Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Why do none of you want to be rich?


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#91    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,209 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 06:52 AM

View PostSimatong, on 30 January 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

Seeker79, with all due respect, I don't see anything wrong with Chrlzs's line of questioning; it's logical to ask questions like this. If we didn't, we'd probably still be stuck with the philosophy of the Medieval Times. If you are going to make a claim about an existence of any kind, whether it be about the origins of those "falling rocks" known as comets or the extraordinary powers of clairvoyance and telekinesis, you must be prepared to be questioned. It is a part of human nature. Plain and simple. If you don't want to answer him, that's all well and good, but please don't imply that his questioning is wrong.
I did not imply that his questioning is wrong :(  I think I made it quit clear that I would indeed ask the same questions; however, I think... no... I know that in a few short sentences I have proven the method is a miserable failure in at least SOME circumstances. but of course I would never pull the...."you don't know enough about science" card. indeed, everything I have stated is rooted in cold logic and modern cosmology. unfortunately many stop logic when they feel satisfied. it's a little thing called confirmation bias ;)

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#92    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,209 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:07 AM

View PostSimatong, on 30 January 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

Seeker79, it doesn't matter if that discipline was different from my own or similar to it. As long as the methods it used were verifiable and methodically sound, I would have no problem with that. I would have no need to be "intellectually dishonest" about something I didn't have. Quite frankly, that would be stupid.
and here in is the problem ..... you cannot put a stipulation like "as long as" and not claim anything other than a severely bias frame of reference. I don't mean to sound condescending, but  can you at least sort of get where I'm coming from?

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#93    Simatong

Simatong

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 78 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "Life is what you make it...So let's make some friggin' ice cream, dude!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:08 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Part of the problem is the division between scientific thought processes, and non scientific, but very human, thought processes.
There really isn't a division between scientific and non-scientific processes when it comes to this case. Whether or not one is of a "scientific" mindset, if you claim extraordinary abilities, expect to hear a request for extraordinary evidence, regardless of whether or not one is of a scientific mindset.
i can speak and read Chinese, Japanese (seriously, I can)..A scientist will doubt me, a lay person will (and implicitly) has doubted me. This has nothing to do with scientific processes. It has everything to with people desiring to see evidence of something they may consider "extraordinary".

View PostMr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Scientific thought processes and procedures work fine within the confines of science They are also helpful in everday life, but they are self limiting. If a scientific minded person saw a unicorn, his/her mind would run through a different set of thougths to a non scientist, starting from a different point.  For example  they might think, "Science says unicorns cant/dont exist, therefore I am hallucinating or misperceiving what i see."

My own mind would tend to say. "Oh that looks like a  unicorn. Lets apply scientific observation and thought to ascertain its independent existence and biological classification, or lack thereof."
First of all, a scientific mind may not necessarily assume on the spot that the aforementioned creature is a unicorn. Many a scientific mind might say it look like a unicorn, but would be hesitant to jump to that conclusion. Jumping to an unfounded conclusion is not a part of the scientific process. Many people assumed that the sun was made of fire. Science tells us it is not. Just because something looks like something, it doesn't  necessarily make it what you think it is make it what you

View PostMr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Another person might say. "Oh a unicorn. How nice." and just accept it at face value.
We dont get a chance to do lab tests and peer reviews on many natural occurences BUT, many independent sightings and experiences are, in a way, the same as peer tested reviews of scientific observations. And they can be used create  theories, to modify and even challenge or test existing perceptions(theories) about things like precogniton or obes or ghosts.
Theories can be made about what the people saw, but if what they saw cannot be independently verified, their claims cannot necessarily be used to modify or challenge existing perceptions; in order for something to be challenged, there oftentimes needs to be evidence of something that can challenge said thing. You cannot challenge something with virtually nothing. While anecdotal evidence can be argued to have its uses, anecdotal evidence is prone to such things as confirmation bias, selective memory and an unconscious modification of memory. So, while it can be seen as valuable to a degree, its reliability is oftentimes quite limited

View PostMr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

  For example if there are 10,000 recorded sightings of angels over history form all human cultures and ALL of them are basically consistent in description one could write up a scientific theory about the nature of angels Then one could look at all current and new sightings and check the descritors in them to verify how closley they approximate classical descriptions And so on.
How are we to know that these cultures ALL saw angels? There are some people who say that certain depictions of certain creatures in one culture seem similar to another, like gnomes in the UK having similar counterparts in Mexico, but these are projections made by certain people that are psychologically superimposed on the myths/legends of another. As I said before, just because you assume it is one thing, it doesn't necessarily make it so; just because you hear about beings in one area that seem similar to the angels as are described in your area, it doesn't mean they are actually angels, it only means that, at least to you, an angel is the most similar thing you can think of.

