Why no one steps forward

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat:

As for twin-particle systems: I was referring to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, originally described in Bell's Inequality Principle. Sources:

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/rmext04/92andwed/pf_quant.html#Q30
http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/epr.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9707042
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/quantum_physics/quantum_physics.htm#Bell

...And a critique of Bell's theorem:

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/The Record/TheRecord.htm

I see, and somehow I randomly become accountable for quantum mechanics.
But, I'll go with the flow regardless.

Q: "what energy field produces the mirroring behavior of twin particle
systems?"
A: The question is loaded. The Quantum model has an apprent flaw and
this does not mean that the answer to your question suddently involves
some 'energy field'. The state of things right now is that why the
phenomenon of quantum entaglement exists is unknown. I am sure
over time it will be figured out and the quantum model will be modified
accordingly. I would put $5.00 the understanding the phenomenon
will rely on full comprhension of decoherence.

Anyhow, I have a question. What does this have to do with your claims?
Additionally, in one of my posts above I asked what the original article you
posted was supposed to prove from the list of claims you made. I am still
waiting on an answer for this.

 

[(Q)]

Crunchy - bats and dolphins have only 5 senses as well, bats use their ears for 'echolocation' at night while dolphins use their ears and lower jaw. Hammerheads detect changes in pressure. I don't think these or any other animals exhibit more than 5 senses aside from internal senses of pain, balance, thirst, and hunger.

Any takers on this one?

 

[transmaterial]

Apologies, CC; I had you confused with Mr. G, who was asking if there is any evidence of energy fields outside of the known EM spectrum. In the two-particle system studies, it appears that energy transmits between the dual components of the particle, allowing one to know what the other is doing. I don't know how it is transmitted, or on what continuum this occurs, but it is energy of some kind. One implication is that there could be energy fields outside of the known EM spectrum.

As for the article I cited, the connection was "coherent human energy fields which appear to transmit emotional content." You may dispute the veracity of the findings, but this was the researchers' conclusion.
____________
Q, my site is fairly new, so I'll take the publicity. As for sharks and birds:

"The shark employs electricity for internal processes, but has the ability to detect small electrical discharges and minute movements in the water by use of electroreceptors found around the mouth. Such ultra-sensitive electroreceptors can also detect body fields generated by homo sapiens and other organisms, where electrical discharges in the salt water may provoke attack. Sharks are known to mistake the smallest electrical signals for life because they are so sensitive: even a five-billionth of a volt may be detected. However, sharks are easily confused by the electromagnetic waves emitted by nuclear subs, to which Hammerhead sharks are attracted, and in response, new submarine designs are being considered to prevent the attraction."

You have another explanation, which focuses on some kind of pressure?

"Bundles of magnetite have been discovered in the brain of zoological specimens the navigate by compass direction, such as birds, bees, fish, amidst others, however it was also found to exist in the human brain in 1992: human brain tissue extracts taken from membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord (including clustering in the region of the brain where the nose joins the skull) contained crystals of magnetite, although the function of magnetite within humans is still an enigma as it is not sure as to whether humans may detect magnetic fields or not (38). "

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy - bats and dolphins have only 5 senses as well, bats use their ears for 'echolocation' at night while dolphins use their ears and lower jaw. Hammerheads detect changes in pressure. I don't think these or any other animals exhibit more than 5 senses aside from internal senses of pain, balance, thirst, and hunger.

Any takers on this one?

Ahh, I see your point and I agree with what your saying in this context.
My point was that various life forms on the planet have differing ways of
interpreting ("sensing") their environment. If we combine all these methods
of interpertation together we get a value > 5.

 

[Halcyon]

Current scientific knowledge rests on human beings, and other animals for that matter, having 17 senses so far and counting.

 

[(Q)]

I don't know how it is transmitted, or on what continuum this occurs, but it is energy of some kind. One implication is that there could be energy fields outside of the known EM spectrum.

Is that something else you've conjured from your imagination?

As for sharks and birds:

I'm not interested in sharks and birds, thank you very much.

Will you be addressing the evidence to your claims anytime soon or should we just write you off as another kook?

 

[(Q)]

If we combine all these methods
of interpertation together we get a value > 5.

Gotcha.

 

[transmaterial]

Will you be addressing the evidence to your claims anytime soon or should we just write you off as another kook?

"We?" The way you go on, you'd think I was dealing with the Borg.

