Cryptohominid wrote:Doc Stier wrote:Nonetheless, it can reasonably be argued that many things exist or occur as experiential realities which can't be adequately measured by current scientific processes sufficiently to conclusively either validate or invalidate how and why they exist or occur as they do.
I can't say that I agree with you there, the wording is a bit fuzzy. I'd love an example or two. Taken at face value though, I think you would have to concede that the 'gods of those gaps' grow smaller with each passing year.wiesiek wrote:hehe,Cryptohominid
as far as I know
modern psychology and related fields takes a lot of concepts and trainings/exercises directly from ancient eastern hermits...
Look, I still 'meditate' and do 'qi gong', I just no longer expect or desire any supernatural or paranormal benefits from them. Relaxation, breath control, and learning how to get one's conscious mind out of the way of the subconscious when necessary are all sufficient and useful benefits for a martial artist. No one in science doubts the mind can affect the body, they doubt (because of a lack of any good evidence) that anything paranormal is achieved by any of these methods.DeusTrismegistus wrote:However there is research showing not only that humans can effect the outcomes of random number generators by our consciousness but also the meditation of many individuals can effect the international crime rate. Further consciousness has been shown to effect directly physical object through torsion fields which are little known in the west but have been researched for over 30 years in Russia.
There was research claiming to show these things. It did not weather peer review, unfortunately. There are poor studies and experiments done all the time, some sincere and some deliberately (and often sophisticatedly) fudged to show support where there is none. I don't have time to go into all of it right now, and I doubt it would matter much, but suffice to say it's not enough to point to a couple of preliminary or just plain bad studies and say "look—Science proved it!" If you are really interested in this angle, try "Bad Science" by Dr. Ben Goldacre for a general audience overview of the topic. It's quite entertaining and informative.DeusTrismegistus wrote:So perhaps, just maybe, science will one day actually explain extrasensory awareness. However that can never happen until claims of such a thing existing are not dismissed out of hand
Honestly, I'm not dismissing it out of hand, I'm dismissing it for lack of evidence. I used to think exactly the same way you guys are about the subject and it was only after a ton of reading, practicing, and a stop and start multi year self education in science and reason/logic that I eventually gave up those beliefs. Hell, I might even still wish they were real (but not really, upon reflection) but as my grandpa said, "Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first." Bottom line here: Paranormal claims are by definition extraordinary and therefore the burden is on the claimant to provide (extraordinary) proofs, not on science to disprove them (it don't work that way folks).
I'm not going to go on and on trying to change the mind of believers here either, I know the futility of such an endeavor. You can't reason some one out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and all that. I do hope that the odd person will be prodded to undertake their own process of discovery and understanding of what science is, what it knows, and how it knows. It changed my life for the better.
Cheers, guys!
Dmitri wrote:TrainingDummy wrote:I did the "godan" test for my shodan in Bujinkan.
You don't see, hear or feel anything beyond sensing the "killing" intent of the attacker.
It's a lot easier than it looks, and is very trainable. It's actually a LOT harder if someone doesn't throw their intent meaningfully at you, and just swings the sword at your head.
Would be interesting to see if that skill/ability is reproducible (even by a master) while wearing some good noise-cancelling headphones...
I'm not saying it wouldn't be reproducible, but, if it were possible that way, it would be a hell of a lot more impressive of a feat, in my book.
TrainingDummy wrote:But if you wanted to get really serious, you could just train the same skill yourself. Just close your eyes and get a partner to throw their intent at you, you'll feel something. Or throw your intent at the cat and see if it moves.
Chris McKinley wrote:Who's right? Who's wrong? Who cares?
TrainingDummy wrote:I take offense at being called a Dick, Chris...
Chris McKinley wrote:I kinda pictured you more as one of the Pep Boys.
Dmitri wrote:For me personally to be convinced in something, it needs to be 100% reproducible, no less. You know, like gravity. I.e. when I pick up a pen and drop it, I am 100% certain it will fall. I need THAT level of reproducibility. Others don't, of course -- so to each their own; it's all good, everyone's different.
DeusTrismegistus wrote:Of course, because you studied science and logic and came to one conclusion that means that anyone else who holds a different conclusion just hasn't done the research, understand logic or science.
Doc Stier wrote:I agree completely. And at the end of the day, that's all I'm really saying!
Dmitri wrote: Surely SOME of it was indeed weird and "unexplainable". I've also "healed" remotely, had a couple of "visions" (confirmed), and also generally was exposed to a LOT of things of that nature (though my dad mostly, who BTW could do some REALLY mind-blowing stuff), -- that sort of thing was really blossoming in Russia back then (and probably still is.) But thinking back, from my current perspective -- I believe that a) all of it was within the normal statistical distribution/probability, and b) most of it was easily explainable with psychology.
Chris McKinley wrote: Tom is giving anecdotal testimony about apples being purely explainable by science and psychology, Dick is giving anecdotal testimony about how oranges are entirely outside the realm of science to measure, and Harry is saying that neither apples nor oranges exist in the first place and is all just a parlor trick.
Who's right? Who's wrong? Who cares?
Dmitri wrote:Again, I'm not saying "weird things don't exist/are impossible", what I'm saying is that every single one of them that I experienced or was exposed to was a completely unique isolated incident and NOT 100% reproducible. For me personally to be convinced in something, it needs to be 100% reproducible, no less. You know, like gravity. I.e. when I pick up a pen and drop it, I am 100% certain it will fall. I need THAT level of reproducibility. Others don't, of course -- so to each their own; it's all good, everyone's different.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests