OK, “Science doesn’t claim to be the final truth, know the final truth, or actually be concerned with ‘truth’ at all.”
Why does science exist at all then.
Spirituality is concerned with truth.
How are my statements false? You made a claim, now back it up.
Everyday, I am never bored with learning new things.
Are you telling us that there can’t be an almost palpable energy, either positive or negative, when a crowd gathers for certain events?
The expression “the atmosphere was so thick you could slice it with a knife” didn’t arise out of nothing.
You go first.
Fair enough. I claimed Lekatt cites science when he thinks it supports him. As evidence of this claim, I point to his many references to quantum mechanics. And this quote
Note that he calls the experiments on the video “good science”
I further claimed that when science proved him wrong, he attempted to discredit and dismiss it. After Begebert debunked the experiments in the video using the scientific method, Lekatt says
and
What do these quotes say if not to dismiss and discredit science?
I made claims. I have provided evidence for those claims.
When a crowd gathers certainly the density, sheer number of people, and all of their sensory cues create a kind of feedback loop. But this is purely a reaction of human beings to the presence of other human beings. Other than noise and body heat, there is no measurable, tangible energy.
Science isn’t interested in ‘truth’. There is nothing in science that is ‘true’. Only in math can something have the value ‘true’. You really should learn something about science and the scientific method, it could really help when you’re trying to use science to give your beliefs credibility. Or maybe not.
Yeah, it’s too bad it’s never actually been able to find anything that’s true. I mean, you’d think after all these years, we’d have some evidence of something in spirituality being true. All that effort, all the time, and nothing whatsoever.
I did do a good job proving beyond rational doubt that the “science” you in that video was flawed in pretty much every way and proved nothing, didn’t I? Though I can’t take too much credit - it wasn’t me, but instead the plain facts that disproved your position. I didn’t invent the XOR function, after all; I just pointed it out and explained it.
And seriously here, even in this comment you are exhibiting a lot of snark. For somebody who is prosteletizing positive feelings, shouldn’t you avoid letting the antics of pesky heretics and their pesky true facts bother you?
Well, it still exists, if that’s what you mean. I did point out the facts that prove that it is a load of unmitigated horseshit, though.
[quote=“DocCathode, post:247, topic:502274”]
When a crowd gathers certainly the density, sheer number of people, and all of their sensory cues create a kind of feedback loop. But this is purely a reaction of human beings to the presence of other human beings. Other than noise and body heat, there is no measurable, tangible energy.[/QUOT
What is a feedback loop? Probably some like consciousness, can’t be measured but we know its there, right.
There is nothing is this world that can’t be explain as spiritual, nor anything that can’t be explained as physical. Wisdom comes from knowing the difference.
Camping on one side or the other is ignorance.
You are giving your opinion, nothing more, without some knowledge of the research, talking with those who did the research and investigating it, your opinion is worthless. Worse that worthless because you may be comdemning a fine scientist and not know it. But you are collecting Karma.
XOR, baby, XOR. (And if you think that it’s just my opinion that these REGs use an XOR filter, then look into it yourself! Because I already did - enough to learn that they’re standard (and for obvious reasons, too).)
So yeah. I have the knowledge of the hardware, and the nature of the hardware on its own proves that any deviation in the output cannot possibly be effected by happy thoughts - even if you do accept for the sake of argument that happy thoughts can effect things. So inevitably, inarguably, undeniably, any science that attaches these conclusions to this experiment is methodologically flawed (regardless of how fine the scientist is in other pursuits).
I don’t mind collecting the karma of having my errors pointed out to me, when I’m acutally wrong. What do you think of the karma of denying and rejecting the truth, to the point of mischaracterizing the worth of other posters’ non-opinion-based arguments and the intellectual honesty of millions of scientists worldwide?
lekatt, you need to pick a position on science. One moment you decry anything related to science, and the next you call on it to verify your beliefs. You can’t have it both ways.
Science is NOT a set of beliefs. It is a method for approaching knowledge, for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information. The things you’re calling “science” here were not real research. They weren’t double-blind, they weren’t calibrated, there were no definitions of “positive” and “negative” written beforehand, and on and on and on. The entire “experiment” was utterly and completely meaningless. Working to the standards those people used, you could “prove” darned near anything, including the exact opposite of what they claimed to prove.
