Deep Dish Dials For Telephone Telepathy

[Deep Dish]

Bonhomme, I neglected to previously mention that since I had invested my time in preparing an academic response to the pedigree expected out of research papers, I will only address equally academic refutations. The rules of constructive argument dictate non-academic responses of rhetoric and anecdotes are flimsy and inferior, good for show but lacking substance. If you attack my line of reasoning as flawed, you must be thorough, explicit, and analytical. Pick up a scalpel and this time use the sharp end of the utensil.

Occam’s Razor is a tool of logic and is not a logical fallacy, though you would have it otherwise (your argumentative point #2 of elementary logical principles).

You haven’t done any calculations regarding my example at all.

Nor should I, as I already explained why. Q.E.D.

 

[Bonhomme]

Like I said, going 'round in circles.

How much sharper could one be than to slice out the obvious fallacy of the assumption that (A implies B) implies {(not A) implies (not B)}?

Again, has not Occam's razor been a logical fallacy for many wrongfully convicted defendants? The simplest explanation is not always the best. In fact, skillful criminals exploit that very principle to throw off investigators. Occam's razor is merely a sort of "rule of thumb." Be careful when employing it, or you can injure an innocent bystander.

In the prior thread I proposed an experiment that could serve as a much better test of the existence or nonexistence of telepathic sensing, based upon the nature of my experiences I think could be affected by such phenomena.

I'd like to see somebody conduct such an experiment, because every experiment regarding the matter I've read of has either been a rigged "experiment" conducted by "true believers" of paranormal phenomena, or a poorly-designed experiment conducted by "true believers" of the non-existence of paranormal phenomena, who expect people to call up such phenomena on cue as if ordering a pizza. That is not how myself, nor anybody else has experienced these sort of things, and no, that does not automatically mean they are chance occurrences any more than some people's irrational attraction to other individuals who harm them invalidates that attraction.

I am as far from a "true believer" in anything as you can get. But the thing is, I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic. I'm as skeptical of orthodox science as I am of orthodox religion, and I know science as we know it is very "dumb" about many matters of great importance.

Not everything is controllable by force of will, and I think it's extremely, extremely unlikely that every significant force in the universe is known or understood by present-day science. Perhaps my perspective is just a result of my having hit the simultaneous phone call lottery, so to speak; but then again, perhaps not.

In any case, I've enjoyed the discussion, but I've other things to get to now.

 

[KarmaSutra]

Clearly being known as 'the wickedest man on the world' and inspiring followers is not irrefutable proof of anything. It was you who introduced the 'irrefutable' claim regarding Crowley's 'powers' and I'm asking for some evidence.

Evidence can be found in his magickal workings. He was much more an occult scientist than a preacher or teacher.

I know about quantum physics. It owes nothing to Aleister Crowley.

I didn't point out Frater Perdurabo as the progenitor of quantum physics. I did say that it was those mystery schools and occultists which spawned the necessary paths to the sciences.

 

[Super_geek]

This "scientific refutation" is so riddled with flawed "logic" my ISP and/or browser could not let it through. I'll have to post it in bits and pieces.

But first consider the following elementary logical prinicples:

1. (A implies B) does not imply {(not A) implies (not B)}. A tiger being a vertebrate in no way implies any creature that's not a tiger is also not a vertebrate.

2. Proving an explanation plausible does not disprove all other explanations, nor does it constitute proof in and of itself, even in absence of any proof to the contrary that is known.

Could you elaborate on this? How do these statements refute Deep Dish's post?

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

These myth debunkers crack me up...as if science was the end-all be-all of all truths.

There is sh!t we will never fully grasp..the fact that matter can be a wave or a particle depending on who is observing it says a lot about how little we really understand.

You science worshippers are just as bad as the psychic friends and christians, IMO

 

[Super_geek]

Science can answer and understand anything about physical reality. Anything that is not part of physical reality, science cannot explain. For example, the existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

In practice, science is limited only by human capabilities; some experiments cannot be conducted in practice due to limitations in current technology. But in theory, an experiment does exist that could provide some empirical evidence. The inability to answer a scientific question in no way means science is flawed, it just means we arent about to conduct the experiment or enough experiments.

