Cheers for this rob I think I could have been the guy that inspired this video and I messaged in 2009 to do a video in relation to the I Ching to which u replied that you would make one. All I can say is thank you!!
The so-called M-theory is purely subjective garbage....do not trust anything that supposes anything about the nature of the universe....it turns out to be worthless. There is only one outcome for each scneario as it relates to the physical universe. It is quite binary. Things "complicate" when WE observe. They actually SEEM to "complicate". They don't, actually. Things ARE as they are. There is no variablility when it comes to the physical universe.
@Kostly However things in the physical universe are said and done, things in the CONSCIOUS universe are not (within the physical laws). The CONSCIOUS universe has "free will". THis is where things are complicated (or seeming so). Consciousness is what gave birth to things like the I-Ching and the Tao Te Ching. This is where we see a divergence from the rules of the physical universe. Matter cannot give rise to this divergence. IT is literally impossible. Well, maybe, I'll reservemyopinion
The so-called M-theory is purely subjective garbage....do not trust anything that supposes anything about the nature of the universe....it turns out to be worthless.
translation that was more contemporary and was without all the flowery "Ten Dragons mount the clouds as the golden phoenix sits on the wall of the courtyard" type fluff, this book could really become much, much more popular in today's world than it already is.
The Yi is of course, valid and accurate, but the problem with it is that the content is full of cultural and mythic elements from various periods of Chinese history. Unless the user/reader is acquainted with the many symbolic content, it is very, very difficult to get a realistic divination experience. The Wilhelm Baines, Karcher, Ni Ching Hua, and many other "translations" are all more accurate than the adulterated versions such as Legge's mess, etc. However, if someone could offer a
There was a wonderful professor at MIT in the sixties , RGH Siu, who wrote a bunch of books on New Age physics long before it was popular. I particularly recommend his book "CHI." I am delighted to discover your project.
Anyway, this will be my last post on this here. My final comment is that the issue of psychic phenomena is very much alive and far from settled and that biased individuals (such as Randi) and orgs (JREF and CSICOP etc). have no place in settling this question for us. They are irrelevant because they totally lack credibility. I encourage you to Google: "Has CSICOP Lost the Thirty Years' War?Part 1 - Birth of a Movement by Guy Lyon Playfair" and read all six parts of the article. Take care.
My point is simple really, and it's factual. Randi has a very poor reputation among serious scientists. He and his org. lack credibility (as I've shown with references). Therefore their "challenge" being so far unmet is no reliable gauge as to the existence or nonexistence of legitimate psychic abilities. The challenge means nothing because Randi and his org. cannot be trusted. Would you go in for surgery if the surgeon was untrained, despised you and had bet $1M that you wouldn't survive? LOL
Essanach, since this is Rob Bryanton's blog I don't want to keep on and on about James Randi, but I want to point out a couple of things: James Randi is not a scientist AT ALL. He does not create the test or evaluate the results. That is done by scientists. More importantly, and something that must be understood. If someone demonstrated a power and passed whatever test was agreed to by the foundation, it would be in every paper and James Randi's foundation would MAKE money.
But you keep coming from the assumption that Randi and associated orgs claims about the fairness and validity of their tests are true, when their bias and conflicts of interest are blatantly obvious. As Randi said "I always have an out". Look at the things Randi says. He is deeply, deeply biased and abusive of the people and claims he is 'investigating. He has no objectivity and has a vested interest in dismissing their claims, true or not. All this adds up to zero credibility.
Article by CSICOP cofounder exposing the lies and fraud of CSICOP and of pseudo-skeptical cult-leader Randi. Google "sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins": "[Randi] assured me how cautious he was in the testing for his well-publicized prize for proof of psychic abilities (for which he acts as policeman, judge and jury -- and thus never has supported my idea of neutral judgment of CSICOP tests. "I always have an out," he said." So, Randi privately confesses his "challenge" is a set up. He's a charlatan.
