BS: Precognition

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jan 23 - 01:25 PM

Are we doxxing people now, Ebbie?

Time to end this thread, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 23 - 07:15 PM

And at least I can show respect by calling it the Holocaust, not "the holocaust." Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jan 23 - 06:01 PM

If you are saying that I deny the Holocaust, please have the courage (that would be a change...) to say it in words of one syllable so that I can seek to have you removed from this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 23 - 05:35 PM

Our Top Gun is a witness since the US Navy has independently corroborated and confirmed the encounter with six different measuring devices and has documented the evidence and released some of the multiple encounters to the public. It matters not a jot that the witness can conclude who the pilot of the craft may be but it is an amazing confirmation by Naval forces with a long and spotless record of achievement. We really should know by now how Steve ignores the truth and lies.
Anyone who routinely dehumanizes members and denies the holocaust should not be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 23 - 11:43 AM

I like precognistas :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jan 23 - 09:37 AM

Precognitionistas? Or even just precognistas? How about precognophiles? I was going to say precognophiliacs, but that sounds too much like a disorder.

OK then, precognophiliacs it is... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 23 - 09:28 AM

I don't think it is precognitionists. Probably precognitionators :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 23 - 08:08 PM

Witness isn't evidence unless it's independently corroborated and confirmed by documentary evidence. It matters not a jot that the witness is an amazing member of the forces with a long and spotless record of achievement. I think one of Bill's logical fallacies covers that nicely. You really should know by now how science works. Those UFO-spotters belong in the same category as ghost-aficionados and precognitionists. They fervently wish to stand out from the crowd for some reason, and the only way they can manage it is by making outrageous claims that rational people can't disprove.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Jan 23 - 08:01 AM

Some witnesses/experiencers are better than others.
Meet and listen to America's REAL Top Gun who encountered UFO's.
The midpoint to end is about what he saw, the first half is about flight expertise.
our real Top Gun

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 09:14 PM

Ain't life grand. Doing art projects allows my mind to slow way down until time is not a factor. What! it's 5 already? It's like waking but sleeping is gaining an upper hand especially after eating. Knowing yourself and self-reflection is highly recommended.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 07:51 PM

Your novel view of yourself knows no bounds. Go off and have a nice cup of tea.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 07:42 PM

When I think of intuition I don't think of it in a paranormal sense but rather view it as noticing something more deeply than many other people.
If its a kind of alternate intelligence I'm OK with that. People are smarter than me in other ways.

Some may call it a subconscious deduction but I settle for intuition.
For me intuition seems omnipresent compared to the rare precognition.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 04:01 PM

This one was in an outside light fitting, which had to be dismantled before the bulb could be changed, rather a large number of feet up the wall. Bravely, I managed it...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 09:48 AM

How many Stsve's does it take to change a light bulb?



Maybe for the joke thread... :-D

(BTW, Gnomes don't change light bulbs before you ask)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 06:59 AM

Gosh, I meant to say throwing out experiential observation. I'm in a rush to change a light bulb (which is absolutely true!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 06:53 AM

And what mindset would that be, dear Aunt Sally? I didn't say anything about experiential observation or refusing to consider alternatives now, did I?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 06:42 AM

If you throw away all experiential observation there would be no disagreement. But you can't without being closed-minded. Refusing to consider alternatives is not scientific either. No wonder the subject is forbidden to a certain mind set.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 06:23 AM

The second law of thermodynamics (causation)is a powerful argument.
Only if time has a dimension that has enough breadth could such a thing happen. For it to happen over the course of a decade is even harder to imagine. Perhaps what is wrong with quantum mechanics is a clue. But I admit I dunno based on conventional (still broken/incomplete) science.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 04:56 AM

Is should be are.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jan 23 - 04:56 AM

Your first link is to a popular science magazine article from twelve years ago. As the magazine has to survive by selling copies, the headline and colourful graphic is appropriately dramatic. Sadly, the content is a damp squib.

Your second link tears the meta-analysis to pieces. I could gleefully quote the whole thing, but here's a paragraph that supports what I've been saying all along about the misuse of statistics:

"To me this interpretation betrays a deep-seated misapprehension of the scientific method. Statistical inference, regardless of whatever form it takes, only assigns probabilities. It cannot ever prove or disprove a theory. In fact, unlike mathematical theorems, scientific theories are never proven. They can only be supported by evidence and must always be subjected to scientific skepticism. The presentiment meta-analysis (Mossbridge et al., 2012, 2014) illustrates how this process can be misapplied. A significant effect does not confirm psi but it raises many new questions."

At least the writer doesn't quite close the door. There are no closed minds but there's a lot of shrugging of shoulders as we wait for some real, honest science.