Just becuase we dont understand everything about physical reality does'nt mean science is flawed. It just means we dont have enough information about the physical world to know what it is truly like; we havent gained enough empirical evidence and so there is still a great deal of uncertainty. Science really is the end-all-be-all of all truths, as long as the truth is part of physical reality

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

These myth debunkers crack me up...as if science was the end-all be-all of all truths.

There is sh!t we will never fully grasp..the fact that matter can be a wave or a particle depending on who is observing it says a lot about how little we really understand.

You science worshippers are just as bad as the psychic friends and christians, IMO

I have always said there are tons of people on this forum that are "scientifically illiterate". This post and a few others in this thread and the one that led to the writing of this thread seem to prove my point very well.

Its no wonder so many buy into the dogma of the DJ Bible.

You science haters are worse than psychic friends and christians. I lump you science haters into the same category as the mentally retarded and uneducated people of the 3rd world IMO.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Again, has not Occam's razor been a logical fallacy for many wrongfully convicted defendants? The simplest explanation is not always the best.

um, Occams razor is like totally NOT flawed. sure, the simplest explanation isnt always the best. Occams razor in no ways say that it is. Occams razor says that the simplest explanation is MOST LIKELY to be the best. If you choose the explanation that isnt the simplest, your far more likely to be wrong. Id choose the explanation that has the lowest chances of being wrong, but thats just me becuase Im a logical thinker.

If you choose NOT to follow occams razor, youll have even more innocent people being put on death row. Now which would you rather have?: a few innocent people being put on death row because occams razor was followed, or a tons and tons of innocent people being put on deathrow beacues occams razor WAS NOT followed? I think the answer is obvious.

I'm as skeptical of orthodox science as I am of orthodox religion, and I know science as we know it is very "dumb" about many matters of great importance.

If your a skeptic of othodox science, then your an illogical person, and is incapable of carrying out any logical argument. sucks for you.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Can you pretend to be known worldwide as "The wickedest man in the world?"

No. Can you pretend to have disciples and believers loong after you'd past over? No.

jesus christ has already done this; we know he had no magical powers.

Look back at history. It was the Magickians and Alchemists who have laid the foundation for all of the sciences.

um, no. That would be ancient philosophers that laid the foundation. Get it right.



Do your homework.[/QUOTE]

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Right now my "super-powers" would be best served by not wasting any more time on a discussion that is just going around in circles.

But ITS NOT going around in circles. youre clearly losing the argument, and running away. Deep Dish has you OWNED!!!!!!!

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

I have always said there are tons of people on this forum that are "scientifically illiterate". This post and a few others in this thread and the one that led to the writing of this thread seem to prove my point very well.

So you are saying that you disagree with quantum theory? Experiments have shown that testing the duality of particles/waves is directly affected by observation itself.

I lump you science haters into the same category as the mentally retarded and uneducated people of the 3rd world IMO.

Despite your assumption I actually enjoy science. I'm not a pro or anything but it does fascinate me. The difference is that I do not worship it is the final answer to everything. Much of science is built on theories that make many assumptions..this is the same story with religion/mythology/etc.

Science does scrape closest to the truth because it demands objective observation. But what happens when observation affects your tests?

I think real wisdom comes from realizing how little you know, instead of assuming you have all the answers.

BTW - If you would like to correct my faulty assumption of quantum mechanics, I would be happy to listen.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

So you are saying that you disagree with quantum theory? Experiments have shown that testing the duality of particles/waves is directly affected by observation itself.

lol, where in any of my posts did I say QM is flawed? if anything, Im saying its a perfect explanation of what science has seen so far.

What I actually said if you read was that many here are scientifically iliterate (including you and bonhomme et al.). You have reading comprehension problems.

Despite your assumption I actually enjoy science. I'm not a pro or anything but it does fascinate me.

ok, so you enjoy science, I never said you didnt. In fact weither you enjoy it or not is irrelevent to what I was actually saying. What I said basically was that you are scientifically illiterate. But before you say "oh, but I know QM", realize that you may understand what the theory says, you have no clue as to how and why science concluded that current QM is the best explanation as opposed to others given evidence seen so far, this is what makes you scientifically illiterate. what you say in the next quote proves this; no man who understands how science actually works to generate the conclusions it actually does would make such statements.

The difference is that I do not worship it is the final answer to everything. Much of science is built on theories that make many assumptions..this is the same story with religion/mythology/etc.

lol, like what assumptions? science doesnt just pull out assumptions out of a hat full of random assumptions. You understand nothing about science. Science comes up with the best theory that can explain all observations, no assumptions required.

But what happens when observation affects your tests?

um, come up with a theory that says observations effect test results, um, a theory explaining this cause and effect process would be great....lol, as if tests like this mean science is flawed or something :crackup:

Tests like these hurt science no more than NOT conducting a test at all.

I think real wisdom comes from realizing how little you know, instead of assuming you have all the answers.

1. how in the hell does realizing we dont know everything going to help us come closer to actually learning everything? oh yeah, this humble "we know nothing" method of yours will do far better at understanding the universe than the scientific method. lol

2. science never assumes that we have all the answers. Thats why they label their conclusions as "theories" which are subject ot change as more observations arrive. Science doesnt label their conclusions as "absolute laws". jeez, you are difinitely scientifically illiterate, no doubt.

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

ok, so you enjoy science, I never said you didnt.

Oh really now?

You science haters are worse than psychic friends and christians. I lump you science haters into the same category as the mentally retarded and uneducated people of the 3rd world IMO.

Perhaps you'd like to share with us your scientific definition for the word "never". Don't worry, I will ignore your inconsistency and focus on the meat of this argument.

lol, like what assumptions? science doesnt just pull out assumptions out of a hat full of random assumptions.

Science assumes that the five senses (and our perspective from a 4-dimensional plane) grant us enough information to provide an accurate explanation of an infinite universe that only becomes more puzzling as we unravel its secrets. That is a pretty big assumption right there.

um, come up with a theory that says observations effect test results, um, a theory explaining this cause and effect process would be great....

Sure thing:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

1. how in the hell does realizing we dont know everything going to help us come closer to actually learning everything?

Accepting the fact that anything outside our comprehension is possible is what gives birth to our greatest epiphanies and inventions. A smart man can measure and store a lot of facts in his head. A genius realizes how much of the big picture he is missing and this humility allows him to think outside the box.

2. science never assumes that we have all the answers. Thats why they label their conclusions as "theories" which are subject ot change as more observations arrive. Science doesnt label their conclusions as "absolute laws".

If this is the case, then what's up with this need to discredit other beliefs and superstitions that are not scientific? Look at the great lengths people like Deep Dish go to disprove theories that don't fit into their idea of how the world works. This fundamentalist attitude is not only hypocritical, it's also huge waste of intellect. Instead of inventing the next big thing, these clowns are busy proving that leprechauns don't exist.. c'mon now.

You know nothing about science

Perhaps. But at least I can debate my point of view without resorting to constant sarcasm and snide remarks. Your insolence weakens your arguments and as little as I may know about science, you have yet to astound me with your genius.

Of course I am probably expecting too much from someone who takes to insults and can't resist putting "LOL" in every other sentence.

 

[Bonhomme]

um, Occams razor is like totally NOT flawed. sure, the simplest explanation isnt always the best. Occams razor in no ways say that it is. Occams razor says that the simplest explanation is MOST LIKELY to be the best. If you choose the explanation that isnt the simplest, your far more likely to be wrong. Id choose the explanation that has the lowest chances of being wrong, but thats just me becuase Im a logical thinker.

Just where did I say that Occam's razor is totally flawed?

Sometimes there's no clear explanation for occurrences that are highly improbable. Just theories.

