|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 10:37:43 [Permalink]
|
| I still dont see any pudding in this thread. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2007 : 10:47:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7
I would think Metaphysics as philosophy would simply be empty debate. |
The reason metaphysics was called "queen of the sciences" is because how we know and what existence is (for two examples) are paramount to the correct interpretation of what we think of as reality. You make ontological and epistemological decisions every day without realizing it - everybody does. Your suggestion that there is an objective reality is a philosophical stance. Yet your suggestion that I am dreaming is a philosophical challenge to the existence of an objective truth.
The never-ending philosophical debates occur when (for example) two people choose to bicker over whose ontology is "better." But for you, Gary, to assert the things you've asserted over the pages few pages, you should at least know the philosophical ramifications of what you're saying (or at least the meanings of a couple of ten-cent words) so that you don't appear to be naively self-contradictory.| My teachers and many others have "experienced" Metaphysics and it does indeed point to a higher order of reality. |
There may very well be a "higher order of reality," Gary, but anyone who calls it "Metaphysics" (especially with a captial M when not referring to Aristotle's treatise) clearly doesn't know what the word means, and instead is using it to bamboozle you. It sounds sciency because it's got the word "physics" in it, and it sounds other-worldly because it's got that weird prefix, "meta-" in it. A prefix which only means "higher" or "beyond" because so many people misinterpreted the word "metaphysics" to mean "transcending physical sciences" when it was never intended to mean that at all.
In my opinion, you're being victimized by your teachers, Gary. For evidence, I present your own posts here on SFN, which make it clear that you don't actually understand what you're saying. You've been conned into repeating new-agey buzzwords without comprehending them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 10:48:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I still dont see any pudding in this thread. |
It came out H.'s nose when he laughed at my earlier post. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 11:18:57 [Permalink]
|
| Dave you have provided plenty of pudding, just not the flavor Gary was expecting. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 15:01:16 [Permalink]
|
OK, more silly experiments with the cat toy pendulum. Straight motion back and forth equals no, circular clockwise movement means yes, and since Gary hasn't told me yet what counterclockwise should mean, I have decided that it means “The cosmos doesn't give a fuck about your petty inquiries.”
Questions with their true answers:
1. Do I dye my hair? YES
2. Am I a registered Libertarian? NO
3. Is Kil a poor speller? YES
4. Is there a case of Bud Light in my fridge? NO
Experiment #1: Rod is taped to my desk with pendulum hanging down. I ask the question and release the fearsome kitten Kubaba to bat at the pendulum to get it moving. Kubaba is then restrained so that the pendulum can work its magic of answering the question. The results: 1. No 2. No 3. Yes 4. No
Experiment #2: The questions are typed up on slips of folded paper and mixed up. I pick each one at random and ask the magical cat toy what the answer to the hidden question is. I hold the rod in my own hand, high enough so the kitten can't interfer. Kubaba watches from below with furious desires to attack the pendulum. The results: 1.Yes 2.Yes 3. Yes 4. No
Both got 75% accuracy but not on the same questions. My conclusion: this shit don't work.
I will now find something more productive to do with my time. Cheers!
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/30/2007 16:25:49 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 16:04:57 [Permalink]
|
Uh, marfknox, you mind re-numbering your answers? Your results do not match your analysis.
As you have them now, both methods have Question #1 as the only incorrect answer. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 16:24:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox...
Both got 75% accuracy but not on the same questions. My conclusion: this shit don't work. |
Much like my results with the pendulum I got from the Vick Lawston's magic catalog when I was a kid. So, Gary, it's been tried, a lot, by several of us. I tried it probably over a decade before you were even born.
But getting to the point: Gary, you've made a claim about the effectiveness of pendulum dowsing, and when asked for evidence for its legitimacy, you've completely bailed out on your responsibility to provide it. You've tried to shift the burden of proof, which is a dishonest tactic of course. But some folks here have humored you anyway.
Now how about you take back that burden of proof, Gary. After all, you own it, all of it. Let's see if you have what it takes to support your claim. Point us to the sources that show dowsing actually works. A couple of research projects would be nice. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journal might be a good start. Or maybe you've published your own research, you know, with quantitative data, real numbers that support your claim.
So what do you say, Gary? Do you actually have the stuff, or are you just all mouth like you appear to be so far? And if you can't actually back up your claim, do you have the integrity, the balls to admit it?
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 16:28:16 [Permalink]
|
Boron wrote: Uh, marfknox, you mind re-numbering your answers? Your results do not match your analysis.
