Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Ulysees]
    #537822 -

Example: I see the Swami Challenge. I look into the future and see what happens when I prove to Swami that I am psychic. It's really not that exciting, definately not worth my valuable time.
I look into the future again at my life after winning the lottery or the real psychic challenge prize. I live out my life in annoyance like a gypsy. I see that the money hasn't made me happy at all. I see that all it has got me is the title "Freak", a bunch of paper and perhaps even secret agents trying to recruit me to stop terrorism.
I see a life filled with pain, and I decide not to follow that path. Instead, I move to a remote area, perhaps become a buddhist monk, and live out my life in harmony with all that is. Why would I be concerned with crap like money and taxes and looking good on TV? People often say they wish they had never won the lottery, or got that big (stressful) promotion. Their lives usually suffer. Why would I choose that path if I could see it?

I'm not psychic, but I can see that path very clearly, and I avoid it. Hell, maybe I am psychic, just not the glorified movie type... :wink: 


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: NeonBlack]
    #537852 -

A person with real esp ability would rather do nothing and go about their lives as a normal person.
And you know this how? You know all the "real" psychics in the world and their motivations? NO! So your point has no validity whatsoever in a discussion of this nature.

Here's an interesting thing to ponder, quantum entanglement. You've got two quantum particles, one spin up, the other spin down. You move one particle clear across the universe and change the spin, the other instantly changes it's spin to opposite the spin of the other.
1. To date no information has been exchanged via this method nor do theorists believe it to be possible.

2. Human beings are not quantum particles.

I'm not even sure that if there were evidence for esp that it would be accepted.
This a common and very weak dodge. You can read the minds of millions and know how they will respond? No! This is similar to your previous point. Please speak for yourself and what you know, don't pretend to know other minds.

evidence would be met with violent opposition and accusations of doctoring the results.
First there has to be evidence!

You are making a horrendously false assumption that ALL scientific researchers have the same mindset. There are Christian scientists that believe in Creationsism and agnostic scientists that believe in Evolution. The same with paranormal abilities and researchers. This is the same falsehood as your other two points stated yet again!

A Stephen King (the king of plageurizers) book?! Do I really need to respond to that?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (02/01/02 02:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #537859 -

A Stephen King (the king of plageurizers) book?! Do I really need to respond to that?

He was just using it as an example of the fact that children are more open to strange possibilities, things that adults cannot handle simply because of years of conditioning. We see the same thing every day, in blind patriotism for instance.

If anyone has ever read the book IT by Stephen King, then you'll remember how one of the adults died instantly after laying eyes on the creature's true self, because his brain just simply couldn't handle the fact that something that violated everything that he held to be true, was right in front of him. In the book, children were the only ones able to actually gaze upon the creature without dying, because they didn't have the years and years of experience screaming to them that it just couldn't be true.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Ulysees]
    #537864 -

If my post wasn't relevant, how was yours about gymnasts and whatnot relevant? My post was entirely relevent.

Uh huh. Are you serious?

You state talents that you have, such as the ability to gut someone, that people would most certainly not want others to know about.

I gave other examples of people who developed themselves in some field and were eager to demonstrate their prowess. It is called pride in accomplishment.

If you do something cool at work (like cooking two burgers at once), you certainly want your boss to know about it. One does not hide their talents.



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #537868 -

You gave only positive examples, which is a flawed method.
I portrayed it in varying degrees. The first was about the brownies. The reason was this: It's a perfectly acceptable thing that isn't accepted by mainstream society.
The second was the gutting: The reason for that was to show the other side, the negative possibility. If I had actual psychic abilities, what makes you think I'd even be interested in something as mundane as guessing lotto numbers and being on TV?
The third was the hacking of government files: This was again to show a broader range of possibilites, and show that one might exhibit fear from Big Brother if Big Brother knew one could look into his secrets.

Your method was biased and flawed. Mine was not. Yes, I am serious.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #537874 -

Yes, if I could do a triple flyaway dismount from the high bars, I most certainly would NOT go to the Olympics to show the world my extraordinary gymnastic talent.

If I practiced 5 hours a day on the piano for 10 years, I most certainly would NOT give a public concert, but would just play for myself at home.

