lietuvis002
BANNED
- Aug 3, 2012
- 2,385
- 2,589
Yes, I used to do psychokinesis, PSI ball, OBE (Astral projection), used to talk with spirits (spiritism), WILD lucid dreaming too . These things are very hard to control, but don't do it anymore. Sounds creepy lol
The Scarlet Pimp
Supreme Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 1,416
- 4,457
Crak Stacy
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2013
- 3
- 0
The little girl in me wants to believe in magic but I know it's mostly science and illusions.
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
The little girl in you will one day meet a handsome man that will make her feel like a magic woman. No further proof required then
ShadeDream
BANNED
- Nov 27, 2008
- 2,296
- 5,536
The extended mind talk is awesome, I'm only 15 minutes in and it makes a lot of sense.
ShadeDream
BANNED
- Nov 27, 2008
- 2,296
- 5,536
I just realized I've already listened to what Rupert Sheldrake had to say in the above video through his banned TED Talk. Watched this a while ago and would recommend it to all those interested in such subjects. Explains why "science" isn't always right and that if you think you're "learned", you may well be wrong.
This one is also very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w
This one is also very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w
Last edited by a moderator:
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
First of all, that 's TEDx, not TED. The x variation is a franchise of the name to licensees. You pay a sum and you can organise talks under the umbrella of the TED brand. That 's to impress foolish people and get their money - you can call it "blackhat" if you like.
There are a set of rules set by TED for its licensees (one of which says "no pseudoscience talks"), yet of course they 're not respected, since uneducated people are the easiest to scam, as we all know.
You need to understand what science is. Furthermore, you should actually listen to what the speaker said, because he did not say what you wanted to hear. He said quite the contrary actually.
That 's the difference between a scientist and a layman. The scientist knows he is starting from an unknown point. He knows that his basis may be incomplete. He is out there to explore & prove. On the contrary, a layman gets impressed by some fancy words and since he lacks the scientific methods, simply believes things and then defends his arbitraray choice (he can't be wrong, God forbid!).
ShadeDream
BANNED
- Nov 27, 2008
- 2,296
- 5,536
Yes, I understand that people have their ego's which close their minds. I also understand what science is, and there's one major fault behind it, it's the human being that can fall into dogmatic behavior. Belief/understanding is debatable and subject to each individuals experiences. You won't make sense of something that one does if you've not had the same/similar experiences.
For the sake of not arguing let me state, I am only expressing an opinion and it is probably totally wrong.
Last edited:
The Scarlet Pimp
Supreme Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 1,416
- 4,457
be very careful with magic!
Who Killed Joseph Fisher?
1. http://cdn.livestream.com/grid/LSPl...clip=flv_be989835-1d58-4e47-83b4-a37b934f85e7
---
2. http://cdn.livestream.com/grid/LSPl...clip=flv_adfb0e80-c9e6-428e-af93-2f74775a827a
Who Killed Joseph Fisher?
1. http://cdn.livestream.com/grid/LSPl...clip=flv_be989835-1d58-4e47-83b4-a37b934f85e7
---
2. http://cdn.livestream.com/grid/LSPl...clip=flv_adfb0e80-c9e6-428e-af93-2f74775a827a
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
@jazzc as long as scientists will keep PSI tabu and treat it differently than anything else it means either they're close minded idiots or they are working for somebody who wants to keep it all under the rags. There are experiments and studies performed poorly that have been accepted by the scientific world as being 100% ok for a long time. Yet, the moment somebody does a PSI experiment they classify it as "flawed" by default since "PSI can not possibly exist". Sheldrake makes this clear at the end of his extended mind talk.
The Scarlet Pimp
Supreme Member
- Apr 2, 2008
- 1,416
- 4,457
"men who stare at goats"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234548/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1234548/
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
@ShadeDream and @madoctopus
Science is not about scientists, it 's strictly about the method. That 's why I keep telling ShadeDream he doesn't know what science is.
You don't become a scientist by getting a degree and working on a lab. A scientist is judged by his work constantly based on the method and prior achievements do not matter. Suppose I do some great breakthroughs and then I start writing crap for whatever reason (got old, got mad, got greedy). Automatically, I am not a scientist any more. And the real scientists will eventually expose me for the fraud. Does that fraud exposure happen instantly? No, it takes time, and sometimes decades. But it happens, because there are always scientists that do the method.
A great example of this is Linus Pauling, the only person to ever have received two unshared Nobel prices. In his old age, he got hanged on an idea that he couldn't prove and resorted to faking data etc. Eventually, he got exposed. Read the story here.
To sum up, if PSI is real, it will eventually be proven, no matter what.
Science is not about scientists, it 's strictly about the method. That 's why I keep telling ShadeDream he doesn't know what science is.
You don't become a scientist by getting a degree and working on a lab. A scientist is judged by his work constantly based on the method and prior achievements do not matter. Suppose I do some great breakthroughs and then I start writing crap for whatever reason (got old, got mad, got greedy). Automatically, I am not a scientist any more. And the real scientists will eventually expose me for the fraud. Does that fraud exposure happen instantly? No, it takes time, and sometimes decades. But it happens, because there are always scientists that do the method.
A great example of this is Linus Pauling, the only person to ever have received two unshared Nobel prices. In his old age, he got hanged on an idea that he couldn't prove and resorted to faking data etc. Eventually, he got exposed. Read the story here.
