Are you really claiming terms are personal no matter the application? A statement is meaningless, not the person. An action is inexcusable, not the person. Methodology is sloppy or messy, not the person.

You, on the other hand, are not calling my arguments anything at all, but are calling ME lazy and dishonest. That makes you the one using the ad homs, not me.

So, I do BEG your fucking PARDON for having a shitty memory and missing a point in your ever so precious video.

 

I agree. You press buttons 'till someone gets frustrated, then you crow about your victory.

 

Say, isn't this about Jessica Utt and the Gansfeld experiments ? I've had that thrown at me by some Uri Geller fans a while ago.

I sent them this in return : http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html

Haven't heard from them since.

Right, missing something in a video and basing my argument  on having missed a point does mean you're allowed to use ad-homs. Right.

You're using a tactic to eschew issues you can't directly confront.

I am not going to play a tit-for-tat game with you. The bottom line is that you made an argument based on a FALSE-assumption because you did not watch the entire video. The next time, I suggest you do your homework before you make an argument.

That will only happen if the "collective mind" Paisley calls God which conveniently agrees with everything he says tells him to.

No, the moderator identified herself as "Jessica," but this is not Jessica Utt.

I did read the entire article written by Ray Hyman. Several comments...

1) The article is dated March/April 1996. The Dean Radin video is dated January 2008.  That's almost a twelve years difference in the interim.

2) Hyman is mainly taking issues with the meta-analysis, the ganzfeld experiments, and the Stargate Project. Dean Radin was not involved in the Stargate Project (a military/CIA project). 

3) Hyman and Utts (who is a professor of statistics @ UC/Davis) were both contracted by the government to evaluate the results of the Stargate Project. They came to different conclusions regarding the results. That being said, the Stargate Project had some successes in the field of intelligence. See Wikipedia: Stargate Project for more details.

4) In the article, it appears that one of Hyman's main reasons for rejecting the results is because he believes that it does not accord with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics (he states this once in the introduction and twice in the conclusion of his article). Radin, in the video, states that the results of the psi experiments do not violate any known laws of science and is compatible with quantum mechanics.

5) Dean Radin, in the video listed in the OP, says that Ray Hyman is the only evaluator who disagreed with the meta-analysis. Also, when Ray Hyman conducted his meta-analysis in 1985, ten different psychologists/statisticians reviewed the same data and did not agree with Hyman (fast forward to time 26:10).

6) Evidently, Ray Hyman gave his presentation prior to Dean Radin's. (At least, this is what Radin appears to be saying in the video.)

7) Hyman stated in the article (dated in March/April 1996) that the meta-analysis results must be indepedently validated. It has. That's partially what the video is about.

8 ) Radin states in the video that two skeptical researchers conducted the telepathy experiment and reported the same hit rate of 32% (as determined by the meta-analysis). This was published in the "Journal of Humanistic Psychology" in 2005 (fast forwad to time 27:30).

 

No, it's evidence that we as a species have evolved to be sensitive to the moods and emotions of others.

Even if there is some psychic link between us, it's not any sort of indicator of a supernatural beastie orchestrating anything.

 

Um... I already posted this once.  Not only is it about being able to read other people's emotions, it really is about the fact that we are preprogrammed by our brain to act before we are consciously aware of the decision.  Once again, here's the link to the actual science, as opposed to the vapid speculation in most of this thread.

Science Challenges Free Will

If you want to read the whole study, go down to the bottom and you will find the journal reference.  You'll need to go to a university library or something, as it doesn't appear to be available for free online.

 

There are quantum mind hypotheses that can account for the data (e.g. see Evan Harris Walker's book entitled "The Physics of Consciousness." It's replete with testable consciousness variables and equations). That being said, you haven't explained to me how materialism explains the data. Moreover, you haven't explained to me how anything that was observed conflicts with the present known laws of science. Is your tack simply to disregard the data and pretend that it is not there?

Well, damn, sorry for emphasizing your point.

 

Ah, I see.

Sorry for throwing proverbial rocks at you, too. Peace?

Collective mind? What the fuck is this, the Borg? Resistance is futile!

 Hamby,  thanks for the article .... I made a folder of it and emailed it out as well.

  Anyway, "ALERT" - Science makes new discovery and people are saying it's proof of god ! ..... 

   Gezz, people are either so awestruck by life they are nuts, or so bored they make god shit up.  

   This is why I ask "WTF ain't gawed", and of course I shout "fuck god of abe." Even if it was possible and we did find something out side nature/physics (supernatural), why would anyone worship or make an idol of it, and separate it as god? WTF isn't equally gawed ? What more of a "miracle" does one need than what we naturally perceive?

  "The kingdom of gawed/heaven is before your very eyes NOW, for those who can see." .... "It is the devil of wrong thinking that separates you from gawed, and creates idol worship." ..... "The Christ is YOU, as in all things, as all is connected."