As you have them now, both methods have Question #1 as the only incorrect answer. |
oops! thanks, I fixed it. Questions 3 and 4 were answered correctly by the pendulum both times, but questions 1 and 2 were each answered incorrectly one time. So perhaps the ether somehow knows that Kil can't spell and I hate cheap lagers? ;-)
See, this is probably why I'm an artist and not a scientist. *shrug* |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 18:46:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Both got 75% accuracy but not on the same questions. My conclusion: this shit don't work. |
Getting three correct out of four would happen 25% of the time if you were flipping a coin. The same happening twice in row would be expected 6.25% of the time (one chance in 16). In medical studies, results need to be expected randomly less than 5% of the time (one chance in twenty) for those results to be considered significant. In physics, significancy only adheres at probability values lower than 0.1% (one chance in a thousand).
To be fair to Gary, your study suffers from a tiny sample size for questions, and a teensy weensy sample size for trials (one each for two different methods). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 04:54:16 [Permalink]
|
| never mind |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 07/31/2007 04:56:18 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 10:02:25 [Permalink]
|
Come on you guys have never used a pendulum? Back and forth is "yes", side to side is "no" and a clock wise cirle is "I don't know" and a counter clockwise circle is "I don't want to answer".
I have shown that to lots of people. It is kind of erie because it seems like you are not doing anything - just like dowsing or Ouiji Boards. But I think that Ouiji Boards might be controled by demons I am not sure I can't quite remember.
Dowsing is great fun at a party or get together, cutting 2 coat hangers in a L shape is the easiest to use. I like to show them how it works and then point out that 'you can detect gold with them'! I put my ring on the ground or a chair and then say move the coat hangers over it and they magically cross.
The I say you don't even have to see the gold, and I pretend to put the ring under a mug and low and behold when they put the coat hangers over the cup the coat hangers cross. Course I tell them to check under the cup and see that there is no gold ring there. Then comes the explanation of how it works and why it is nothing supernatural.
But everyone usually wants to try it even if it is not magic because it is kind of wierd and it's lots of fun, in the same way that Satans oiuji board is fun.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 22:21:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
OK, more silly experiments with the cat toy pendulum. Straight motion back and forth equals no, circular clockwise movement means yes, and since Gary hasn't told me yet what counterclockwise should mean, I have decided that it means “The cosmos doesn't give a fuck about your petty inquiries.”
Questions with their true answers:
1. Do I dye my hair? YES
2. Am I a registered Libertarian? NO
3. Is Kil a poor speller? YES
4. Is there a case of Bud Light in my fridge? NO
Experiment #1: Rod is taped to my desk with pendulum hanging down. I ask the question and release the fearsome kitten Kubaba to bat at the pendulum to get it moving. Kubaba is then restrained so that the pendulum can work its magic of answering the question. The results: 1. No 2. No 3. Yes 4. No
Experiment #2: The questions are typed up on slips of folded paper and mixed up. I pick each one at random and ask the magical cat toy what the answer to the hidden question is. I hold the rod in my own hand, high enough so the kitten can't interfer. Kubaba watches from below with furious desires to attack the pendulum. The results: 1.Yes 2.Yes 3. Yes 4. No
Both got 75% accuracy but not on the same questions. My conclusion: this shit don't work.
I will now find something more productive to do with my time. Cheers!
|
Connecting with the higher consciousness is a slow process - your experiment demonstrates nothing except your obvious lack of understanding and experience of the subtle art of Metaphysics.
If you repeated your experiment everyday for 2 years you might make a breakthrough, but actually it requires you to let go of your egoistic mindset that insists all is governed by logic and common sense.
Skeptics must rely on logic, but are severely limited by their lack of experience and understanding of higher states of consciousness. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 22:30:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by GeeMack
Originally posted by marfknox...
Both got 75% accuracy but not on the same questions. My conclusion: this shit don't work. |
Much like my results with the pendulum I got from the Vick Lawston's magic catalog when I was a kid. So, Gary, it's been tried, a lot, by several of us. I tried it probably over a decade before you were even born.
But getting to the point: Gary, you've made a claim about the effectiveness of pendulum dowsing, and when asked for evidence for its legitimacy, you've completely bailed out on your responsibility to provide it. You've tried to shift the burden of proof, which is a dishonest tactic of course. But some folks here have humored you anyway.
Now how about you take back that burden of proof, Gary. After all, you own it, all of it. Let's see if you have what it takes to support your claim. Point us to the sources that show dowsing actually works. A couple of research projects would be nice. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journal might be a good start. Or maybe you've published your own research, you know, with quantitative data, real numbers that support your claim.
So what do you say, Gary? Do you actually have the stuff, or are you just all mouth like you appear to be so far? And if you can't actually back up your claim, do you have the integrity, the balls to admit it?
|
Dowsing works, of course, but when discussing past lives and even more mundane things it is obviously impossible to prove.