I've had lots of experience with correct explanations that were far from the most simple or obvious ones.

Read my other posts. Properly read them, without adding anything I didn't put there or making assumptions that don't follow from what was written. I'm tired of repeating them in slightly different words...

Take over, D!ck Ramsey, at least until you get tired of going 'round in circles

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Science assumes that the five senses (and our perspective from a 4-dimensional plane) grant us enough information to provide an accurate explanation of an infinite universe that only becomes more puzzling as we unravel its secrets. That is a pretty big assumption right there.

um, thats not an assumption, thats fact. While our 5 sense wont allow us to explain everything in reality (such things include weither or not God exists), they do provide us with enough information to accurately explain the physical universe. science clearly defines what it can explain and what it cant. For what it claims to explain, the 5 senses are sufficient to gain the neccesary information to do so, we just need some evidence to analyse, then we go to step 2 by comming up with an explanation that explains it.

and no, the universe is not getting more puzzling as scientific knowledge grows, its just that the even more accurate explanations of the universe are just more counter-intuitive. But this counter-intuitiveness doesnt take away from the actual increased validity of most recent and up-to-date scientific knowledge.

you have yet to provide me with an example of where the scientific method makes assumptions.

Sure thing:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

lol, I never asked you to provide me with such an explanation. My comment you are rebutting here was just my description of the kind of explanation that I already know exists that wouldv explained your prior comment. but thanx though, I already know about quantum mechanics. nothing new here.

Accepting the fact that anything outside our comprehension is possible is what gives birth to our greatest epiphanies and inventions. A smart man can measure and store a lot of facts in his head. A genius realizes how much of the big picture he is missing and this humility allows him to think outside the box.

well this whole explanation your making here as to why/how we can learn more by admitting we dont know much is clearly based on assumptions. So according to your own logic, this whole explanation here is flawed .

If this is the case, then what's up with this need to discredit other beliefs and superstitions that are not scientific? Look at the great lengths people like Deep Dish go to disprove theories that don't fit into their idea of how the world works. This fundamentalist attitude is not only hypocritical, it's also huge waste of intellect. Instead of inventing the next big thing, these clowns are busy proving that leprechauns don't exist.. c'mon now.

okay, the people making these supernatural claims are actually claiming that thier supernatural explanation IS SCIENTIFIC. and on top of that, they are saying their supernatural explanation is a better scientific explanation that a more not so supernatural one. This is incorrect. These fools need to be proven wrong. Science may not know whats actually true, but it can sure know whats NOT true. given the evidence at hand today, we can safely rule out any supernatural explanation.

and more importantly, why Deep dish is spending his time disproving leprichauns instead of inventing things is irrelevant to your whole "science is flawed" argument. please stay on topic.

Perhaps. But at least I can debate my point of view without resorting to constant sarcasm and snide remarks. Your insolence weakens your arguments and as little as I may know about science, you have yet to astound me with your genius.

well, you have already astounded me with your clear lack of genius.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Just where did I say that Occam's razor is totally flawed?

you dont actually say that its "totally flawed". But you do clearly imply that it is when you blame it for so many innocent people being put on death row, AS IF OCCAMS RAZOR LOGIC IS FLAWED. your implying here that if we abandon occams razor, innocent lives on death row would be spared, as if thats what we need to do.

but the big flaw is that if we abandon occams razor, we will actually have more innocent people being put on deathrow, becuase theyll get convicted for complicated and unrealistic explanation for their guilt.

Sometimes there's no clear explanation for occurrences that are highly improbable. Just theories.

explanations and theories are the same thing. This whole statement you make here is one big contridiction.

I've had lots of experience with correct explanations that were far from the most simple or obvious ones.

again, trying to imply occams razoris flawed. why else would you try to point to situations where the true explanation WASNT the simplest?

Again, you have absolutely no clue about occams razor. occams razor never said the simplest IS ALWAYS the true one. So the fact that the more complex ones are sometimes true is not a counter to occams razor; this is what we would expect. sometimes the simplest one isnt the true one and occams razor admits this.

