Psychic phenomena such as deja-vu requires a block-like nature to time. This might be measurable if various factors of physics are examined for context.

I would start with the 90 degree offset between the electric and magnetic fields. As I understand it this provides the mechanism that enforces 3 dimensionality on space and allows for simultaneity to occur between particles. ie; without the EM field there would be a total non-simultaneity imposition.

Therefore I would hypothesise that space is wave-like and time is particle/block-like. If this is accurate there is certainly room to examine time displaced perception(psychic phenomena) as a probable reality.

No.

OCDC said:

No.

If you are looking for a bite don’t waste your time. I didn’t raise the subject just presented it in a debatable manner. You can either deconstruct the material or offer further strong opinion without context or substance. Your call.

Your problem begins with your first two words.

After that the rest is pointless.

Teleost said:

Your problem begins with your first two words.

After that the rest is pointless.

My problem begins with your disinterest in discussing the topic but preference that I know such. Other people seem to have raised the topic. How about you leave the discussion to those who are interested? I don’t have a predeliction either way but know full well it can be verbally examined and defined one way or the other. Is it simply that you are to lazy to make that effort?

Defining something does not make it real.

Paranormal abilities are known as Siddhi’s in Vedhic Yoga. Among these the ones concerned with perception are:

knowing the minds of others and so on

Hearing things far away

Seeing things far away

based on the samskaras of previous births, the attainment of knowledge about the twenty-four Tatwas gained by examining the determinable and the indeterminable conscious and the non-conscious constituents of creation,

… from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi

I have also heard an abilities of perception described as ‘being able to see the physical nature of things’(somewhat like some sort of full spectrum microscope analysis of matter).

These are provided as references to analogue against the limits and nature of physical phenomena.

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

No but completing the process of analysis can define the degree of probability available. I’ve taken my time considering how to approach this methodically and believe I am sufficiently prepared to undertake the process of examining the subject definitively. I will further examine the references I’ve already included. I tend to withhold assumptions till I have definitive measurables. Even a negative ‘paranormal’ reality would be measurable.

Postpocelipse said:

Teleost said:

Your problem begins with your first two words.

After that the rest is pointless.

My problem begins with your disinterest in discussing the topic but preference that I know such. Other people seem to have raised the topic. How about you leave the discussion to those who are interested? I don’t have a predeliction either way but know full well it can be verbally examined and defined one way or the other. Is it simply that you are to lazy to make that effort?

No, It arises from a lack of understanding of contemporary knowledge and theory regarding the phenomena. What you are suggesting is that Deja-vu has nothing to do with any of the currently accepted theories formulated by professional scientists who spend years of their lives devoted to a single phenomena.

While dissent is vital to science, uneducated dissent is simply making noise.

Why do you call deja-vu a psychic phenomenon?

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

Oops,

Please forgive my appalling lack of respect for singular and plural.

Postpocelipse said:

Even a negative ‘paranormal’ reality would be measurable.

For instance the reference to the EM offset providing definition of space is a reference to the nature of perception. It is space that is transient not time. Space is an approximation between particles based on their charge potentials. Yogic/buddhist philosophy describes the ego as providing a dualistic nature to perception that fosters delusion. When studied these texts infer that what is described as ‘paranormal’ is simply nature perceived without delusion. ie: it is the degree of delusion of the individual that provides that individuals estimation of “normal”.

Teleost said:

Postpocelipse said:

Teleost said:

Your problem begins with your first two words.

After that the rest is pointless.

My problem begins with your disinterest in discussing the topic but preference that I know such. Other people seem to have raised the topic. How about you leave the discussion to those who are interested? I don’t have a predeliction either way but know full well it can be verbally examined and defined one way or the other. Is it simply that you are to lazy to make that effort?

No, It arises from a lack of understanding of contemporary knowledge and theory regarding the phenomena. What you are suggesting is that Deja-vu has nothing to do with any of the currently accepted theories formulated by professional scientists who spend years of their lives devoted to a single phenomena.

While dissent is vital to science, uneducated dissent is simply making noise.

Bullshit Teleost. That is entirely your assumption. I have not studied the theories you refer to so did not know to include them. You are welcome to provide them here for further examination. This would contribute greatly to the integrity of the thread, which is not being done with ingracious assumptions and opinion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why do you call deja-vu a psychic phenomenon?

Because it comes under a broad range of vision-based phenomena that can be labelled as such. My personal experience with deja-vu is varied and inconclusive as a study.

PermeateFree said:

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

If I get time tonight I’ll find a link for the video of a woman ‘communicating’ with a panther that had been moved from a zoo with innapropriate conditions and was pretty grumpy. I don’t know how methodical the documentation part of the production was but it’s something recent anyway.

Teleost said:

Oops,

Please forgive my appalling lack of respect for singular and plural.

Non-duality means that there is nothing to forgive…….

So you admit to not engaging in any form of preliminary reading whatsoever prior to formulating your idea?

And you expect people to take you seriously?

Let’s go back to the basics then. When Mr Newton said “f I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. He was talking about learning from those who went before. Before you can start to espouse preposterous ideas about space time in regard to neurological phenomena, you need to summarise previous research and explain where it falls down in its explanations.

If I did this sort of thing, I’d lose my job.

For a populist summary, Here’s a good place to start

After that, you may want to spend some time with Google Scholar and read through the actual research.

Postpocelipse said:

PermeateFree said:

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

If I get time tonight I’ll find a link for the video of a woman ‘communicating’ with a panther that had been moved from a zoo with innapropriate conditions and was pretty grumpy. I don’t know how methodical the documentation part of the production was but it’s something recent anyway.

Does this even need to be addressed?
I reckon I could perform this one while being poked with a sharp stick. As could most people who have a basic understanding of appropriate animal husbandry.

Teleost said:

So you admit to not engaging in any form of preliminary reading whatsoever prior to formulating your idea?

And you expect people to take you seriously?

Get over yourself teleost. I have my own references to examine and would rely on recommendations from those who have heavily studied contemporary data to provide reliable studies. Try participating rather than appointing yourself as critic. And that means do your own work and examine the references you trust rather than patronise me from your high-horse. Did you know that the Mongols decisively proved that high horses are not the ones you want to use? All their weak spots are plainly visible and easy as hit to get to. Don’t waste my time with your prattle if you aren’t going to examine it in your own words. You are only making a fool of yourself making assumptions about my intentions, beliefs or motivaitons. It is quite obvious to anyone without an axe to grind that I have only asserted that the subject can be clearly defined one way or the other and nothing more. You can spank on if you like.

lot of ‘possibilities’ in that imagination
it busy requirin’ the work of exclusion
sift’n sortin’, none illusion or delusion
also memory tricks working the thing

Teleost said:

Postpocelipse said:

PermeateFree said:

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

If I get time tonight I’ll find a link for the video of a woman ‘communicating’ with a panther that had been moved from a zoo with innapropriate conditions and was pretty grumpy. I don’t know how methodical the documentation part of the production was but it’s something recent anyway.

Does this even need to be addressed?
I reckon I could perform this one while being poked with a sharp stick. As could most people who have a basic understanding of appropriate animal husbandry.

There you go making assumptins again. I referenced that video but left out the factor it contains that cannot be directly explained. You should quit while you’re behind.

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

which isn’t the same as them being paranormal.

JudgeMental said:

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

which isn’t the same as them being paranormal.

True the animals themselves are not paranormal and their activities often can be explain by science, but if a human were to claim a similar ability, it then would.

True the animals themselves are not paranormal and their activities often can be explain by science, but if a human were to claim a similar ability, it then would.

you mean like supertasters? i don’t think we label them as having paranormal senses.

JudgeMental said:

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

which isn’t the same as them being paranormal.

paranormal is a word specifically created to assert the assumption that there is a normal. It is a contrived and obstructive word rather than one with any substantial relevance. The fundamental mechanism of dualistic thinking is the is/is not method of compartmentalising data. As a tool of discernment is/is not is decidedly lacking but it is the basis of most decision making ie; is/is not what I want to do.

>what we call paranormal abilities

Little ol’ reckons it is meant that ‘some individuals may attribute so-called ‘paranormal abilities’.

supernatural and paranormal are outside the purview of science by definition.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

There are many animals that exhibit what we call paranormal abilities, yet here we are the smartest monkey and only able to make clever gadgets.

which isn’t the same as them being paranormal.

True the animals themselves are not paranormal and their activities often can be explain by science, but if a human were to claim a similar ability, it then would.

Most of the studies I am aware of involved energetic manipulations so I haven’t included them to this thread.

JudgeMental said:

supernatural and paranormal are outside the purview of science by definition.

They are superlatives in their construction, defintion and intention which makes them ideal examples of dualistic thinking.

JudgeMental said:

supernatural and paranormal are outside the purview of science by definition.

Paranormal activity is either pure bunkum, or something science has not caught up with or cannot test effectively.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

supernatural and paranormal are outside the purview of science by definition.

Paranormal activity is either pure bunkum, or something science has not caught up with or cannot test effectively.

Or simply hasn’t had the time to get around to looking at substantially or…… publicly…. we don’t have heaps on what the soviets got up to do we?

Paranormal activity is either (a) pure bunkum, or (b)something science has not caught up with or ©cannot test effectively.

a)correct.
b)therefore not probably paranormal.
c)see a

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

supernatural and paranormal are outside the purview of science by definition.

They are superlatives in their construction, defintion and intention which makes them ideal examples of dualistic thinking.

you prefer to memorize and repeat as opposed to analyze and examine, and are uncomfortable with active and cooperative learning?

Postpocelipse said:

I would start with the 90 degree offset between the electric and magnetic fields. As I understand it this provides the mechanism that enforces 3 dimensionality on space and allows for simultaneity to occur between particles. ie; without the EM field there would be a total non-simultaneity imposition.

Can you explain why?

I doesn’t seem like a natural starting point to me.

My apologies,

I simply indicated that you have NFI what you’re talking about and showed the way for you to be taken seriously. Most people here have a strong scientific background and expect that level of respect.

If you do not want people to listen to you, please carry on.

I shall now withdraw as it’s time to begin cooking dinner.

JudgeMental said:

Paranormal activity is either (a) pure bunkum, or (b)something science has not caught up with or ©cannot test effectively.

a)correct.
b)therefore not probably paranormal.
c)see a

I recall a very senior scientist at the beginning of the twentieth century who claimed there was not much more for science to discover. Perhaps you know him?

