Developing Telepathy

[ellion]

I have simply postulated the three most likely explanations for someone falsely accusing someone else of lying.

if we consider that accusing someone of lying is an attack.

what you have give here is three reasons you attack people.

something you do quite regularly.

In common parlance one might say a snivelling, weasely rat bag.

loved this bit, so telling? LMAO

 

[duendy]

We are not talking about schizophrenia duendy.

me________hey sha_ you missed the posts where your members were using that term to put down a....'woo woo', yeah?

So when you say someone is deluded you are correct but when a sceptic says it they are just hiding their own delusion? Interesting double standard...

at least i try go into this. what you'll got. sheeeit, yo still blieve in the mental illness myth already. pure irony dont yer think considering your religious need for 'hard evidence'? yet that scam yer not aware of or deny. otherwise why this connstat pathologizing of people who claim to have had exceptional experienes...?dont you see that te scam is centralo to your delusion-hypotheses??

i see over and over how you'll mscientists deny oter forms of inquiry, like aout te current 'hard problem'.....it is looked over as to not there. and hen u continue with your religious dogma. this reminds me of the catolic elite not wanting to look thru alileo's telescope. an ironic analogy fo sho!

 

[duendy]

Copernicus' telescope

 

[shaman_]

at least i try go into this. what you'll got. sheeeit, yo still blieve in the mental illness myth already. pure irony dont yer think considering your religious need for 'hard evidence'? yet that scam yer not aware of or deny. otherwise why this connstat pathologizing of people who claim to have had exceptional experienes...?dont you see that te scam is centralo to your delusion-hypotheses??

i see over and over how you'll mscientists deny oter forms of inquiry, like aout te current 'hard problem'.....it is looked over as to not there. and hen u continue with your religious dogma. this reminds me of the catolic elite not wanting to look thru alileo's telescope. an ironic analogy fo sho!

Actually duendy I have never made any comment on mental illness. You have tried to bring it into every single discussion though regardless of relevance.

You also bring the 'hard problem' into nearly every discussion. It appears that you are trying to invalidate all science and scientific method because we don't fully understand consciousness yet.

 

[duendy]

I would call it a well supported model. There are no known contradictions; however, if any can be provided then I am certainly willing to revise.

me:: no known contradictions??? how can one argue with such strong misguided convictions...? your face is set to the sword of your established truth. who can budge it? me?


I wound't even begin to use the word 'obviously' in this case. All the 'PSI' claims encountered in this subforum have had no demonstrable effect as of yet. What doesn't exist can't be measured. If but a single 'PSI' event could be shown to exist, I guarntee it would change understanding and thinking.

me))))surely your not trying to imply you have meticulously researched EVERY psi event ever recorded is u?????



Measurement is something that works in reality, whether it's space, time, frequency, etc. I am not aware of any situations where measurement is not a possibility and if examples can be provided then I am willing to revise my understanding.

me)))))))can u measure love. ecstasy. the thrill of dancing, sex, etc? what r u TALKIn about?



It's a fair interpretation of the implication and it's incorrect. I would love to believe in them because they are attractive. I like to look a attractive things, I like to listen to attractive things, and I certainly would like to believe in attractive things; however, attractiveness doesn't equate to truth and I value the latter far more.

me)))))))what is actual is you are actually denying youre DEPTH. thisis a consequance of your materialist religion. only u can break free from its confines

The delineation I make between 'believers' and 'non-belivers' is simply to categorize very distinct thought processes used to understand reality. 'Believers' tend to use emotional criteria to accept something as true where 'non-believers' tend to use evidence. There are situations of crossover between the two 'camps' and there is certainly dominance in thought process. The threads in the forum suggest that 'believers' tend to take things personally more often than 'non-believers'; a possible consequence of being engrossed in emotional criteria. I can only suggest not letting it get to you and be an example of how you want to be treated by consistently treating others in that manner (even if it's not reciprocated).


me))haha...if u could see yosthru my eyes, and one or two others here who ae understanding the limitaions of materialism. you pretend to not be subjective and emotional. yet your BEHAVIOURS exposes such surieites as DENIaL of your PERCEPTION OF your own behaviours. comical but tru