But what occams razor actually says is that the simplest one is more likely to be the true one. Do you know what the term "more likely" means? I hope so. heres a clue: "more likely" and "always" are two different things. "always" is not used in occams razor logic okay buddy.

Read my other posts. Properly read them, without adding anything I didn't put there or making assumptions that don't follow from what was written. I'm tired of repeating them in slightly different words...

Ive read your stuff carefully, its clear you view occams razor is flawed given the kind of rebuttals and statements youve made in this and prior posts. you are also clearly wrong in this kind of thinking.

Its sad that you actually think this way.

 

[Super_geek]

Science does scrape closest to the truth because it demands objective observation. But what happens when observation affects your tests?.

It appears you are claiming that situations where observations affect test results create an obstacle for science to be able to find the truth about reality.

I disagree on this, can you show me some math explaining your logic?

thanks.

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

Here we go again. I was hoping for a stimulating debate where I might possibly learn something, but some people just can't see past their own egos.

A quick recap:

um, come up with a theory that says observations effect test results, um, a theory explaining this cause and effect process would be great....lol, as if tests like this mean science is flawed or something

My response:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

Here is a small snippet from that article:

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed...

Instead of saying "Gee D!ck, that's really cool I did not know that" my adversary tries to look smart and fails miserably:

My comment you are rebutting here was just my description of the kind of explanation that I already know exists that wouldv explained your prior comment. but thanx though, I already know about quantum mechanics.

So you already knew what you asked me to prove? Interesting.

I really want you to explain this to me though:

lol, I never asked you to provide me with such an explanation.

Are you serious? Read your own words again.

um, come up with a theory that says observations effect test results, um, a theory explaining this cause and effect process would be great..

Here are some scientific hypothesis

(A) You are schizophrenic and the other you posted earlier
(B) You suffer from short-term amnesia
(C) You fail to recognize when you've been completely owned
(D) All of the above

While our 5 sense wont allow us to explain everything in reality (such things include weither or not God exists), they do provide us with enough information to accurately explain the physical universe.

I'm not talking about theological arguments about God, or touchy-feely sh!t like why we are here..I am talking about the physical universe we live in, this multi-skinned onion of reality that we are only physically equipped to scrape the surface of.

Aside from the fact that our five senses can only experience a small fraction of the energetic spectrum around us, you totally ignored the fact that our consciousness is manifested in a 4-dimensional world. Science has hypothesized that there are up to 10 dimensions.

To assume that we can deduce everything from such a limited perspective is arrogant and foolish. I'm not saying we should stop trying to figure things out, let's just be real and humble about our perspective here. We are far from having the final word!

okay, the people making these supernatural claims are actually claiming that thier supernatural explanation IS SCIENTIFIC. and on top of that, they are saying their supernatural explanation is a better scientific explanation that a more not so supernatural one.

I will agree with you here. Any claim to knowledge deserves a fair share of skepticism. I just find it ironic that people believe that science should be exempt from skepticism itself. The biggest geniuses were those that questioned the status quo to begin with, so why the hypocrisy?

given the evidence at hand today, we can safely rule out any supernatural explanation.

Maybe you can, but I certainly cannot. Especially since all my life I have dreamt of every death in my family the night before they happened. Do you honestly expect me to go to a lab and prove that I can do this?

I once spoke to a shaman who told me detailed accounts of my youth and successfully predicted specific events of my future. Do you think that he is interested in being analyzed or even compensated for demonstrating his skills?

Science thinks everyone should play by their rules but in my experience, life and reality is much bigger than anything we can measure or dissect.

you have yet to provide me with an example of where the scientific method makes assumptions.

Molecules were once the smallest particle, then atoms, then electrons, then quarks/leptons.. etc, etc, etc..

Scientists thought they understood gravity and even made a law in it's honor, till a certain Mr. Einstein showed up with his wacky space-time geometry and blew that out of the water.