Your opinion on this matter goes against the nature of every single human being on this planet. We all have egos and love to be appreciated for our uniqueness.

You aren't acknowledging the utter seriousness of the matter. Having true psychic abilities is not the same as being able to cook two burgers at once, do a flip, or play the piano.

I'm not a true believer yet either, just in case you forgot.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Ulysees]
    #537882 -

Hmmmm, let's see...

It's a perfectly acceptable thing that isn't accepted...
This is a template of Ulysees' logic in action. (Hey folks, I don't make this stuff up!)

The first was about the brownies.

The second was the gutting:

The third was the hacking of government files:
Ah, three illegal activities that could get you serious jail time are on an equal footing with a perfectly legal activity that could net you fame and fortune.

Your method was biased and flawed. Mine was not. Yes, I am serious.
*the light finally dawns on poor, feeble-minded Swami*

Yes, my bad. You win Ulysees, your debating skills dwarf mine and I step down from the dias as I hand my mantle over to you.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #537898 -

Hmmm, lets see...

It's a perfectly acceptable thing that isn't accepted by mainstream society.
This is a template of Ulysees' logic in action. (Hey folks, I don't make this stuff up!)

There are many perfectly acceptable things that aren't accepted by mainstream society. Anal sex for example. I won't list any more, as there is no point, I think you should understand the statement now.

Ah, three illegal activities that could get you serious jail time are on an equal footing with a perfectly legal activity that could net you fame and fortune.

The point goes sailing past Swami, never to be seen again... Here's a hint: The "legality" had little, if anything to do with it. It might be an abstract concept, but it's not that abstract. (Think more along the lines of "acceptibility", though you'll have to do the rest on your own. I'd chew it for you too, but I'd rather not.)

Your method was biased and flawed. Mine was not. Yes, I am serious.
*the light finally dawns on poor, feeble-minded Swami*

Ah yes, another of the pathetic dodges you people are famous for.

Yes, my bad. You win Ulysees, your debating skills dwarf mine and I step down from the dias as I hand my mantle over to you.

Thanks, but no thanks.


--------------------

Edited by Ulysees (02/01/02 02:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Ulysees]
    #537906 -

Double Post

Edited by cxz (02/01/02 03:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Ulysees]
    #537909 -

I bet you guys could spend all day trying to push your thoughts on to each other.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #537927 -

-HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT QUANTUM PARTICLES.

Could you explain, in your own words, what human being actually consist of? Keep in mind that the atom might not be the absolute starting point of everything.


--------------------
"WHATS THE USE OF AUTONOMY WHEN A BUTTON DOES IT ALL?"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: cxz]
    #538122 -

Got another 50 pages to go to win the "Longest Thread on the Shroomery Contest", so sometimes you just need some filler.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #538422 -

1. To date no information has been exchanged via this method nor do theorists believe it to be possible.
Wrong. It is accepted that information could be exchanged this way. That's the driving theory behind quantum computing, and quantum transport. Sure, someone probably doesn't believe it could happen, but thousands do. Plus, information has been exchanged, the quantum state of the particles has been transmitted. If that's not information then what is it? As for the comment about Stephen King, he's certainly not the most widely respected author but he did make an interesting observation which I felt was relevant, and that was my point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: NeonBlack]
    #538427 -

The statement about human beings not being quantum particles is ludicrous. MentalHygene makes that point above.. Human beings are built from quantum particles, if not then what are we built from? Not to mention the fact that they generated entanglement between two macroscopic samples of caesium gas, as I mentioned. it doesn't just happen on a small scale.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: NeonBlack]
    #538454 -

The statement about human beings not being quantum particles is ludicrous.
Not at all Mr. Black. We are built from carbon, but are neither graphite nor diamond. We are built from stardust, but are not suns. Is the Empire State Building a brick?

How many human beings disappear and then instantaneously reappear elsewhere?

The macro has a completetly different set of properties than the quanta.