YOU are GOD ....

      

  

You're a natuaralistic pantheist? Then I guess you believe in a conscious universe. Right? After all, the term pantheism literally means "the belief that all is God!"

 

While I also say "all is god", I remain an Atheist by choice. Pantheist and Panentheism are broad terms. I do for the most part, endorse it because it's generally non dogmatic and allows for the term "god", in a more realistic definition. I even agree with "most" of it. I also think is an xlint help to ridding "god of abe" superstition dogma.

My objection is the view it generally or often holds scientifically regarding consciousness. I am no scientist. I know very little about QM etc,  but my intuition does not agree that consciousness "propels" the eternal infinite material "Oneness" .....

Cool  Eloise is my favorite "Panentheist" teacher. 

Maybe I don't understand it very well, but it is also often aligned with alot of weird "New Age" ideas.  In the philosophy of Occam's Razor, I remain Atheist in this time in history. The simplest of labels referring to god ideas , is to say, " I am god, as god is obviously atheist" ! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Varieties_of_pantheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

Go Science, there much to learn.

   

 

I have a pdf of the article in question if anyone's interested.

 

M

Did you even bother to read my last post? Walker's hypothesis is TESTABLE!

Hamby didn't provide a materialistic explanation. This suggests that either: 1) you didn't read Hamby's article or, 2) you didn't watched the video I provided in the OP. Hamby's article was not about PSI!

So, you're claiming that the statistical data is invalid. You have no evidence whatsoever that the testing procedure was invalid. You are simply making the accusation because the data does not support your worldview. Sorry, but that is not going to fly. The experimental data was repeated by other scientists.

I have provided you with one scientific hypothesis. Let me know when you have a materialistic explanation to account for the facts.

After following the thread and having absolutely no interest in the bullshit Paisely is on about I thought I'd post this.  Of course, I have no intention of actually offering any kind of response beyond my opinion above, but before Paisley yet again repeats himself I'd like for him to see his words from his initial post as he wrote them and to consider what follows.  This might be an interesting tangent for the rest of those following the thread, though I believe I might be correct in saying, rather, that there is nothing in this thread to tangent from.

(link)It would seem, Paisley, that some people do not wish to abide by your suggestion.  It is, after all, only a suggestion and you do not own this thread, you merely started it.  Why don't you change your language before you call more people out for not complying with something in your initial post which you never wrote?

Oh, actually, you did write something that contradicts your earlier statement, Paisley.

(link)So, which is it, are you suggesting that people watch the video or are you insisting that they must and that they cannot participate unless they do?  Of course, you have no control whatsoever over the latter and you really can't determine whether anyone actually watched the video barring some sort of test on the content.

Actually, I'm wondering why it is you started the thread exactly.  You initial post follows.

(link)All you want people to do is to post comments?  To what end?  Did you think you would facilitate some sort of discussion?  Are you an authority or learned on psychic phenomena or only interested?  Were you going to respond to questions and with what information different than that any of us have at our disposal were you going to respond?  Are you capable of a greater understanding of the lecture than us and if so on what basis do you claim that capability?

Seriously, Paisely, what you've presented here is a video that few people have any interest in watching, without providing a synopsis or a point list of interesting or intriguing topics from the lecture and without providing any incentive to participate in the posting of comments.  I don't believe that you actually desire discussion at all and as evidence for that I point to your initial post.  Get off it or did you actually have something of use to post?

 

Please explain to us how the article you posted refutes Radin's telepathic experiments.

To Paisley:

Firstly: I second what Hampy said in the above post.

Secondly: I second what Tomathy said in his post.

 

In here follows my own comment.

What annoys me about your attitude is not that you don't have a "materialistic" world view. It's not that you label yourself a pantheist. It's not that you start an interesting discussion, and that you post an interesting video, that I watched, and enjoyed.

What annoys me about you is your extreme aggresiveness at everyone who have replied to you. Disregarding Matt's Asshat comments, everyone here have at least opened with taking you seriously. And you have respended with harsh hostility, and with remarks like: "You just don't like it because it counters your materialistic world view". You have said this several times in this thread, most resently to Nigel, above. I, for one, have never said that I hold a strictly materialistic world view, and nor have most others here. Some might be more than willing to say that, if prompted, but before they do, you have no right to simply assume that that's how we all feel.

You also had the nerve to say to me, last time you responded to me that I had admitted that a "collective consciousness is God", when I had specifically said that a collective consciousness is, if one exists, a collective consciousness. There is a significant difference to me, and you have the nerve to put words in my mouth, only because you can't tell the difference.

You appear to be extremely paranoid about everyone here, and will gleefully trot this interesting, humble man Radin out and use him in your little game of: "See how wrong you are, you evil, coldhearted materialists!"