Frankly, supporters of precognition are at point zero. No good evidence, just bad science.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 09:50 PM

For precognition
and against precognition

But they can't both be correct. Unless on rare occasions when probability wins the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 06:32 PM

Witness testimony is great as long as it's independently corroborated. Experiential testimony, whatever that is, may be of passing interest, but without evidence and corroboration it can't jump over the bar. Science is not a dirty word.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 06:27 PM

As a philosophical topic justice is an interesting study.
For example in legal arguments if the claim of one issue of a witness is called into question the entire testimony is tainted. This is similar to Bill's example. The problem with that line of thinking is there have been holocaust deniers who claim an architectural detail of the gas chamber dynamited ruins do not show the blueprint details and must be discounted and unbelieved along with the rest of the claims that the holocaust was real.

Then witness testimony is torn apart because perfect memory does not exist. Throwing away all experiential testimony is a foolish thing to do if your aim is to get to the truth. Dave, do gnomes ever sit down when we aren't looking?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 05:32 PM

I have not asked for justice Donuel. That was you! You seem to imply that you wanted justice for something in this thread. Was that just obfuscation again?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 05:13 PM

More than for justice, Donuel, perhaps you should be asking for mercy. :@)

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 03:51 PM

Allow me to remind you of my ideals of justice; My wish list for Justice is a difficult thing to legislate nationally or globally in a human context so it is more of a list of ideals. As such, my idea of justice is manifold;

I seek justice for those who put the priority of the well being of collective life before pocketbooks.
I want justice for everyone who may have a perspective be it a minority or majority and be free to speak or write it.
The third is justice to have a freedom from want so that every nation may have a healthy peacetime for its inhabitants everywhere in the world. Finally a justice to release those chained in fear from authoritarians who threaten or subject people to heinous acts for the benefit of the despot.

Addressing the issues of greed, freedom, poverty and fear are the main issues but it goes farther than that in this time of new technology.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 03:40 PM

Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is when poetry has an advantage. Media whores are good at dumbing down but I guess I am not good at it from your POV Dave.

What do you want justice for Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 01:48 PM

I hadn't really noticed that you've ever challenged me, Helen.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 01:46 PM

There you go again, Donuel. Your words do not make sense

Pricking ego = an action
Ego prick = a person

And ego cannot be a liar surely. The person with the ego can be.

Trying to be too clever just muddies the water and confuses those of us with different thought patterns. Try working to the lowest common denominator and keep things simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 12:37 PM

What you call pricking egos I call ego pricks, but not in mixed company.
I do what I can to silence ego because the ego is a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Helen
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 12:32 PM

Yes, Steve, that is why I challenge you on occasions because you appear to claim that other people are doing exactly what you do yourself:

"Pricking egos occasionally is useful when someone or other starts to get a rather inflated notion of their own talents."

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 11:32 AM

I've spoken to many an idea in this and your brain thread. I also respond to ideas put by other people. Pricking egos occasionally is useful when someone or other starts to get a rather inflated notion of their own talents. Many of your posts are innocent of useful content. Linking without comment to a Fleetwood Mac song for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 10:45 AM

It would be better to speak to ideas than perpetual obsessive personal rants that make you sound like a poor unfortunate jealous soul. jus sayin.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 10:10 AM

I suppose there's a fine dividing line between poetry and doggerel. Whether it's in the mind of the beholder is moot.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 10:05 AM

Beauty and understanding is in the mind of the beholder.
I see nothing obscure about my words that at times may be poetic but still have meaning for a sincere audience.

My wish list for justice is far afield in this thread but is a fair question. Justice is a difficult thing to legislate nationally or globally in a human context so it is more of a list of ideals. As such my idea of justice is manifold;

I seek justice for those who put the priority of the well being of collective life before pocketbooks.
I want justice for everyone who may have a perspective be it a minority or majority and be free to speak or write it.
The third is justice to have a freedom from want so that every nation may have a healthy peacetime for its inhabitants everywhere in the world. Finally a justice to release those chained in fear from authoritarians who threaten or subject people to heinous acts for the benefit of the despot.

Addressing the issues of greed, freedom, poverty and fear are the main issues but it goes farther than that in this time of new technology.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 23 - 06:20 AM

Well "truth" is an excellent word and we shouldn't shy away from using it, with the necessary proviso that it's one of those words that's wide open to personal interpretation. In that notorious creationism thread that Bill mentioned (and which I feel embarrassed about when I read it back!), I had a long spat with The Snail about evolution. I said that evolution is true (and I'll never demur from that). Evolution happens and that can't be denied by anyone employing actual reason. So why can't I say it? He said I shouldn't... What can never be said to be true is evolutionary theory. We've amassed thousands of pieces of evidence from fossils, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics and geography that support the theory, so much that it's now impossible to say that evolution doesn't happen. There's a huge amount about it that we still don't know but there will be no killer blow that could finally see off evolution. The theory is there in order to try to explain the fact of evolution. Our knowledge of the processes therein is always subject to tweaking as we obtain more evidence, but nothing can alter the basic truth that evolution happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 23 - 12:46 PM

What's hard about "Why else mention them?"?

