The Validity of Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
I`ll give you a conspiracy theory
The world elite are linked through family and business connections and aside from making themselves extremely powerful through the imposition of suffering through a slanted economic system are also planning to enslave the last near-free people on earth by implanting microchips in them so all behaviour can be monitored. What will follow will be the imposition of the ultimate police state.
The world elite are linked through family and business connections and aside from making themselves extremely powerful through the imposition of suffering through a slanted economic system are also planning to enslave the last near-free people on earth by implanting microchips in them so all behaviour can be monitored. What will follow will be the imposition of the ultimate police state.
gurrier said:
But how does a storm, whirlwind, hurricane, whatever, have the intelligence to segregate for toads and only toads?
Incidentally, you're in good company with your explanation. ..
Apparently, on the 31st of May 1981 the London Sunday Express reported that there was a shower of frogs in Narplion, Greece. Scientists at the Meteorological Institute in Athens were quoted. It was a segregating whirlwind according to them as well... But one of them added that it was "remarkable" that the frogs escaped injury in being picked up by a whirlwind, hurled across the landscape and then plunked down again.
Similarly, 21 May 1921, (on a date eerily reminiscent of some lyrics by Jim Morrison
) the London Evening Standard reported that thousands of frogs had been said to have fallen out of the sky in Gibraltar, What's more, they were said to have been alive and to have hopped about in agitation, - and who can blame them? - And reports of this sort are not only confined to the vagaries of a "free" press, apparently. 21 July, 1979, Soviet Weekly, in the village of Dargan-Ata, in Soviet Turkmeni?/ turkemni? (turkmenistan, I guess) another shower of frogs, alive and hopping.
What do you reckon, the segregating whirlwind again, or damn commie lies?
(BTW, I get all this stuff out of a book, I haven't checked that the reports quoted actually exist for myself, I just trust the author of the book. But if you want to check them, please do, and if you find the reports don't exist, let us know, and then I'll check them myself, just to check you're not lying, and if I find they don't, I will at this point admit that I've been thoroughly duped.)
"A bizarrely accurate intelligence..." I agree, I'm so glad, what a rarity.
Bizarre, like the following:
11 November, 1979, Manchester Guardian, a whirlwind with a stranger sense of humour...
No frogs or toads, or coins, or blocks of ice, this one dumped black puddings, eggs, bacon and tomatoes on four houses in Castleton, Derbyshire. But of course there may be better explanations for this ridiculousness than an anthropomorphic, segregating, intelligent set of random aircurrents...
(NB, please note the edit on my above post.)
I myself have never seen a tornado or a whirlwind, (though I gather there was one in Bristol recently, just after I visited, as it happens, though that's hardly relevant) But I have seen one on film, and I certainly had the impression that it hoisted everything it could lay its molecules on into the sky, without regard to their buoyancy.
Bizarre, like the following:
11 November, 1979, Manchester Guardian, a whirlwind with a stranger sense of humour...
No frogs or toads, or coins, or blocks of ice, this one dumped black puddings, eggs, bacon and tomatoes on four houses in Castleton, Derbyshire. But of course there may be better explanations for this ridiculousness than an anthropomorphic, segregating, intelligent set of random aircurrents...
(NB, please note the edit on my above post.)
I myself have never seen a tornado or a whirlwind, (though I gather there was one in Bristol recently, just after I visited, as it happens, though that's hardly relevant) But I have seen one on film, and I certainly had the impression that it hoisted everything it could lay its molecules on into the sky, without regard to their buoyancy.
ZWord said:
I think you know it was a joke. The point being that the laws of physics mean that all air currents automatically segregate objects by buoyancy*. Air currents which pick things up will let them down in order of buoyancy. Things with similar buoyancy will come down at the same time. Pianos will return to earth before frogs or feathers. One of the principle design goals of frogs is to make them unusually bouyant. Many of them can, for example, support themselves on the surface tension of water. It doesn't strike me as particularly suprising that, once airborn and subject to the various powerful convection currents in higher parts of the atmosphere, frogs might come back to earth slowly and gently.
Sounds like an airplane disposed the leftovers from breakfast over a populated area from a relatively low altitude. Very irresponsible but hardly bizzare.ZWord said:
ZWord said:
And you have seen all the objects picked up being returned to earth at exactly the same time, feathers, pianos and all?
I'm not answering any more hypotheticals until you explain to me what your theory is for these occurrences is and why it is more plausible than the results of my non-investigation of the matter.