James Randi never confessed his challenge was a setup. Your comment is just spewing lies non-sense. He's a cult-leader? Randi does not judge the tests of the abilities that challengers claim to have. These are independently evaluated tests agreed to by both Randi and the challenger. James Randi has given a great amount of publicity to the worst types of frauds that people have been falling prey to. If someone claims a power and proves it his foundation will give one million dollars. It's true.
Randi said to a colleague that he was purposefully cautious about how his 'challenge' was constructed and admitted that he "always has an out". To pretend you don't recognize the obvious meaning of this statement is absurd. The test is constructed so that Randi never loses, never has to pay out $1M. - he "ALWAYS has an OUT". He's a magician remember. Fakery, Illusion & showmanship is his game. In this case his illusion is of a supposedly fair and credible challenge. He certainly has you fooled.
Essanach, you are very bold in your lies, but what you are saying is a lie. He never told a colleague any of the quotes you attribute to him. You also speak as though there is one "challenge" - the one million dollar challenge is for testable proof of ANY power that a challenger may claim to have. In fact most of the people who have taken the challenge have not been psychics - but dowsers. If I say I can shake your hand and know your grandmothers name, and I prove it, I get a million dollars.
I gave evidence that Randi said it. It was a direct quote as given by a friend and colleague of his, the cofounder of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlins. It was published online openly. I gave the article title so you could Google it and verify it for yourself. What evidence have you for your 'bold claim' that Rawlins is lying? I've given several article references now giving evidence of Randi's lies and duplicity. All you have given is denial.
You say friend and colleague, and offer no proof of that though. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Shouldn't CSICOP be offering some kind of tests as well? I think Dennis wanted to jump on Randi's bandwagon but Randi (for reasons I do not know) didn't want that... That said I don't think James Randi would mind being looked at skeptically. By the way, I am not an Atheist, so I don't necessarily agree with James Randi on everything. I do like that Atheist think though... rather than just have faith.
hmmm... what could be Dennis Rawlin's motives? Perhaps because he wants IN on what would be quite a money making venture... If telekinesis was proven via test administered by scientist involved with Randi's foundation, not only the person with the power - but James Randi and his foundation would be in EVERY paper. The foundation would make so much money that it would not hurt at all to part with one million dollars. Why can't CSICOP test people on their own? If they can do it better they should!
So you're questioning Rawlins motives, saying he wants in on Randi's potential money making venture, but Randi's motives are above reproach? Don't you see how tainted and lacking credibility Randi's world is. This isn't proper science, it's a world of arrogant snarling abuse and put downs, showmanship, vested interests, conflicts of interest, lack of scientific training, overt bias, and money. These things do not go hand in hand with an honest, objective investigation of truth.
Randi, serial liar. Google: "Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi by Michael Prescott"
"Randi says [Hebard] disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He is quoted [by Randi] as saying, "It's a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie." But is Randi's claim accurate?..."Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge & he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me."
"I refused [Randi's 'challenge'] for the same reason all serious scientists in America and Europe have refused. The process of this prize lacks scientific credibility and integrity. This guy is not a scientist — he is a mediocre magician who loves the public eye." - Dr Gary E.R. Schwartz. Ph.D.
scientists do the evaluations, and those who make claims and then refuse the challenge are frauds. The testing conditions must be satisfactory to both the foundation and the challenger. Can Dr. Schwartz not thing of a test that would prove his result? What about the test he used to prove his result to himself? Essanach you are a very naive person.
and you can downvote all my comments Essanach, it doesn't make your weightless quotes more damning or more accurate. If CSICOP - which is supposed to be a skeptic organization I thought - isn't doing it's own testing of so called powers... then what exactly ARE they doing?
"CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview. GEORGE P. HANSEN"
"Initially CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon after its beginning it adopted a popular approach... Despite the name of the org., actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOPs highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate"
(G.H. cont) "CSICOP elected not to conduct scientific research, but rather has undertaken an extended PR campaign. [It] attempts to influence the media. [it] seeks endorsements from scientific luminaries, despite the fact that few, if any, of these luminaries have ever published scientific research on the paranormal. [It] has fostered a grass roots movement that assists it in influencing popular opinion. These activities display more parallels with political campaigns than scientific endeavors."
Cont: "after the first five years, CSICOP abandoned its own scientific research)." So what is CSICOP doing? "sociologists Pinch and Collins described the Committee as a scientific-vigilante org", Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna wrote: One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition McConnell wrote: I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology "
Are their other opinions of CSICOP? OF course! There are many scholars associated with CSICOP. But the point is it's not really an investigative org. It is an org. openly antagonistic to claims of the paranormal, rather than open minded to it. One cannot entrust the inquiry of these things to such an org, with such documented failings (see the Rawlins article on CSICOP) and overt bias. The research rightly belongs in the hands of legitimate, open minded scientists and scientific orgs.
Yes, another 'crybaby" scientist who, along with every other serious scientist, won't go anywhere near the fraud Randi and his set up of a "challenge". They know Randi to be without credibility, objectivity, or honesty. Randi is a joke, as are the JREF and their "challenge". I am providing evidence of Randi lies and fraud as a response to the claim that his "challenge" proves there are no legitimate psychics. It proves nothing of the sort, as the evidence given shows.
Do you see how far we have strayed from discussing the evidence for psychic phenomena and it's scientific investigation, all because you prefer ad hominem as a tactic to derail reasonable discussion?
Clearly there is little point in me attempting to pursue that discussion with you. But, if you can't beat em, join em.
You're an abusive, arrogant, jackass who is considerably less intelligent than you imagine yourself to be.
Wow, that felt good. I can see why you are addicted to such behaviour.
"...all because you prefer ad hominem as a tactic to derail reasonable discussion?"
You're the one who brought up ad hominem when it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. A personal insult is not an ad hominem unless it is used to justify an argument. It is not my fault that you do not understand what the words that I just typed mean when presented in the order that they appear above.
PS- I think you're projecting a bit there, especially with the second half of that sentence.
Rob, I love your stuff, but psychic readers use a technique called cold reading. This technique has the reader use generalities that apply to everyone, and then in a very subtle way extract more information from you and regurgitate it back in such a way that it seems they "know" something about you that you didn't already tell them - but you did. I am fascinated by your visualization of the 10th dimension but there is a danger when trying to incorporate absolutely everything into the idea.
actually what I said above relates to what you said about maps, how a smaller map can be more useful as a guide. Incorporating ghost stories, religion, psychic phenomena and whether animals have souls or not really makes it hard to get a handle on things. Like I said though, I love your visualization of a 10 dimensional multiverse, and I watch all your video blogs.
But you are making an assumption here. Namely that 'cold reading' completely explains all 'psychic intuition' and that all 'psychics' employ cold reading. This is not so. The challenge is to remain open-minded rather than assume that, just because cold reading can be employed, that it is always employed and always adequately explains 'psychic' phenomena. I don't think it does, by any means.
To use this point you raise as any indicator of the truth, again we need to make several assumptions. Is Randi - as 'amazing' as he may claim to be LOL - actually qualified to investigate this scientifically ( same goes for his org)? Is he open-minded? Are his methods sound? Is he biased? (He stands to lose a lot of money as well as take a serious dent to his ego if he is ever proven wrong) You see my point.
Randi has succeeded where other "more qualified" people have failed in exposing frauds because while scientists typically rely their senses to determine the reality of something, magicians like him are extremely adept in thinking outside the box to figure out extremely simple ways to convincingly fool the senses.
Houdini started exposing mediums as frauds because he wanted to try to connect with his dead wife, and found that every one he went to was a scam.
I disagree,Randi himself has been exposed as a charlatan and a liar and his org. untrustworthy. So conclusions on this matter based on Randi's findings aren't sound. I agree there are fakes out there. But we can't assume that just because there are some fakes, that all 'psychics' are fakes, or all use cold reading. We need to maintain an open mind - especially as sciscience is more and more coming to understand how real psychic phenomena could be possible.