I believe that coherent energy fields which contain mental and emotional content transmit beyond the body. I am not required, by any law of man or nature, to accept your implicit assumption that these energies are not real just because scientific measurements do not yet register them. I have stated some of my criteria for belief; you may deride them, but represents your opinion about what "knowledge" really means, not an absolute truth.

This is really a question of one's framework for what defines human knowledge. In your framework, I am deluded; in mine (which has elements in common with many cultures' core paradigms of the human potential), I have experienced distinct sensory quantities beyond the 5 that scientific materialists consider valid. I have explored various methods for enhancing and directing these perceptual states. I have analyzed their different components, tested their continuity and corroborated these perceptions with both mystical traditions from around the world, many other firsthand accounts, and a burgeoning social consensus about what people can really perceive. Oh yeah--and I don't think that the Celestine Prophecy's outrageous global success, or its translation into over 20 languages, speaks to a deep gullibility built into the human psyche. I'm sure you have lots of words for all those ideas, but at this point it might be a bit... redundant?

...In your world, you won, and that's what matters.

 

[Stryder]

the EPR paradox has been looked at for many years, however I think Einstein already mentioned that the universe doesn't all run to the same clock, that bends within spacetime actually causes the universe to run at different speeds, so it would be simple to say that any such paradoxes are a Doppleganger of the original existant at a different point in spacetime.

It's not extra energy, but more likely the birth of a parallel universe.

 

[(Q)]

I believe that coherent energy fields which contain mental and emotional content transmit beyond the body.

Yet, none have ever been detected.

The various forms of energy are well understood, can you please tell me which form you refer? Or, what new form of energy have you discovered?

I am not required, by any law of man or nature, to accept your implicit assumption that these energies are not real just because scientific measurements do not yet register them.

True, there is no law against having fantasies. And it appears you have no moral problem with the propagation of disinformation to others.

I have stated some of my criteria for belief; you may deride them, but represents your opinion about what "knowledge" really means, not an absolute truth.

Your so-called 'criteria for belief' is irrelevant as it does not address that which is based in reality.

Science doesn't deal in "absolute truths," but it does deal with knowledge. And knowledge is based on what we understand about our universe, not what we conjure from our imaginations. That is the difference you are unable to discern.

This is really a question of one's framework for what defines human knowledge

Reality defines human knowledge, there is no question about that.

In your framework, I am deluded

Reality is not just my framework, but the framework we all are bound. Your claims are well outside of that framework, hence have no meaning in reality. It's really quite simple.

in mine (which has elements in common with many cultures' core paradigms of the human potential)

Would that be others with similar fantasies?

I have experienced distinct sensory quantities beyond the 5 that scientific materialists consider valid.

What are other sensory qualities exactly? And if what you say is true, then your experience of these new 'sensory quantities' would be a huge scientific discovery and you would earn a Nobel Prize.

I have explored various methods for enhancing and directing these perceptual states. I have analyzed their different components, tested their continuity and corroborated these perceptions with both mystical traditions from around the world, many other firsthand accounts, and a burgeoning social consensus about what people can really perceive.

What are the results of your analyses and tests? I didn't see anything on your website. Will you be publishing these results in a peer-reviewed journal? Can you show me these results? Anything at all?

Oh yeah--and I don't think that the Celestine Prophecy's outrageous global success, or its translation into over 20 languages, speaks to a deep gullibility built into the human psyche.

Sorry, what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't support your claims, if that was your intent. It is just another logical fallacy.

I'm sure you have lots of words for all those ideas, but at this point it might be a bit... redundant?

Yes, I am repeating myself.

One more time - can you support your claims with any evidence?

...In your world, you won, and that's what matters.

Unfortunately, when someone comes along with extraordinary claims and cannot support their claims other than what they can conjure from their imaginations, no one wins. It is another shining example of how reality, rationale and reason are once again tossed out the window in favor of fantasy. It is another black mark on the education system. It is the deceitful propagation of disinformation.

I haven't won because I have failed in helping you understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I believe that coherent energy fields which contain mental and emotional content transmit beyond the body.

When dealing with statements using the word 'belief', it is an important
exercise to paraphrase the statements explicitly so their full message
can be easily seen.

PARAPHRASE: "I accept as true that coherent energy fields which contain
mental and emotional content transmit beyond the body even though no
such energy field or phenomenon has been proven to exist'.

Once the message is clear, analysis as to why it even exists is a good next
step. This one is kind of a no-brainer. ESP and empathy are really freakin'
cool ideas and I would looooooove to have abilities like this; thus, the idea
is attractive. Attractive assertions tend to be considered as fact. The
less factual knowledge / critical thinking / understanding of logic a person
posses, the more likely an attractive assertion will be considered as fact
by said person.

