yet found - just getting into his work, really. He may well address that further on or in.

He does address what it works through, which is, in part, the brain and the physical senses. He further notes and takes very seriously the extremely common experiences of humans and animals that clearly breach those physical boundaries, yet are part of consciousness.

A rather meager response to such a broad topic, however... The truly gifted!
What I believe is this to be all of these discussed circumstances to be enveloped by an individual. Which is obviously something that does not happen too often. A true Prodigy. One who has had the rare happenstance of circumstance for all of these traits, if you will, to be developed in there environment of their development.

What do you guys think?

I add --> Not all are created equal. sorry. And not all of us are conditioned equal either.

Been writing this while working, so if it's hard to follow....

I agree with that, to an extent. If these abilities do exist, anyone with the ability to exercise them (however small the significance of the effect) should be considered prodigious, in my eyes. This would be a completely different level of prodigy, though. While current prodigies display talents in already wide-spread human activities like athletics art or science, a prodigious psionist, (?) if proven authentic, could open a world of tangible research material that could lead us to understanding how the trait works, and possibly, how to awaken the trait in the general population and develop and strengthen it further down the line, maybe even hereditarily.

Where we disagree (assuming I get the gist of your post) is that I don’t think psi (if it exists) is something available only to the gifted; that is to say, a select, finite number of human beings. If these abilities, however insignificant, do exist then I’d believe them to be something available to all humans, equally, give or take the number of people that would be born with the sensual disability, as many people are born with limited senses, already.

Hmm.. Although, in retrospect, I suppose the anomaly, or disability role, could be reversed, and grant an ability to a small number of members of a species that wasn’t supposed to have it? So we might just agree on that one, although it’s more of a speculation than anything else. But could there be a truth to it? I definitely think so.

Dogs, for example: We know them to be colorblind. But how sure are we that that is a universal truth? What is it that keeps dogs from seeing color? Is it a stretch to believe that somewhere on this earth there exists at least one dog that has been given the statistically odd gift of color perception?
If there, in fact, is a dog in existence with this trait, that means senses may not be as absolute as they seem, and their elusiveness does not mean they are not real. If dogs had human dexterity, were the dominant species on the planet and took our place as the scientists, physicists and engineers of our day, how different would “reality” be? Everything would be based off of a colorless perspective and deal, rather, with shades of black and white. If a few of the, hypothetically possible, anomalous dogs that I mentioned earlier were to speak up, anecdotally, about having strange senses of color, how hard would it be to convince the mass populace, especially with tests using materials that aren’t even made to register the concept of color, in the first place?

Such is the nature behind the challenge of metaphysical research. I think it is a respectable field and should be treated as such. The fact that it’s treated so cynically by the people who have the best influence within the scientific communities and how science is portrayed to the public doesn’t sit well with me for So many reasons; not the least of which is that it showcases the arrogance much of humanity takes toward boasting about “What We Know of Reality.” We don’t even know the origin of consciousness, of which All of our subjective experiences are based. We don’t even know how it actually works. We concede, collectively that “anomalies” do happen, yet we refuse to give them any sort of meaning by referring to them simply as anomalies. The harder they are to understand, the easier they are to write off as “just another strange occurrence,” however I think that, as long as these strange occurrences do happen, their mere presence is cause enough to keep us in check about what we feel we can go out bragging that we know does or doesn’t exist.

I'm hopelessly behind on this thread but I'll try to catch up and get in on it.

To keep my non-backread thoughts simple and so you know where I'll be coming from, I believe that as long as doubt exists, anything is possible. It doesn't seem sound that you can say something definitely doesn't exist or isn't happening when we're so far from understand anything about what really does exist and what really is happening.