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

supernatural and paranormal are outside the purview of science by definition.

They are superlatives in their construction, defintion and intention which makes them ideal examples of dualistic thinking.

you prefer to memorize and repeat as opposed to analyze and examine, and are uncomfortable with active and cooperative learning?

Bullshit. Provide something and I will discuss it. I have raised the topic from the area from which I have so far absorbed. If I weren’t preparing to head to the GC for a week I would have supplied a more comprehensive set of references to discuss but time demands meant I’ve just started where I have and left it to the forum to provide intial direction t the thread. Time is money round here “apparently” so don’t assume so much about my use of it.

I recall a very senior scientist at the beginning of the twentieth century who claimed there was not much more for science to discover

perhaps you didn’t read my response properly.

i see you are still falling back on the usual excuses.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

They are superlatives in their construction, defintion and intention which makes them ideal examples of dualistic thinking.

you prefer to memorize and repeat as opposed to analyze and examine, and are uncomfortable with active and cooperative learning?

Bullshit. Provide something and I will discuss it. I have raised the topic from the area from which I have so far absorbed. If I weren’t preparing to head to the GC for a week I would have supplied a more comprehensive set of references to discuss but time demands meant I’ve just started where I have and left it to the forum to provide intial direction t the thread. Time is money round here “apparently” so don’t assume so much about my use of it.

hey, you brought up dualistic thinking and that is one of the defining aspects of that area, perhaps you should research more on terms before you use them?

JudgeMental said:

I recall a very senior scientist at the beginning of the twentieth century who claimed there was not much more for science to discover

perhaps you didn’t read my response properly.

I think I did, but If I’m mistaken, perhaps you might explain it in simpler terms?

i didn’t say we know everything. just pointed out the paranormal is probably bunkum, and agreeing with your first point. pointing out that if science hasn’t got round to explaining it then it probably isn’t therefore bunkum, cos inferring that science can explain it would nullify the proposition that it isn’t bunkum. and pointing out that if science can’t explain i, inferring that we never will or that natural phenomena are beyond a scientific explanation, then it is probably bunkum.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

I would start with the 90 degree offset between the electric and magnetic fields. As I understand it this provides the mechanism that enforces 3 dimensionality on space and allows for simultaneity to occur between particles. ie; without the EM field there would be a total non-simultaneity imposition.

Can you explain why?

I doesn’t seem like a natural starting point to me.

If you refer to the last statement here what would occur if charge no longer differentiated particles and the universes EM field collapsed? Relativity would become minimised to the complexity of DM I can only assume. Without charge separation the universe becomes inanimate on molecular and chemical levels. Spacetime as we define it is composed of these transitory constructions. Time is measurably more substantial than space which is why I have referred to time as block/particle-like and space as wave-like.

If you refer to the last statement here what would occur if charge no longer differentiated particles and the universes EM field collapsed? Relativity would become minimised to the complexity of DM I can only assume. Without charge separation the universe becomes inanimate on molecular and chemical levels. Spacetime as we define it is composed of these transitory constructions. Time is measurably more substantial than space which is why I have referred to time as block/particle-like and space as wave-like.

wibble.

JudgeMental said:

i didn’t say we know everything. just pointed out the paranormal is probably bunkum, and agreeing with your first point. pointing out that if science hasn’t got round to explaining it then it probably isn’t therefore bunkum, cos inferring that science can explain it would nullify the proposition that it isn’t bunkum. and pointing out that if science can’t explain i, inferring that we never will or that natural phenomena are beyond a scientific explanation, then it is probably bunkum.

Then you would need to specify which “paranormal phenomena” are classifiable as bunkum and maybe even what bunkum is. I have provided an initial list of claimed abilities. If others were gracious enough to supply the ones they know a concise listt could be compiled that could be analysed and examined here. Contrary to teleost’s asumptions I haven’t made any claims that I wish “to be taken seriously” upon. I have provided an introduction to a subject to be discussed. If someone wants to take issue with my assertion that the subject can be defined concisely-one way or the other.

JudgeMental said:

i didn’t say we know everything. just pointed out the paranormal is probably bunkum, and agreeing with your first point. pointing out that if science hasn’t got round to explaining it then it probably isn’t therefore bunkum, cos inferring that science can explain it would nullify the proposition that it isn’t bunkum. and pointing out that if science can’t explain i, inferring that we never will or that natural phenomena are beyond a scientific explanation, then it is probably bunkum.

Not quite my understanding. What I actually meant was that science has priorities and things that have little or no commercial value, plus are difficult to test are temporally ignored, but dedicated scientific endeavour should indicate whether something is bunkum or not, in other words until this is done it is silly to call all paranormal activity bunkum, because although you may be correct, you may also be incorrect.

i think you’ll find that the military went into all this a few decades ago during nthe cold war. i don’t believe anything was found.

JudgeMental said:

If you refer to the last statement here what would occur if charge no longer differentiated particles and the universes EM field collapsed? Relativity would become minimised to the complexity of DM I can only assume. Without charge separation the universe becomes inanimate on molecular and chemical levels. Spacetime as we define it is composed of these transitory constructions. Time is measurably more substantial than space which is why I have referred to time as block/particle-like and space as wave-like.

wibble.

Who do you think you are impressing? I raised a topic of discussion. If you can’t deconstruct the quote you reference who is looking like the fool JM? I thought from reading a couple of chat posts that the topic might be of interest to some so tried to discuss it constructively. You just seem to be wasting my time to make yourself look like a drooling invertebrate in the debate department.

Who do you think you are impressing? I raised a topic of discussion. If you can’t deconstruct the quote you reference who is looking like the fool JM? I thought from reading a couple of chat posts that the topic might be of interest to some so tried to discuss it constructively. You just seem to be wasting my time to make yourself look like a drooling invertebrate in the debate department.

whine

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

I would start with the 90 degree offset between the electric and magnetic fields. As I understand it this provides the mechanism that enforces 3 dimensionality on space and allows for simultaneity to occur between particles. ie; without the EM field there would be a total non-simultaneity imposition.

Can you explain why?

I doesn’t seem like a natural starting point to me.

If you refer to the last statement here what would occur if charge no longer differentiated particles and the universes EM field collapsed? Relativity would become minimised to the complexity of DM I can only assume. Without charge separation the universe becomes inanimate on molecular and chemical levels. Spacetime as we define it is composed of these transitory constructions. Time is measurably more substantial than space which is why I have referred to time as block/particle-like and space as wave-like.

Sorry, I just can’t understand a word of it.

JudgeMental said:

i think you’ll find that the military went into all this a few decades ago during nthe cold war. i don’t believe anything was found.

I think then they were trying to walk through solid walls and kill goats with their minds. At an extreme end of PA I would think.

I think then they were trying to walk through solid walls and kill goats with their minds. At an extreme end of PA I would think.

strawman.

[quote=JudgeMental] i think you'll find that the military went into all this a few decades ago during nthe cold war. i don't believe anything was found. [/quote] oh yeah that's hilarious. You think the "military" would tell "you" if they found something? You should look at some of the other "paranormal abilities" listed under the wiki blurb on Siddhis. Yeah. The military would even tell you that they thought " the power to subjugate all":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi was worth investigating.

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Can you explain why?

I doesn’t seem like a natural starting point to me.

If you refer to the last statement here what would occur if charge no longer differentiated particles and the universes EM field collapsed? Relativity would become minimised to the complexity of DM I can only assume. Without charge separation the universe becomes inanimate on molecular and chemical levels. Spacetime as we define it is composed of these transitory constructions. Time is measurably more substantial than space which is why I have referred to time as block/particle-like and space as wave-like.

Sorry, I just can’t understand a word of it.

You can’t understand that without charge the physical universe would not exist as we know it? No reflection on me. I thought you were genuinely seeking a discussion.

JudgeMental said:

I think then they were trying to walk through solid walls and kill goats with their minds. At an extreme end of PA I would think.

strawman.

Are you then saying they scientifically investigated all forms of the paranormal?

[quote=Postpocelipse] [quote=JudgeMental] i think you'll find that the military went into all this a few decades ago during nthe cold war. i don't believe anything was found. [/quote] oh yeah that's hilarious. You think the "military" would tell "you" if they found something? You should look at some of the other "paranormal abilities" listed under the wiki blurb on Siddhis. Yeah. The military would even tell you that they thought " the power to subjugate all":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi was worth investigating. [/quote] Damn straight. Military has all sorts of secret psychic shit that only vets could understand.

Are you then saying they scientifically investigated all forms of the paranormal?

errrr no. just what you posted was a strawman argument. you know what they are don’t you?

JudgeMental said:

I think then they were trying to walk through solid walls and kill goats with their minds. At an extreme end of PA I would think.

strawman.

I attempted to limit the paranormal phenomena being examined to perception attributes to specifically avoid physically energetic phenomena. The intention being to provide an initial set of energetic restraints that would likely define the limits imposed on the greater set of paranormal abilities described that aren’t directly related to perception of time and events. I don’t know what others here understand about dejavu for instance, so haven’t provided any specific analysis of this of my own. I would prefer to allow others to actually be interested enough to provide the material they are familiar with rather than detailing my own suppositions and how I drew such a conclusion.

[quote=AwesomeO] [quote=Postpocelipse] [quote=JudgeMental] i think you'll find that the military went into all this a few decades ago during nthe cold war. i don't believe anything was found. [/quote] oh yeah that's hilarious. You think the "military" would tell "you" if they found something? You should look at some of the other "paranormal abilities" listed under the wiki blurb on Siddhis. Yeah. The military would even tell you that they thought " the power to subjugate all":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi was worth investigating. [/quote] Damn straight. Military has all sorts of secret psychic shit that only vets could understand. [/quote] I just had my resident vet "come and go" as they do. I'm surprised the expression they recorded on his identification didn't qualify as a negative psych evaluation and also very glad that there no longer seems to be any sign of that expression remaining in his features. Have to wonder what they had him on. :/

JudgeMental said:

Are you then saying they scientifically investigated all forms of the paranormal?

errrr no. just what you posted was a strawman argument. you know what they are don’t you?

One word replies that are intended to serve as discussion?