* I'm simplifying the science a small bit here.
gurrier said:
If only. But it gets worse, or better, depending on your viewpoint. "It" came back several times, dumping English breakfasts in the same place. A mighty accurate accident. Coincidence? I don't think you'd suggest that here. (But perhaps you would for the case of the frogs in Gibraltar, - the evening standard reported that there was another fall of frogs there seven years previously.) So leaving aside humorous intelligent whirlwinds, or accidents, perhaps it was an aerial prankster, which as it happens, according to the story, was the conclusion of the police, who started a nightly patrol. But they never caught anyone. They even checked out unusually large purchases of food froom local stores, but didn't find any.
gurrier said:
No, I haven't. And I must admit, perhaps you have a point, at least, your explanation appears to be a kind of explanation, But all the same, myself, I find the segregation too extreme to be accounted for in this way, I would expect at least a few snails toads, newts and perhaps even some plants to be mixed in with the frogs.
What about?
19 September 1980, Essex Evening Echo- A block of ice "two feet square" fell on the local golf course and was seen by several players. Ray Wood, one of the golfers said "there wasn't any explanation. The sky was blue, without a cloud in sight, and there were no planes about." Lucky really, a block of ice that big would probably have caused the plane to crash if it was previously attached to the wings. Ray Wood did not also add that there were no whirlwinds, segregating or otherwise in sight, but then, he didn't have any experience of scientific explanations of such anomalies. Could it have been an aerial prankster with a soundless invisible aeroplane a la Dr J? Sorry I wasn't thinking. I know, you said.
gurrier said:
Fair enough, thank you for engaging so far with these anomalies, you've been more than kind.
My theory, Well I don't have one. At least not one in particular, but I don't raise them for the sake of finding an explanation, I raise them in order to look at how people explain them.
Charles Fort, who in the 19th century collected over 300 cases of these falls of segregated living organisms, suggested that we should seriously consider and examine the possibility that "God" is heaving the frogs around, and indicated other oddities that suggested that "God" might be a mental case.
Here's another explanation: Tallius writing in 1649 said anomalies of this sort were the result of "fulgurous exhalation conglobed in a cloud by the circumfused humour." What do you think of that?
Or perhaps it is a "teleportive force." But what's the difference between a teleportive force and a segregating whirlwind, well, as far as I can tell, the difference is that a segregating whirlwind is a teleportive force of the kind that a materialist scientist can believe in, and a teleportive force is just a non-explanation - (like dormitive power.), except it sounds like an explanation to dogmatic spiritualists.
But he goes on and on. 4 June, 1981, Stockport Express- a rain of coins in Reddish, between Stockport and Manchester. The whirlwinds went through people's pockets and drawers, to arrange the fall? (the coins varied between one pence pieces and fifty pence pieces. different in density) one witness, Rev Graham Marshall, interviewed later, reported that the coins were all embedded in the ground by their edges. Still you can hardly take the word of a priest can you.?
10 December 1968 Daily Mirror - A rain of coins lasting fifteen minutes in Gateshead, County Durham. The coins were all bent in the middle.
So the whirlwind got hold of the coins, took them off to Uri Geller, and then dumped them on Gateshead. Or perhaps it was Tony Blair practising black magic. He's from those parts you know.
What is my point? Do I even have one? It's a vanishing point. Here today, gone tomorrow. Maybe it's a question of Mind over matter. Our mind over your matter, or equally, your matter perhaps will bury our mind. Maybe in the end if you materialists convince enough people that it really is just mundane old shit, then in the end, consensus reality will be strong enough to make sure that we really are just mundane old shit, Primates whose brains are too big, and not an iota of living spirit left in the world, and then- as my daughter said, before she could talk, "soon we'll all be dead." An astonishing observation , but maybe I hallucinated it. I'm always doing things like that.
But I'm fairly sure I didn't hallucinate when, aged three and a half, she started counting up to ten, got to nine, missed out of the ten, and then repeated 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 with increasing intensity, until I was so flustered that I asked her if she was trying to tell me there was an emergency, to which she replied, yes, - and when I asked her what I was supposed to do about it- told me to do some magic, as if it was the most obvious thing in the world. Perhaps you think I'm making it up, but I find it heartbreaking.
Apparently a long time ago, magic was a lot more common than it is nowadays. One explanation for that is that in the old days before the wonderful advent of science, people were superstitious gullible fools. Another possible explanation is that the consensus of minds makes the nature of reality, and so perhaps when the consensus is kind of fragmented, like mainly scientific with dissenting freaks and eccentrics, you get anomalies rather than miracles.