You seem to think that because Randi exposes frauds he has somehow proven that supernatural phenomena are not possible. On the contrary; the point of the exercise is to encourage critical thinking and not blindly accept things for what they appear to be at face value.
If real psychics exist, we haven't seen them demonstrate their abilities yet. As for your claim of Randi and his organization being "exposed," we'll that's just plain false.
No, I think the exact opposite. I was responding to someone who suggested that Randi's challenge not yet being met proves that there is no truth to 'psychic' phenomena. I disagree. It proves nothing of the sort.
I also disagree that we haven't seen psychics demonstrate their abilities. There is evidence for this. But if you mean it hasn't been established and accepted as a fact by science as yet, I agree.
Randi and his Org have been exposed as pseudo-skeptics.
These abilities have been tested. There is evidence. & there is reason to give credibility if one has personal experience or is acquainted with those few scientists and investigators who have bothered to seek evidence of 'psychic' claims. (Gary Schwartz etc.) Science as an institution is often slow and reluctant to properly investigate and accept things. That doesn't make these things untrue in the meantime or the people who accept them wrong.
"These abilities have been tested. There is evidence."
Again, you're going to need to back these wild claims up.
"& there is reason to give credibility if one has personal experience"
Wrong, personal experience is the least reliable form of evidence. If something weird happens to me, I don't say "wow, it must have been a ghost," I investigate what happened and why. Likewise, if a psychic tells me something that happens to be true, I examine what I know and come to the LOGICAL conclusion.
Gary Schwartz' link was a waste of time. There is no evidence there, simply a man bickering with Randi about a subject that he seems to have preconceived notions about. It's not entirely uncommon for people with phDs to be crackpots, unfortunately.
Of course, if you actually read into Dr. Schwartz' experiments or opinions, you would realize that even he admits that they do not provide definitive proof.
The Boerner link doesn't mention anything that applies to Randi.
Perhaps you could provide something that Randi has said to support the claim that he is a pseudo-skeptic, because I've followed the work of the man for about 15 years now, and I've yet to see anything remotely like pseudo-skepticism.
Also, I don't know where you learned logic or debating, but rejecting an unsupported claim is not something that requires "supporting." That's just retarded. It's like asking for evidence that there is no God. Um... hello?
Furthermore, this is the second time you've misused the term "ad hominem." I am mocking you because you're acting like a pseudo-intellectual. You aren't even comprehending the meaning of the terms you're throwing around, and you're expecting me to believe you when you claim there is evidence for psychic phenomena? What is this, third grade?
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."
I fully understand ad hominem and you fail to see how you are meeting the very definition you provide.
I can only say that I feel exactly the same about you. You don't understand proper skepticism, or what pseudo-skepticism is, nor ad hominem, nor the burden of proof. However, I'm content to deal with the argument at hand rather than attacking the one making the argument (which is ad hominem). Can we stick to the discussion at hand and the evidence?
"Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[5][6][7][8][9] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone."
"rather than attacking the one making the argument (which is ad hominem)."
You demonstrated a classic example of Ad Hominem. Compare this definition with your comment which will follow in the next post:
"Ad Hominem: a fallacy in which an argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim...Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making."
"I am mocking you because you're acting like a pseudo-intellectual. You aren't even comprehending the meaning of the terms you're throwing around, and? you're expecting me to believe you when you claim there is evidence for psychic phenomena?"
Compare this with the definition given. It couldn't really be any clearer. Your rejection of my argument is here directly linked directly to your irrelevant (not to mention inaccurate) insults. Absolute proof of your use of ad hominem.
"Your rejection of my argument is here directly linked directly to your irrelevant (not to mention inaccurate) insults."