JudgeMental said:

Are you then saying they scientifically investigated all forms of the paranormal?

errrr no. just what you posted was a strawman argument. you know what they are don’t you?

I have no idea, please explain?

strawman argument is the giving of extremes in an argument that can be torn down easily. it is one of many logical fallacies.

JudgeMental said:

strawman argument is the giving of extremes in an argument that can be torn down easily. it is one of many logical fallacies.

While you are supplying nothing but assumptions. If you assert the military studies are definitive then supply that which you assert as this material. I’ve supplied the Siddhi link because that is the compilation of claimed attributes provided by eastern culture. If length of study is important to the analysis this might be more definitive as a list of possibilities to examine than tests that may have been conceived more contemporarily might supply. I could be wrong about this but am not substantially familiar with modern data to correct the assumption.

JudgeMental said:

strawman argument is the giving of extremes in an argument that can be torn down easily. it is one of many logical fallacies.

I know what a strawman is and its connotations, but their experiments of walking through walls and killing goats with their minds did happen. You brought their experimental work into the discussion, so if I am not correct, then please correct me?

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

strawman argument is the giving of extremes in an argument that can be torn down easily. it is one of many logical fallacies.

I know what a strawman is and its connotations, but their experiments of walking through walls and killing goats with their minds did happen. You brought their experimental work into the discussion, so if I am not correct, then please correct me?

Wait what? Walking through walls did happen?

In that case I am all turned around.

you only posted some extreme examples therefore it was a strawman.

Postpocelipse said:

Paranormal abilities are known as Siddhi’s in Vedhic Yoga. Among these the ones concerned with perception are:

knowing the minds of others and so on

Hearing things far away

Seeing things far away

based on the samskaras of previous births, the attainment of knowledge about the twenty-four Tatwas gained by examining the determinable and the indeterminable conscious and the non-conscious constituents of creation,

… from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi

I have also heard an abilities of perception described as ‘being able to see the physical nature of things’(somewhat like some sort of full spectrum microscope analysis of matter).

These are provided as references to analogue against the limits and nature of physical phenomena.

My only assumption in this thread is that if these abilities that are solely phenomena of data extraction and examination can be definitively ruled out then so can all other physically energetic phenomena based on the principals defining perception of the universe. It’s fairly straight forward and I’ve provided the means to disprove the claim. Who isn’t making an effort?

in fact remote sensing was one of the main avenues of research.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

strawman argument is the giving of extremes in an argument that can be torn down easily. it is one of many logical fallacies.

I know what a strawman is and its connotations, but their experiments of walking through walls and killing goats with their minds did happen. You brought their experimental work into the discussion, so if I am not correct, then please correct me?

Wait what? Walking through walls did happen?

In that case I am all turned around.

They did experiment with those concepts and tried to make them work. Between you and me, I think they failed.

JudgeMental said:

in fact remote sensing was one of the main avenues of research.

Please continue…..

JudgeMental said:

you only posted some extreme examples therefore it was a strawman.

Well seeing you know so much about it, how about telling us of the others?

they found nothing. though of course there could be a cover up.

i just did.

JudgeMental said:

in fact remote sensing was one of the main avenues of research.

And how did they go?

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

I know what a strawman is and its connotations, but their experiments of walking through walls and killing goats with their minds did happen. You brought their experimental work into the discussion, so if I am not correct, then please correct me?

Wait what? Walking through walls did happen?

In that case I am all turned around.

They did experiment with those concepts and tried to make them work. Between you and me, I think they failed.

If they genuinely got their grunts to try to kill goats with their minds I don’t think they began with a genuinely scientific set of assumptions. And walking through walls? First they train their guys to know exactly how much explosive it takes to remove that wall and then they want them to just walk through them. Seems to be reaching a bit with their assumptions on mental malleability.

The Stargate Project was the code name for a project established by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency to investigate claims of psychic phenomena with potential military and domestic application, such as remote viewing, which is the purported ability to psychically “see” events, sites, or information from a great distance.

The Stargate Project was terminated in 1995 with the conclusion that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague, included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues. The program is one of the inspirations for the book and film The Men Who Stare at Goats.

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

JudgeMental said:

i just did.

Reading back, I don’t think you did, in fact I’m sure you didn’t. Or was there only the remote sensing they studied? Did you know there is a blind man who can navigate very effectively in unknown environments, just by clicking his tongue (not unlike bats). Also there is a mechanical device operating in a similar fashion, which allows a blind bike rider to navigate very successfully a bush trail.

Did the army experiment with the above or wasn’t that extreme enough for them?

how are they paranormal? and yes i have heard of the man who clicks. amazing but not paranormal.

JudgeMental said:

The Stargate Project was the code name for a project established by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency to investigate claims of psychic phenomena with potential military and domestic application, such as remote viewing, which is the purported ability to psychically “see” events, sites, or information from a great distance.

The Stargate Project was terminated in 1995 with the conclusion that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague, included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues. The program is one of the inspirations for the book and film The Men Who Stare at Goats.

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

Was there any scientific endeavour? Yet you seem to think they proved that the paranormal was all bunkum.

After my training I can’t be bothered going through doors, I just go through the wall which as every psychic warrior knows is 99 per cent empty space and 1 per cent vibrational energy. Attune your chakra to that vibration and you can just slip though. It is probably how ghosts can walk through walls.

JudgeMental said:

how are they paranormal? and yes i have heard of the man who clicks. amazing but not paranormal.

Well not now, as we know a human can do so with great precision. But that would have been paranormal for humans to be able to do so, when the US Army were investigating this type of activity.

well, you know, science doesn’t prove anything. maybe they just had not real results.

Well not now, as we know a human can do so with great precision. But that would have been paranormal for humans to be able to do so, when the US Army were investigating this type of activity.

and yet they knew how sonar worked. amazing that they wouldn’t have made the connection.

JudgeMental said:

well, you know, science doesn’t prove anything. maybe they just had not real results.

But Boris, was it really science? Going on your summation, it seems very unlikely.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

The Stargate Project was the code name for a project established by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency to investigate claims of psychic phenomena with potential military and domestic application, such as remote viewing, which is the purported ability to psychically “see” events, sites, or information from a great distance.

The Stargate Project was terminated in 1995 with the conclusion that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague, included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues. The program is one of the inspirations for the book and film The Men Who Stare at Goats.

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

Was there any scientific endeavour? Yet you seem to think they proved that the paranormal was all bunkum.

With a little time spent on content it could be fairly easily argued that the strategic applications around which remote sensing was studied themself provided the causes for data being vague, erroneous and irrelevant and would likely have been so under the strictest guidelines and confinement.

AwesomeO said:

After my training I can’t be bothered going through doors, I just go through the wall which as every psychic warrior knows is 99 per cent empty space and 1 per cent vibrational energy. Attune your chakra to that vibration and you can just slip though. It is probably how ghosts can walk through walls.

it’s more fun the marine way…. lead with grenade and enter with extreme prejudice…………

JudgeMental said:

well, you know, science doesn’t prove anything. maybe they just had not real results.

maybe they weren’t doing science right. They would have required an intimate knowledge of relativity to even construct appropriate experiments and claim them as definitive. Are their experiments properly constructed?

relativity has nothing to do with it.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

how are they paranormal? and yes i have heard of the man who clicks. amazing but not paranormal.

Well not now, as we know a human can do so with great precision. But that would have been paranormal for humans to be able to do so, when the US Army were investigating this type of activity.

It was recently announced that a succesful entanglement of a single particle has proven the theory decisively. All that remote sensing physically requires is data to be transferrable in this manner. The plausibility of remote sensing is now significantly dramatised to the data that they were working with at the time.

JudgeMental said:

Well not now, as we know a human can do so with great precision. But that would have been paranormal for humans to be able to do so, when the US Army were investigating this type of activity.

and yet they knew how sonar worked. amazing that they wouldn’t have made the connection.

No, they would not have thought that humans were capable of doing so too.

No, they would not have thought that humans were capable of doing so too.

how do you know this? anyway most bats don’t echolocate with audible clicks.

JudgeMental said:

relativity has nothing to do with it.

Physical sight alone requires relativity to supply perception. You make no sense JM. Relativity is the only method to disprove any phenomenon of perception. If you can’t make argument based purely on the law of non-simultaneity you are on the wrong thread. I can do so or I wouldn’t have posted the OP.

JudgeMental said:

No, they would not have thought that humans were capable of doing so too.

how do you know this? anyway most bats don’t echolocate with audible clicks.

Not at the range we can hear, but I think they do.

Physical sight alone requires relativity to supply perception.

how so?

Not at the range we can hear, but I think they do.

i did say audible. and the second part of your post makes no sense.

JudgeMental said:

Physical sight alone requires relativity to supply perception.

how so?

photons are a relativistic particle. processed by relatavistic particles.

photons are a relativistic particle. processed by relatavistic particles.

which have nothing to do with the two theories.

JudgeMental said:

Not at the range we can hear, but I think they do.

i did say audible. and the second part of your post makes no sense.

audibility is a crucial dynamic of remote sensing. The greater complexity in the mechanisms of our hearing involve filtering out what isn’t considerable as relevant sound. A simple focal mike mimics this to a degree. With a more sensitive device and focussing system could a device be conceivable that could listen to a conversation on the other side of the world by filtering out the intervening noise with an algorithm? They’ve done it with telescopes.

JudgeMental said:

photons are a relativistic particle. processed by relatavistic particles.

which have nothing to do with the two theories.

They have everything to do with the two theories. How is remote sensing even remote if it isn’t relative and simultaneous?

You know, I worry for the children.

buffy said:

You know, I worry for the children.

Why? They have plenty to investigate. Us older farts have to entertain ourselves with seeking a coherent conversation.

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

Physical sight alone requires relativity to supply perception.

how so?

photons are a relativistic particle. processed by relatavistic particles.

When I clicked on this post, Chrome popped up a message.

’Would you like to translate this page?

I kid you knot!
LOL

How is remote sensing even remote if it isn’t relative and simultaneous?

seeing as there is no proof of remote sensing even working how can you ascribe a mechanism for it with such certainty?

Aquila said:

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

Physical sight alone requires relativity to supply perception.

how so?

photons are a relativistic particle. processed by relatavistic particles.

