Why do you keep saying ‘proof’?
Randi does not require an explanation of how you do something psychic. A simple demonstration gets the money.
I think you’re the one not making a point.
Are you a native English speaker?
a.) Why would God take a million bucks?
b.) Why would someone who can turn water into wine take a million bucks?
c.) Why would someone who could communicate with ghosts take a million bucks?
d.) Why would someone who can access a holo-field of thought determinism take a million bucks? (‘psychic phenomenon’, ‘astrology’ etc…)
It is so absurd to the priniples of logic that anyone who can do this, would do this for James Randi, for a million bucks and some fame. This person would be insane, they would negate the intelligence required to achive and maintain the process; either recursively in the sense of God granting the ability to a prophet, or in the sense of a deterministic model. It would be Hitler times a million, it’s literally catatonia insane. All of these abilities negate the commodity of MONEY, that’s how the fraud works…
You’re basically associating money, and taking money for a process which collapses the resource of money. James Randi is profiting off of the same system dynamic as the people he’s ‘revealing’.
-Justhink
Well, presumably God wouldn’t need a million bucks. Then again, why would God, according to the Gospel according to John, provide wine for drunken guests at a wedding? If God wanted to demonstrate his power to skeptics, in a way they would have to acknowledge, turning water into wine under labortary conditions would be one way to do it. Getting James Randi’s money would be secondary; getting James Randi to publicly say “Well what do you know, somebody actually won my bet” would be the point. Then Randi could write the Gospel according to Randi or the Epistle to CSICOP or something and win many converts for the Lord.
Because they needed the money? Because they wanted the money? At this point, all we know is that they can turn water into wine. We don’t know anything else about them–if all they can do is turn water into wine, they’d still need money–man does not live by wine alone. They might need money to buy water or pay their water bill. And again, winning James Randi’s bet might be done for reasons other than the money–fame and glory, for example. Or simply a desire to show the world the truth. Or for that matter, a desire to find the truth. If I woke up one day with an inexplicable ability to perform transmutations or levitations or set things on fire by looking at them just right, Randi or someone like him would be who I would go to, not some “parapsychologist” with a dubious reputation and demonstrable problems at designing properly controlled experiments–partly because I’d wonder if I was losing my mind, partly because I’d want to know what had happened to me and what was going on. I’d take Randi’s million dollars and use it to fund further research. (Although, as stated above, it’s not logically impossible that scientists would find my new ability to levitate #2 Faber-Castel pencils–and only #2 Faber-Castel pencils–precisely 13.7 centimeters above whatever surface they were resting on whenever I, and only I, recited the alphabet backwards to be forever inexplicable no matter much money they threw at it. At this point, I guess we as a civilization would have to throw science out the window, pretty much.)
Same answer(s) as to point “b”, above.
Why would someone who can use an interferometer to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background take money from the University of Chicago? Probably because, once again, even people who can use interferometers to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background have to eat, pay the rent, buy new shoes for the kids, maybe go to the movies or buy a couple of music CD’s…
Exactly what “principle of logic” states that people who can communicate with the dead are immune to the desire for money (and the things money can buy, from food, shelter, and clothing to truffles, mansions, and furs) or the desire for fame? Or for that matter the desire for sex or the desire to scratch when it itches or the desire to play Solitaire on a computer or the desire to pick at a scab. (What God might want is different; I addressed that above.)
Then just about every single human being on this planet is insane. Go walk around in a public area–a sidewalk or a shopping mall–I daresay you will pass very few people who don’t have some desire for money or fame or both.
“”""“Exactly what “principle of logic” states that people who can communicate with the dead are immune to the desire for money (and the things money can buy, from food, shelter, and clothing to truffles, mansions, and furs) or the desire for fame? Or for that matter the desire for sex or the desire to scratch when it itches or the desire to play Solitaire on a computer or the desire to pick at a scab. (What God might want is different; I addressed that above.)”"""""
These are properties which negate the need for money, or <insert commodity>.
God taking a million bucks: Apologies in advance. This requires a hijack to delve into. As do many of the principles, I will however be more than happy to cover some of the extractions. I’ll just cover inconsistencies in relation to the counter-intelligent aspects of God 3 layers back, rather than actually taking deism to the principles.
