Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
CakeOrDeath

Why do none of you want to be rich?

140 posts in this topic

I'm not going to try to keep up with all that on my little iPhone, but you are missing the point on a few of the issues. But i dont have the energy to argue about it other than to say that our methodology is good... I like it. Just severely flawed in a few departments. Yes it's the best we can do right now, that's fine, but would awfully egocentric to believe that it is the only method of inquiry. It's not my job to show anybody... There are indeed things that can only be experienced, I can't show you what bubble gum tastes like, you have to chew it. But I would not expect an empiricist to understand that there certain kinds of knowledge that must be experienced it goes against the dogmas of their mode of thinking. Some things do not have language equivalents . Why do i think our model of the universe is probably wrong.... Precidence. Every other model before it has been wrong, there is no reason to assume we got it 100% right. For example, we base the age of the universe off of the furthest galaxies we can see, yet we know that when we look in the other direction we can see just as far. Those two galaxies are further away in light years than the age of the universe. The furthest known galaxy from earth is 13.3 billion light years. It's just after the birth of the universe at 13.7. It's been traveling that long to get here.... But wait 13.3 billions years ago it was fairly close because the universe was new. Why do we see it as it looked then? It's because space itself is expanding quite near the speed of light between us... But wait dosnt this mean that there are probably more galaxies beyond that horizon. We are not the center of the universe. There must be galaxies beyond the expansion horizon. But these are realms hidden to us, and the empiricist must only use data that is obtainable. In the end they only use red shifts, cooling of cosmic background radiation, backwards extrapolations of the cosmological constant given to us by distant supernova, age of the oldest white dwarfs... Etc etc. the white elephant in the room is that all this data is comeing from the matter and radiation we can see, yet we know there is potentially a vast portion of the universe that is speeding away from us faster than the speed of light. Indeed our current models predict evenchually this will happen between all galaxies. If we are going to consider us in an average position, we are missing nearly half the universe from our information gathering. 20 billion light years, there could be a race of people looking at another 13.3 billion light years away in the other direction. I suspect the universe is much older than anticipated, and the the focus on the empirical misses the boat because it cannot take into account parts of a universe that are effectively out of this univers, but whe know logically must

Correction. Not every model before it has been wrong. Even data collected thousands of years ago has been shown on many occasions to be correct or off only by the slightest of margins. Many scientists have well established that there may be stars and galaxies older than the ones we can see, and that some of the things in the event horizon may be indicative of a previous universe. However, we are not talking about a previous universe. We are talking about the present one The age of the universe is an estimation. Again, no scientist worth a hill of beans would make a claim that it is definitive.

When it comes to tasting gum,you are comparing apples and oranges; Taste is in some ways subjective. How one thing tastes to one person may have a somewhat different taste and appeal to another. The proof showing the existence of psi phenomena would not be subjective; either you can demonstrate it or not.

But we really should get back to CakeorDeath's point, which is, how come with so many of these Jeanies can't at least one of them show their ability to a scientist if they are so great and boastful. For those who have a sense of humility and genuineness about their statement, I won't pressure them. But with all these Jeanies and Stormies out there whose only psionic ability seems to be irritating people with their pseudo-powers, either put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with CorD, this is getting off topic, so I'll try to keep this brief:

I think my example makes it quit clear.
What you think isn't important - I asked you to properly clarify. You didn't, and haven't in this post either..
The methodology is ultimately flawed.
Opinion, no supporting evidence.
It works fine and dandy for most things, but ultimately it has a horizon that it cannot cross.
Handwaving - clearly define the 'horizon' and state precisely why it no longer works.
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.
Ridiculous - read my questions again (remember, the ones you agreed with?)- they are clearly intended to get at the truth, indeed one of the most important ones was to simply ask - does your theory explain things better? If it doesn't, then game over. As it dang well should be.
Because of this empirical fundamentalism scientific knowledge is limited.
More handwaving. Scientific knowledge is indeed limited.. to that which is properly evidenced and 'real' and works. I'm good with that. What I don't like is the attitude that the allegedly paranormally gifted refuse to 'share' their skills with science. And there's a very obvious, Occam's Razor-ish, viable explanation for why that might be. It isn't the one you are pushing.
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
Oh, now there's a surprise. Your hypothetical example suddenly got very involved and now needs the investment of a huge amount of time along with unwavering faith - why is that? Is it required to train non-believers' simplistic and inferior minds to the higher states needed to grasp these unbelievably complex issues? Is it required for the lengthy but essential indoctrination / brainwashing..? Or is it that you need to make the whole thing sound so unpleasant that I'll say I wouldn't bother? Yes, there's a point where a hypothetical just gets too ridiculous to respond to.
You did say "show me"? Right?
Yes, I did. And to date neither you or anyone has done so, instead preferring to orate at great length on various excuses.