When I clicked on this post, Chrome popped up a message.

’Would you like to translate this page?

I kid you knot!
LOL

I got the same. I wonder if it was simultaneous………

JudgeMental said:

Not at the range we can hear, but I think they do.

i did say audible. and the second part of your post makes no sense.

I give up, you are skipping around too much for me.

buffy said:

You know, I worry for the children.

Hah.

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

You know, I worry for the children.

Hah.

Kek-ee-lee might be reading this. She popped in earlier. She’ll have a really messed up mind if she believes this stuff.

one down, one to go.

JudgeMental said:

one down, one to go.

I know you like to think you are being scientific Boris, but really you haven’t a clue.

if you say so.

JudgeMental said:

How is remote sensing even remote if it isn’t relative and simultaneous?

seeing as there is no proof of remote sensing even working how can you ascribe a mechanism for it with such certainty?

A focal mike doesn’t make audible a conversation at a distance? If hearing at a distance is a phenomenom then it would imply a similar study. Perceiving events at a distance I might assume involved exerting a degree of entanglement between the perception and the scene being observed. It depends on the type of remote sensing being defined. Each one has to be examined if a definitive assumption can be made.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

one down, one to go.

I know you like to think you are being scientific Boris, but really you haven’t a clue.

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

You know, I worry for the children.

Hah.

Kek-ee-lee might be reading this. She popped in earlier. She’ll have a really messed up mind if she believes this stuff.

Who said anything about believing? The purpose of the thread is to provide analysis of what represents a definitive examination of the subject. The purpose is to provide scientific evaluation not airy assumptions.

A focal mike doesn’t make audible a conversation at a distance?

did i infer that? probably not. but shotgun or parabolic mikes do have range limitations. not purely to do with sound being a compression wave.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

one down, one to go.

I know you like to think you are being scientific Boris, but really you haven’t a clue.

Piss off Stumpy, nobody asked you to muddy the waters :P

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

one down, one to go.

I know you like to think you are being scientific Boris, but really you haven’t a clue.

There are a handful of scientifically trained people here Stumpy and I am afraid you are not on the list either.

JudgeMental said:

A focal mike doesn’t make audible a conversation at a distance?

did i infer that? probably not. but shotgun or parabolic mikes do have range limitations. not purely to do with sound being a compression wave.

Any point on the surface of a massive body has the same data available as any other point. It is only the relay that differs.

Any point on the surface of a massive body has the same data available as any other point. It is only the relay that differs.

wibble.

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

I know you like to think you are being scientific Boris, but really you haven’t a clue.

Piss off Stumpy, nobody asked you to muddy the waters :P

ignore him s_s. As you were, as it were………..

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

I know you like to think you are being scientific Boris, but really you haven’t a clue.

!http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a812/a812.gif?v11301bss2

There are a handful of scientifically trained people here Stumpy and I am afraid you are not on the list either.

ref?

JudgeMental said:

Any point on the surface of a massive body has the same data available as any other point. It is only the relay that differs.

wibble.

your lips going to fall off if you keep making that sound.

don’t talk crap then.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

!http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a812/a812.gif?v11301bss2

There are a handful of scientifically trained people here Stumpy and I am afraid you are not on the list either.

ref?

… if we go to the replay it shows the ball was in………

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

!http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a812/a812.gif?v11301bss2

There are a handful of scientifically trained people here Stumpy and I am afraid you are not on the list either.

ref?

:)

JudgeMental said:

don’t talk crap then.

Asking the question of what is a definitive study on remote sensing is talking crap? You wouldn’t make a Judge in my town on that argument.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

There are a handful of scientifically trained people here Stumpy and I am afraid you are not on the list either.

ref?

:)

considering one of my degrees actually contains the word ‘science’…

it must be a damn hard list to get on….

Someone wants a real science reference on remote sensing?

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2008.20009?journalCode=jocn#.VRfQWuGYsh8

Sorry, it’s a pay per view, but you can read the abstract.

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

don’t talk crap then.

Asking the question of what is a definitive study on remote sensing is talking crap? You wouldn’t make a Judge in my town on that argument.

Oi, what about the second part?

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Piss off Stumpy, nobody asked you to muddy the waters :P

ignore him s_s. As you were, as it were………..

I’m half drunk, and I’m wearing my Australia cricket shirt.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

ref?

:)

considering one of my degrees actually contains the word ‘science’…

it must be a damn hard list to get on….

Someone said here sometime ago, that any professed science that had the name ‘science’ in the title, was very likely not a science at all. :)

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Piss off Stumpy, nobody asked you to muddy the waters :P

ignore him s_s. As you were, as it were………..

I’m half drunk, and I’m wearing my Australia cricket shirt.

UNaustralian…

you should be fully drunk whilst wearing that shirt…

http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2007/12/using-neuroimaging-to-resolve-psi.html

buffy’s paper, i think, in full.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

:)

considering one of my degrees actually contains the word ‘science’…

it must be a damn hard list to get on….

Someone said here sometime ago, that any professed science that had the name ‘science’ in the title, was very likely not a science at all. :)

It needs to be in upper case to be real. SCIENCE.

JudgeMental said:

http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2007/12/using-neuroimaging-to-resolve-psi.html

buffy’s paper, i think, in full.

Thanks, I had a quick look but couldn’t immediately find it in full.

stumpy_seahorse said:

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

ignore him s_s. As you were, as it were………..

I’m half drunk, and I’m wearing my Australia cricket shirt.

UNaustralian…

you should be fully drunk whilst wearing that shirt…

This may rip up the fabric of the universe…., but I got the shirt through buying mid-strength beer. The same brand I happen to be drinking now.

buffy said:

Someone wants a real science reference on remote sensing?

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2008.20009?journalCode=jocn#.VRfQWuGYsh8

Sorry, it’s a pay per view, but you can read the abstract.

The reference to reading the minds of others inclines me to believe this refers to ‘what card is he looking at’ type experiments. I would not consider these conclusive on the greater question of remote sensing in any manner. For instance there is no particular indication under the list of defined paranormal Siddhis that mind reading works in this manner. No siddhi states that I can describe what you are looking at by reading your mind. They might imply that I could describe what you are looking at by simply remotely looking at what you are looking at. Is this distinction even made under the referenced analysis?

Postpocelipse said:

buffy said:

Someone wants a real science reference on remote sensing?

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2008.20009?journalCode=jocn#.VRfQWuGYsh8

Sorry, it’s a pay per view, but you can read the abstract.

The reference to reading the minds of others inclines me to believe this refers to ‘what card is he looking at’ type experiments. I would not consider these conclusive on the greater question of remote sensing in any manner. For instance there is no particular indication under the list of defined paranormal Siddhis that mind reading works in this manner. No siddhi states that I can describe what you are looking at by reading your mind. They might imply that I could describe what you are looking at by simply remotely looking at what you are looking at. Is this distinction even made under the referenced analysis?

Goal posts are on the move…..

PermeateFree said:

Postpocelipse said:

JudgeMental said:

don’t talk crap then.

Asking the question of what is a definitive study on remote sensing is talking crap? You wouldn’t make a Judge in my town on that argument.

Oi, what about the second part?

Explanation is required?

party_pants said:

Postpocelipse said:

party_pants said:

Piss off Stumpy, nobody asked you to muddy the waters :P

ignore him s_s. As you were, as it were………..

I’m half drunk, and I’m wearing my Australia cricket shirt.

Are we winning?

Postpocelipse said:

PermeateFree said:

Postpocelipse said:

Asking the question of what is a definitive study on remote sensing is talking crap? You wouldn’t make a Judge in my town on that argument.

Oi, what about the second part?

Explanation is required?

It’s all in the name.

Goal posts are on the move…..

yep, and people complain about me being all over the place.

you’ll have to do better with the ad hominems.

JudgeMental said:

Goal posts are on the move…..

yep, and people complain about me being all over the place.

I bet you do a great moon-walk too.

run out of science? or beaten?

This one’s intriguing…

The Practical: Pragmatic Applications

Despite the small scale of the observed consciousness-related anomalies, they could be functionally devastating to many types of contemporary information processing systems, especially those relying on random reference signals. Such concern could apply to aircraft cockpits and ICBM silos; to surgical facilities and trauma response equipment; to environmental and disaster control technology; or to any other technical scenarios where the emotions, attitudes, or purposes of human operators may intensify and deepen their interactions with the controlling devices and processes. Indeed, the extraordinarily sophisticated equipment that generates much of the fundamental data on which modern science and information technology is based cannot be excluded from this potential vulnerability. As cutting-edge nanotechnology and quantum computing move into even more delicately poised information processors, protection against such consciousness-related interference could become increasingly relevant, even essential, to the design and operation of these and many other engineering systems of the future…

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/implications.html

JudgeMental said:

run out of science? or beaten?

Just a waste of time with some people.

buffy said:

Postpocelipse said:

buffy said:

Someone wants a real science reference on remote sensing?

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2008.20009?journalCode=jocn#.VRfQWuGYsh8

Sorry, it’s a pay per view, but you can read the abstract.

The reference to reading the minds of others inclines me to believe this refers to ‘what card is he looking at’ type experiments. I would not consider these conclusive on the greater question of remote sensing in any manner. For instance there is no particular indication under the list of defined paranormal Siddhis that mind reading works in this manner. No siddhi states that I can describe what you are looking at by reading your mind. They might imply that I could describe what you are looking at by simply remotely looking at what you are looking at. Is this distinction even made under the referenced analysis?

Goal posts are on the move…..

Goal posts? The point is to clearly define what is an applicable measure of what remote sensing can be confined to. The context of testing whether someone can read anothers mind and describe what card is being observed requires that remote sensing be confined to reading other peoples minds. There are five remote sensing related abilities listed under the wiki reference to siddhis which simply do not align with being tested in this manner. Has there been a rise in people claiming to be able to see what card another person is looking at for this method to have any context?

JudgeMental said:

run out of science? or beaten?

‘e’s still waiting for La nina to start over there so we can have an El Nino…

PermeateFree said:

Postpocelipse said:

PermeateFree said:

Oi, what about the second part?

Explanation is required?

It’s all in the name.

I think he should have gone with JudgeContrary. Sort of like a particularly combative Mary Poppins….

same old same old. i thought you weren’t coming back here? or is that this woo subject is another one in your belief system?