Not at all. Clearly I am justified in my mocking as reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit. My insults were based on the things you said. They were NOT being used as justification for my argument. I NEVER said "you're wrong because you're an idiot," I said "you're wrong because your argument is unfounded."
"and you're expecting me to believe you when you claim there is evidence for psychic phenomena?"
Oh wait, I get it now. You're saying that this sentence shows that I'm rejecting your argument based on the fact that you're an idiot.
Unfortunately, you're massively mistaken. That statement was made well after I had rejected your unsupported claims. Nevertheless, the point is moot because I wouldn't accept an unsupported claim regardless of how smart you appear.
(Father forgive me for opening this can of worms,but...) Ok, so I read your rather messy debate with Essanach, and from what I can decipher, He believes in psychic phenomena and you do not, due to lack of quantifiable evidence. So, let me just jump right into the oncoming traffic and ask, What would you accept as quantifiable evidence?
A demonstration of actual psychic abilities in a controlled environment which would disallow trickery. Essentially, you apply the scientific method to rule out all other possibilities.
Hi :) Rejecting the subject of a claim as definitely UNTRUE, rather than unproven is a claim in itself and DOES need to meet the burden of proof. Many forget this. Read the articles I listed. The first contains examples of Randi's pseudo-skepticism and the others clearly define pseudo-skepticism vs proper skepticism. The proper skeptical response to my claim would be an openminded: "Supply the evidence please", NOT the counter claim, "there is NO evidence". You see the vital, subtle difference?
This is getting aggravating (that's your real goal, right?).
Your claim isn't true. There is no evidence for psychic powers or the supposed pseudo-skepticism of Randi and his foundation. You've yet to post any evidence for ANY of this. I don't need to support my rejection of your claims based on a total lack of evidence.
The Schwartz link had NOTHING to do with pseudo-skepticism. It simply claimed things from one side of an argument, much like what you're doing.
How could that be true? The psychics agree to the testing. I have great respect for the psychics that take the challenge because at least, even if they fail, you know they GENUINELY believe they have the power, and aren't just preying on the desperate.
PS. I occasionally chuckle to myself on realizing that I am actually debating the scientific qualification, objectivity and proper methodology of an attention seeking performer called 'The Amazing Randi' and having to point out why the conclusions of someone like this aren't really relevant to the quest to determine the scientific truth of the nature of our universe and the human ability to interface with it. Even without his demonstrable bias and dishonesty, this would be - and is - absurd.
Your ignorant arrogance can only be attributed to higher learning. I'm not sure where you learned to "debate," but they did you a disservice by apparently imparting the idea that debating involves making claims that fly in the face of established fact and backing them up with absolutely nothing.
Maybe they didn't teach you the scientific method in school. In that case, I should mention that it doesn't involve obtaining a science degree. Yep, it's true, ANYONE can do science.
Thanks. Now, can you drop the abusive bluster and tell me what claim you are disputing and would like me to provide evidence for?
I consider your claim that there is 'no evidence' etc, to be as silly as you evidently consider mine, but I'm sure we are capable of a reasonable discussion which stay focused on the discussion rather than ad hominem, if we try.
YOU made the claim that psychic abilities have been investigated to show evidence for their reality, so YOU have to back that up. I don't need to support my rejection of your claim, especially when you've failed to produce any actual evidence.
Again, your higher education betrays you. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy; calling you ignorantly arrogant is not an ad hominem when it's not being used to justify a statement. See, you just proved me right, yet again.
Yes, I made a claim that there is evidence to support 'psychic' abilities. You also made a claim, that there is no evidence and that no one has ever successfully demonstrated 'psychic' ability. Neither of us backed them up, probably due to a 500 character limit. (if you don't think that a negative claim needs to meet the burden of proof then you need to read Truzzi's article above) A simple polite request for evidence to back my claim would have sufficed, rather than abuse and ad hominem.