To sum up, if PSI is real, it will eventually be proven, no matter what.
silentthunder
Power Member
- Feb 6, 2009
- 530
- 1,348
Magic & Science are One Unless Separated by Semantics
Last edited by a moderator:
madoctopus
Supreme Member
- Apr 4, 2010
- 1,388
- 3,709
I'm totally pro scientific method. What I'm against are the scientists/people who are close minded and use it as an excuse to impose their BELIEFS which are nothing better than anybody's beliefs, nor more accurate, thorough or true. What these people forget is that every piece of evidence they obtain is ALWAYS filtered through their perception, hence it can not be complete or objective as it is always a translation of the reality. It is a picture. Like a picture of the Eiffel tower is not the tower itself, like sitting in front of the tower and seeing it with your own eyes is NOT the tower itself but what you see, like an apple is not an apple but the memory of its taste and every experience you ever had with an apple. If you eat an apple when you were a child and was rotten and you threw up, you might not like apples much. When you see an apple you remember that sensation. On the other hand I might love apples because my first kiss was right after I gave a girl an apple. It is all perception. There is no such thing as real or objective.
The scientific method is not a method of being objective in an absolute manner but of being objective within your own accepted interval of subjectivity. The double blind test provides objective measurement only within the interval given by the assumption that the fart of a unicorn in some parallel universe does not affect the measurement. It relies on an assumption. All science relies on assumptions and agreements about this interval. Math relies on same thing. Everything relies on this. Because of this, anything that is determined by science is valid ONLY within this interval. The moment you expand this interval, the "rules" you accepted as valid up to that point may change.
More than that, the perception produces concepts which may not be what they are being perceived as. In other words a scientist might think he knows what light is (wave and photon particles). But that's not what light is. That is what light is within a "reality slice" he or his level of perception and understanding imposed. Light can not be FOR HIM more than this unless he finds a way to expand his sensory system and understanding.
Assume you are born deaf and everybody on the planet is born deaf. You look at a dog that is barking. You scientifically prove the dog is sometimes opening and closing his mouth, especially when he's aggressive towards you. Perfectly valid. If I tell you the dog is not doing that but barking and what you see (mouth opening) is simply something that comes along with the barking, in a way as a less important side effect, or rather a requirement for the barking to be possible, you simply do not understand that. You can understand what barking is but you will define it as a dog opening and closing his mouth. I will define it as a dog making a noise that has certain inflections based on the dog's state (friendly and playful or aggressive). You have no idea what a noise is, hence my explanation means nothing to you. My understanding as a person that is not deaf is more extended than yours but still limited. Another dog understand the barks differently. Another dog might actually understand the language/meaning behind the bark. He might understand the sexual state or health of the other dog. It might understand things that I can not explain here because me as a human have no experience/thought/concept of those things. A person that is also blind will not even know what a dog is unless he touches or smells one. For him a dog is a hairy thing or a certain size that smells in a certain way. He will have no concept of how the dog looks or what sounds it makes. If he gets bitten out of a sudden by a dog, he will think a dog is an acute pain. He will not understand why that pain occurred to him. If the person that is not blind nor deaf tells him "you stepped on his tail and he was already aggressive because he was barking really loud" it makes more sense but nowhere close to how much sense it makes to the non-impaired person. Everybody will be correct in how they perceive the dog and the barking but ONLY within their interval of perception and understanding.
The scientific method is not a method of being objective in an absolute manner but of being objective within your own accepted interval of subjectivity. The double blind test provides objective measurement only within the interval given by the assumption that the fart of a unicorn in some parallel universe does not affect the measurement. It relies on an assumption. All science relies on assumptions and agreements about this interval. Math relies on same thing. Everything relies on this. Because of this, anything that is determined by science is valid ONLY within this interval. The moment you expand this interval, the "rules" you accepted as valid up to that point may change.
More than that, the perception produces concepts which may not be what they are being perceived as. In other words a scientist might think he knows what light is (wave and photon particles). But that's not what light is. That is what light is within a "reality slice" he or his level of perception and understanding imposed. Light can not be FOR HIM more than this unless he finds a way to expand his sensory system and understanding.
Assume you are born deaf and everybody on the planet is born deaf. You look at a dog that is barking. You scientifically prove the dog is sometimes opening and closing his mouth, especially when he's aggressive towards you. Perfectly valid. If I tell you the dog is not doing that but barking and what you see (mouth opening) is simply something that comes along with the barking, in a way as a less important side effect, or rather a requirement for the barking to be possible, you simply do not understand that. You can understand what barking is but you will define it as a dog opening and closing his mouth. I will define it as a dog making a noise that has certain inflections based on the dog's state (friendly and playful or aggressive). You have no idea what a noise is, hence my explanation means nothing to you. My understanding as a person that is not deaf is more extended than yours but still limited. Another dog understand the barks differently. Another dog might actually understand the language/meaning behind the bark. He might understand the sexual state or health of the other dog. It might understand things that I can not explain here because me as a human have no experience/thought/concept of those things. A person that is also blind will not even know what a dog is unless he touches or smells one. For him a dog is a hairy thing or a certain size that smells in a certain way. He will have no concept of how the dog looks or what sounds it makes. If he gets bitten out of a sudden by a dog, he will think a dog is an acute pain. He will not understand why that pain occurred to him. If the person that is not blind nor deaf tells him "you stepped on his tail and he was already aggressive because he was barking really loud" it makes more sense but nowhere close to how much sense it makes to the non-impaired person. Everybody will be correct in how they perceive the dog and the barking but ONLY within their interval of perception and understanding.
jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
ShadeDream
BANNED
- Nov 27, 2008
- 2,296
- 5,536
Thread solved by madoctopus.
blindscout
Newbie
- May 7, 2013
- 6
- 2
This is magic
He clearly sold his soul to the devil