JudgeMental said:

Goal posts are on the move…..

yep, and people complain about me being all over the place.

You obviously haven’t read anything I’ve posted and just repeated your program.

then it wouldn’t have been a play on words.

and yet i have quoted you and addressed most points.

Ian said:

This one’s intriguing…

The Practical: Pragmatic Applications

Despite the small scale of the observed consciousness-related anomalies, they could be functionally devastating to many types of contemporary information processing systems, especially those relying on random reference signals. Such concern could apply to aircraft cockpits and ICBM silos; to surgical facilities and trauma response equipment; to environmental and disaster control technology; or to any other technical scenarios where the emotions, attitudes, or purposes of human operators may intensify and deepen their interactions with the controlling devices and processes. Indeed, the extraordinarily sophisticated equipment that generates much of the fundamental data on which modern science and information technology is based cannot be excluded from this potential vulnerability. As cutting-edge nanotechnology and quantum computing move into even more delicately poised information processors, protection against such consciousness-related interference could become increasingly relevant, even essential, to the design and operation of these and many other engineering systems of the future…

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/implications.html

to stop the sensitive machine that goes ping from going pong in the future psychic shields will be required, probably made from a form of nano psychoplasm.

i really think it is you and PF that need to get your act together.

JudgeMental said:

and yet i have quoted you and addressed most points.

Find one point you’ve addressed?

you could just read the thread.

see i just did it.

JudgeMental said:

i really think it is you and PF that need to get your act together.

How so? I’ve rasied the topic of the reliability of the conclusiveness of the study of paranormal activity. You’ve dribbled a bit. You haven’t once addressed anything I’ve said with anything coherent.

JudgeMental said:

you could just read the thread.

How many times will satisfy you bludger?

JudgeMental said:

same old same old. i thought you weren’t coming back here? or is that this woo subject is another one in your belief system?

Boris, you have not said or inferred anything scientific in this thread, all you do is say one to five words usually derogatively directed at someone. So you tell me, what do we make of you?

JudgeMental said:

see i just did it.

what? with your hand? If you had time to do it with a girl and type your one line responses I wouldn’t believe you would have the coordination.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

same old same old. i thought you weren’t coming back here? or is that this woo subject is another one in your belief system?

Boris, you have not said or inferred anything scientific in this thread, all you do is say one to five words usually derogatively directed at someone. So you tell me, what do we make of you?

We?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

same old same old. i thought you weren’t coming back here? or is that this woo subject is another one in your belief system?

Boris, you have not said or inferred anything scientific in this thread, all you do is say one to five words usually derogatively directed at someone. So you tell me, what do we make of you?

We?

Well I don’t expect you to be very coherent, so I’ll cross you off.

PermeateFree said:

JudgeMental said:

same old same old. i thought you weren’t coming back here? or is that this woo subject is another one in your belief system?

Boris, you have not said or inferred anything scientific in this thread, all you do is say one to five words usually derogatively directed at someone. So you tell me, what do we make of you?

I’m pretty certain he’s what they based the argument clinic on. Like Eccles was based on an Indian Milligan knew.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Boris, you have not said or inferred anything scientific in this thread, all you do is say one to five words usually derogatively directed at someone. So you tell me, what do we make of you?

We?

Well I don’t expect you to be very coherent, so I’ll cross you off.

I am pretty coherent. What group are you referring to which includes a we? Who are you speaking for?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

We?

Well I don’t expect you to be very coherent, so I’ll cross you off.

I am pretty coherent. What group are you referring to which includes a we? Who are you speaking for?

Obviously not you, but hope you are not offended?

But since the contemporary scientific approach leaves little room for such subjective correlates in its mechanistic representations of reality, it follows that science as we know it either must exclude itself from study of such phenomena, even when they precipitate objectively observable physical effects, or broaden its methodology and conceptual vocabulary to embrace subjective experience in some systematic way.

Hmmmm

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Well I don’t expect you to be very coherent, so I’ll cross you off.

I am pretty coherent. What group are you referring to which includes a we? Who are you speaking for?

Obviously not you, but hope you are not offended?

Nope, not offended. Still curious who you are speaking for though in your “we”. Gonna have a stab at answering that? You and ……..

and where is your scientific input PF?

>We?

cheer squad of invisible friends, you know.

also i think most of my derogatory comments have been directed at what people have said rather than them personally. you on the otherhand have made several ad hominems.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I am pretty coherent. What group are you referring to which includes a we? Who are you speaking for?

Obviously not you, but hope you are not offended?

Nope, not offended. Still curious who you are speaking for though in your “we”. Gonna have a stab at answering that? You and ……..

You are such a pathetic small-minded individual Curve. Why do you waste your time on such trivia and also go out of your way to harass women?

JudgeMental said:

and where is your scientific input PF?

Your problem is you ignore things that conflict with your preconceptions JM. Very much like the Observer.

looks like the science has finished and the insults have begun.

JudgeMental said:

also i think most of my derogatory comments have been directed at what people have said rather than them personally. you on the otherhand have made several ad hominems.

Hope you are not going to cry again Boris, you look sooky enough. And don’t worry I have no intention of coming back to be harassed by you or your unsubstantiated dogmatic science. Only killing an hour or two and who else to stimulate my ire than you and your fellow tradesmen.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Obviously not you, but hope you are not offended?

Nope, not offended. Still curious who you are speaking for though in your “we”. Gonna have a stab at answering that? You and ……..

You are such a pathetic small-minded individual Curve. Why do you waste your time on such trivia and also go out of your way to harass women?

Still not offended. “we”. LOL.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Nope, not offended. Still curious who you are speaking for though in your “we”. Gonna have a stab at answering that? You and ……..

You are such a pathetic small-minded individual Curve. Why do you waste your time on such trivia and also go out of your way to harass women?

Still not offended. “we”. LOL.

That’s good, so now we can both sleep well, at least I can.

“The progress of science is the discovery at each step of a new order which gives unity to what had seemed unlike.” — Jacob Bronowski

Further reading for Postpocelipse…

Existence Itself: Towards the Phenomenology of Massive Dissipative/Replicative Structures by David M. Keirsey

http://edgeoforder.org/pofdisstruct.html

Cheers Tejay.

Another interesting philosophy piece this time:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/Why_You_Cant_Read_My_Mind

buffy said:

Another interesting philosophy piece this time:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/Why_You_Cant_Read_My_Mind

al foil stops brainwaves from being read

wookiemeister said:

buffy said:

Another interesting philosophy piece this time:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/Why_You_Cant_Read_My_Mind

al foil stops brainwaves from being read

and you know when someone is trying to read your mind because the focussed microwaves make it spark

wookiemeister said:

buffy said:

Another interesting philosophy piece this time:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/Why_You_Cant_Read_My_Mind

al foil stops brainwaves from being read

No it doesn’t! That’s entirely a conspiracy put out there by stooges for the government brain readers and their alien masters! The Lizard People and the Greys are all involved in this disinformation propaganda.

The only way is to have an ionising radiation-based Faraday shield at least 1.87416 cm thick. Bismuth 216 works, apparently.

Michael V said:

No it doesn’t! That’s entirely a conspiracy put out there by stooges for the government brain readers and their alien masters! The Lizard People and the Greys are all involved in this disinformation propaganda.

The only way is to have an ionising radiation-based Faraday shield at least 1.87416 cm thick. Bismuth 216 works, apparently.

This is true. I have some in the cupboard under the sink.

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

SCIENCE said:

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Is that you Morpheus?

SCIENCE said:

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

diddly-squat said:

SCIENCE said:

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

You probably couldn’t

• Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

There is no spoon…

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

buffy said:

Another interesting philosophy piece this time:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/Why_You_Cant_Read_My_Mind

al foil stops brainwaves from being read

No it doesn’t! That’s entirely a conspiracy put out there by stooges for the government brain readers and their alien masters! The Lizard People and the Greys are all involved in this disinformation propaganda.

The only way is to have an ionising radiation-based Faraday shield at least 1.87416 cm thick. Bismuth 216 works, apparently.

Entirely my point! If we are to have dubious claims going around they should be couched in serious data!! Dammit!! :D

SCIENCE said:

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

If it turned out we are each a program in a chip being fed information any form of transfer of information would be entirely legitimate because each perception would be delivered by the same system with only our recollection of how we obtained specific data differentiating any of it. If the EM field of the universe provides a holographic nature to time and space then this is what is being described when all the bells and whistles are removed.

diddly-squat said:

SCIENCE said:

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Have you ever had a dream that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

That was investigated on the christmas Doctor Who. They suggested that the moment you differentiate that you are within a dream will necessarily change all the parameters of the dream so that you might believe you have woken but are still dreaming. I take it from this that full lucidity would require you be aware of your body in such a manner that you retain mental/physical orientation.

For all its complexity the human brain/mind is easily tricked and subject to all manner of malfunctions and psychosis. Give us another 10 to 20 years and we’ll be able to manipulate the human mind into thinking something real when’s its just a computer simulation

SCIENCE said:

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Real things are those things that:

1. Appear to us to have an existence outside our brains
2. Appear to everyone else (or almost everyone else) to have an existence outside their brains
3. Have the same appearance (smell/taste/texture etc) to everyone (or almost everyone) else who sees (smells/tastes/feels) them, when experienced under the same conditions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

OCDC said:

Defining something does not make it real.

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Real things are those things that:

1. Appear to us to have an existence outside our brains
2. Appear to everyone else (or almost everyone else) to have an existence outside their brains
3. Have the same appearance (smell/taste/texture etc) to everyone (or almost everyone) else who sees (smells/tastes/feels) them, when experienced under the same conditions.

Cymek said:

For all its complexity the human brain/mind is easily tricked and subject to all manner of malfunctions and psychosis. Give us another 10 to 20 years and we’ll be able to manipulate the human mind into thinking something real when’s its just a computer simulation

Entirely and if someone claimed to be able to read the cards someone is holding I would immediately doubt them. I would also doubt anyone asking money for psychic whatever. There are more respectable claims to knowledge of attributes in the form of yogic/buddhist disciplines.