I never said that there wasn't hostility in both directions (both intentional and unintentional). Again, I can only suggest putting the emotions aside and being consistent about how to treat others (regardless of how it comes back). I've flat out told Happeh that I think he is delusional (based on evidence). I did let him know that I would and could suspend judgment if he was willing to commit to providing evidence of his claims (I even offered to help him). It may have felt insulting to him when I asked for evidence, pointed out evidence supporting a choice of delusion, and offered to help. I value truth above emotion, and I suspect many 'non-believers' do as well; hence, this type of feedback should be expected.

me))))))yet u admit u DID get emotional....ooops!



I am keeping my 'belief' in check... not my conciousness. They are very different concepts (one is a thought process of truth acceptance while the other is awareness).

me))))errrwhy is 'belief' different than consciousness pray tell us?



My observations aren't based on philosophy duendy, they are based on experimental results. IMO, there is not enough data to firmly model a theory; hence, I use the phrase 'suggests'. Regarding the external link ('spirit'), no matter how well David Chalmers explores the philosophy of the subject, there is just no evidence to even suggest such a thing exists. One thing to keep in mind is the phrase 'I don't know' doesn't open a void to be substituted with an attractive concept (ex. 'spirit'). It's an opportunity to hypothesize, observe, experiment, and model... basically get closer to the truth.

me)))how you dodge all this with obfuscating denials....look. are u pretending u have no metaphysical bias, no philosophy CC?? pull the other one dude. cause you HAVE! and if u think u aint, i gotnews for you. there are deeper levels to you than your conscious awarness of yerself....so whachagonnadoabout THAT?
also the hard poblem concerns cognitive science



I understand the concept. We're talking about the whole individual experience of concioussness. Thought, emotion, sensation, potential, etc. There is evidence to suggest this is all a result of the interaction between a large and complex infrastructure of matter and energy (chemicals and electrical current in the human brain for example). What the details of that interaction could be is far beyond my scope of knowdge & understanding at present and there are people with full time careers exploring this.

mePPPPyes i kow, but that ISN't the HARD problem. that is stuff you CA measure. we mare on about what doesn't seem to BE measureable. which is why it is the hard problem. cause all of established science is depending on M E A S U R E

A really attractive implication could be that the structure of reality is predisposed to conciousness and that would open the door to simulation and discovery of how

 

[Ophiolite]

if we consider that accusing someone of lying is an attack.

You may consider it so. I would not. Falsely acccusing someone of lying, however, I would consider an attack.
All your wriggling does not alter the essential fact, that for no apparent reason, in the middle of a seemingly civilised discussion you decided to accuse me of lying. That really says everything about you, and virtually nothing about me.
Feel free to apologise at any time. Until then I shall continue not to call you a "snivelling, weasely rat bag", as some might feel you deserve, but limit myself to declaring you a coward.

Edit: This must be even more tiresome for the innocent bystanders than it is for me. I shall not be responding to your next brilliant witticism. I shall wait a while and offer up a dissection of some other intellectual delight you offer us at a later date. I can hardly wait.

 

[duendy]

sorry CC, my system's limited. when replies are overlong and i reply a word limite seems to happen which cuts off contiunation. i'll try and rmember your last points...........i feel you are -inevitably-given your beliefs, attempting to explain consciousness materially..?

this cant be. yes as said cnsciousness can be objectively measured, chemicals, eletrics, behaviours etc. this is what they are also workin on as you know. and i shidder deeply to know what they will do wit tie rshit. i ready am familiar with their manipluating mindset. u see, they believe ature is 'dead' andpeoplemere machines. thus any humanity is also deaded and evil is done without concern. you HAVE to face up to what your religion implies dude. reeaaally!!

then we have the hard problem which concerns subjective consciousness---FEELING. you speak about 'exploring reality' yet seem to not value exploring reality THISway? get me? you choose and gloify studying reality va the materialistic route

we we are stringly saying or ou to look away from your specializations. they are bliding you from seeing the whole pic. when you begin broadening yur field of inquiry you realize this one-sided apporach to reality---ie., its spirit vs matter and matter versus spirit game has gone on throught the differing dieologies over a vast amount of our time

what we need NOW is getting beyond this limited understanding and exploring SYNTHESIS. yip

 

[Ophiolite]

you speak about 'exploring reality' yet seem to not value exploring reality THISway? get me? you choose and gloify studying reality va the materialistic route

I shall try again. Open your mind Duendy. Cast aside the presumption of what I am going to say until I have said it all. Stop formulating the rejoinders at the end of each of my phrases.

Science is one approach that people can use to approach an understanding of the world. It is a deliberately restricted and restrictive approach. This is how it was designed. It does not attempt to answer all questions. It does not aim to provide a total view of the world. [Those who think it does have been misinformed.]
If I sit down at the piano with an oscilloscope to conduct a simple experiment to determine the relative frequencies of different notes I shall do it by the scientific method. I shall be able to demonstrate that relationship. Others will be able to duplicate my results and we shall have defined that small aspect of the piano and the noises it makes, rather precisely.
I can also sit down at the piano and simply play. Now, analysing that in a non-scientific way I shall think 'I like the noise I made. It was relaxing'. My family will think 'He doesn't get any better. It's still crap.'
I have had a moving, though minor, spiritual experience through my piano playing, my family have not. Spiritual experiences do not translate well.

Here we are talking telepathy. Well I can't here any piano playing. I haven't met anyone who convincingly demonstrated they had heard piano playing, so excuse me is I am sceptical about how one can explore something on the spiritual level if it does not actually exist.

 

[shaman_]

Well said Ophiolite.

Duendy sees science as some sort of misguided, evil, cold religion. It is not a way of life, it is a method and it is a successful one. It can only test that which is testable. Science doesn't try to understand absolutely everything.

It certainly may appear like a religion at times to the uneducated.

 

[duendy]

Well said Ophiolite.

Duendy sees science as some sort of misguided, evil, cold religion.

me)))))))))))))))it IS so when itpokes its nose where it sholdn't. into the realm of HUMAN and ANIMAl and ORGANISmtic feeling. take Rene Descartes--a huge influence on materialic science. he and his believes A C T U A L L Y tortured animals! it is NO excuse they err 'dine know what ttheyt were doing'. they DID it! so fukin wake UP. you'll are party to a very cold unfeeling dehumanized religion yes. Urgent!

It is not a way of life, it is a method and it is a successful one. It can only test that which is testable. Science doesn't try to understand absolutely everything.

me)))of lordy, but thats what yus doin HERE. you'll callin people crackpots etc for sharing experinces you DO NOT U N D E R S T A N D. see it!!

It certainly may appear like a religion at times to the uneducated.

in this world shaman_,'Uneducated' is a BLESSING not a curse!

 

[mouse]

it IS so when itpokes its nose where it sholdn't. into the realm of HUMAN and ANIMAl and ORGANISmtic feeling.

Above reminds me of a quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel, a philosopher who feared unemployment due to the advance of science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Have I ever tortured animals? No.
Have I ever condoned the torture of animals? No.
Have I come within in an inch of being beaten to a pulp through objecting to people torturing animals? Yes.
Have people who claim to be spiritual routinely sacrificed animals by the hundred thousand? Yes.
Did science have anything to do with that? No.

in this world shaman_,'Uneducated' is a BLESSING not a curse!

You are very greatly blessed, Duendy.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...
You ask for proof, and when it is given to you, you ignore it. Admit it. You don't care what reality is. You are saying "there is no telepathy" because that is what you want. Not because it is true...

I 'watched' that .AVI file same day it was pasted. It only came up as an audio presentation in Windows Media Player and wouldn't function in QuickTime. It sounded like an excerpt from WWF wrestling (or whatever it is called nowadays). It didn't even seem response-worthy.