Well, then, let's just go with your hypothetical.. Get started. Begin the process now - I mean, I may not get it, but surely other higher beings are reading - they will benefit. Who cares if 'showing me' takes a year or two? Just get on with it.

Again, why would you withhold this stuff? - seems very selfish to me..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with CorD, this is getting off topic, so I'll try to keep this brief:

What you think isn't important - I asked you to properly clarify. You didn't, and haven't in this post either..

Opinion, no supporting evidence.

Handwaving - clearly define the 'horizon' and state precisely why it no longer works.

Ridiculous - read my questions again (remember, the ones you agreed with?)- they are clearly intended to get at the truth, indeed one of the most important ones was to simply ask - does your theory explain things better? If it doesn't, then game over. As it dang well should be.

More handwaving. Scientific knowledge is indeed limited.. to that which is properly evidenced and 'real' and works. I'm good with that. What I don't like is the attitude that the allegedly paranormally gifted refuse to 'share' their skills with science. And there's a very obvious, Occam's Razor-ish, viable explanation for why that might be. It isn't the one you are pushing.

Oh, now there's a surprise. Your hypothetical example suddenly got very involved and now needs the investment of a huge amount of time along with unwavering faith - why is that? Is it required to train non-believers' simplistic and inferior minds to the higher states needed to grasp these unbelievably complex issues? Is it required for the lengthy but essential indoctrination / brainwashing..? Or is it that you need to make the whole thing sound so unpleasant that I'll say I wouldn't bother? Yes, there's a point where a hypothetical just gets too ridiculous to respond to.

Yes, I did. And to date neither you or anyone has done so, instead preferring to orate at great length on various excuses.

Well, then, let's just go with your hypothetical.. Get started. Begin the process now - I mean, I may not get it, but surely other higher beings are reading - they will benefit. Who cares if 'showing me' takes a year or two? Just get on with it.

Again, why would you withhold this stuff? - seems very selfish to me..

Do you want to give it a shot? I'm completely willing to put up if you will. I do it everyday. I never said science is not aimed at the truth. It's the bias and dogma that creeps into the institution That disturbs me. I rather like science and would rather see it free of such constraints. Just like I'd like to see the FDA actually concerned with concumers, just like I'd like to see the American cancer association actually be interested in curing and preventing cancer, just like I'd like to see politicians actually represent their constituents. Unfortunately I was formally trained in economics and I know intimately as a science ( a social science) that institutions and most people follow incentives not the truth. Scientific institutions and universities included.

Anyway I'm breaking my new years resolution to not argue anymore ( although I appreciate that no one here has resorted to adhominimns I'm so sick of them).

If you want to see, I'll follow up personally with you. Be warned, I can be a bit of an effort, but I'll stick with you until you get the verification that you need. Let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction. Not every model before it has been wrong. Even data collected thousands of years ago has been shown on many occasions to be correct or off only by the slightest of margins. Many scientists have well established that there may be stars and galaxies older than the ones we can see, and that some of the things in the event horizon may be indicative of a previous universe. However, we are not talking about a previous universe. We are talking about the present one The age of the universe is an estimation. Again, no scientist worth a hill of beans would make a claim that it is definitive.

When it comes to tasting gum,you are comparing apples and oranges; Taste is in some ways subjective. How one thing tastes to one person may have a somewhat different taste and appeal to another. The proof showing the existence of psi phenomena would not be subjective; either you can demonstrate it or not.