Has anyone here read about Red Rain? Basically there was a strange rainstorm in africa where the skies rained red water for a few days. It was dismissed by the scientific community as some sand being dumped from a faraway desert due to a weird weather pattern. One guy, however, decided to examine some particles from the rain under a microscope and he found this: http://curdrice.com/ranga/red_rain.html
Now if you've ever seen cells under a microscope, you know that those babies look almost exactly like red blood cells. This scientist tested the chemical consituents and found all the necessary elements of life present in the 'cells' except for DNA. Now, the missing DNA is the smoking gun here, because all life on earth uses DNA or RNA, even things that aren't technically alive like viruses. So, that's a pretty big thing to uncover, it means that the rain could actually contain ALIEN life forms, which he postulates came from a broken up meteor or comet or whatever. This could mean not only that there is life outside of earth, but that the very beginnings of life on earth actually came from outer space!

So the scientific community hears about this and it sends them into a huge uproar. They were so pissed off that this guy could suggest such a thing that they ridiculed him and banished his findings to obscurity. Recently, however, some of them pulled their heads out of their butts and conceded that he could actually be right. The whole situation really bothers me; I mean scientists are out there, supposedly figuring out the nature of the universe for us, and when something like this pops up they keep a closed mind and dismiss it as impossible. Anyone who could dismiss evidence as stark as this without a very good reason is NOT someone I want figuring out the universe for me, thank you.

Haven't had much of a chance to check out that link yet, Russ, but I'm plannin on it.

Here's a damn good reference for seeing through common pseudo-skeptical arguments.
Winston Wu Debunks the Skeptics

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." -H.P. Lovecraft

Thats pretty much my take on the subject. In order to understand anything (Logic, which I hold in higher regard than physics 'laws') says that you much have a relative value to compare it against.

Since we don't know how much there is to know, statistically, we know nothing. We could know a great deal, or we could know only psuedo information that only works in practice, but the theory is all wrong. We really have no standard by which to measure.

So I finally started checking out the Red Rain stuff. Whoa. Very interesting.

Popular Science on Red Rain

Yorkshire Post on Red Rain

A particular section of this article stood out to me, and should stand out to everyone else who has read this thread:

But if there really is no DNA, the mystery deepens and the extra-terrestrial explanation becomes even more likely – especially if it is possible to repeat the reproduction experiments, left out of Dr Louis's paper for Astrophysics & Space Science because they seemed too amazing to be true.[/b]

Leaving acknowledgement of positive results for an experiement out of a mainstream Journal because it "seemed too amazing to be true?" Now why would any self-respecting scientist want to do that? It wouldn't be because of the bias in the mainstream scientific community that we've been bantering on about, now would it? Nah. It couldn't be that. :neutral:

More

Louis and Kumar have previously posted other, unpublished papers saying the particles can grow if placed in extreme heat, and reproduce. But the Astrophysics and Space Science paper doesn’t include these claims. It mostly limits itself to arguing for the particles’ meteoric origin, citing newspaper reports that a meteor broke up in the atmosphere hours before the red rain.[/b]

Obviously they felt the need to express it too. Hmmm.

So, back to the relevance to this thread and today's quiz question:
If someone doesn't read about "any persuasive evidence for Psi," or anything else paranormal for that matter, in a peer-reviewed Journal, does it mean the evidence (or the phenomenon) does not exist?

Anyone? Anyone?

well that depends which peer-reviewed Journal you are talking about.
So which "peer-reviewed Journal" are we talking about? I'm a little behind on what's been going on in the thread.

Oh and about the first posts...lol...I apologize for those. I was under the influence of certain...substances...i was just BSing you and being an ass. Hence the history of the blow job. In case you didn't understand that part, that link was a joke meant to mock the links you had been posting by showing that internet articles are misleading. The fact that the content was over blow jobs was subtly saying ...something else.
Yeah I know, it was stupid. Let me say that I don't feel that way. I regret posting that especially on a serious thread.

And lastly: something I might suggest is that you didn't make your posts so huge. Being concise helps and doesn't turn off the users who don't have the time/energy to read it all.
Interesting red rain by the way.

Peace

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
well that depends which peer-reviewed Journal you are talking about.
So which "peer-reviewed Journal" are we talking about? I'm a little behind on what's been going on in the thread.