I tend to think it would be a better future for humanity if we could do away with the materialist consensus all together, maybe if we could all find a way to start hallucinating that Spirit and matter are blurred, and that spirit can break the boundaries of matter, we might find that the sum total of our minds would be powerful enough to make our reality worth living in, maybe we'd even ascend into heaven. Maybe at this point, reality would become so good that despite the current evidence and opinion to the contrary, we might decide, God is not "a prick" and his plan was well worth it in the end. You know, I'm not in bad company, Jesus himself said that his magic depended on people's faith. Still, Jesus, what did he know about magic?
Good Post Zword
We are indeed the sum of our own expectations.
Some people may want to relegate us to apes that sing but what a waste that would be.
Its my belief that nothing can stop the evolution of conciousness and that in the next decade we will witness a revolution in thought and the general human experience.
We are indeed the sum of our own expectations.
Some people may want to relegate us to apes that sing but what a waste that would be.
Its my belief that nothing can stop the evolution of conciousness and that in the next decade we will witness a revolution in thought and the general human experience.
I think one of the most powerful revolutions in thought which you are referring to is happening now within the scientific community, where progressive scientists are courageously trying to speak out against the vested interests of a `scientific inquisition`.
The technology exists to revolutionise this planet in a very short space of time. The genius Nikola Tesla knew the potential of free energy more than a hundred years ago, but his work was suppressed. We cannot allow this to happen now.
Just two out of many excellent scientific websites that i urge skeptics/ Neo-Darwinists/conservatives/Creationists etc, as well as open-minded people, to investigate:
http://www.suppressedscience.net/
http://archivefreedom.org/
The technology exists to revolutionise this planet in a very short space of time. The genius Nikola Tesla knew the potential of free energy more than a hundred years ago, but his work was suppressed. We cannot allow this to happen now.
Just two out of many excellent scientific websites that i urge skeptics/ Neo-Darwinists/conservatives/Creationists etc, as well as open-minded people, to investigate:
http://www.suppressedscience.net/
http://archivefreedom.org/
"As we enter the 21st century, science seems poised to execute a similar evolutionary cycle of advancement of their comprehension and relevance. We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological and psychological anomalies (..) most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes of the human mind, in ways for which our preceding 20th century scientific paradigm has no rational explanations. (..)
Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version. A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed."
Professor Robert G. Jahn
Professor Jahn is Dean Emeritus of the School of Engineering and Applied Science. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and has been chairman of the AIAA Electric Propulsion Technical Committee, associate editor of the AIAA Journal, and a member of the NASA Space Science and Technology Advisory Committee. He is vice President of the Society for Scientific Exploration and Chairman of the Board of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories consortium. He has been a long-term member of the Board of Directors of Hercules, Inc. and chairman of its Technology Committee, and a member and chairman of the Board of Trustees of Associated Universities, Inc. He has received the Curtis W. McGraw Research Award of the American Society of Engineering Education and an honorary Doctor of Science degree from Andrha University.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/jahn.html
I assume, according to Loki`s mentality, this man is a "conspiraloon" (whatever that means)
Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version. A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed."
Professor Robert G. Jahn
Professor Jahn is Dean Emeritus of the School of Engineering and Applied Science. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and has been chairman of the AIAA Electric Propulsion Technical Committee, associate editor of the AIAA Journal, and a member of the NASA Space Science and Technology Advisory Committee. He is vice President of the Society for Scientific Exploration and Chairman of the Board of the International Consciousness Research Laboratories consortium. He has been a long-term member of the Board of Directors of Hercules, Inc. and chairman of its Technology Committee, and a member and chairman of the Board of Trustees of Associated Universities, Inc. He has received the Curtis W. McGraw Research Award of the American Society of Engineering Education and an honorary Doctor of Science degree from Andrha University.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/jahn.html
I assume, according to Loki`s mentality, this man is a "conspiraloon" (whatever that means)
Fruitloop = independent thinker.?
24 September 1981 Nature - under the headline "A Book for Burning."
"This infuriating tract...The author, by training, a biochemist and by demonstration a knowledgeable man, is however, misguided. His book is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years...in no sense a scientific argument.... pseudo-science...preposterous...intellectual abberations.."
The book that Nature wished burned was -A New Science of Life, by Dr Rupert Sheldrake.