The fact that there is also no way to disprove it makes skepticism redundant and unhelpful.
Your preoccupation with the need for proof points to a very primitive mindset. Do you need proof that the universe exists before you get out of bed in the mornings? If you listen to Quantum Mechanics - they say matter is mostly empty space with some tiny particles that flit in and out of our material reality - are we being fooled by our minds?
Is skepticism actually a transparent and time-wasting form of mind control?
Prove to me that it is not!
|
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 22:36:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Gary 7
I would think Metaphysics as philosophy would simply be empty debate. |
The reason metaphysics was called "queen of the sciences" is because how we know and what existence is (for two examples) are paramount to the correct interpretation of what we think of as reality. You make ontological and epistemological decisions every day without realizing it - everybody does. Your suggestion that there is an objective reality is a philosophical stance. Yet your suggestion that I am dreaming is a philosophical challenge to the existence of an objective truth.
The never-ending philosophical debates occur when (for example) two people choose to bicker over whose ontology is "better." But for you, Gary, to assert the things you've asserted over the pages few pages, you should at least know the philosophical ramifications of what you're saying (or at least the meanings of a couple of ten-cent words) so that you don't appear to be naively self-contradictory.| My teachers and many others have "experienced" Metaphysics and it does indeed point to a higher order of reality. |
There may very well be a "higher order of reality," Gary, but anyone who calls it "Metaphysics" (especially with a captial M when not referring to Aristotle's treatise) clearly doesn't know what the word means, and instead is using it to bamboozle you. It sounds sciency because it's got the word "physics" in it, and it sounds other-worldly because it's got that weird prefix, "meta-" in it. A prefix which only means "higher" or "beyond" because so many people misinterpreted the word "metaphysics" to mean "transcending physical sciences" when it was never intended to mean that at all.
In my opinion, you're being victimized by your teachers, Gary. For evidence, I present your own posts here on SFN, which make it clear that you don't actually understand what you're saying. You've been conned into repeating new-agey buzzwords without comprehending them.
|
Metaphysics is the experience and understanding of things that lie beyond the confines of space and time. Because higher conscious does not lie within the space time continuum and cannot be recorded, measured and tested it does not mean the experiences and the conclusions based upon access to these higher states of consciousness are invalid or untruthful. |
|
|
|
Gary 7.1
Skeptic Friend
51 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2008 : 22:54:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7.1
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Gary 7
I would think Metaphysics as philosophy would simply be empty debate. |
The reason metaphysics was called "queen of the sciences" is because how we know and what existence is (for two examples) are paramount to the correct interpretation of what we think of as reality. You make ontological and epistemological decisions every day without realizing it - everybody does. Your suggestion that there is an objective reality is a philosophical stance. Yet your suggestion that I am dreaming is a philosophical challenge to the existence of an objective truth.
The never-ending philosophical debates occur when (for example) two people choose to bicker over whose ontology is "better." But for you, Gary, to assert the things you've asserted over the pages few pages, you should at least know the philosophical ramifications of what you're saying (or at least the meanings of a couple of ten-cent words) so that you don't appear to be naively self-contradictory.| My teachers and many others have "experienced" Metaphysics and it does indeed point to a higher order of reality. |
There may very well be a "higher order of reality," Gary, but anyone who calls it "Metaphysics" (especially with a captial M when not referring to Aristotle's treatise) clearly doesn't know what the word means, and instead is using it to bamboozle you. It sounds sciency because it's got the word "physics" in it, and it sounds other-worldly because it's got that weird prefix, "meta-" in it. A prefix which only means "higher" or "beyond" because so many people misinterpreted the word "metaphysics" to mean "transcending physical sciences" when it was never intended to mean that at all.
In my opinion, you're being victimized by your teachers, Gary. For evidence, I present your own posts here on SFN, which make it clear that you don't actually understand what you're saying. You've been conned into repeating new-agey buzzwords without comprehending them.
|
Metaphysics is the experience and understanding of things that lie beyond the confines of space and time. Because higher conscious does not lie within the space time continuum and cannot be recorded, measured and tested it does not mean the experiences and the conclusions based upon access to these higher states of consciousness are invalid or untruthful.
|
My problem lies with mind control issues. True scientific exploration requires full investigation of new things by all means available.
Yes, even training the mind to reach higher states of consciousness and producing specific information from the perspective of these higher states.
Everything is created by mind - matter cannot be observed without the observer changing it in some way.
Mind consists of different levels of consciousness and can never be restricted by logical argument or stifled by lack of proof under so-called laboratory conditions.
Nor the insistence that words must always convey the same meanings that others in authority have set out for us.
|
| Edited by - Gary 7.1 on 08/27/2008 22:55:34 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Shirley Maclaine & Kevin Ryerson