...I have experienced distinct sensory quantities beyond the 5 that scientific materialists consider valid...

Cool tell me about them! After this we can consider methods of testing
them.

I have explored various methods for enhancing and directing these perceptual states...

Good, this will make the results of testing them even more conclusive!
You should be very excited that you can utilize a new sense and have
an opportunity to prove it to the world. You stand to make a lot of money
and update the worlds understanding of human physiology. It's a win-win
situation!

I have analyzed their different components, tested their continuity and corroborated these perceptions with both mystical traditions from around the world, many other firsthand accounts, and a burgeoning social consensus about what people can really perceive...
Oh yeah--and I don't think that the Celestine Prophecy's outrageous global success, or its translation into over 20 languages, speaks to a deep gullibility built into the human psyche...?

Be advised, if a billion people agree with an assertion, it does not make it
true; however, such agreement does validate the attractiveness of the
assertion.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I haven't won because I have failed in helping you understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Q, your statement is a very powerful one! It communicates a very important
message with extreme simplicity. Mind if I plagiarize this statment at will ?

 

[(Q)]

CC - by all means.

 

[transmaterial]

Crunchy Cat, don't bother; pretty much everything that Q just said is represented in the following article:

Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena.

This argument is a sure bet--but only as long as you consider the Rationalist methodology the only way to confirm reality. This means writing off the evidence of the senses, the relevance of first-person reporting when it comes to what people can perceive, and the efficacy of any techniques for developing extrasensory abilities. You both seem to believe that science's current framework defines the absolute truth of the human potential... you put on a front of cautiously doubting things because they have never been proven, but there is an implicit assumption that science has come so far in exploring human capabilities, "unproven" functionally means "unreal."

You can say that I am wrong, that I have no evidence, and it is true within the context you have selected. However, you can't dictate whether something exists or not. I have stated my criteria for belief. You can keep saying, "but look, now we're back in my context, where your belief is worthless!" You may now dub yourselves arbiters of reality. That doesn't make you right. The world was there before Western scientists questioned how and why; so it is with human perception.

CC, your statement "agreement validates the attractiveness of an assertion" is true in many cases. It could be applied to many New Age fads (to say nothing of commercial fads). However, I hope you realize the fallacy of contending that "agreement only validates the attractiveness of an assertion." Sometimes agreement is indicative of the fact that many people have had made a valid observation about their reality.

Let's face it: everyone's chasing their tails here. I don't have "the proof," so you are both right within a Rationalist framework, yet you both keep voicing your subjective opinion that this framework defines reality, as if you were stating an objective fact. I keep retorting that there are other ways of measuring reality, which are built into the human organism. Then you say, "where is the proof?"

Do you get the paradox here? You've just ordered a crate full of crowbars; how are you going to open it? Well, it would be easier from inside the crate, because then you would have a crowbar. If there is ESP, since science has not proven it, the most reliable way to confirm it would be to study methodologies which claim to induce ESP. At best, one would take an empirical approach to this, working to safeguard against defense mechanisms like the "attraction of belief" dynamic that Crunchy Cat just mentioned.

If either of you had extensively studied any such disciplines to personally confirm whether or not they are bogus, I would have more respect for your views on this aspect. And "I have a friend who's into martial arts and he's a skeptic too" doesn't count. Aside from the fact that it is hearsay, can you show that it represents a prevailing belief among practitioners of Aikido, Judo, Qi Gong, or Kung Fu? Oh, but consensus doesn't matter... "We protect the island of the real in this sea of delusions."

 

[(Q)]

pretty much everything that Q just said is represented in the following article

Upon further analysis of Winston Wu's article, we find poor Winston 'pleads a lost cause.' Nice try though.

http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/winstonwu.htm

And I can copy/paste his definition of a true skeptic:

"Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental, seeks the truth"

How have I wandered from this definition?

You both seem to believe that science's current framework defines the absolute truth of the human potential...

That is a lie and was addressed in a previous post - you either did not read the post or chose to ignore it.

you put on a front of cautiously doubting things because they have never been proven

Another lie - I have merely asked you to provide some evidence.

but there is an implicit assumption that science has come so far in exploring human capabilities

That is an assumption made by those who have no idea what science entails.

You can say that I am wrong, that I have no evidence, and it is true within the context you have selected.

The context being reality.

However, you can't dictate whether something exists or not.

But that is exactly what YOU are doing.