But we really should get back to CakeorDeath's point, which is, how come with so many of these Jeanies can't at least one of them show their ability to a scientist if they are so great and boastful. For those who have a sense of humility and genuineness about their statement, I won't pressure them. But with all these Jeanies and Stormies out there whose only psionic ability seems to be irritating people with their pseudo-powers, either put up or shut up.

I'll stand corrected .... Severely Incomplete is a better term I guess. I am trying to put up, but unfortunately the only skeptic with enough Cahunas to ever take me up on it was Sakari. True integrity.

It can be demonstrated, but like you said, we all experience things differently, and the methodology throws out experiences. What I have to offer is a confirmation for you. You will not be able to quantify it any more than you can quantify the taste of bubble gum.

I'm not convinced as much as I used to be that the BB happened the way they say it did. To many holes. We know this horizon must exist, and it would be foolish to think there is not a vast extension of the universe behind it. If it is an end of this universe then it's a moving and expanding end. Think about that for a second. The edges of the universe are expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. By standard physics Dark energy must be beyond infinite.... ( I don't really believe in dark energy something else is happening). There are other holes. If this galaxy looked the way it did 400 or so million years after the bb, then all the galaxies in between were crunched into that space. Then galaxys beyond it's horizon were crunch very close, but would not have been beyond its horizon at that time. This just beggs the question of just how big the big bang really was. If there are galaxy's 100 billon light years away then the entire structure age and nature of the universe is quite different than we ever thought.... Yet again. Then how does this play into qm, string theory, curled dimensions, and how our pinpoint conciousness interacts with it.

Anyway I have experienced things and verified them personally, I just can't reproduce them only show how one might see what I have. which is reproduction. Verification of something seems to be about how many people can experience it, so it's just a matter of numbers. I am convinced if enough people could see the depths of thinks like MW, we might indeed progress a loose this silly and defeated notion that material based methodologies can give us complete answers.

Anyway take care. Good times ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stand corrected .... Severely Incomplete is a better term I guess. I am trying to put up, but unfortunately the only skeptic with enough Cahunas to ever take me up on it was Sakari. True integrity.

Obviously, something is incomplete if you don't have all the pieces yet... No one here even implied that the knowledge was complete. Most scientists themselves don't make such an assessment.

It can be demonstrated, but like you said, we all experience things differently, and the methodology throws out experiences. What I have to offer is a confirmation for you. You will not be able to quantify it any more than you can quantify the taste of bubble gum.

That makes absolutely no sense. The methodology doesn't throw out experience. It is in fact created from it. We all experience a different type of rainbow when we look at it. Methodologies were created to question and bring understanding when considering these experiences. If this experience did not exist, there would be no need to make a methodology to test it. You don't test something that doesn't exist.

Concerning bubble gum, as I said, taste is often subjective. Telekinesis or lasers coming out of the eye sockets would be considered objective evidence; either it can be done by an individual or it can't. You are comparing apples and oranges

I'm not convinced as much as I used to be that the BB happened the way they say it did. To many holes. We know this horizon must exist, and it would be foolish to think there is not a vast extension of the universe behind it. If it is an end of this universe then it's a moving and expanding end. Think about that for a second. The edges of the universe are expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. By standard physics Dark energy must be beyond infinite.... ( I don't really believe in dark energy something else is happening). There are other holes. If this galaxy looked the way it did 400 or so million years after the bb, then all the galaxies in between were crunched into that space. Then galaxys beyond it's horizon were crunch very close, but would not have been beyond its horizon at that time. This just beggs the question of just how big the big bang really was. If there are galaxy's 100 billon light years away then the entire structure age and nature of the universe is quite different than we ever thought.... Yet again. Then how does this play into qm, string theory, curled dimensions, and how our pinpoint conciousness interacts with it.

First of all, many scientists admit to there perhaps being older galaxies and planets and other things beyond the event horizon, but again, we are talking about OUR universe. If there is a galaxy 100 billion light years away, it may be a part of the older universe. If it is a part of our universe, then we would have to rethink the age of the universe.... Welcome to science, where theories and discoveries change at times. However, at present, the evidence suggests 13.7 billion years give or take 59 million years, and these are scientists using methods far beyond the comprehension of myself and (obviously) you.