Contrary to Boris’s apparent assertion, were the claimed attributes to be given enough credit to be critically assessed, the assessment would require confining mechanisms of attributes to relativity dynamics. Anything that went outside relativity boundaries would be ‘paranormal’ and impossible to measure making debate superfluous. There is a long list of Siddhis but examining only those concerning remote sensing should provide enough data to determine whether the greater list of physically energetic attributes are worth investigating.

knowing the minds of others and so on

Hearing things far away

Seeing things far away

based on the samskaras of previous births, the attainment of knowledge about the twenty-four Tatwas gained by examining the determinable and the indeterminable conscious and the non-conscious constituents of creation,

… from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi

I have also heard an abilities of perception described as ‘being able to see the physical nature of things’(somewhat like some sort of full spectrum microscope analysis of matter).

The first two provide context for these attributes being well within ‘normal’ bounds of physics. “Knowing the minds of others” can be a misleading statement. First of all this is done all the time without remark. Empathy and experience combine so that a person who is functionally familiar with the circumstances a younger familiar is experiencing can read much of what that person might be thinking while confronting the obstacle. For this to be included as a paranormal attribute can only suggest that experience is cumulative and people are fundamentally empathic. There is no justification for putting this phenomon in a bunkum category.

Hearing at a distance is similarly trivial. Hearing follows smell and taste closely as a primal evolution. The organs are connected in their evolution by the respiratory system The complexity of the filtering system already present in the components of the human ear are immensely powerful and to stretch that to ‘hearing at a distance’ doesn’t require anything beyond the realms of physics.

Seeing at a distance might be somewhat complex and require elements like entanglement to allow measurability. That would then acount for ‘knowing the nature of mattter’. So of the five examples here there isn’t much in the way of super-para anything for four of them. That for me makes the rest at least worth considering as to how they might be proven through basic relativity laws and systems.

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

What is real? How do you define ‘real’? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Real things are those things that:

1. Appear to us to have an existence outside our brains
2. Appear to everyone else (or almost everyone else) to have an existence outside their brains
3. Have the same appearance (smell/taste/texture etc) to everyone (or almost everyone) else who sees (smells/tastes/feels) them, when experienced under the same conditions.

What is a filter?

Advanced technology could easily be mistaken for paranormal or psychic ability.
Perhaps one day information could be sent back in time attuned to one person specific brain waves and that’s prediction of the future. Remote viewing could be stealth technology eg drones sending information to a brain implant. All imaginary now but perhaps real one day.

a lot of what science is about variously relates to ‘predictive power’, something of the origins of that endeavour are courtesy some characteristics of human minds that predate formalisms of ‘science’.

Cymek said:

Advanced technology could easily be mistaken for paranormal or psychic ability.
Perhaps one day information could be sent back in time attuned to one person specific brain waves and that’s prediction of the future. Remote viewing could be stealth technology eg drones sending information to a brain implant. All imaginary now but perhaps real one day.

The premise of yoga is to remain rooted while doing. Developing physical center of balance frees the mind to observe the environment without the internal distraction of maintaining posture and respiration. The mind simply becomes more lucid. The reputable yogis, buddhists and chi-gung practitioners don’t actually claim more than a greater awareness of there own physical and mental state.

transition said:

a lot of what science is about variously relates to ‘predictive power’, something of the origins of that endeavour are courtesy some characteristics of human minds that predate formalisms of ‘science’.

Pity the deciding formality of contemporary science is funding……….

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Advanced technology could easily be mistaken for paranormal or psychic ability.
Perhaps one day information could be sent back in time attuned to one person specific brain waves and that’s prediction of the future. Remote viewing could be stealth technology eg drones sending information to a brain implant. All imaginary now but perhaps real one day.

The premise of yoga is to remain rooted while doing. Developing physical center of balance frees the mind to observe the environment without the internal distraction of maintaining posture and respiration. The mind simply becomes more lucid. The reputable yogis, buddhists and chi-gung practitioners don’t actually claim more than a greater awareness of there own physical and mental state.

I’d believe that we have greater control over our bodies than currently thought but not sure about control at a cellular level that some people claim we can do.

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Advanced technology could easily be mistaken for paranormal or psychic ability.
Perhaps one day information could be sent back in time attuned to one person specific brain waves and that’s prediction of the future. Remote viewing could be stealth technology eg drones sending information to a brain implant. All imaginary now but perhaps real one day.

The premise of yoga is to remain rooted while doing. Developing physical center of balance frees the mind to observe the environment without the internal distraction of maintaining posture and respiration. The mind simply becomes more lucid. The reputable yogis, buddhists and chi-gung practitioners don’t actually claim more than a greater awareness of there own physical and mental state.

I’d believe that we have greater control over our bodies than currently thought but not sure about control at a cellular level that some people claim we can do.

Just controlling your breath is controlling your body at a cellular level. If you get so good at that it becomes automatic maybe there are other bits that you can pay attention to. It’s just an organic computer with mobility functions your attached to. Maybe you can even chip it up. ;)

Personal anecdote re seeing at a distance. I’ve noticed moments when something on the horizon has caught my attention and my eyes reflex was to zoom in but only lasted a moment as if the muscles being used(or the way they were being activated) had not built up muscle memory. For a moment the object I’d noticed would seem a lot closer but then become blurry and I’d have to refocus on it….

Advanced technology could easily be mistaken for paranormal or psychic ability.

which wouldn’t make it so though, just appear to be. i thought we were talking “real” paranormal not pseudoparanormal.

JudgeMental said:

Advanced technology could easily be mistaken for paranormal or psychic ability.

which wouldn’t make it so though, just appear to be. i thought we were talking “real” paranormal not pseudoparanormal.

So real paranormal isn’t magic but unknown laws of physics

Cymek said:

JudgeMental said:

Advanced technology could easily be mistaken for paranormal or psychic ability.

which wouldn’t make it so though, just appear to be. i thought we were talking “real” paranormal not pseudoparanormal.

So real paranormal isn’t magic but unknown laws of physics

or known lawof physics applied in ways not yet measured

arvo stumpy.. got the fence up yet?

real paranormal is something that science doesn’t concern itself with because by definition it can’t. how many times do i have to spell this out? if science can, at some point, explain it then it was never paranormal.

JudgeMental said:

real paranormal is something that science doesn’t concern itself with because by definition it can’t. how many times do i have to spell this out? if science can, at some point, explain it then it was never paranormal.

So what exactly does that rule out? Mindfucking goats to death and cheating at poker?

JudgeMental said:

real paranormal is something that science doesn’t concern itself with because by definition it can’t. how many times do i have to spell this out? if science can, at some point, explain it then it was never paranormal.

How can something be defined as real paranormal, its never explained by science ?
Most of what is considered paranormal could possibly one day be explained by science, the rest is just made up by humans to scam money.

is what i wrote that hard to understand?

JudgeMental said:

is what i wrote that hard to understand?

No but the larger assumption seems to be that one method of test puts all other phenomena that are completely unrelated to the test under the same roof. Has the list of Siddhis been critically analysed?

it is “any” test. whatever experiment you want to set up. over whatever time frame. at some point though you have to say enough.

JudgeMental said:

it is “any” test. whatever experiment you want to set up. over whatever time frame. at some point though you have to say enough.

I suppose that’s why I can find youtube stuff on unis overseas recording chi-gung stuff.

i guess they decided the research money would be better spent on something worthwhile.

Paranormal events are phenomena described in popular culture, folklore and other non-scientific bodies of knowledge, whose existence within these contexts is described to lie beyond normal experience or scientific explanation.

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

This article is about unexplained phenomena. For phenomena not subject to the laws of nature, see supernatural. For unexplained but presumed natural phenomena, see preternatural.

JudgeMental said:

Paranormal events are phenomena described in popular culture, folklore and other non-scientific bodies of knowledge, whose existence within these contexts is described to lie beyond normal experience or scientific explanation.

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

This article is about unexplained phenomena. For phenomena not subject to the laws of nature, see supernatural. For unexplained but presumed natural phenomena, see preternatural.

So where is there a reference to the meaning of paranormal in the title or OP? The question is whether remote sensing as described by traditional institutions can be measured. You seem to avoid digesting the intention of what I post to harp on about something or other you have an issue with.

i believe this was covered earlier. if you have some other info on studies being done and the results then share them.

Postpocelipse said:

Personal anecdote re seeing at a distance. I’ve noticed moments when something on the horizon has caught my attention and my eyes reflex was to zoom in but only lasted a moment as if the muscles being used(or the way they were being activated) had not built up muscle memory. For a moment the object I’d noticed would seem a lot closer but then become blurry and I’d have to refocus on it….

Oddly enough….you were relaxing your focussing muscles out to infinity. So what you notice is exactly what you thought was happening….you were adjusting the focus. It’s a circular muscle around a lens that you squeeze to change the focal length……squeeze harder for closer focus. The way our eyes work, you relax the muscle to see distance.

JudgeMental said:

i believe this was covered earlier. if you have some other info on studies being done and the results then share them.

Where was ‘this’ covered? I’ll post some links if you like but I’m not sure I’ll get anymore sense out of you than this thing you have for the word paranormal. I find it superflouos. I have covered the fact that yogic/buddhist practitioners claim nothing more than extra-ordinariness. I don’t find the link you provided definitive of anything in particular.

post the links please.

buffy said:

Postpocelipse said:

Personal anecdote re seeing at a distance. I’ve noticed moments when something on the horizon has caught my attention and my eyes reflex was to zoom in but only lasted a moment as if the muscles being used(or the way they were being activated) had not built up muscle memory. For a moment the object I’d noticed would seem a lot closer but then become blurry and I’d have to refocus on it….

Oddly enough….you were relaxing your focussing muscles out to infinity. So what you notice is exactly what you thought was happening….you were adjusting the focus. It’s a circular muscle around a lens that you squeeze to change the focal length……squeeze harder for closer focus. The way our eyes work, you relax the muscle to see distance.

I’d like it if they were stronger and I could just zoom in wherever I wanted. :)

buffy said:

Postpocelipse said:

Personal anecdote re seeing at a distance. I’ve noticed moments when something on the horizon has caught my attention and my eyes reflex was to zoom in but only lasted a moment as if the muscles being used(or the way they were being activated) had not built up muscle memory. For a moment the object I’d noticed would seem a lot closer but then become blurry and I’d have to refocus on it….