 

[duendy]

Have I ever tortured animals? No.
Have I ever condoned the torture of animals? No.
Have I come within in an inch of being beaten to a pulp through objecting to people torturing animals? Yes.
Have people who claim to be spiritual routinely sacrificed animals by the hundred thousand? Yes.
Did science have anything to do with that? No.

You are very greatly blessed, Duendy.

so we've established that science AND religion have sacrificed animals. science, for the progress of humainist motives, and religion for promotion of a god's or spirits benvolence towars their wants, etc

so slaggin off the religious traditions that do do that dont really explain away msciences actions...do they? if thats your argument here
and regarding the aesthetics of sacrifice. do you now fel the quick kill of te religiously sacrificed animal would be preferenial to the lingering horror of AV? performed by cold-eyed whitecoats. to the animals these whitecoated scientists must soo like the Greya seem tp us--in folklore at least!!

 

[duendy]

YEsterdaymi watched a prgramme about this 'controversial psychological illusionist' actually mind-controls these middle mgagement pople to...wait for it, do armed robbery...! serious
if you think i am changing subject of tread bear wid me
thing is, he--Derren Brown--had invited these people , from various forms of middle magnagement under the pretense they were simple learning hs control freakery mind controllin techniques....tho hey all knew they were being filmed

BUT what they DIDn't know as that he was maipulating them to get ready to do a HEIST!....he did this using various NLPetc techniques. they eve were asked to do that imfamous expriemnt....dont know if you've seen it. it is where a phony scientist in whitecoat asks people to electrocute anothe person---also a faker--for answering wrong questions. well that was in the conformist 50s right. well here in 21st century you saw some of the group going te whole hog of cow towing to authority and 'toruring' another person!

you also heard Brown tell them that you can see how another person is tinking and going to react by looking at eye movemnts

thi is the pertinent bit. we have all seen this guy and David Blaine do this. they look intensely at eyes....


got to rush off will continue later

 

[Crunchy Cat]

me:: no known contradictions??? how can one argue with such strong misguided convictions...? your face is set to the sword of your established truth. who can budge it? me?

That's correct duendy, no known contradictions. People don't budge knowledge... all the emotion in the world can be thrown at it and it wont budge. Knowledge would budge knowledge in an instant. A 'conviction' consequently doesn't have the possibility of change and it is the wrong word to use in this case.

me))))surely your not trying to imply you have meticulously researched EVERY psi event ever recorded is u?????

Not at all... on a science forum there are more than enough visitors that would have ensured a real demonstratable claim would have achived the highest degree of importance (probably end up as a sticky). I've also helped others try to prove their claims on this forum and all have failed to do so.

me)))))))can u measure love. ecstasy. the thrill of dancing, sex, etc? what r u TALKIn about?

The quick answer is I cant (personally). All the examples provided are variants of pleasure and likely have different chemical-electrical reactions. There is no reason to think these reactions couldn't be measured and this is the point.

me)))))))what is actual is you are actually denying youre DEPTH. thisis a consequance of your materialist religion. only u can break free from its confines

As emotionally satisfying as the statement may have been to write, it doesn't have a coherent message behind it. What is 'my depth' and how is it being denied?

The delineation I make between 'believers' and 'non-belivers' is simply to categorize very distinct thought processes used to understand reality. 'Believers' tend to use emotional criteria to accept something as true where 'non-believers' tend to use evidence. There are situations of crossover between the two 'camps' and there is certainly dominance in thought process. The threads in the forum suggest that 'believers' tend to take things personally more often than 'non-believers'; a possible consequence of being engrossed in emotional criteria. I can only suggest not letting it get to you and be an example of how you want to be treated by consistently treating others in that manner (even if it's not reciprocated).

me))haha...if u could see yosthru my eyes, and one or two others here who ae understanding the limitaions of materialism. you pretend to not be subjective and emotional. yet your BEHAVIOURS exposes such surieites as DENIaL of your PERCEPTION OF your own behaviours. comical but tru

That statement was chalk full of conclusions which my previous statement didn't even remotely support. It's a problem that manifests itself from wielding 'belief'... a cigar is presented, we have evidence a cigar exists, belief kicks in, the conclusion is the cigar is evidence that rocks have gay relations with toasters. It's an interpretation problem and while I can't solve it for others I can suggest to start using reality as a source to compare interpretations to. In the cases where reality disagrees, that should serve as a strong message that there is a problem with the interpretation and serves as an example that could be used to improve.