This is absolutely, blatantly, completely, utterly false. I think I know where part of your misconception comes from, though.
Scientists, for the most part, are skeptics. That means they want good, solid data to back up breakthrough claims. A good scientist is just as skeptical of his fellow scientists as he is of crackpots promoting stuff like Ouija boards or astrology. Many (nowhere close to “all”) breakthrough ideas are doubted at first until enough repeatable laboratory data can be collected to back them up.
Most people who make assertions like yours make reference to scientists who were persecuted for their beliefs hundreds of years ago. The people persecuting them weren’t scientists. They were largely non-scientists like royalty and clergy.
I don’t agree. I am probably just as happy, positive, and uplifted by my personal belief system as you are by yours.
You seem to believe that “positive thinking” consists of believing every unprovable notion thrown your way.
I believe that I’m being very positive and uplifting every time I break the chain of nonsense being distributed by scam artists and their credulous followers.
In what way? Spirituality is concerned with blind unquestioning belief. Those who promote it discourage the search for truth.
You knew all that just by watching the video? What a genus you must be, but pardon me if I don’t believe you. I know thoughts create our reality. You might also if you just take some time to think about it and notice how thought preceded everything in your life.
No, I know all that because, like I said, I did my own research, which very rapidly unearthed the website http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html, which I linked in my prior post where I first explained XOR to you. It doesn’t exactly take a genius to click a link or read a website.
Of course, this isn’t the first encounter I’ve had with XOR, though admittedly it’s the first one in the context of normalizing random data. So I might have understood it much more rapidly than the layman. Still, the concept is simple enough: after the 1s and 0s are generated, precisely half of the bits are flipped. This inevitably has the effect of taking any preference the bits have of being more 1s than 0s and completely eliminating it, because that preference is reversed on half of the bits. The XOR is applied to get rid of calibration bias (which naturally occurs) - but the way it works, as you can plainly see, will eliminate any bias that is introduced, including happy-thought bias, becuase half of the bias is flipped in the opposite direction and the two halves cancel each others’ bias out.
There - I’ve explained it a second time. Surely it doesn’t take a genius to comprehend this; it’s pretty simple, really.
As for your personal belief system, I only respond to the places where it disagrees with reality. Of course, one place it disagrees with reality is the claim that “thought preceded everything in your life”. Nothing in my life is preceded by my thoughts, except for the things I do my self. Other things, no. My thoughts don’t make it rain. My thoughts don’t cause power failures. My thoughts don’t cause junkmail to arrive. These things simply happen, apparently due to chains of cause and effect that have little or nothing to do with me, and nothing at all to do with my thoughts or moods at the moment. And nothing about the timing of these events seems to match up with any of my moods or thoughts, either.
Of course, if I was terminally biased, I could convince myself otherwise, like you have. All one needs is a selective memory, a good imagination, and some compelling deep inner need to avoid the obvious explanation. Obviously, the rain is caused by ecological effects like evaporation, wind, and condensation. It’s really quite a stretch to believe that I can cause the rain by washing my car. But, through the power of ignoring all the times when it rained on a dirty car or didn’t rain on a clean one, I can convince myself!
I’m quite certain that that’s what happened with the water freezing experiments, and I’m dead certain that that’s what happened with the people interpreting bias into data that had already been sterilized by the XOR function. And I have no reason to believe that you’re not doing the same thing in your own life as well.
You can’t do anything without thinking about it first, has your arm ever moved unexpectantly, think about it.
I have been posting here for years and not one single time have I ever posted something spiritual that you agreed with, not once.
You are solidly anti-spiritual all the way.
I give up.
Is that a promise?
I don’t think begbert2 is necessarily any more anti-spiritual than I am. The mere fact that people don’t believe every brain fart that’s thrown their direction doesn’t make them anti-spiritual. Forgive us for being skeptical when every single repeatable unbiased experiment having to do with Ouija boards has either been inconclusive or has flat-out shown them not to work.
If I show you all six sides of a die and roll it a thousand times (getting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 every time), can you at least begin to acknowledge that it might not have a seven?
Yay!
I’m sure it is.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty likely that he only considers it to apply to begbert2. The rest of us are on our own.
All people are spiritual, whether they know it or not.
http://www.aleroy.com/blog/?p=1434