But of course, talk of an Inquisitorial spirit or a priesthood that will not tolerate heresy, is paranoid fruitloop nonsense.
Dr Sheldrake's heresy, surprise, was a theory of evolution different from fundamentalist Darwinism, - as I understand it, more along the lines of the Lamarckian theory, or the bergsonian theory. (Lamarck theorised the inheritance of accquired characteristics.)
For me it's interesting to note in passing, that by the theory of Darwinian evolution itself, the nature of evolution ought to change over time.
Consider two families of the same species. One, like all good biological machines, only produces descendants with random mutations, the other, by a freak mutation, produces a kind of intelligent DNA, that produces intelligent mutations, -Impossible- But if it were possible, and no-one's proved that it isn't, then the family whose members produced mutations that were somehow not random but "intelligent" would evolve faster, and eventually would out-evolve the other family, so it's almost to be expected that while evolution may have started out random, by now, it ought to be intelligent?
Sheldrake did actually have some evidence for his heretical stirrings.
His heresy is that there are non-local fields in nature, somewhat like non-local fields in modern physics, and somewhat like the heretical orgone, theorised by Dr Reich in fifties america that got his books burned, and got him banged up in Prison.
Surely not... ? No, really, it happened this century, in america. Conspiralunacy? Inquisitions, priesthood. Surely only a paranoid would talk this way.
Documented in Sheldrake's book, is a set of experiments in animal psychology. William MacDougall of Harvard University, did a long-range test on inheritance of intelligence in rats. -- Tested the rats for ability to solve mazes, and bred smart rats with smart rats, and slow rats with slow rats.
But the results were perplexing. .. 22 generations later, instead ofonly the smart rats getting smarter, as was predicted, all the rats were proportionally smarter, in thedimension of maze-solving.. Even those rats bred from slow learners were solving themaes nearly ten times faster than their ancestors Is there an explanation for this in orthodox genetics? On the face of it, it looks a lot simpler to fit this data, if it's true into a Lamarckian model of evolution than a strict darwinian model. And we hear a lot about favouring the simplest explanation from the materialists, - when it suits them - . Apparently, McDougall's expeiment was later duplicated in both Scotland and Australia, with even more disconcerting results. By then even the first generation of rats was solving the maze faster than mcdougall's last-generation learners. Well that explains it then, says the materialist with a sigh of relief, Mcdougall was incompetent, or worse fraudulent. Or is it a case in fact where everyone will choose to believe the explanation that best fits their worldview.
In an experiment sponsored by the New Scientist magazine, (Feb '84 New Age Magazine, Boston) people were given one minute to find the hidden faces in an abstract drawing. Later the solution was broadcast on BBC TV when about a million viewers were expected to be looking. Then, elsewhere in places where the Beeb was not received, immediately after the broadcast, the tests were given again. As predicted by Sheldrake's theory,those who found the hidden faces in a minute were a higher percentage -by 76 percent- (p< .01 to obtain this result by chance.)
Again, both camps can easily draw their conclusions from this, - New Age magazine- ? Well you can tell from the title that it's a fruitloop publication, and the idea that you'll find any serious science in there is ridiculous, say the materialists, and why hasn't it been replicated by any "credible" scientists? while those of us whose faith is weak, wonder if in fact it's a case of heretics being driven out of "credible" publications by the inquisition, so that the orthodox can then cast aspersions on the credibility of the source, And we wonder if perhaps, the experiment hasn't been replicated by "credible" scientists, not because it can't be, but because they don't want to replicate it, either because they don't want their idol blasphemed, or because they don't want to be driven out into the scientific wilderness like Dr Sheldrake.
It's interesting again, how closely the scientific argument matches the argument about conspiracy theories in general..
In chorus, the orthodox repeat, no evidence, no evidence, and if there is, then it's not credible. And if it looks credible, then it's merely anecdotal, and if it's not merely anecdotal, then the statistics have been cooked... Etc Etc ., or the author is mad, or a fraud, or gullible, or was hallucinating...
24 September 1981 Nature - under the headline "A Book for Burning."
"This infuriating tract...The author, by training, a biochemist and by demonstration a knowledgeable man, is however, misguided. His book is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years...in no sense a scientific argument.... pseudo-science...preposterous...intellectual abberations.."
The book that Nature wished burned was -A New Science of Life, by Dr Rupert Sheldrake.
But of course, talk of an Inquisitorial spirit or a priesthood that will not tolerate heresy, is paranoid fruitloop nonsense.