The thrust of your argument escapes me entirely.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (02/02/02 09:20 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #538471 -

Once again.. Human beings are made up of atoms. Atoms consist of quantum particles. Perhaps I should clarify, human beings are not quantum particles, but we are made up of them. I keep pointing out that researchers have recently demonstrated entanglement between macroscopic objects. The rules governing quantum particles (according to the most recent research anyway) have some bearing on macroscopic objects as well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #538480 -

Ever heard of Schrodingers Cat? The idea being that if a cat was put in a box, and was either gassed to death or not, depending on a single quantum event to trigger the mechanism... then that cat would be both alive and dead until someone opened the box to observe either way. The cat would have the same properties as the single particle that determined it's fate.

According to quantum physics, it is perfectly possible for a person to spontaneously disppear and reappear elsewhere, or for your coffee mug to fall right through the table. Such events would be extremely unlikely, but given the number of object interactions occuring, the surprising fact is that we dont observe such things more often.


--------------------
MAPS.org: supporting psychedelic and medical marijuana research since 1986

Edited by mm. (02/02/02 10:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: NeonBlack]
    #538482 -

1. To date no information has been exchanged via this method nor do theorists believe it to be possible.
Wrong. It is accepted that information could be exchanged this way. That's the driving theory behind quantum computing, and quantum transport.
I stand corrected. Some theorists believe it possible and some don't. There are other theories behind quantuum computing, not just entanglement.

Plus, information has been exchanged, the quantum state of the particles has been transmitted. If that's not information then what is it?
Your statement is not accurate. When the state of entangled particle A is discovered, the state of particle B is known. The experimenter has no control over the state of particle A thus no data is transmitted.

Let me rephrase this so we don't get bogged down in semantics. To reiterate: No message (a la Marconi's trans-Atlantic radio greeting) has been sent at a distance using the principles of quantuum entanglement at this date.

If you evidence to the contrary, please post the link. No theories or possibilities please, but a bonafide message transmission that has taken place.

As to your unspoken, but intimated comparison that male/female lovers are entangled and thus able to transmit messages; to that I can only say that lovers cheat on each other all the time without getting caught. If they do get caught it is because of a behavioral change, not because the partner sensed it at-a-distance WHILE the infidelity was happening.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Swami]
    #538511 -

"As to your unspoken, but intimated comparison that male/female lovers are entangled and thus able to transmit messages; to that I can only say that lovers cheat on each other all the time without getting caught. If they do get caught it is because of a behavioral change, not because the partner sensed it at-a-distance WHILE the infidelity was happening."
Man.. That was so unspoken even I didn't know I was saying that. I really did not mean to make any claim about male/female lovers being able to communicate. That girl and I were never "lovers" in any way in the first place, just good friends (I had a girlfriend at the time). I only mean to state that some kind of link between macroscopic objects has been described, and that maybe it's not too far fetched to imagine people being able to utilize that property somehow. As for the statement that no message has been transmitted, you're absolutely right. Transmission of that kind of data is totally theoretical at this point, but it's completely possible (in theory anyway). Until it's actually done, postulating like this is pretty useless I'll admit. However, it's still an interesting thing to toss around.

Edited by NeonBlack (02/02/02 10:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Telepathy for non-believers [Re: Ulysees]
    #538560 -

Example: I see the Swami Challenge. I look into the future and see what happens when I prove to Swami that I am psychic. It's really not that exciting, definately not worth my valuable time.

You wrote 13 lines of text in this one post alone. The Swami Challenge requires a single line of text not running a marathon. How is it wasting more time to write less?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Telepathy greypoe 2,930 14 07/15/01 12:48 PM
by numb59
* Telepathy, eh...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Jared 9,968 118 10/24/21 05:44 AM
by redgreenvines
* Telepathy Anonymous 1,310 7 11/29/01 06:48 PM
by Timeleech
* Telepathy on shrooms: part II
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Swami 15,814 109 10/23/13 06:02 PM
by Withinity
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,927 8 01/31/02 09:20 PM
by Swank
* Telepathic experiences?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 valkyrie 7,270 66 09/26/02 08:49 PM
by Swami
* Shroomism's Telepathy Game
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Swami 7,521 67 05/05/03 02:30 AM
by Sclorch
* Telepathy on shrooms??
( 1 2 3 all )		 nubious 7,720 51 10/25/19 11:46 AM
by Loaded Shaman

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,402 topic views. 1 members, 633 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 15 queries.