View PostMr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

These things ARE amenable to scientific method, they just arent really within the domain of science in the western world.
The are only amenable to scientific methods when and ONLY when they can be independently verified. How can something be amenable to a scientific method if there is nothing to test; you can't test anecdotes


#94    Simatong

Simatong

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 78 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "Life is what you make it...So let's make some friggin' ice cream, dude!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:17 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

and here in is the problem ..... you cannot put a stipulation like "as long as" and not claim anything other than a severely bias frame of reference. I don't mean to sound condescending, but  can you at least sort of get where I'm coming from?
There is no bias;  ANY worthy line of inquiry questions the methodology and falsifiability of any and all circumstances regarding the thing being questioned, otherwise it is meaningless. Any kind of "show me"-like inquire explicitly requires that the claims you make be verifiable in one form or another,and one needs to see if they are falsifiable; if you are going to show someone something, you must have evidence and sound data of what your're showing, otherwise it is pointless


#95    Simatong

Simatong

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 78 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "Life is what you make it...So let's make some friggin' ice cream, dude!

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:20 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

yes, I would probably ask those very questions ( please oh please do not resort to the "you don't understand science argument you have far to much potential for   good debate than that old cop out) , probably, but then we would both be  wrong wouldn't we? do you understand what I'm trying to get you to see?
Your statement implies that even though you would ask such questions, it would be wrong doing so.


#96    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,209 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:04 AM

View PostSimatong, on 30 January 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

There is no bias;  ANY worthy line of inquiry questions the methodology and falsifiability of any and all circumstances regarding the thing being questioned, otherwise it is meaningless. Any kind of "show me"-like inquire explicitly requires that the claims you make be verifiable in one form or another,and one needs to see if they are falsifiable; if you are going to show someone something, you must have evidence and sound data of what your're showing, otherwise it is pointless
it's not meaningless. somethings falseifiability has no effect what so ever on its reality only your acceptance of it.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#97    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,209 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

View PostSimatong, on 30 January 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Your statement implies that even though you would ask such questions, it would be wrong doing so.
no not wrong in asking, only wring in assuming . The criteria for discovery would fail to yield the truth. indeed some other  leading theory would b  considered ' truth' and it would be wholly categorically wrong.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#98    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:45 AM

View PostSimatong, on 30 January 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

Chrlzs,
Strictly out of curiosity (and nothing more, really). How long do you think these tests should last? Do you think a couple of days would suffice? A couple of weeks? Months? Maybe a year? I ask this simply because to me, in order to get a satisfactory answer, I personally wouldn't be satisfied until there was at least a couple of weeks or months worth of testing. Then again, you are talking to a guy who spent nearly his entire high school years and about half of his college years testing himself rigorously. (I just got done taking a zener card test online, made by a parapsychologist who seems legit, and I didn't stop until after more than 2500 guesses and had calculated everything).

It could be as quick as an hour or two..! especially if there has been a new discovery, or perhaps an application of new technology that suddenly reveals something we were unable to perceive previously.  Eg, a telescope being invented that suddenly revealed Jupiter's Moons..  :D

It really depends on the answers to those questions - and if it needs to get right down to the extensive testing, then one would simply look for what might be termed statistically *compelling* results..  A lot depends on the quality of the tests/experiments - they need to be carefully designed to be fair, but also unequivocal  (as any scientist, statistician or even pollster, educator or interviewer will tell you..).

In particular, the evaluation and testing would most definitely NOT involve any subjective assessments, like the sort of dreck you often see when someone (for example) remotely views a room, and then says vague stuff like: "I sense a wetness, maybe dampness.." and the evaluator says OMG, there's a glass of water over on the sink. 1 CORRECT!!

And I'd repeat & combine two aphorisms:
The plural of anecdote isn't data, and data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge isn't.. WISDOM.

Edited by Chrlzs, 30 January 2013 - 11:46 AM.

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#99    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 30 January 2013 - 11:53 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

yes, I would probably ask those very questions
Good-oh!  So what is the logical progression from that...?

Quote

( please oh please do not resort to the "you don't understand science argument..
Well, I may have to, especially if you seem to be unaware of what falsifiability actually is...  But let's leave that for later - please cut to the chase..

Quote

do you understand what I'm trying to get you to see?
Nope.  I genuinely don't.  And the fact that you would ask the same questions hardly provides an obvious differentiation, you'd have to concede, surely...?

As this is public discussion forum, I think you should just explain exactly what you mean and where you are heading.  Treat me as if I didn't have a clue..  I'd rather we worked this through from very basic principles anyway..

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#100    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,466 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

View PostSimatong, on 30 January 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

There really isn't a division between scientific and non-scientific processes when it comes to this case. Whether or not one is of a "scientific" mindset, if you claim extraordinary abilities, expect to hear a request for extraordinary evidence, regardless of whether or not one is of a scientific mindset.
i can speak and read Chinese, Japanese (seriously, I can)..A scientist will doubt me, a lay person will (and implicitly) has doubted me. This has nothing to do with scientific processes. It has everything to with people desiring to see evidence of something they may consider "extraordinary".


First of all, a scientific mind may not necessarily assume on the spot that the aforementioned creature is a unicorn. Many a scientific mind might say it look like a unicorn, but would be hesitant to jump to that conclusion. Jumping to an unfounded conclusion is not a part of the scientific process. Many people assumed that the sun was made of fire. Science tells us it is not. Just because something looks like something, it doesn't  necessarily make it what you think it is make it what you


Theories can be made about what the people saw, but if what they saw cannot be independently verified, their claims cannot necessarily be used to modify or challenge existing perceptions; in order for something to be challenged, there oftentimes needs to be evidence of something that can challenge said thing. You cannot challenge something with virtually nothing. While anecdotal evidence can be argued to have its uses, anecdotal evidence is prone to such things as confirmation bias, selective memory and an unconscious modification of memory. So, while it can be seen as valuable to a degree, its reliability is oftentimes quite limited


How are we to know that these cultures ALL saw angels? There are some people who say that certain depictions of certain creatures in one culture seem similar to another, like gnomes in the UK having similar counterparts in Mexico, but these are projections made by certain people that are psychologically superimposed on the myths/legends of another. As I said before, just because you assume it is one thing, it doesn't necessarily make it so; just because you hear about beings in one area that seem similar to the angels as are described in your area, it doesn't mean they are actually angels, it only means that, at least to you, an angel is the most similar thing you can think of.


The are only amenable to scientific methods when and ONLY when they can be independently verified. How can something be amenable to a scientific method if there is nothing to test; you can't test anecdotes
Again I am not talking about transferrable proofs/ There is no such thing as "extraordinary"  merely "uncommon" And it is foolish and dare i say unscientific :innocent:  to accept common experiences without the same proofs as uncommon ones. Eg how do YOU know you cant walk through a wall ? Because science tells you you can't, because you believed someone else who told you, you could not,  or because you have tried to and found it painful?

In life we do NOT use scientific method and verificaiton to liveby. Heck thats only been invented for a few thousand years and only refined in the last few hundred, We live by what we know and learn through personal experience An uncommon experience needs no more verifications for an individual, than a common one.

Wwhy on earth should i doubt you speak chinese. I sent last year teaching basic chinese to 25, 13 year olds via open access. I still can hardly speak a word of it but they are doing great guns and moving into year 9 chinese. (We had a chinese speaking tutor online using interactive whiteboards and web cams to actually impart the language skills.)
"Ni hao.  Wo shi Adalyaren." is about my limit. (pinyin)

As you point out, the way a person is taught to think predicates their response to a situation. A scientist WILL be more dubious about the uniicorn because he/she is taught to be. But I also would make no assumptions.

However, if something looked like a uncorn acted like a unicorn and fitted the biological parameters of a unicorn, then perhaps it is a unicorn whehter peole believe unicorns exist or not. The next step is to ask how it got here and what it is doing which might alos explain its true nature. But some people get so hung up in doubt and disbelief they cant accept the evidence of their own eyes and senses. Others unquestioningly accept what they sense. Neither will help them get to the truth.