Some of us have shown alot of interest in Radin, some have shown less, but regardless, we have all agreed that it means only one thing: that he has discovered something that may be a fluke, or may be something interesting that we'll learn more about in future. But it's still not even remotely proof of anything (strictly speaking it never will be, since proof only exists in mathematics, but you know what I mean).

But this thread is not useless. For one it has spawned the most lucid entry I have ever seen from I Am God As You on these boards:

I have always liked IAGAY, but he is often a bit too high on life (or whatever) for me to draw something more useful than a smile from him, but this is an excellent reply by him.

If you were a true pantheist*, like him, you would see that "our" (whoever "we" are) materialistic worldview (whatever that is) is as much a part of "God" as everything else, and not something to be so angry at, and paranoid about, and selfrightiously smug towards. How about showing some real oneness with the rest of us, and just listen to what we say, instead of being so annoyingly paranoid and angry all the time.

* Yes, I know this is a no-true-Scotsman, but I am not arguing from logic, but from my emotions. You have acted aggresive towards you, and I reply by saying, I prefer IAGAY's brand of pantheism: He would never throw away his vision of God, or Gawed, as it were, simply because I told him so, so he has the strength of his convictions, and he can say wise things, as the above quote shows, so I can learn something from him, but he also has an ear for what I say, and he treats me with the same respect and understanding that I show him.

Really, I don't think that I have ever actually disagreed with anything he said, so in a way, I'm a pantheist too, I just use words slightly differently than him. But if being a pantheist is your agressive, paranoid attitude then I am not a pantheist.

Peace.

Don't be a turd.  I'm thoroughly familiar with Radin's experiments, and the methodology behind the ganzfeld experiments.  Your demand that everyone watch your silly little video is equivalent to me saying that you can't comment on zoology unless you've read Richard Dawkins.

 

Once again, you seem to have ignored the series of symbols I encoded into the computer, then sent through the magic square in front of me into the super-Galactic-Consciousness that gives wisdom to all who will receive it.

Dude, everyone else in the thread understands what I was saying.  I don't know how to say it any more clearly.  First, the study I linked demonstrates the existence of previously unknown confounding variables.  Second, the study I linked demonstrates the existence of unconscious brain activity that could very well be part of a materialist explanation of many paranormal "anomalies" in studies like the ganzfeld experiments.  When you combine these elements with the already numerous statistical objections to the methodology of those experiments, it becomes intellectually dishonest to claim that the experiments "prove" anything.

How hard is this to grasp?  These studies demonstrate the need for more rigorous controls, and specifically, controls for unconscious control of "conscious" decisions well before they become conscious.  Are you seriously telling me that you don't understand why a ten second delay wouldn't skew the results of a test that is supposed to be passing "psychic" information in real time?

 

I watched the entire video today respecting your suggestion to not post until I had. In general it was quite interesting though it is not per se scientific proof IMO. Radin admits there is no theory of psi and actually sees this as an advantage. I will agree that the test data indicates there is something there but even he makes no claim as to exactly what. He suggests minds are transmitters and/or receivers but does not have an explanation for the process. It was worthwhile to watch if you have an interest in psi.

In the video he didn't really go into detail on this book that I could see. If you are using this book for some of your conclusions regarding a universal mind you should post a summary for it or another video if there is one on that subject.  The universal consciousness or mind is lightly discussed in the video where he mentioned the idea around 52:40.  where he says "If telepathy is true what you think of as private thoughts are not so private after all. Think of your mind as mostly located here but also spread out a little but in both space and time. If it's spread out in space and time it means that your thoughts and other people's thoughts co mingle at some stage. That creates a very dramatic change in terms of our personal oncology about who and what we think we are."

He however does not prove these statements he suggests them only as a possibility in this video. I don't see this as proof of a universal mind even if it proved to be true but only there may be an undeveloped ability for telepathy.

The results he presents suggests there is something there, IMO compelling is a stretch. Many of us think there may be something to psi, but exactly what. I have no clue or explanation for such results but it is not significant enough to warrant a view that it is compelling or as you sometimes suggest that it is evidence of your universal mind. It is interesting and an area that deserves further research.

He also says around 51:30 "Is it really psychic? It's hard to say because we don't know exactly what psychic means. When we see the results of the experiments they look a lot ;like what people report in their life."

So even he doesn't make the claims you do. As I have told you in other threads you need to be patient and wait for further knowledge and experimentation to understand unknown areas instead of interpreting to suit your purpose.

The area of psi to me is an interesting area as with many people I have had unexplained deja vu as well as unexplained precognition events. In one case I have never been able to explain the event but it doesn't lead me to a non material answer. I simply do not know how to explain what occured to me. I certainly don't attribute it to a universal consciouness as an explanation.

 

Here's a link on what someone else has to say about Radin. Link

I'm not going to bother watching the video specifically because Paisley posted it. He/she does a disservice to whatever he/she endorses, robbing it of credibility, or even basic appeal, by positioning it as relevant to his/her vacuous Christian-flavored pantheism.