Dr Sheldrake's heresy, surprise, was a theory of evolution different from fundamentalist Darwinism, - as I understand it, more along the lines of the Lamarckian theory, or the bergsonian theory. (Lamarck theorised the inheritance of accquired characteristics.)
For me it's interesting to note in passing, that by the theory of Darwinian evolution itself, the nature of evolution ought to change over time.
Consider two families of the same species. One, like all good biological machines, only produces descendants with random mutations, the other, by a freak mutation, produces a kind of intelligent DNA, that produces intelligent mutations, -Impossible- But if it were possible, and no-one's proved that it isn't, then the family whose members produced mutations that were somehow not random but "intelligent" would evolve faster, and eventually would out-evolve the other family, so it's almost to be expected that while evolution may have started out random, by now, it ought to be intelligent?
Sheldrake did actually have some evidence for his heretical stirrings.
His heresy is that there are non-local fields in nature, somewhat like non-local fields in modern physics, and somewhat like the heretical orgone, theorised by Dr Reich in fifties america that got his books burned, and got him banged up in Prison.
Surely not... ? No, really, it happened this century, in america. Conspiralunacy? Inquisitions, priesthood. Surely only a paranoid would talk this way. Documented in Sheldrake's book, is a set of experiments in animal psychology. William MacDougall of Harvard University, did a long-range test on inheritance of intelligence in rats. -- Tested the rats for ability to solve mazes, and bred smart rats with smart rats, and slow rats with slow rats.
But the results were perplexing. .. 22 generations later, instead ofonly the smart rats getting smarter, as was predicted, all the rats were proportionally smarter, in thedimension of maze-solving.. Even those rats bred from slow learners were solving themaes nearly ten times faster than their ancestors
Is there an explanation for this in orthodox genetics? On the face of it, it looks a lot simpler to fit this data, if it's true into a Lamarckian model of evolution than a strict darwinian model. And we hear a lot about favouring the simplest explanation from the materialists, - when it suits them - . Apparently, McDougall's expeiment was later duplicated in both Scotland and Australia, with even more disconcerting results. By then even the first generation of rats was solving the maze faster than mcdougall's last-generation learners. Well that explains it then, says the materialist with a sigh of relief, Mcdougall was incompetent, or worse fraudulent. Or is it a case in fact where everyone will choose to believe the explanation that best fits their worldview. In an experiment sponsored by the New Scientist magazine, (Feb '84 New Age Magazine, Boston) people were given one minute to find the hidden faces in an abstract drawing. Later the solution was broadcast on BBC TV when about a million viewers were expected to be looking. Then, elsewhere in places where the Beeb was not received, immediately after the broadcast, the tests were given again. As predicted by Sheldrake's theory,those who found the hidden faces in a minute were a higher percentage -by 76 percent- (p< .01 to obtain this result by chance.)
Again, both camps can easily draw their conclusions from this, - New Age magazine- ? Well you can tell from the title that it's a fruitloop publication, and the idea that you'll find any serious science in there is ridiculous, say the materialists, and why hasn't it been replicated by any "credible" scientists? while those of us whose faith is weak, wonder if in fact it's a case of heretics being driven out of "credible" publications by the inquisition, so that the orthodox can then cast aspersions on the credibility of the source, And we wonder if perhaps, the experiment hasn't been replicated by "credible" scientists, not because it can't be, but because they don't want to replicate it, either because they don't want their idol blasphemed, or because they don't want to be driven out into the scientific wilderness like Dr Sheldrake.
It's interesting again, how closely the scientific argument matches the argument about conspiracy theories in general..
In chorus, the orthodox repeat, no evidence, no evidence, and if there is, then it's not credible. And if it looks credible, then it's merely anecdotal, and if it's not merely anecdotal, then the statistics have been cooked... Etc Etc ., or the author is mad, or a fraud, or gullible, or was hallucinating...
tell me about it.... 
Its changing though, a discipline like science can only remain stagnant for so long. Even "orthodox" science is entering territory especially in physics where every discovery seems to open up a whole new bag of questions which call into doubt previous givens.
Science will have to take a leaf out of evolutions book and mutate or die.
BTW Zword there are numerous theories on the intelligent nature of DNA and i`ve been reading a lot of spiritual takes on DNA involving DNA having various layers of resonance which when activated could trigger an evolution of conciousness rather than just biology. But i`m a conspiraloon so what would I know?
Its changing though, a discipline like science can only remain stagnant for so long. Even "orthodox" science is entering territory especially in physics where every discovery seems to open up a whole new bag of questions which call into doubt previous givens.