It was once considered a scientific fact that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, look at how that is shaping up

Science makes tons of grand assumptions all the time, calling them "theories", only to have them destroyed as progress is made. I am convinced that before scientists could ever uncover the secrets of the universe, they would be sucked into a black singularity of their own smugness.

I'm not saying that science is not awesome or useful. My point is that it is not the be-all end-all of explanations for every conceivable phenomena out there. Like us, it has its limitations and is not worthy of worship because it is not infallible or perfect!

You really disappoint me GoGL. Next time you post, instead of getting so childishly defensive, why don't you put up some valuable information - you know, like some links or even footnotes from your own brilliant research.

So far the only thing you have shown expertise in is dodging the facts and denying reality.

Try again, Junior.

 

[D!ck Ramsey]

It appears you are claiming that situations where observations affect test results create an obstacle for science to be able to find the truth about reality.

Actually I think that observational effects on experiments will lead to greater discoveries, but it will shatter much of our precious theories.

For centuries science has prided itself on cold, objective and controlled experimentation, with zero intervention from the observer. But now we see this is not possible in all situations. We are on the verge of a major paradigm shift that will find science treading dangerously into the territory of abstract philosophy and what most scientists would dub "New Age Mumbo Jumbo"

The fact that my mind affects physical reality, just from the simple act of observing it says a lot about the big gaping hole in our current understanding of the physical laws under which we are governed.

We are sold a bunch of ideas as facts (called thoeries as a loophole) and this makes us resistant to progress. Don't say the world is round or the villagers will hang you!

 

[Bonhomme]

But we all know the world is flat, don't we, D!ck?

Levity aside, anyone who properly read my earlier posts would see that I was cautioning against making the assumption that the simplest explanation is necessarily correct. That and nothing more regarding Occam's razor.

Saying that more innocent people would be convicted if people abandon Occam's razor is an absurd statement, because the tendency to assume the simplest explanation is correct is so hard-wired into conventional thought that it takes a great deal of mental discipline and logical effort to look past it at all. Most innocents were convicted based on coerced confessions and/or incorrect eyewitness testimony. How much simpler can you get than what prosecutors put forth as "open and shut"?

Yes, it is true you didn't say Occam's razor is always correct, g_o_g_l. But Deep Dish implied it by out-and-out dismissing the possibility of any explanation other than coincidence for simultaneous phone calls, and citing Occam's razor to justify that leap of faith. It's right there near the start of this thread.

Explanation and theory are not the same. "I work because I want money" is an explanation. A theory is not so concrete. Scientific theories change like the weather. Just 300 years ago people who stated the theory that meteors were rocks that fell from the sky were regarded as insane.

Want a good chuckle or two? Read scientific books from the 19th century. I'd bet everything I have that many of the scientific theories that you "skeptics" seem to think explain everything will look pretty silly in 150 years.

For simultaneous phone calls, however improbable and "concentrated" the occurrences, coincidence is a possibility, to be certain, but I'm not convinced it's the only possibility. Far from it. I think there could be a mechanism that's beyond our current understanding.

In the earlier thread put forth an explanation I think is plausible, and proposed a better experiment to test it than any of the circus sideshow spoon-bending and Zener card BS that has been done before: one that does not ignore the possible effect of the observer on the observation, and respects the spontaneous nature of such occurrences.

The existence of some sort of "thought waves" seems more than plausible to me. Even according to our current theories, thought emanates from matter, which consists of countless bits of energy that behave like particles and waves interacting with each other. If thought has its origin in the matter that's present in our brains, why would not that energy emanate in the matter around it?

Who knows? It's all a hypothesis, but you gotta admit there are a lot of strange things out there, such as the elephants pulling out their hitching posts and heading for the hills before the great Tsunami hit. Don't tell me that was "just a coincidence."

There are very clearly "vibes" I get from other people, even with nothing else to go on. If you're not able to pick up on such energy, even in vague sense of comfort or discomfort, all the worse for you. The problem is when people try to read too much from it ... which is exactly what has been expected in the poorly designed "telepathy experiments" Deep Dish cited above.