Turning water into wine (even assuming that’s all they can do):
Start a winery and rake in billions. Hell, imagine all the chemichals you could extract from wine and sell by themselves while also making and selling the wine. Buy yourself a beachouse and use saltwater, nobody will care about the person sneaking off to the ocean at midnight with a pail. You get:
a.) Fortune
b.) Fame
c.) Respect through Enigma (Miraculous)
Anybody with these values, who is not a masochist or an (inverse)vegetable that works exactly like we want it to (a form of retardation), would never go to Randi first. The order of operations would be to discern how to eliminate the capacity for humans to kill you. Your weapon is of course the ability to turn 70% of their bodies into wine; however you need other people to have glory. You need to figure out how to keep the planet populated, while destroying their ability to use solid projectiles. This requires the ability to dictate the entire arms industry, before revealing yourself. Then you’d have to ensure that nobody actually entered your sanctum; as a poison dart can be hidden just about anywhere; immediate water to wine, when stepping on your property for anyone but yourself.
THEN, you walk over to James Randi! Turn a glass of water into wine while he’s pissing his pants; collect the check that nobody even has the courage to tax, to buy the items that nobody will refuse to you out of a deathly fear. What a wonderful life!
It is absolute capitolistic fantasy that someone able to collapse the resource of currency can still be bought for a measly million bucks. Someone seriously needs to pull their head out of their ass, and I’m not referring to the debating process and people here.
As far as God is concerned, God clearly doesn’t appreciate ‘entrapment’; which he calls testing. Hence, the Bible’s grafting of the untestability clause. You’re not allowed to pray in front of people, where a third observer can exhibit judgement - this is strongly integrated from the old testemant on.
Randi’s offer, in terms of God, is the equivilent of jumping off a cliff in front of Satan; or praying for something in front of people.
He’s collapsed the God system for himself, end of story.
People who communicate with the dead, HOPEFULLY can manage to make a friend!! This actually collapses most of the fame resource, not to mention knowledge. A friend will tell you how to get rich, what words to say to get what you want; they’ll be so important to you, the reality so captivating, that it would objectify many of the tangible glories of the living flesh. You’d probably stop caring about life altogether and take a hike to join them.
Communication with the dead collapses the sense of urgency; one of the most vital resources to effect the flow of any commodity. Stuff, like dead people telling you lotto numbers is mere pittance compared to the collapse of the urgency resource that results from it. “Oh yeah, I’m going to spend my whole life writing stupid books and running stupid lectures for people who will know all of this in a 100 years anyways. NOT!”
Again, it’s capitolistic fantasy to the extreme. It’s like war-time propoganda.
At the base level of princple:
Randi is only testing for properties which negate the value of currency. Currency has zero relation to anything Randi claims to be doing; with the exception of it’s counter-intelligent misappropriation that is siphoning individuals cognitive space and isolating resource accumulation.
“”"“Then just about every single human being on this planet is insane. Go walk around in a public area–a sidewalk or a shopping mall–I daresay you will pass very few people who don’t have some desire for money or fame or both.”""""
Everybody gains fame, some just don’t notice it - like a baby being born in an isolated forest from a dead mother. There was a glimmer of fame from the mother at one point. What people want, is to capture it, control it and keep it - well, not necessarily everyone. Regardless, there are logically consistant means to exist. Apologetics for those who do not or cannot do it, simply do not change the clarity of that observation. There are ways to integrate resource without cannibalizing your own existential value to do it.
Maybe Mr. Randi will go out of his way someday to explain the trick he’s pulling right now, and refund the stolen trust. Probably not. The guy, quite literally, is a scam artist. I personally discard dozens of religions of this calibur on a given day as, complete garbage, when I’m researching these mechanisms. Randi may not understand the dynamics, but he’s still committing existential crime to accumulate resource through a vaccuum when nobody is looking. He’s not worth the capitol he’s recieving; he’s siphoning extra - that’s how these systems work. He’s not decrypting his own resource, so that you too can create it.
-Justhink
“”""“Why would someone who can use an interferometer to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background take money from the University of Chicago? Probably because, once again, even people who can use interferometers to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background have to eat, pay the rent, buy new shoes for the kids, maybe go to the movies or buy a couple of music CD’s… “””"""
This is not quite the same thing as an omni-scient feedback device that isn’t integrated into the self.
-Justhink
I call bullshit.
Anybody with these values, who is not a masochist or an (inverse)vegetable that works exactly like we want it to (a form of retardation), would never go to Randi first.
This is assuming that this person HAS to go to Randi, which is an absurd notion. It’s like dotting the t’s and crossing the i’s.