You may now dub yourselves arbiters of reality. That doesn't make you right.

I don't know where you got that idea - reality has dubbed itself.

I keep retorting that there are other ways of measuring reality, which are built into the human organism. Then you say, "where is the proof?"

You make those retorts but provide nothing of value. Saying something over and over does not make it true.

If there is ESP, since science has not proven it, the most reliable way to confirm it would be to study methodologies which claim to induce ESP.

Why should anyone bother chasing rainbows? No one has ever shown abilities for ESP, so there is no point pursuing it, and no one with a brain in their heads is about to pay for such research.

If either of you had extensively studied any such disciplines to personally confirm whether or not they are bogus, I would have more respect for your views on this aspect.

I don't want your respect, and I will give you none. You have chosen to propagate disinformation on your website. That is reprehensible at the very least.

 

[(Q)]

Here you go Transy, this article should give you some insight into your claims:

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat, don't bother; pretty much everything that Q just said is represented in the following article:

Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena.

Nice site. It has alot of good infromation that is mixed with alot of false
information. A dangerous combination IMO. Anyhow, you implied that you
have a new sense. That's cool. What is it? Once this is defined lets work
together to test it.

Heck, I'll even throw in some weird claims myself. I can cause a strange
physical sensation to manifest in my body. It feels like a pulse of warm,
tingly, tightening of my skin. Typically the feeling manifests from my head
and can spread as far as my legs (depending on the intensity of pulse). When
a pulse occurs, there is no visible change along it's path. It takes a little
work to get a good series of pulses going; however, I can nonetheless
reproduce the pulse when I want. Sometimes the pulse starts in my back,
arms, or other areas of my body (in fact I saw a 'Chakra' diagram once and
the points of 'energy' shown correspond to many of my pulse points... but
this is just an observation and not intended to act as proof of 'Chakra'). I
can't really control where a pulse emenates from and it seems to come from
my head the most. I have some control over the intensity of a pulse and this
in turn dictates how far it spreads through the rest of my body. I have no
tested to see if the pulse affects my blood pressure, brain waves, elctric
field, temperature, etc. I have made an interesting observation; however, if I
wake up from sleeping then initiating a pulse will immediately launch me into a
lucid dream. Some interesting observations about my lucid dreams initiatied
by the pulse is that they always start in the exact location where I am
sleeping and are somewhat corrupt in the beginning. For example, my wife
(laying next to me) may have a clone next to her with 10+ arms or there may
be a rabid armadillo on my bed with spiked armor that moves around the body
of the animal at a speed fast enough to produce blur when observed by a
person. Usually the corruption clears in what I would approximate to be 5-10
minutes of dreamtime.

So, lets summarize my claims:

* I can reproduce a very unusual physical sensation at will.
* The senstation can be brought about in pulses and typically
emenates from my head but may eminate from various points in
my body. The emination point is not something I can control.
* The greater the intensity of the pulse, the farther the sensation
will travel in my body.
* Initiating a pulse after waking up will immediately throw me into
REM sleep (there have been no exceptions to date). The content
of the dream after doing this will be corrupted for a short time.

I'll make you a deal. If you tell me about your sense and help me test
it then I will be accountable to you for proving any of the above claims
I made (which are consequently much harder to prove because they
are all internalized).

This argument is a sure bet--but only as long as you consider the Rationalist methodology the only way to confirm reality. This means writing off the evidence of the senses, the relevance of first-person reporting when it comes to what people can perceive, and the efficacy of any techniques for developing extrasensory abilities. You both seem to believe that science's current framework defines the absolute truth of the human potential... you put on a front of cautiously doubting things because they have never been proven, but there is an implicit assumption that science has come so far in exploring human capabilities, "unproven" functionally means "unreal."

You live in a unvierse that has laws defiing reality. The laws are self
enforcing. You simply cannot break them. If you choose to accept as true
that sleeping on a flaming bed of burning napalm will not harm you then
reality is going to contradict your 'truth' the moment you lay down in that
bad (you will be burned to a crisp). Science is just a tool for getting at the
truth. It is quite frankly the best tool available by leaps and bounds. When
a claim is made, it is an assertion of truth and there are a bazillion ways
to support claims. I have ESP (ok read my mind). I have telekensis (ok raise
my hand). I have clairvoyance (ok get the winning lottery numbers). Planets
are spherical (ok show me).