I never said that there wasn't hostility in both directions (both intentional and unintentional). Again, I can only suggest putting the emotions aside and being consistent about how to treat others (regardless of how it comes back). I've flat out told Happeh that I think he is delusional (based on evidence). I did let him know that I would and could suspend judgment if he was willing to commit to providing evidence of his claims (I even offered to help him). It may have felt insulting to him when I asked for evidence, pointed out evidence supporting a choice of delusion, and offered to help. I value truth above emotion, and I suspect many 'non-believers' do as well; hence, this type of feedback should be expected.

me))))))yet u admit u DID get emotional....ooops!

Where did I admit I got emotional? Regardless, I am human and therefore and emotional creature. We have different emotional intelligence and maturity. That difference allows me to not take things personally. I shared this because you do take things personally and have repeatedly shown that it's an experience that you don't like. Similarly, I am not sure if it is recognized... nearly all your posts send negative emotional message to the correpondant. I would be happy to audit this thread to help you identify what they are and why; however, I would only undertake the work if:

A) This interests you
B) You commit to using the feedback to improve and explain how this is going to be done.

me))))errrwhy is 'belief' different than consciousness pray tell us?

Because:

* One is a thought process of truth acceptance and the other is awareness. * They are two different words with two different meanings.

me)))how you dodge all this with obfuscating denials....look. are u pretending u have no metaphysical bias, no philosophy CC?? pull the other one dude. cause you HAVE! and if u think u aint, i gotnews for you. there are deeper levels to you than your conscious awarness of yerself....so whachagonnadoabout THAT?
also the hard poblem concerns cognitive science

I don't know how to answer the bias question. I love the idea of the metaphysical (quite attractive) and there is no evidence it exists. As far as a 'deeper level of conciousness' is concerned... I don't know what your talking about so please expand upon it.

mePPPPyes i kow, but that ISN't the HARD problem. that is stuff you CA measure. we mare on about what doesn't seem to BE measureable. which is why it is the hard problem. cause all of established science is depending on M E A S U R E

I would have to ask what has been shown to exist that is known to completely be beyond any possibility of measurement? If we're talking about the experience of conciousness then the reason it can't be measured yet is because there is not enough knowledge / understanding concerning it. When that knowledge and understanding comes to be, there is no reason to think the questions concerning what to measure and how to measure it would be unanswerable.

 

[duendy]

and SEE able to read minds telepathically

so in effect they are measuring behaviouur aren't they. meaurein movement, mannerisms

in Browns' case to have power over

an interesting thing he said. he was talking about advets and how they manipulate desire. so for example, they will showan attractriv face, bod, body part....zoom in .....zooom in then POW flash consumer product at you to hook your desire to it....this is Edward Bernays' territory!

so. are we differentiating between the 'telepath' or Derren Brown and David Blaine etc with 'kosher' telep-athy that could be hieved over long distances......is there a dividing line or is it a continuum? is ther no connection betqeen what they do and what 'proper' telepathy does?

 

[duendy]

soz, jeant to add url....you can read about 'The Heist' here: http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk and open the link

 

[Happeh]

Nope. That's a label I apply to anyone who argues simply for the sake of arguing. And in the meanwhile presents practically nothing of value.

And it seems to fit you perfectly.

He says as he continues to hide from the video and comment on it.

 

[Happeh]

I 'watched' that .AVI file same day it was pasted. It only came up as an audio presentation in Windows Media Player and wouldn't function in QuickTime. It sounded like an excerpt from WWF wrestling (or whatever it is called nowadays). It didn't even seem response-worthy.

Doesn't it say clearly in the post "Requires Xvid codec. You may have to install Xvid codec, or get a different media player"?

Thanks for being polite enough to try to watch it.