Well, in particular, the article was talking about Astrophysics and Space Science. My point, though is that it doesn't matter which journal, specifically. They are all subject to bias and conflicts of interest, as is anything else man made or written, and should be recognized as such.

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Inverting_world_lines)</div>

Oh and about the first posts...lol...I apologize for those. I was under the influence of certain...substances...i was just BSing you and being an ass. [/b]

No problem, man. Water under the bridge.

<!--QuoteBegin-Inverting_world_lines

And lastly: something I might suggest is that you didn't make your posts so huge. Being concise helps and doesn't turn off the users who don't have the time/energy to read it all.

Well, what can I say? That's a lot harder than it seems. The opening post started off as a rant, so I didn't really care how long it got. (but maybe I'll go back and shorten it a bit, sometime) After that, I've been doing what I can not to ramble on, but a lot of my thoughts on this stuff I'm putting into text for the first time, so I don't always have the most efficient way to voice them planned out. Most people I run into with a mind to debunk any and everything "paranormal" will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you so I simply try to touch on all points that come to mind at the time so I won't have to have someone touch on the one or two things I left out, and have to go back and say "Well, I was going to bring that up last time, but...."

You get the idea, but I see your point, so I'll do what I can.

If someone doesn't read about "any persuasive evidence for Psi," or anything else paranormal for that matter, in a peer-reviewed Journal, does it mean the evidence (or the phenomenon) does not exist? [/b]

Is this saying not to believe everything we hear?

And to answer the question:

No; this not only applies to the paranormal, but hobbits and aliens as well. Not that it's fair to compare them. It's all up to their agenda what they decide to inform us about.

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
Is this saying not to believe everything we hear?

Nah. That should be common sense. My question is simply implying that saying "such and such isn't published in a 'distinguished' scientific journal" is not a solid arguement for its nonexistence. That is all. I just think it's funny how some of the most "intellectual" people lose sight of that concept.

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines

And to answer the question:

No; this not only applies to the paranormal, but hobbits and aliens as well. Not that it's fair to compare them. It's all up to their agenda what they decide to inform us about.

Give the man a prize.

Originally posted by Oneironaut
My question is simply implying that saying "such and such isn't published in a 'distinguished' scientific journal" is not a solid arguement for its nonexistence.

One can never prove nonexistence. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

^^ Only existance and universal quantification can be proven. Of course, "not existing" would be the same as "for all cases, [proposition] does not happen".

For example, in the rational numbers, with integer coefficients, there are no prime numbers. It could be said that no prime numbers exist throughout the rational numbers.

Perhaps you meant scientifically proven, though.

We have no right to disqualify life in other areas at all, we cannot say we have done every experiment possible, and its just impossible for other life to exist, to say so would be naive. To say we have done everything, we must first explore the entire universe, and then we can say we KNOW, not we THINK. Untill then, i think those people are relying on other peoples beliefs way way way too much.
____
|BOX|
|___ | think

If you cant think outside the box, you need to place yourself in this box, and get it over with quicker.

Rational numbers are numbers that can be expressed as a fraction, and all prime numbers are rational numbers, actually, since they are all necessarily integers. For example, 23 is a prime number. 23 can be expressed as 23/1 or 46/2 or 69/3, etc. Perhaps you were thinking of a different set of numbers.

But when I say that nonexistence cannot be proven, you are correct in assuming that I do not speak of mathematical proofs, as those are derivations based upon previous definitions, rules, and proofs, and can only negate the existence of those things contained within its closed system. One cannot write a mathematical proof for the existence of Big Foot, for example. "Prime numbers do not exist within the set of irrational numbers" could just as easily be restated as "Prime numbers are not included within the set of irrational numbers." At no point is the actual existence of prime numbers in doubt. It is the question of existence itself with which I am concerned.