To continue - the first assumption is that all 'psychics' use cold reading, the second is that the Randi Org is capable of or objective enough to properly determine the truth of this matter. While the scientific community in general has yet to become open-minded enough to get serious about finding ways to investigate and demonstrate 'psychic' phenomena, it has begun to understand how it could well be possible for psychic phenomena to be real, as the video discusses.
errr.. i don't repeat for repitition sakes but nassim haramein goes over this stuff and makes it make sense. i often see scholars teaching in a method only useful for themselves, frustrating when PHds are supposed to be the best teachers.
@ part2themovie: you'll find the right match. they have different teaching styles, yes.but many people can learn from one of the other or even both of them. just depends on *how* we learn and also what information we already understand from them or other sources. I like both nassim & rob. i find both of them helpful for different things (& i'm not a scientist). just like with anything, go where it feels best for your understanding. (O:
Cheers for this rob I think I could have been the guy that inspired this video and I messaged in 2009 to do a video in relation to the I Ching to which u replied that you would make one. All I can say is thank you!!
TheNovelty8theory 1 week ago
...we us, little drunky monkeys unknown of heaven/earth/amen felt a tao-sorry to Ya all taos-thanky.
...Have A WELL LIVED tao!
khuongla1960 1 month ago
a point....not a point, whatsoever. go sleep.
khuongla1960 1 month ago
The so-called M-theory is purely subjective garbage....do not trust anything that supposes anything about the nature of the universe....it turns out to be worthless. There is only one outcome for each scneario as it relates to the physical universe. It is quite binary. Things "complicate" when WE observe. They actually SEEM to "complicate". They don't, actually. Things ARE as they are. There is no variablility when it comes to the physical universe.
Kostly 1 year ago
@Kostly However things in the physical universe are said and done, things in the CONSCIOUS universe are not (within the physical laws). The CONSCIOUS universe has "free will". THis is where things are complicated (or seeming so). Consciousness is what gave birth to things like the I-Ching and the Tao Te Ching. This is where we see a divergence from the rules of the physical universe. Matter cannot give rise to this divergence. IT is literally impossible. Well, maybe, I'll reservemyopinion
Kostly 1 year ago
The so-called M-theory is purely subjective garbage....do not trust anything that supposes anything about the nature of the universe....it turns out to be worthless.
Kostly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know this is off topic, but do you have anything to say about the number 23?
supergsx 1 year ago
Use the I Ching for valuable advice and insight. Try "The Pocket Oracle"
DecisionHelp 1 year ago
excellent best wishes Rob! I take it i dont have to delete myself to be the other me!!!? xx
nemesis76689 1 year ago
translation that was more contemporary and was without all the flowery "Ten Dragons mount the clouds as the golden phoenix sits on the wall of the courtyard" type fluff, this book could really become much, much more popular in today's world than it already is.
GaleZMe 1 year ago
The Yi is of course, valid and accurate, but the problem with it is that the content is full of cultural and mythic elements from various periods of Chinese history. Unless the user/reader is acquainted with the many symbolic content, it is very, very difficult to get a realistic divination experience. The Wilhelm Baines, Karcher, Ni Ching Hua, and many other "translations" are all more accurate than the adulterated versions such as Legge's mess, etc. However, if someone could offer a
GaleZMe 1 year ago
7:18 < is a big part of one secret of the universe.
DrLeroyGreen 1 year ago 2
Great stuff, I love your style.
There was a wonderful professor at MIT in the sixties , RGH Siu, who wrote a bunch of books on New Age physics long before it was popular. I particularly recommend his book "CHI." I am delighted to discover your project.
coreolis7 1 year ago
cheers for postings this rob. i love the i ching and its predictions. fasinating!!
MrLukee 2 years ago
"The time is with the month of winter solstice. When the change is due to come".
burchified 2 years ago 4
The song "Chapter 24" by Pink Floyd uses the I Ching parables. It's on the first album they recorded, called "Piper At The Gates of Dawn".
burchified 2 years ago 4
Anyway, this will be my last post on this here. My final comment is that the issue of psychic phenomena is very much alive and far from settled and that biased individuals (such as Randi) and orgs (JREF and CSICOP etc). have no place in settling this question for us. They are irrelevant because they totally lack credibility. I encourage you to Google: "Has CSICOP Lost the Thirty Years' War?Part 1 - Birth of a Movement by Guy Lyon Playfair" and read all six parts of the article. Take care.