Oddly enough….you were relaxing your focussing muscles out to infinity. So what you notice is exactly what you thought was happening….you were adjusting the focus. It’s a circular muscle around a lens that you squeeze to change the focal length……squeeze harder for closer focus. The way our eyes work, you relax the muscle to see distance.

Not stronger. How would you maximise that action?

Postpocelipse said:

buffy said:

Postpocelipse said:

Personal anecdote re seeing at a distance. I’ve noticed moments when something on the horizon has caught my attention and my eyes reflex was to zoom in but only lasted a moment as if the muscles being used(or the way they were being activated) had not built up muscle memory. For a moment the object I’d noticed would seem a lot closer but then become blurry and I’d have to refocus on it….

Oddly enough….you were relaxing your focussing muscles out to infinity. So what you notice is exactly what you thought was happening….you were adjusting the focus. It’s a circular muscle around a lens that you squeeze to change the focal length……squeeze harder for closer focus. The way our eyes work, you relax the muscle to see distance.

I’d like it if they were stronger and I could just zoom in wherever I wanted. :)

Did you read what I wrote? You do not ‘zoom in’ – unless you are focussing closer to your face. Our eyes relax the focussing muscles for distance.

JudgeMental said:

post the links please.

most of the point of the thread was to construct methods of measuring the attributes supplied as remote sensing. If it get’s that far I’ll post the stuff on energetic phenomena I’ve looked at.

buffy said:

Did you read what I wrote? You do not ‘zoom in’ – unless you are focussing closer to your face. Our eyes relax the focussing muscles for distance.

took a moment to register properly. Thinking about a few things at onece at the moment. :/

so you’re not going to post the links?

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/15-03-25/#feature

a good article on critical thinking and the paranormal. just came into my inbox.

JudgeMental said:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/15-03-25/#feature

a good article on critical thinking and the paranormal. just came into my inbox.

Cheers. I’ve posted some of the links I refer to previously but nobody has taken up any examination. I will post them but I’m cooking dinner so it will have to wait for that and my currently slow internet speed.

The OP also intended to define that remote sensing is entirely within physics bounds if testing is constructed applicably.

The OP also intended to define that remote sensing is entirely within physics bounds if testing is constructed applicably.

so why did you bring up the paranormal so early in the thread then?

JudgeMental said:

The OP also intended to define that remote sensing is entirely within physics bounds if testing is constructed applicably.

so why did you bring up the paranormal so early in the thread then?

i didn’t know the reference would inspire so much controversy. Plenty seems to be lumped under the definition without much more reason than assumption.

well without any science to back it up or otherwise assumptions are all we have.

JudgeMental said:

well without any science to back it up or otherwise assumptions are all we have.

With a little time I’ll put together what I can to give something to analogue.

Ok… Before I satisfy Boris’s request for links to the energetic attribute videos I’ll just mention that without constructing various hypothesi on how a particular remote sensing attribute might work they will be difficult to observe. From what I’ve heard from more reputable psychic types remote sensing doesn’t seem to be as straight forward as being able to see what card someone is looking at. I began this thread because someone in chat mentioned dejavu.The general reporting of dejavu makes it also difficult to measure.

Traditional philosophies describe dejavu as being the result of a process that is gone through prior to birth in which the individual experiences an immersion in details of the life he/she is to be born into. If this is accurate it might be possible to record a unique brain activity associated to memory, provided you could provide a test subject a portable brain scanner long enough to record an event. Obviously pushing the boundaries of convenience. Compiling anecdotes of individual anecdotes regarding how a dejavu event was experienced might provide details that could be applied to an experiment.

The other remote sense attributes, if genuine, should be easier to record. If one began with systems that are scientifically sound that might be compatible to a living being, tests could be improvised that did not demand a result from the applicable attribute that is not within the attributes bounds. A reason I personally find the ‘seeing at a distance’ attribute plausible is that the simplest relativity system that could be applied to that is entanglement. Since entanglement is a natural system it seems plausible that a naturally evolved brain could access entanglement directly and to greater extent than might be achieved mechanically.

Lama Dorje Dondrup

When some of these guys start bouncing off it looks vaguely like they are in orbit around the earth for a few moments.

There is no mystery about deja vu. It’s simple pattern recognition. We are supreme pattern recognizers. Something happens that is similar to something that has happened to us before and our brain links up the memories with the current experience. They don’t have to match precisely. We are expert at filling the gaps.

buffy said:

There is no mystery about deja vu. It’s simple pattern recognition. We are supreme pattern recognizers. Something happens that is similar to something that has happened to us before and our brain links up the memories with the current experience. They don’t have to match precisely. We are expert at filling the gaps.

That works for generic dejavu experiences. I was interested in anecdotes because I’ve had a dejavu experience that was not so generic. It involved a childhood dream that stuck in my head without making much sense until a couple of events gave it some context.There was 21 and 28 years from the dream to each event. The dream generated a dejavu experience of the events the first being unique to my experience to that point and the second only familiar because of the first and the dream. This dynamic has made me question the origin of the construciton of that dream.

Postpocelipse said:

buffy said:

There is no mystery about deja vu. It’s simple pattern recognition. We are supreme pattern recognizers. Something happens that is similar to something that has happened to us before and our brain links up the memories with the current experience. They don’t have to match precisely. We are expert at filling the gaps.

That works for generic dejavu experiences. I was interested in anecdotes because I’ve had a dejavu experience that was not so generic. It involved a childhood dream that stuck in my head without making much sense until a couple of events gave it some context.There was 21 and 28 years from the dream to each event. The dream generated a dejavu experience of the events the first being unique to my experience to that point and the second only familiar because of the first and the dream. This dynamic has made me question the origin of the construciton of that dream.

Still simple pattern recognition, I’m afraid. You made the experience fit the previous dream.

buffy said:

Postpocelipse said:

buffy said:

There is no mystery about deja vu. It’s simple pattern recognition. We are supreme pattern recognizers. Something happens that is similar to something that has happened to us before and our brain links up the memories with the current experience. They don’t have to match precisely. We are expert at filling the gaps.

That works for generic dejavu experiences. I was interested in anecdotes because I’ve had a dejavu experience that was not so generic. It involved a childhood dream that stuck in my head without making much sense until a couple of events gave it some context.There was 21 and 28 years from the dream to each event. The dream generated a dejavu experience of the events the first being unique to my experience to that point and the second only familiar because of the first and the dream. This dynamic has made me question the origin of the construciton of that dream.

Still simple pattern recognition, I’m afraid. You made the experience fit the previous dream.

It was the uniqueness of the event that had me questioning it. I have little idea why I would dream about a tidal wave falling out of the sky in front of me. It made the Indo-Japan events quite peculiar. Like stepping backwards into a dream that hadn’t finished. The dream being involved fits the traditional description of dejavu. I thought I might find other anecdotes of dejavu experiences that were irregular but didn’t necessarily involve dreams and compare results.

I suspect waves might be pretty common in dreams. Like falling is pretty common in dreams.

buffy said:

I suspect waves might be pretty common in dreams. Like falling is pretty common in dreams.

The thing about that is I have flying dreams about ‘life falling’. I had a dream about a wave once and once only very vividly. Just stuck out a bit when Indonesia got gobbled. shrug

I had wave dreams while my mother in law was dying. They were vivid, memorable and if I think about it I can still bring up the picture. It was beautiful, crystal clear, and there was no fear involved. I was standing on a sand dune. I’ve had the same dream once since she died. I assume it’s something my mind does when I’m a bit stressed.

buffy said:

I had wave dreams while my mother in law was dying. They were vivid, memorable and if I think about it I can still bring up the picture. It was beautiful, crystal clear, and there was no fear involved. I was standing on a sand dune. I’ve had the same dream once since she died. I assume it’s something my mind does when I’m a bit stressed.

I just don’t seem to go there mentally at all. I guess I got caught in a rip just before I left India(well after the dream) that left an impression on me but I’d pretty well shrugged it off after remembering the advice I was given about not swimming against a rip to get out of it. I have no particular concern about the ocean apart from not being impressed with the size of sharks mouths or how venomous box jellyfish are.

Well I’m very scared of the sea, I panic in water deeper than I can stand in. So it’s out of character for me to be entirely calm about a great wall of water coming towards me. But it’s a dream. Anything can happen.

wonder so of the experience of dejavu
that something that doesn’t quite satisfy the definition
exists’n functional all the time with you
what operatin’ under the threshold is it do you reckon

buffy said:

Well I’m very scared of the sea, I panic in water deeper than I can stand in. So it’s out of character for me to be entirely calm about a great wall of water coming towards me. But it’s a dream. Anything can happen.

In the dream when the waveformed form the falling block of water time went in to slow motion and my hair sloo-owly stoo-ood on end before I woke up with a start and and a very disoriented feeling of terror. My first visit to a wave beach was about 2 years after that dream and I don’t remember thinking waves were dangerous. Just great fun. Going past where the waves were breaking and getting caught in a rip kinda sucked but I got taken back to the hotel and went to bed and had a sleep. As kids do.

further what is learned from
an overdetermined correspondence
is there in this some lesson
it sensation’n correction you ponder

transition said:

wonder so of the experience of dejavu
that something that doesn’t quite satisfy the definition
exists’n functional all the time with you
what operatin’ under the threshold is it do you reckon

If time is block like in some dimension it would just be part of that mechanism.

Carmel and I devised a little game with my dream. We both knew we were looking for confirmation bias. I visited her pretty much every day for her last 18 months, and once the dream started, one day it matched up with her having an angina attack. So when I visited her, I’d say “So, did you have angina last night?” and we’d laugh if I’d dreamed too. She was a pretty good sort.

transition said:

further what is learned from
an overdetermined correspondence
is there in this some lesson
it sensation’n correction you ponder

When the tidal waves occurred I got a bit more interested in physics. That’s probably kept me out of trouble of some form.

buffy said:

Carmel and I devised a little game with my dream. We both knew we were looking for confirmation bias. I visited her pretty much every day for her last 18 months, and once the dream started, one day it matched up with her having an angina attack. So when I visited her, I’d say “So, did you have angina last night?” and we’d laugh if I’d dreamed too. She was a pretty good sort.