Returning to the Big Foot example, a Big Foot adherent could always claim that Big Foot was snoozing at the north end of the Forty Acre Woods while you and your team were out surveying the south end. One cannot be simultaneously everywhere and with simultaneous knowledge of everything, and for that reason, it can always be argued that those who are searching are simply looking in all the wrong places at the wrong times. Didn't see Big Foot last weekend at Yosemite? That's because he was down South with me having tea with his cousins. You didn't get any results with that telepathy experiment you ran last month? You subjects were just too preoccupied and nervous because you had them sitting in that padded white room. You haven't seen any proof of aliens visiting Earth? They're sneaky bastards with those anal probes - do you really think with their advanced technology they'd just write "Hey ya'll, we're here" in the sky?

And so it goes on. One can only prove existence, and even then there are gradations based upon the personal biases and standards of those one is trying to convince. What convinces one person will not necessarily convince another. As far as nonexistence goes, the strongest statement one can truthfully make is that there has been no conclusive evidence to suggest the existence of <insert whatever is in question>. You can't prove that it doesn't exist. You can only prove that so far, there isn't evidence that it does exist. That's actually a very important distinction.

Originally posted by Peregrinus
all prime numbers are rational numbers

You are going the wrong way with this. For example, 2 is not always a prime number. In the natural numbers and integers, it is.
A number p is prime if it's only divisors in the set of numbers are ±1 and ±p. With rational numbers, 2 = 4 * 1/2 and 2 is no longer prime.
23 would be a prime number in the natural numbers, integers, but not the rationals, or irrationals, because it has non-trivial factors.

Originally posted by Distant Clone+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Distant Clone)</div>

You are going the wrong way with this. For example, 2 is not always a prime number. In the natural numbers and integers, it is. *
A number p is prime if it's only divisors in the set of numbers are ±1 and ±p. With rational numbers, 2 = 4 * 1/2 and 2 is no longer prime. *
23 would be a prime number in the natural numbers, integers, but not the rationals, or irrationals, because it has non-trivial factors.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-MathWorld
A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors other than 1 and p itself. (More concisely, a prime number p is a positive integer having exactly one positive divisor other than 1.)

Source: Prime Number
When determining whether a number is prime, one concerns oneself only with positive integer divisors. Since 1/2 is not a positive integer, the fact that 2 is divisible by 1/2 does not disqualify it from being a prime number. Since all prime numbers are integers and all integers are rational numbers, all prime numbers must be rational numbers.

^^ I don't like that definition of prime. It does fine for integers, but I like the definition abstracted for any set of numbers.

Originally posted by Distant Clone
^^ I don't like that definition of prime. It does fine for integers, but I like the definition abstracted for any set of numbers.

I don't mean to be rude, but it doesn't really matter what you like. That's the accepted mathematical definition of a prime number. If the definition is not limited to integers, then no numbers would be prime as any number can be divided by any other (with the exception of zero).

Ok, if you two kids can't play nice we're going to have to split this into a "But it Defies Mathematics!" thread.

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Ok, if you two kids can't play nice we're going to have to split this into a "But it Defies Mathematics!" thread.

No! God, I'd never get out of that one - it'd be like a tar pit that killed all those mammoths and saber tooth tigers, except that the tar would be the stinky, gooey, goop of pathological perfectionism and and the inability to just give up. So I'm not playing mean - not on purpose - I swear. I just... can't let some things slide. Ok, lot's of things. Like tedious seeming-trivialities which turn a good thread into a laborious tangent. So, um, yeah, my bad?

Here, as a token of peace, I give you your thread back

[whimper]no math thread, oh, please please no math thread[/whimper]

Hahaha. Accepted.

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Hahaha. Accepted.

Whew, dodged that one! :sweat1:

More on Sheldrake and his "telephone telepathy" experiments.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05...reut/index.html

Charles Fort and his works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort

Book of the Damned: (I started on this one, but had a hell of a time getting through this guy’s writing style. I’ll check these out when I have more time for them.) http://www.sacredspiral.com/books/damned.pdf
Lo&#33;: http://www.resologist.net/loei.htm
New Lands: http://www.resologist.net/landsei.htm
Wild Talents: http://www.resologist.net/talentei.htm