Science will have to take a leaf out of evolutions book and mutate or die.
BTW Zword there are numerous theories on the intelligent nature of DNA and i`ve been reading a lot of spiritual takes on DNA involving DNA having various layers of resonance which when activated could trigger an evolution of conciousness rather than just biology. But i`m a conspiraloon so what would I know?
Do you know anything about the history of science? The process that you describe is pretty much the history of science. That's how it works. New insights and discoveries open new doors.Azrael23 said:tell me about it....
Its changing though, a discipline like science can only remain stagnant for so long. Even "orthodox" science is entering territory especially in physics where every discovery seems to open up a whole new bag of questions which call into doubt previous givens.
Science will have to take a leaf out of evolutions book and mutate or die.
The stuff about science having to take a leaf out of evolution's book is so wrong and confused on so many levels that I don't know where to start. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution, on the other hand, is a word that describes progressive change which happens everywhere.
You've used the fact that you are a student of neuro-science twice now to back up your arguments. Care to tell us which branch yet*? If you want to wave qualifications as a tactic in debate, you should back them up.Azrael23 said:BTW Zword there are numerous theories on the intelligent nature of DNA and i`ve been reading a lot of spiritual takes on DNA involving DNA having various layers of resonance which when activated could trigger an evolution of conciousness rather than just biology. But i`m a conspiraloon so what would I know?
*some people call some very funny things 'neuro-science', eg weird spiritual stuff such as the spiritual design of dna.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
gurrier said:
I blame Tim Leary (and John Lilly a bit)
Lisarocket
In bed with me dinner
gurrier said:
So the fact that you call it 'weird spiritual stuff' means that it has no place in science. I think you'll find that as time has moved on that science and spirituality are getting closer than they have done since the age of reason happened.
Leary did a lot for the advancing of such theories and if the recent posts are anything to go by, this has to be justified by pointing out that he was a Harvard professor....
*gets coat and leaves thread before she's called a conspiraloon*
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
and everything is permitted
Lisarocket
In bed with me dinner
FridgeMagnet said:
If you do what thou willt
cyberfairy
http://unicycle-emptiness.co.uk/
A satanist as wellLisarocket said:If you do what thou willt
Should have suspected it... 
Nope. The fact that it lacks testable hypotheses, isn't based on evidence and makes no attempt to come up with objective evaluation methods means that it has no place in science _and_ that I think it's weird.Lisarocket said:
I must have missed this. Where shall I find such developments?Lisarocket said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Aleister Crowley said:
gurrier said:
Why it so happens I do. Therefore i`m aware that the path of true science has been stagnated by corporate affiliation and profit incentive research.
Quit with the semantics you knew what I meant, if you want to play playground games rather than have a discussion go to totstv.com or something.
gurrier said:
No I haven`t at all, your spouting again. I mentioned I studying neuroscience because YOU ASKED ME.
You see this is the difference between us, simply because I`m doing a course in something, thats not to say I have to limit my perceptions only to that branch of science....or even science itself. People like you are spoonfed out of textbooks, read a few a-level philosophy books then think your somehow the grand keepers of ultimate knowledge. You do realise you only come across as being arrogant and full of ego
Egos bad you know.
Buddha said that.
That's not true. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3426684&postcount=107Azrael23 said:
Wow, you seem to know a lot about me and you seem to be quite happy to dish out the insults. I should point out that I have not insulted you once in this or any other thread, regardless of how little I agree with your arguments.Azrael23 said:
Your sounding very evasive about the neuro-science claim too.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
As far as I recall, the use of "neuroscience" in this kind of sense arises mainly from Tim Leary. For him, experimenting on his own nervous system meant he was doing neuroscience. Certainly at least some of the time he was honestly attempting to apply the scientific method. To judge from his autobiography (which I heartily recommend as a highly entertaining read btw) he spent more of his time shagging and running away from the CIA once he left academia, but once his life had settled down again, he was more inclined to philosophical and scientific speculation around which he continued to use the term "neuroscience"
I love the way you pick and choose which parts of a post you reply to, its sad.Well done I told you WHY I was doing my course AFTER YOU ASKED ME. How is that using it to back up my arguments?
Insulted me? Arrogance is an insult to the person you condescend to.
Evasive? What because I don`t think its important? You`ll be wanting a record of my daily movements next
Now can you please get back to a discussion rather than whatever you call this tripe.
Similar threads