-Justhink
glee:
'Where to start in this drivel? :rolleyes:
-
Why do applicants regularly apply for the money then?
-
Use of a Hitler analogy is both stupid and insulting.
-
Use of the phrase ‘literally catatonia insane’ is … insane.
Do you actually know what the words you use mean?
Someone who is literally catatonic would be unable to apply for the award. -
Who or what are you calling a fraud? (interested)
-
If Randi awards a prize of $1,000,000, he is profiting how, exactly?
I’d like to propose a modified version of glee’s syllogism that was so snootily and pretentiously dismissed by ianzin:
1: Geller claims to be psychic.
2: All of Geller’s demonstrations are easily replicated by a reasonably skilled magician who claims no psychic ability at all.
3: Therefore, either Geller is lying or he possesses absolutely useless psychic abilities.
By way of further demonstration, I will now announce that I am in telepathic contact with my neighborhood squirrels. I can’t actually get them to do any tricks for me or run around in circles on command or anything, but our spritual connection is still there. I undertand some icky scientists have trained squirrels to do things by using rewards and punishments, but that is simply not in keeping with the spritual qua-being of the universe and it makes my aura hurt.
Whassamatta? You don’t believe me? Well, screw you and your million bucks. I’ll just take my useless psychic ability to the people, thank you very much, and let them decide if the teachings of squirrelentology are right for them.
Dear Bryan Ekers,
First, thanks for your support.
Second, I would draw your attention to Ianzin’s earlier useful warning about legal action, and advise you to be jolly careful in how you state things on this public message board.
(In this context, I have notified the moderators about a posting of Justhink.)
P.S. In case anyone is worried, Ianzin and I agree on a lot of things and are not offended by recent mutual criticism (it keeps us on our toes!)
I’ll take my chances. On the off-off-off chance Geller wants to come get me, he’ll have to challenge my contention that either A) he is faking or B) his powers are useless. Assuming he takes the B route, he’d have to accomplish a feat that a magician cannot replicate. If he could do that, he’d be better off snagging Randi’s million bucks than suing me.
If you in fact thought I was libeling squirrels, I’ll just let you know that I’ve consulted with them and we’re cool.
Squirrels don’t have lawyers!
But Geller does.
Let me repeat Ianzin’s warning (bolding mine):
‘Remember, according to UK law, it’s not enough to feel you could prove the truth of your assertion. That’s not necessarily a full defence. A provably true statement can still be declared defamatory if it damages that person’s ability to trade and receive income based on his name and reputation. Also, even if you think you could win a court case, it’s possible the other person can simply make the case so expensive that your funds run out before his.’
And there is also the Chicago Reader to consider…
Just my 2 cents…
Magic is only supernatural until someone has proved it. Various ‘magics’ have been credited once they have been ‘discovered’ by science. Just as science won’t believe any sort of traditional medical remedy until they’ve isolated the very molecules/particles that cause the response - the same goes for supernatural phenomena.
Science has even ‘discovered’ some of the basis for psychic phenomena. ‘Science’ has established that humans are electical beings in nature. Our brains give of EM waves that can be measured and recorded. Is it such a stretch that some people can percieve and interpret those waves? - ie. mind reading. There’s already established literature involving twins ‘feeling’ the other’s trauma/death. How does modern science explain this? How about ghosts. Is every ghost sighting throughout all of history erroneous? Assuming even one encounter is valid, if ghosts can be seen, why is it so hard to believe that one can communicate with the dead? (while not claiming at all that John Edwards can do this.)
As far as seeing the future, you got me.
Pretty much, yes. Mistakes, and personal delusions are the majority cause.
Why do ghosts have to play “20 questions” to tell you that they’re OK and miss you?
Note: while there is some interesting stuff out there about “ghosts” it’s not at all clear whether the phenomenon actually have anything to do with human spirits or consciousnesses. Virtually all the more well documented sightings simply involve the appearance of faint and static images, not interaction, conversation, or anything like that.
A better term for “supernatural” would be “unexplained”.
Sorry, could you post a few "for example"s? Once again this statement might sound better if we rephrase it to say “Various ‘magics’ have been better understood once they have been ‘explained’ by science”.
Not exactly. There are a few well-established medicines that have been known to work for many years, yet it’s not clearly understood exactly how they work. In the 5th century (B.C.) Hippocrates knew about a bark extract that could reduce aches & pains. In the 1700’s, the active ingredient was identified as salicin. In the late 1800’s, after a few minor chemical modifications, we finally end up with the wonder drug aspirin. Only in very recent years have we discovered exactly how aspirin does what it does, but at no point along the way did anybody attribute its effects to anything supernatural. “Unexplained” does not necessarily mean “unexplainable”.
Again- for example? Once science discovers a basis for psychic phenomena, it’s no longer “psychic phenomena”, but just another biological/physiological characteristic of humans.
It’s at least somewhat of a stretch until we can confirm that it really happens. Science is perfectly willing to accept that something happens even if it can’t explain why it happens.
Coincidence. It’s also called looking into the wrong end of the telescope. 50-some thousand people die every day on this planet. You look at one person who has a bad feeling at/around the time of his twin’s death and remark “Amazing, ESP!” I look at 1 person with an ill-timed queasy feeling out of 50,000 dying and remark “only ONE?”
Every one an error? We can’t say that unless we can examine every single case. Suffice it to say that every case examined thus far falls into the “explained as fraud, delusion or human error” category or the “unexplained” category. Not one case has come back as “explained as genuine”.
Folly. We’re not accomplishing much when we start sentences with “assuming”. Assuming there’s intelligent life on Mars, why is it so hard to believe they’ve constructed canals?
It’s not. The small leap from assuming the existance of ghosts to assuming we can communicate with them is dwarfed by the huge leap of whether or not ghosts exist in the first place. Prefacing the question with the word “assume” allows us to conveniently ignore this necessary step. Regard: my Mars statement. A planetary civilization quite naturally leads to canal building at some point. Why is it so hard to believe that there are canals on Mars?
I knew you were going to say that 
- Why do applicants regularly apply for the money then?
I would imagine because they don’t have any of these talents that collapse the commodity of currency.
- Use of a Hitler analogy is both stupid and insulting.
? You have to be insane to live that life rather than committing suicide. Multiply that degree of insanity by a ‘million’ will render any sentient being catatonic through non-cohesive omni-potence.
- Use of the phrase ‘literally catatonia insane’ is … insane.
Do you actually know what the words you use mean?
Someone who is literally catatonic would be unable to apply for the award.
That’s why the ‘award’ is insane.
- Who or what are you calling a fraud? (interested)
Already answered this one in the ‘hitler post’ two sentences after that word:
“James Randi is profiting off of the same system dynamic as the people he’s ‘revealing’.”
5. If Randi awards a prize of $1,000,000, he is profiting how, exactly?
That depends on how the books are looking, and how deep his logical corruption runs. He may be able to profit more by paying out to a proven person; a government could even contract his organization to run a propoganda blitz on the population.
Every capitolistic business these days underwrites altruism as part of the production cost. Here in Oregon, the state gambling tax is maintained by dumping a few million in free recovery programs to keep the tax in place. Ironically, the first thing they tell you on the worksheets in these programs is that Gambing Addiction is never cured, at best people get a little better at controlling how much they spend; most just do it the same as they have always done before. I kid you not!
The way capitalistic theory has been moving these days, the 50 billion hit on the WTC may prove to have been an excellent investment. It really strains the mind to ponder how something so clearly beneficial to media and an administration and congress and the house and a propoganda mechanism for taxation and military expenditure and intelligence expenditure and ‘free-trade’ imperialism could possibly have been mere coincidence. Manufacturers call in teams of lawyers just to figure out whether a one dollar addition of a safety feature on a product will cost more or less than lawsuits emerging from the deaths resulting from the faulty equipment. I literally don’t see any reason how such ‘unobvious’ things like forking out a million bucks, don’t and can’t come from the mind of an economist. There are many scenarios like the WTC event that I see as clear economic triumphs. The reason I don’t appreciate counter-intelligence is because I can create it so easily and ruthlessly. I also see it as insane and pointless even though it does work - these processes suck money through non-transparent gaps in communication process. It’s earning through trust violation; the easiest way to make a buck in a social contract.
-Justhink
How about James Randi put forth a theory and offer a million bucks to anyone who disagrees with it?
That’s the decryption for this particular corruption…
-Justhink
Interesting about James Randi.
He always tests the psychics behind closed doors and they never win. He has been asked to do it with cameras watching. He refused. Go to
to read about the controversy.
There is no controversy, because James Randi isn’t the one who conducts the test. The protocols of the test are decided beforehand by both the claimant and the agreed upon judge or judges. This information about the testing can be found at www.randi.org .