:)

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

transition said:

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

Interesting material. I don’t think I’ve overdetermined it. The quakes made me realise I could feel a very protective feeling for the earth and it’s general inhabitants, which I’d had no idea could be magnified like that. Made me feel like I belonged around here a bit more than I had I think. I have a reflex of questioning anything peculiar sdeveloped through learning to question by questioning authority. I went through vehemently anti-religious years from about 12 till my early 20’s. Some time through my 20’s I had a few experiences that left me questioning the nature of reality and time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJr2BdUTYkU

and what was that video supposed to show? i thought the links you were going to supply were science.

Boris said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJr2BdUTYkU

and what was that video supposed to show? i thought the links you were going to supply were science.

That is a demonstration from a traditional institution that captures the attribute as it is claimed. There is a guinness world record video of a chi-gong guy heating a wet towel to about 90 degrees with the energy from his palm and providing a demonstration of weightlessness by standing on paper glued to picture frames placed on pots. I’ve also watched a video of a master and his pupil in two separate rooms in a university and a force-push type thing is being done with the walls and other rooms intervening.

My phone access is a bit slow for looking up videos. I’ll track them down at some point.

and the one with the panther talking to the animal talker was documentary style but there wasn’t any definitive scientific proof beyond the information she shouldn’t have known and the effect that had on the park owner. I know your fussy. I thought I’d post that video because you can clearly see people floating in it at moments. If that is purely relativity being manipulated, what laws and mechanisms are being manipulated?

don’t bother if they are of similar merit. really i would have appreciated a modicum of science to be involved.

Boris said:

don’t bother if they are of similar merit. really i would have appreciated a modicum of science to be involved.

there was science involved in the uni thng. A lot of my procrastination is because you make no effort yourself. Do you think I’m interested in what you appreciate? I’m happy enough to try to figure out what I can for myself. I don’t really racall you answering any of my questions. I supplied it because you asked and I gave you a chance to treat the demonstration at face value at least on a hypothetical level. You don’t seem to hoist yourself above pothetical level most I’ve seen……..

you make the claims you back them up. that is the way it works. i have supplied links to studies by the military. you have supplied nothing.

Boris said:

you make the claims you back them up. that is the way it works. i have supplied links to studies by the military. you have supplied nothing.

*I’ve sketched out the direction I’m hypothesising in. If you want me to give you my call on how that works I’ll need to watch it a few more times. While you are waiting how about you give me a rundown on what you think on each particular assumption made in the construction of the military experiments you provided a lin to. That might incline me to actually post what I think is going on with the demonstration, how to measure it and what I think of the assumptions in the military experiments.

nah, you do some work first. then i might be inclined to do some more. off you pop now and get that evidence. i won’t hold my breath though as this is your usual tactic. a blow hard and never back up anything. still people can read this thread and decide for themselves can’t they?

Boris said:

nah, you do some work first. then i might be inclined to do some more. off you pop now and get that evidence. i won’t hold my breath though as this is your usual tactic. a blow hard and never back up anything. still people can read this thread and decide for themselves can’t they?

Who said anything about evidence but you borus? I intended to construct a hypothesis on remote sensing that conformed to relativity. Now you want me to give you evidence of another demonstration entirely? You really delude yourself with who is humoring whom here. Do you think your military experiments had anything to do with the intention of the thread? I did mention I thought they were constructed with questionable assumptions and that I am specifically questioning how to examine siddhis and this sort of demonstration for measurability. You don’t think you stink bloke. It’s no skin off my nose to try to coax an actual thought out of you while I’m asking questions.

wibble and whine.

Boris said:

wibble and whine.

I swear your lip’s going to fall off. They don’t just flap in the breeze like that forever.

don’t wibble then, or whine, or lie, or post your unscientific shite here. as i have said before, you post i’ll respond. if that is not agreeable to you then don’t post your dribble.

Boris said:

don’t wibble then, or whine, or lie, or post your unscientific shite here. as i have said before, you post i’ll respond. if that is not agreeable to you then don’t post your dribble.

I’ll do what I like when and where I like. I like making you say shite and dribble froth on your hand to masturbate…….

I’ve stayed up 2 hours longer than I safely should have I enjoy it so much. :)

hahaha. you choose to spend your time with rubbish when you could be spending it learning something real. you are a fool.

Boris said:

hahaha. you choose to spend your time with rubbish when you could be spending it learning something real. you are a fool.

You think I’m not learning something? If you say so. Like I just said I’ve stayed up two hours past my bedtime learning how predictable you are. I’ll catch up on the sleep. ;)

and in the morning you will still be dumb.

Boris said:

and in the morning you will still be dumb.

you have such a way with words. you want to go for a drive in a californian sunset with the top down?

I recall a very senior scientist at the beginning of the twentieth century who claimed there was not much more for science to discover. Perhaps you know him?

william thomson and it was more specifically physics not science. and he was wrong, quelle horreur.

Boris said:

I recall a very senior scientist at the beginning of the twentieth century who claimed there was not much more for science to discover. Perhaps you know him?

william thomson and it was more specifically physics not science. and he was wrong, quelle horreur.

Yeah not much has been discovered in the last 100 years its pretty horrible. I was waiting for a time-car not a hoverboard…….

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

hahaha. you choose to spend your time with rubbish when you could be spending it learning something real. you are a fool.

You think I’m not learning something? If you say so. Like I just said I’ve stayed up two hours past my bedtime learning how predictable you are. I’ll catch up on the sleep. ;)

Posty, you’re not learning jack. Making shit up ≠ learning.

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

Boris said:

hahaha. you choose to spend your time with rubbish when you could be spending it learning something real. you are a fool.

You think I’m not learning something? If you say so. Like I just said I’ve stayed up two hours past my bedtime learning how predictable you are. I’ll catch up on the sleep. ;)

Posty, you’re not learning jack. Making shit up ≠ learning.

Ok. You are an educator with specific knowledge in what I learn day to day are you sibeen? Your memory doesn’t just need daily improving you should take something for delusions that doesn’t have you flying the bowls club ride-on down the highway being chased by cops.

Posty, ad hominems don’t aid your cause.

sibeen said:

Posty, ad hominems don’t aid your cause.

I don’t have any cause but that specific to the OP. What is yours? (Your attempts at) ridiculing me rather than providing substance to an attempted discussion, which is the main reason I’ll post anything at all. I don’t need an answer. I enjoy a discussion. We seem to be discussing the fascination you and Snora-T-Boris have with avoiding putting your brain cells together, instead recycling other peoples words and calling it knowledge of science and inaccurate assumptions you’ve made about peoples motivations and intellectual substance whom you’ve never met or attempted to engage constructively. You are clowns and will be treated as such.

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

Posty, ad hominems don’t aid your cause.

I don’t have any cause but that specific to the OP. What is yours? (Your attempts at) ridiculing me

?

I’ve made two posts in this thread, both within the last twenty minutes.

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

Posty, ad hominems don’t aid your cause.

I don’t have any cause but that specific to the OP. What is yours? (Your attempts at) ridiculing me

?

I’ve made two posts in this thread, both within the last twenty minutes.

Yes your first post assumed I’m not learning jack and making shit up. Apart from the incidental feature of learning something about your assumptions the intention of this thread was to compose an analysis of supposedly paranormal attributes like the one ‘claimed’ on the link last posted that would provide a method to measure a particular attribute in it’s physics components. If Boris is going to continue to seek to mock me as he has stated he will then I will string along as long as he thinks he has the venom for it. If you tried answering the intention of the thread I might learn a little of what I was seeking to learn when I posted the thread. Which was how would I measure something I came across if I couldn’t explain through looking it up in a book. Wow. Your 3 posts took a whole hour of my nap time tonight. And I didn’t learn a thing I needed to know from you.

what a verbose tosser you are.

From the OP:

Psychic phenomena such as deja-vu requires a block-like nature to time. This might be measurable if various factors of physics are examined for context.

I would start with the 90 degree offset between the electric and magnetic fields. As I understand it this provides the mechanism that enforces 3 dimensionality on space and allows for simultaneity to occur between particles. ie; without the EM field there would be a total non-simultaneity imposition.

That’s called making shit up. Botis can go balls up on you for crap like that, IMHO.

End of, I’m out.

Boris said:

what a verbose tosser you are.

I didn’t get to ask questions when I was a kid. I did get to toss so I’ve sort of swapped one for the other.

sibeen said:

From the OP:

Psychic phenomena such as deja-vu requires a block-like nature to time. This might be measurable if various factors of physics are examined for context.

I would start with the 90 degree offset between the electric and magnetic fields. As I understand it this provides the mechanism that enforces 3 dimensionality on space and allows for simultaneity to occur between particles. ie; without the EM field there would be a total non-simultaneity imposition.

That’s called making shit up. Botis can go balls up on you for crap like that, IMHO.

End of, I’m out.

No it’s called a simple justification foi seeking a hypothesis to measure something. You honest opinion doesn’t seem to be able to read an intention when it is directly indicated in the introduction or answer anything with your own words. You think me the fool. Your just practice for when I need to keep a straight face when I tell someone to fuck off.

I should call ya’s Border and Healy. The top order batsmen that kept the side together and the can’t-get-it-past-him keeper who came from behind to swing a decent bat before he retired to glu-glub-glub………

Boris said:

I recall a very senior scientist at the beginning of the twentieth century who claimed there was not much more for science to discover. Perhaps you know him?

william thomson and it was more specifically physics not science. and he was wrong, quelle horreur.

He reminded me of you.

PermeateFree said:

He reminded me of you.

Don’t know why people always bemoan the hoverboard. You’d get way more chicks with the timecar. Mcfly’s girlfriend in her prime even…….

He reminded me of you.

wow, to be compared to Lord kelvin is an honour indeed. thanks.

Boris said:

He reminded me of you.

wow, to be compared to Lord kelvin is an honour indeed. thanks.

If Abbott had knighted you instead of Punce Phillip we’d all have been better off. Without titles it gets difficult for us peasants to know why you are so clean and devilishly witty.

Without titles it gets difficult for us peasants to know why you are so clean and devilishly witty.

and i’m not telling.

Boris said:

Without titles it gets difficult for us peasants to know why you are so clean and devilishly witty.

and i’m not telling.

ooooh ‘e’s a Lord e is! ‘As ta be cause he’s all almost dashing in his wittiness and just look ‘ow blimmin clean ‘e is with his frills n knickers on tha outside ‘n’all……..