You can say that I am wrong, that I have no evidence, and it is true within the context you have selected. However, you can't dictate whether something exists or not. I have stated my criteria for belief. You can keep saying, "but look, now we're back in my context, where your belief is worthless!" You may now dub yourselves arbiters of reality. That doesn't make you right. The world was there before Western scientists questioned how and why; so it is with human perception.

The only context that Q and I are working in is the known model of of
existence. If someone builds upon the model or corrects in that is a
wonderful thing. If someone jumps into a different model then they
are going to have alot of contradiction to get over.

CC, your statement "agreement validates the attractiveness of an assertion" is true in many cases. It could be applied to many New Age fads (to say nothing of commercial fads). However, I hope you realize the fallacy of contending that "agreement only validates the attractiveness of an assertion." Sometimes agreement is indicative of the fact that many people have had made a valid observation about their reality.

You are 100% correct and I am in error. I am quite impressed to see that
you have weilded the tool of logic so effectively in this case.

Let's face it: everyone's chasing their tails here. I don't have "the proof," so you are both right within a Rationalist framework, yet you both keep voicing your subjective opinion that this framework defines reality, as if you were stating an objective fact. I keep retorting that there are other ways of measuring reality, which are built into the human organism. Then you say, "where is the proof?"

Where's the beef?!? It reminds me of those old BK commercials. What's
preventing you from attaining the proof?

Do you get the paradox here? You've just ordered a crate full of crowbars; how are you going to open it? Well, it would be easier from inside the crate, because then you would have a crowbar. If there is ESP, since science has not proven it, the most reliable way to confirm it would be to study methodologies which claim to induce ESP. At best, one would take an empirical approach to this, working to safeguard against defense mechanisms like the "attraction of belief" dynamic that Crunchy Cat just mentioned.

Go to the store and buy an extra crobar?

If either of you had extensively studied any such disciplines to personally confirm whether or not they are bogus, I would have more respect for your views on this aspect. And "I have a friend who's into martial arts and he's a skeptic too" doesn't count. Aside from the fact that it is hearsay, can you show that it represents a prevailing belief among practitioners of Aikido, Judo, Qi Gong, or Kung Fu? Oh, but consensus doesn't matter... "We protect the island of the real in this sea of delusions."

[/QUOTE]

My opinion on this is that the disciplines that produce results are the ones
worth studying.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Here you go Transy, this article should give you some insight into your claims:

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

That's some funny shit right there... but scary too.

 

[Stryder]

I will just state my simplified understanding of what "Parapsychology" is, as far as I'm concerned it's all False. I'm not saying this from a skeptic or pseudo-skeptic point of view but from someone that actually has "witnessed" the truth that what goes on is usually very Human in origin.

I can't explain why people do things to each other, or what projects they have secretly on the go, but I can tell you that "aliens", "ghosts" and these supposed Psychic's are bunkem.

Anything that has supposedly occured at and been recorded can at anytime be recreated with the right equipment just to prove that "Parapsychology" is really playing upon peoples superstitious beliefs.

This however being stated doesn't mean that everyone on Sciforums should adopt my view, if you want to run around screaming at people in sheets, then go ahead and do it.

 

[transmaterial]

Q,

You seem like a fan of quoting. Lest you accuse me of putting words into your mouth, I've collected a few from you, which illustrate a misinderstanding you have about the nature of reality.

You say that this is your schtick:
__________________________________
FALSE CLAIM: "I JUST HAVE A QUESTION"

"No need to obfuscate the argument, you made claims, I posted them and asked you to back up your claims."

"I'll explain it to you again, you made claims, I asked for evidence. It doesn't get any simpler than that."

And my favorite:

I've exposed your website as complete horsepucky

____________
THE EVIDENCE

So, any evidence to support your wild claims from your website? Or is it just that which you conjured from your imagination?

Back to Logic 101. "If A, then B" does not necessarily mean "if B, then A." Most wild things that people conjure from their imaginations would certainly be hard to prove. However, this does not mean that all hard-to-prove claims are conjured from imagination.

Will you be addressing the evidence to your claims anytime soon or should we just write you off as another kook?

__________________
CRITERIA FOR BELIEF

transmaterial: I have stated some of my criteria for belief; you may deride them, but represents your opinion about what "knowledge" really means, not an absolute truth.

Q: Your so-called 'criteria for belief' is irrelevant as it does not address that which is based in reality.

Your claims are based on blind faith just like religion, that much you have made clear, so it is definitely a fair comparison.