Anyway I have experienced things and verified them personally, I just can't reproduce them only show how one might see what I have. which is reproduction. Verification of something seems to be about how many people can experience it, so it's just a matter of numbers. I am convinced if enough people could see the depths of thinks like MW, we might indeed progress a loose this silly and defeated notion that material based methodologies can give us complete answers.

Anyway take care. Good times ;)

This entire debate has been basically nothing but a bunch of hand-waving and redirects. Here is a direct question for you. Using what was discussed in the original post... simply answer this question. Can you do telekinesis? Yes or no? Can you incinerate anything? Yes or no? If you could, would you want to show evidence of it? Yes or no.

No more hand-waving, no more talking about the universe. It is a simple question with a simple answer that you seemed to have only answered with increasing amounts of hand-waving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not to try and create any more negative energy here, but if one of the psychics want to email me what they think might be the winning number for the up coming powerball drawing on Saturday then I'd gladly play them. Worse thing that could happen is they don't hit.......just email me before Saturday.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, most of us do not live another reality (unless you are literally able to move to another reality for a time). It doesn't matter if this is on a disabled level or a psionic one, it is still the same reality experienced in different ways. The understanding of a tree as witnessed by a blind person will be different from a person with sight, but it is still the same tree. There is nothing "different" about it

How do you know this? How does the blind person know this? How does a colour blind person know what colour pants he is putting on in the morning? How does the blind man find the tree to sit in its shade on a hot day?

His reality IS different to a sighted person's. And if a person can see physical ghosts, or angels, or god, or something a thousand miles away, then their reality is different again . Of course the universal reality also exists (one is likely to assume) but that is NOT the reality self aware entities live in. They live in a reality which involves their perception of, and engagement with, a much more personal and individualised reality. Feedback from that reality influences their perception of the universal reality and thus creates an even more personalised reality in which they exist.

If we all lived in the same reality we would all BE the same. ie a form of hive mind.

Ps any human can chose to move to another reality, and many of us do it all the time. It does not involve altering the common shared reality but shifting ourself to another time and place by using the abilities of our minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know this? How does the blind person know this? How does a colour blind person know what colour pants he is putting on in the morning? How does the blind man find the tree to sit in its shade on a hot day?

His reality IS different to a sighted person's. And if a person can see physical ghosts, or angels, or god, or something a thousand miles away, then their reality is different again . Of course the universal reality also exists (one is likely to assume) but that is NOT the reality self aware entities live in. They live in a reality which involves their perception of, and engagement with, a much more personal and individualised reality. Feedback from that reality influences their perception of the universal reality and thus creates an even more personalised reality in which they exist.

If we all lived in the same reality we would all BE the same. ie a form of hive mind.

Ps any human can chose to move to another reality, and many of us do it all the time. It does not involve altering the common shared reality but shifting ourself to another time and place by using the abilities of our minds.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. I will say this one more time and then end. Just because you experience reality in a different way, it doesn't make it a different reality, it just means your experience in that reality is different. Period/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not to try and create any more negative energy here, but if one of the psychics want to email me what they think might be the winning number for the up coming powerball drawing on Saturday then I'd gladly play them. Worse thing that could happen is they don't hit.......just email me before Saturday.

:tu:

My wife interrupted me in the middle of this, so I' m not confident, but try 5 7 13 11 41 then 19 ( my birthday) If you are buying multiple tickets include as many multiples of 3 as you can, and more fives and sevens. eg 27 or 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes absolutely no sense at all. I will say this one more time and then end. Just because you experience reality in a different way, it doesn't make it a different reality, it just means your experience in that reality is different. Period/

I am sorry it makes no sense to you. That is because your reality is differnt to mine. :innocent:

As i stated in my original post, it depends on your definition of reality. There are at least two.

The reality which exists indpendent of us (And would exist if there were no self aware observers and participants ) and the reality which exists with us, self aware, within it. These are very different things, but both ARE our reality.

We are like observers in a quantum experiment. Our very existence as observers alters the reality which would otherwise exist without our presence in it.

Finally, an age old question. How does a self aware and perceptive entity distinguish between what would exist without his presence and observation, and that which he perceives to exist?