I am not seeking a row. I am looking to avoid one through clarification. Your posts are unclear and ambiguous so unless you can clarify what justice you want, you will never get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jan 23 - 10:55 AM

Whats hard about things I do not need or want?
Or if you want to have a fake row about something, how about idolatry ?

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 23 - 06:29 AM

"I say I do not need vengence or apologies but I want justice and truth.
Justice for what? Let me count the ways."

Sorry Donuel but vengeance and apologies must have been on your mind. Why else mention them? I have given you one indisputable truth about this thread. Which version of the truth do you want and, yes, we need to know what you want justice for before it can be given.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jan 23 - 08:12 PM

I say I do not need vengence or apologies but I want justice and truth.
Justice for what? Let me count the ways.

There is also the famous essay about needs and wants. It is often given to a son or daughter upon going away to college.

As I said at the start of this thread that France would win the World cup.
Later I acknowledged that my guess is only close but no cigar as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 23 - 07:03 PM

He wants truth, sez he, but he deals in half-truths and garbled science all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 23 - 05:38 PM

The truth is that this thread was always destined to go round in circles. It is like arguments about god or the afterlife. Philosophy rather than science.

Just what do you feel you need justice, vengeance or apologies for? You opened the can of worms.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jan 23 - 07:58 AM

I do not need vengeance but I do want justice.
I do not need apologies but I do want the truth.

I just rarely get truth and when I do I often 'don't get it'.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 23 - 11:45 AM

... also, "truth" is one of the words most commonly subjected to equivocation.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 01 Jan 23 - 06:14 AM

> Goethe

Goedel, surely? and it's slightly worse ....

In constructing maths from first principles, once you have a sufficiently wide set of axioms that counting is possible, there are statements you can make* which can be neither proven nor disproven. But rather than glumly saying "this is officially Undecidable", it can be a wonderful release --- [joyous voice] you get to choose: add either "said statement is false" or "said statement is true" to your set of axioms, and see which produces the more interesting mathematics. There'll be something else which is Undecidable waiting out there in the newly-extended maths, but the ride goes on.

But you do need the proofs first, both that the statement cannot be proven, and that the statement cannot be disproven, which brings us back to our thread subject. Sadly, the Axiom of Choice applies to set theory, not to real life,** and the hypothesis in question is both hard to prove and hard to disprove; hence the heatedness of the discussion, which IMHO has the trench-warfare nature.

* Most notoriously, the Continuum Hypothesis, which involves orders of infinity; but this marg[snip]

** I once asked (as an undergrad) why, in Applied Maths, one uses *this* form of statistics to describe collections of electrons, rather than *that* form. I was told, basically: This is what Nature's telling us to do.

Subject: RE: BS: hair splitting
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 22 - 02:40 PM

Goethe showed that there are trueisms that can not be proven in math.
Geometry has problems without proofs

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 22 - 02:08 PM

"Any unproven fact". That's an odd impossibility.
However, many experiments yield non-deterministic results, which is to be expected in this quantum universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 22 - 11:59 AM

"If we believe one unproven fact, then why not all the others?"

A good expression of my favorite logical principle.."ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'),

Thus, if you have two contradictory premises in your opinions, AT LEAST one of them must be false... and maybe both.
Most people never even attempt to look directly at what various of their beliefs imply...

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 22 - 07:49 AM

Exempt=excerpt

Subject: RE: BS: Precognition
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 22 - 07:47 AM

An exempt from the ramblings of Rev. Bernard Achiuior, a fundamental nut job if ever there was one.

"When a man is not born again, his spirit is dead and is controlled by the soul, his soul is subject to his body, and the body takes instructions from the world and Satan. The body of the unbeliever is always in contact with Satan and the world. The body picks signals from the world and send them to the human intellect which interpret the worldly language to the emotions making the will to take decision in line with instructions from the world. He then use the body to implement the decision. Recall that, to the unbeliever, his human spirit is dead: that is the conscience, the intuition and the fellowship. So they are no longer alive to participate in the decision making process. When we said his spirit is dead, we actually means, the spirit is controlled and dominated by the soul."

So why, do you ask, have I copied this? (There is worse BTW. Look him up)

Well, we cannot disprove any of it. The rest of his ravings are littered with 'facts' that cannot be disproved either. So, working on the basis that if it cannot be disproved, it should be taken seriously then his 'facts' equal the 'fact' that, although unproven, precognition is real!

Of course we now get into levels of nonsense which leaves me with the question, "If we believe one unproven fact, then why not all the others?" And if we believe all the others, how hard can it be to accept that if you send me all your money, you will have eternal happiness in the afterlife.

:D