Essanach 2 years ago
My point is simple really, and it's factual. Randi has a very poor reputation among serious scientists. He and his org. lack credibility (as I've shown with references). Therefore their "challenge" being so far unmet is no reliable gauge as to the existence or nonexistence of legitimate psychic abilities. The challenge means nothing because Randi and his org. cannot be trusted. Would you go in for surgery if the surgeon was untrained, despised you and had bet $1M that you wouldn't survive? LOL
Essanach 2 years ago
Essanach, since this is Rob Bryanton's blog I don't want to keep on and on about James Randi, but I want to point out a couple of things: James Randi is not a scientist AT ALL. He does not create the test or evaluate the results. That is done by scientists. More importantly, and something that must be understood. If someone demonstrated a power and passed whatever test was agreed to by the foundation, it would be in every paper and James Randi's foundation would MAKE money.
jloiterer 2 years ago
But you keep coming from the assumption that Randi and associated orgs claims about the fairness and validity of their tests are true, when their bias and conflicts of interest are blatantly obvious. As Randi said "I always have an out". Look at the things Randi says. He is deeply, deeply biased and abusive of the people and claims he is 'investigating. He has no objectivity and has a vested interest in dismissing their claims, true or not. All this adds up to zero credibility.
Essanach 2 years ago
Article by CSICOP cofounder exposing the lies and fraud of CSICOP and of pseudo-skeptical cult-leader Randi. Google "sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins": "[Randi] assured me how cautious he was in the testing for his well-publicized prize for proof of psychic abilities (for which he acts as policeman, judge and jury -- and thus never has supported my idea of neutral judgment of CSICOP tests. "I always have an out," he said." So, Randi privately confesses his "challenge" is a set up. He's a charlatan.
Essanach 2 years ago
James Randi never confessed his challenge was a setup. Your comment is just spewing lies non-sense. He's a cult-leader? Randi does not judge the tests of the abilities that challengers claim to have. These are independently evaluated tests agreed to by both Randi and the challenger. James Randi has given a great amount of publicity to the worst types of frauds that people have been falling prey to. If someone claims a power and proves it his foundation will give one million dollars. It's true.
jloiterer 2 years ago
Randi said to a colleague that he was purposefully cautious about how his 'challenge' was constructed and admitted that he "always has an out". To pretend you don't recognize the obvious meaning of this statement is absurd. The test is constructed so that Randi never loses, never has to pay out $1M. - he "ALWAYS has an OUT". He's a magician remember. Fakery, Illusion & showmanship is his game. In this case his illusion is of a supposedly fair and credible challenge. He certainly has you fooled.
Essanach 2 years ago
Essanach, you are very bold in your lies, but what you are saying is a lie. He never told a colleague any of the quotes you attribute to him. You also speak as though there is one "challenge" - the one million dollar challenge is for testable proof of ANY power that a challenger may claim to have. In fact most of the people who have taken the challenge have not been psychics - but dowsers. If I say I can shake your hand and know your grandmothers name, and I prove it, I get a million dollars.
jloiterer 2 years ago
I gave evidence that Randi said it. It was a direct quote as given by a friend and colleague of his, the cofounder of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlins. It was published online openly. I gave the article title so you could Google it and verify it for yourself. What evidence have you for your 'bold claim' that Rawlins is lying? I've given several article references now giving evidence of Randi's lies and duplicity. All you have given is denial.