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry it makes no sense to you. That is because your reality is differnt to mine. :innocent:

As i stated in my original post, it depends on your definition of reality. There are at least two.

The reality which exists indpendent of us (And would exist if there were no self aware observers and participants ) and the reality which exists with us, self aware, within it. These are very different things, but both ARE our reality.

We are like observers in a quantum experiment. Our very existence as observers alters the reality which would otherwise exist without our presence in it.

It's not that my reality is different from yours, it's that your logic doesn't make sense. That in ANY reality, makes conversation very difficult

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that my reality is different from yours, it's that your logic doesn't make sense. That in ANY reality, makes conversation very difficult

My logic makes perfect sense within my world/reality. :devil: To arrive at the same conclusion using logic, one must start at the same (agreed) point. We do not start at the same point, and thus the product of my logic does not fit your reality, although it is utterly logical in terms of classic logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you want to give it a shot?

Give what a shot? Spend five years meditating with you? No.

Listen to / see the best you've got? Yes. Bring it.

I'm completely willing to put up if you will.

I'm not making the claims. I'm happy to publicly show you how to test your (or anyone's) claims if you want - that is, if you can properly define what those claims are.

Better yet, why don't you tell us how you would like to be tested in a fair way, and I will help ensure that any test will be useful and fair to both sides, and point out for you (in very precise detail and with examples) any flaws that might exist in your preferred methodology. You may be surprised to know I've done this before...

I do it everyday.

Then why not 'do it' with a competent scientist (perhaps even a conjurer/magician) watching to see if you are the real deal?

I never said science is not aimed at the truth.

Oh Rly? Why then, did you follow this up with the contradictory snipe..

It's the bias and dogma that creeps into the institution That disturbs me.

So.. give a specific example relevant to the topic of this thread. I am getting rather tired of hearing generalisations and handwaving. Tell me specifically how science is holding you (or any paranormal claimant) back, or why you won't allow your skills to be tested in a scientific fashion.

I rather like science and would rather see it free of such constraints. Just like I'd like to see the FDA actually concerned with concumers, just like I'd like to see the American cancer association actually be interested in curing and preventing cancer, just like I'd like to see politicians actually represent their constituents.

Could you be specific - there is no 'American Cancer Association', afaik. If you mean the American Cancer Society, I think they, and many of their clients, might be a little unhappy with that libelous statement.. Anyway, lamenting that science and politics and money get intertwined is a red herring. Of course they do, and sometimes it goes wrong, or not in the direction you personally would prefer. Yes, agreed.. But show me a better system. Do you think science is free, that it doesn't need funding, that it doesn't have to be prioritised, that bad/incompetent people never get involved and do bad/stupid things?

Well, gee, I guess it *should* be the only human enterprise that is totally free of such things. But I don't live in such a fantasy land. Science does its best. Live with it, or be involved in change instead of trying to use these irrelevancies to excuse your inability/unwillingness to prove your 'art'.

Unfortunately I was formally trained in economics and I know intimately as a science ( a social science) that institutions and most people follow incentives not the truth. Scientific institutions and universities included.

'Unfortunately'? Didn't you know before then, that people & organisations were incentive driven? Did you know that some of those try to balance incentives and actually do it quite well? That some incentives are not actually .. bad, or even monetary?

If you want to see, I'll follow up personally with you.

No, that won't be happening. This is a public discussion forum - if you wish to enlighten me and prove yourself, then enlighten everyone reading. I won't be a party to non-disclosure agreements or behind the scenes dealings. Wouldn't want anyone thinking I was being .. incentivised .., now would we?

Be warned, I can be a bit of an effort, but I'll stick with you until you get the verification that you need. Let me know.

No, don't do it for me. Do it for the forum, thanks. I am fascinated, though - why, exactly, would you want to do this behind closed doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny if I had named this topic "Able to get generate psi balls, but looking for advice on increasing their size" heh then we would have had a wave of posts with all sorts of helpful suggestions.

That just gave me an idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny if I had named this topic "Able to get generate psi balls, but looking for advice on increasing their size" heh then we would have had a wave of posts with all sorts of helpful suggestions.

That just gave me an idea...

I found that plugging myself into the domestic power supply works wonders. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.