Independent verification includes another independent witness or observer When tens of thousands of humans have see ghosts then something we define as ghosts has an existence. When tens of thousands of people have seen angels, then something which we define as angels exist. This is no difernt to a rare animla or plant seen only by a few people If science does not or can not accept this,  then science is failing in a significant part of human experience.
Angel is only a christian and modern linguistic label, but stories and descriptions of beings of light and  other visitors coming to help and bring messages go back as early as human history and cross all human cultures.

It intrigues me that i had never read the bible, yet i saw an being which later on i realised matched one biblical description of an angel ie a tall, extremely bright pillar or column of light, which contained within it a sapient presence which spoke to me, altered the environment around me, and changed my own chemical balance as it said it would do.

I did not label it an angel until after a year or more of research when i realised tha this was what it best fit.  My first thought was of a transmat beam and i honestly expected a being to step out of it next to me. Humans label and cateforise everything using certain parameters. I call these beings angels because they fit the paramenters of the label angel.

I have seen a beautiful young man in an expensive suit bring me a bible and be observed by a dozen nurses in a ward. I then observed him go out onto a balcony, isolated five floors above the ground. Within a few seconds he had simply vanished. I was going out the only door to speak to him and he was gone. The bible  he brought to me and the memories of him stayed with me and with the nurses, who kept asking who he was..

If someone sees a dog in france and another person sees a dog in australia they are probably both dogs. if i look at a picture of a dog in a book my brain can tell me it is a dog because of the way our memories of images and labels attach to individual neurons.. Of course in some places they might be foxes hyenas or coyotes. For me, thats close enough to a dog .

The point is they are real, even if slightly different .And people will describe a dog differently, depending on their own powers of observation and knowledge of dogs Our new neighbour has two bernese mountain dogs We knew they were dogs but had to look up a couple of dog books to find their exact classification.  But i do not need scientific verification to know they are real and that they are dogs.
And if you cant test anecdotes or individual experinces, science will never know a lot of humanity's experinces. In fact of course you can. A scientific report is nothing more than an anecdotal record from the observer. If another observer sees the same thing the two anecdotes confirm each other. If a hundred observers confirm, anecdotally, the same results, you have science in the making.
"psychologically superimposed' LOL what sort of wollies do you think humans are? Why psychologically superimpose an angel any more than dog or a cat. You know the saying.

"If it looks like an angel, walks like an angel, and talks like an angel, then invite her out on  a date."

Edited by Mr Walker, 30 January 2013 - 12:21 PM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#101    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:00 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Wwhy on earth should i doubt you speak chinese. I sent last year teaching basic chinese...

Forgive me for just picking out this gem, but... not more than a few posts ago, I was reprimanded by MW for accepting the story about the jumping dolphin...  Anyone spot the irony?

Anyway, I shall not keep trying to walk through walls.  I am quite satisfied that the chances of positive results of that experiment are insufficient to justify the pain and embarrassment, and I'm happy with what the scientific establishment, close minded they may be, tells me about those chances.

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#102    CakeOrDeath

CakeOrDeath

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:17 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The Proof is in the "peeas nuhhh burder"

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:52 PM

Mr. Walker loves derailing my posts...heh...I'm still looking to hear from some people who can shoot lasers from their fingers to post in here.  Notice, this forum has PLENTY of superheroes in this section alone, and yet the only 3 "specials" bothering to post are Jesus2.0, the "astral walking" Shaman and Simatong.

Simatong, I have enjoyed reading your responses,  you seem to be willing to atleast apply some measured approach to the special powers debate.

But again, you guys have gotten off topic - so I will try to re-engage and right the ship so to speak.

To Mr. Walker and Seeker couple of questions:

1 - do you believe that people can create psi-balls, a physical manifestation of enegery in their palms of varying strengths and hurl them or bounce them about?
2 - do you beleive that people can focus their mind on an object and either move it or incinerate it?
3 - do you believe that people levitate themselves off the ground in their physical form not "astral dream form" or "angel form"

Ok if you believe in 1 through 3 or frankly any of the above, why do you believe it?  And more importantly, since you are the "spokespeople" for the superfriends, why is it such an unreasonable request for the rest of humanity to want to witness and learn about these abilities?

Edited by CakeOrDeath, 30 January 2013 - 04:53 PM.

What time is it? "peeas nuh burder" and Jelly time!

#103    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,209 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:


Good-oh!  So what is the logical progression from that...?


Well, I may have to, especially if you seem to be unaware of what falsifiability actually is...  But let's leave that for later - please cut to the chase..