I made clear that there are at least three criteria for belief other than conclusive scienfic research OR blind faith. To reiterate:

1. I have experienced distinct sensory quantities beyond the 5 that scientific materialists consider valid.
2. I have explored various methods for enhancing and directing these perceptual states.
3. I have analyzed their different components,
4. tested their continuity, and
5. corroborated these perceptions with both mystical traditions from around the world, many other firsthand accounts, and a burgeoning social consensus about what people can really perceive.

I hope that someday you will own up to your quasi-religious ideology—which, by the way, is not Scientific Rationalism, but Materialistic Scientism. Rationalists don't rule out the unproven altogether.
________________________________________
"I KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR IMAGINATION"

Your stated grounds for distinguishing fantasy from reality:

Transmaterial: I agree that science can't explain or confirm what all these people claim to have perceived.

Q: Then you admit that your claims are worthless and conjured from your imagination?

If you can't support your claims, they are worthless. Do you get it now?

Simply admit it - your claims are worthless and were conjured from your imagination. Everyone else knows that, why don't you?

transmaterial: I said on my web site (and everyone else would have known this, if you had extended your quote by a couple of paragraphs) that I do not possess said evidence.

Q: So, you admit your claims are false and unfounded and are merely that which you conjured from your imagination?

creations from ones imagination is not content for debate, nor is it REAL.

(Anyone seen Wag the Dog? "Don't change horses in midstream." Repeat until it seems like an absolute defense of your viewpoint.)

Sorry, but I can't accept that you know what is in other people's imaginations, since all you provide is anecdotal evidence. "Because I said so" won't cut it.

If you have a way of scientifically proving that certain of my beliefs come from my imagination, I'm all ears. If not, then your statements reveal a callousness bordering on delusions of Omniscience.

_______________________________
"I KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT REALITY"

and then there are those who wish to understand the difference between what is real and what is not. I, along with many others here, fall into this category. You come along with a whack of extraordinary claims, which I asked you to verify and you could not. So, I can only conclude your claims are not 'real.' Get it now?

transmaterial: I am not required, by any law of man or nature, to accept your implicit assumption that these energies are not real just because scientific measurements do not yet register them.

Q: True, there is no law against having fantasies. And it appears you have no moral problem with the propagation of disinformation to others.

Reality defines human knowledge, there is no question about that... Reality is not just my framework, but the framework we all are bound. Your claims are well outside of that framework, hence have no meaning in reality. It's really quite simple.

No, it's really not. Your thinking is simple, therefore it all appears simple to you. You have once again propagated the absurd claim that your faith in science's current body of research is equivalent to absolute knowleldge about the nature of reality. This is true disinformation. Maybe you should brush up on your Thomas Kuhn; science does not make reality, nor has humankind seen the last revolution in scientific paradigms.

Unless you can provide some evidence, its all just baloney. And just because others believe in similar nonsense does not make it valid in any way.

"Unless you can..?" Are you aware that the causality of the above statement is completely ass-backwards? A phenomenon necessarily precedes evidence of the phenomenon. Anyone who says otherwise is talking horsepucky, whatever the hell that means.

The information you seek is not available within the realms of science or reality, so most likely you will find only that speculated by others who believe in the same things.

Oh, if only I'd taken that "Reality" class in college along with the Science classes, I would be enlightened like yourself!

Unless you actually provide a challenging argument, your claims ARE nonsense and will remain so whether you like it or not. Sorry.

Here, this cuts to the heart of your pathological insistence that you understand certain absolutes about reality and the limits of human perception. If I have not given proof, my claims ARE nonsense. It isn't that they "should be considered unlikely" or "taken with a grain of salt." They simply are unreal, and you know this. And some people say that there is no dogma in science...

_______

The 'agenda' is to ask for evidence to extraordinary claims.

We ask for evidence and you provide personal attacks and that is somehow an ideological bums-rush? Uh-huh.

Who's dodging now? There's a little more going on here than "asking for evidence." Your agenda, as the quotes above show, is to repeatedly claim that ideas which science cannot verify, and even those with partial but inconclusive evidence, are imaginary. Most real scientists agree that no one has the authority to make such a proclamation. Your tactic of repeating this over and over does not give it any more weight.

As for my arguments, I have stated that in order to confirm the existence of 6+ human senses, one would have to rely on first-hand experience first and foremost, which is not the context for "evidence" that you requested. With a few qualifiers, you could have made a good case against my claims being improbable, but instead you played the God of the Real.

The above exerpts point to a deeper ideological agenda.

See, Q, I don't have a problem with Rationalists, skeptics, or most other philosophical or ideological orientations. I just don't like snide people with delusions of absolute knowledge about reality.