Nope.  I genuinely don't.  And the fact that you would ask the same questions hardly provides an obvious differentiation, you'd have to concede, surely...?

As this is public discussion forum, I think you should just explain exactly what you mean and where you are heading.  Treat me as if I didn't have a clue..  I'd rather we worked this through from very basic principles anyway..
I think my example makes it quit clear. The methodology is ultimately flawed. It works fine and dandy for most things, but ultimately it has a horizon that it cannot cross. Why? Because its fixated on the empirical. Building theories with only pieces of the puzzle dooms the theory to most likely be utterly wrong. If you were living during that epoc, the data about how the universe really works would be completely unavailable to you. Because of this you would probably stack your eggs in a basket that only involved this galaxy, much like was done before galaxies were discovered. And of course you would be utterly wrong.

Because of this empirical fundamentalism scientific knowledge is limited.

Thank goodness courts are not fixated totally on empirical data. A closer truth is obtained through empirical, circumstantial, and anecdotal of credible witnesses.  If I disarmed a bad guy that just killed Somone  and he got shot in the process, empirical fundumentalism would throw me in jail for two murders, even if three Witnesses saw exactly what happened. It would be my finger prints on the gun and powder burns on my arm. It would be a slam dunk. A falsifiable theory backed up by solid evidence, but of course missing key pieces of information because they cannot be empirically verified.

What if that same person from my example said, come on I'll show you? It's going to be a bit of work, you are going to have to meditate for several years maby more, you are going to have to develop a skill, but ultimately you will see and learn things that you never thought possible. Would you take him up on it?  An opertunity to verify for yourself. You did say "show me"? Right?

Edited by Seeker79, 30 January 2013 - 05:19 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#104    CakeOrDeath

CakeOrDeath

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:17 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The Proof is in the "peeas nuhhh burder"

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:19 PM

Ugg Seeker79 since it is my topic and all, would you consider responding to my inquiry?  I love Chrlz, but you guys have moved into a different area of debate, regarding what constitures "evidence" etc. but you haven't even commented on the thread topic.

Remember this isn't an astral projection spirit quest or vision quest thread.

In case you missed it here it is:
1 - do you believe that people can create psi-balls, a physical manifestation of enegery in their palms of varying strengths and hurl them or bounce them about?
2 - do you beleive that people can focus their mind on an object and either move it or incinerate it?
3 - do you believe that people levitate themselves off the ground in their physical form not "astral dream form" or "angel form"

Ok if you believe in 1 through 3 or frankly any of the above, why do you believe it?  And more importantly, since you are the "spokespeople" for the superfriends, why is it such an unreasonable request for the rest of humanity to want to witness and learn about these abilities?

Edited by CakeOrDeath, 30 January 2013 - 05:19 PM.

What time is it? "peeas nuh burder" and Jelly time!

#105    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,209 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 30 January 2013 - 06:20 PM

View PostCakeOrDeath, on 30 January 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Ugg Seeker79 since it is my topic and all, would you consider responding to my inquiry?  I love Chrlz, but you guys have moved into a different area of debate, regarding what constitures "evidence" etc. but you haven't even commented on the thread topic.

Remember this isn't an astral projection spirit quest or vision quest thread.

In case you missed it here it is:
1 - do you believe that people can create psi-balls, a physical manifestation of enegery in their palms of varying strengths and hurl them or bounce them about?
2 - do you beleive that people can focus their mind on an object and either move it or incinerate it?
3 - do you believe that people levitate themselves off the ground in their physical form not "astral dream form" or "angel form"

Ok if you believe in 1 through 3 or frankly any of the above, why do you believe it?  And more importantly, since you are the "spokespeople" for the superfriends, why is it such an unreasonable request for the rest of humanity to want to witness and learn about these abilities?
No. I have never seen any of those things happen, so I tend to not believe that they are true. However, I have had enough experiences to not totally discount anything. As I think I stated before, if things like that do exist, it is my guess that the type of person to have them will not be the type of person to profit off of it. Those skills would be here for a very specific reason and only extremely disciplined people would be able to achieve them which means they are disciplined enough to not care for profiting from it. But yeah in all likely hood none of those physical powers are real. Does that disqualify me as  a spokesperson for the superfriends? Darn it!!! I rather like the title.

As to the thread side shoots are common. It's the normal progression of conversation. It can't be helped :(  . We are discussing how people process information which has much bearing on the topic.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users