Essanach 2 years ago
You say friend and colleague, and offer no proof of that though. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Shouldn't CSICOP be offering some kind of tests as well? I think Dennis wanted to jump on Randi's bandwagon but Randi (for reasons I do not know) didn't want that... That said I don't think James Randi would mind being looked at skeptically. By the way, I am not an Atheist, so I don't necessarily agree with James Randi on everything. I do like that Atheist think though... rather than just have faith.
jloiterer 2 years ago
hmmm... what could be Dennis Rawlin's motives? Perhaps because he wants IN on what would be quite a money making venture... If telekinesis was proven via test administered by scientist involved with Randi's foundation, not only the person with the power - but James Randi and his foundation would be in EVERY paper. The foundation would make so much money that it would not hurt at all to part with one million dollars. Why can't CSICOP test people on their own? If they can do it better they should!
jloiterer 2 years ago
So you're questioning Rawlins motives, saying he wants in on Randi's potential money making venture, but Randi's motives are above reproach? Don't you see how tainted and lacking credibility Randi's world is. This isn't proper science, it's a world of arrogant snarling abuse and put downs, showmanship, vested interests, conflicts of interest, lack of scientific training, overt bias, and money. These things do not go hand in hand with an honest, objective investigation of truth.
Essanach 2 years ago
Randi, serial liar. Google: "Flim-Flam Flummery: A Skeptical Look at James Randi by Michael Prescott"
"Randi says [Hebard] disputes the Targ-Puthoff account. He is quoted [by Randi] as saying, "It's a lie. You can say it any way you want, but that's what I call a lie." But is Randi's claim accurate?..."Dr Hebard was very annoyed by this claim since, as he explained to me, Randi had tried to get him to make this charge & he had refused. Dr Hebard later signed a statement to this effect for me."
Essanach 2 years ago
"I refused [Randi's 'challenge'] for the same reason all serious scientists in America and Europe have refused. The process of this prize lacks scientific credibility and integrity. This guy is not a scientist — he is a mediocre magician who loves the public eye." - Dr Gary E.R. Schwartz. Ph.D.
Essanach 2 years ago
scientists do the evaluations, and those who make claims and then refuse the challenge are frauds. The testing conditions must be satisfactory to both the foundation and the challenger. Can Dr. Schwartz not thing of a test that would prove his result? What about the test he used to prove his result to himself? Essanach you are a very naive person.
jloiterer 2 years ago
and you can downvote all my comments Essanach, it doesn't make your weightless quotes more damning or more accurate. If CSICOP - which is supposed to be a skeptic organization I thought - isn't doing it's own testing of so called powers... then what exactly ARE they doing?
jloiterer 2 years ago
"CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview. GEORGE P. HANSEN"
"Initially CSICOP was primarily a scholarly body, but soon after its beginning it adopted a popular approach... Despite the name of the org., actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOPs highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate"
Essanach 2 years ago
(G.H. cont) "CSICOP elected not to conduct scientific research, but rather has undertaken an extended PR campaign. [It] attempts to influence the media. [it] seeks endorsements from scientific luminaries, despite the fact that few, if any, of these luminaries have ever published scientific research on the paranormal. [It] has fostered a grass roots movement that assists it in influencing popular opinion. These activities display more parallels with political campaigns than scientific endeavors."
Essanach 2 years ago
Cont: "after the first five years, CSICOP abandoned its own scientific research)." So what is CSICOP doing? "sociologists Pinch and Collins described the Committee as a scientific-vigilante org", Commenting on an article in SI, medical professor Louis Lasagna wrote: One can almost smell the fiery autos-da-fe of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition McConnell wrote: I cannot escape the conviction that those who control CSICOP are primarily bent upon the vilification of parapsychology "
Essanach 2 years ago
Are their other opinions of CSICOP? OF course! There are many scholars associated with CSICOP. But the point is it's not really an investigative org. It is an org. openly antagonistic to claims of the paranormal, rather than open minded to it. One cannot entrust the inquiry of these things to such an org, with such documented failings (see the Rawlins article on CSICOP) and overt bias. The research rightly belongs in the hands of legitimate, open minded scientists and scientific orgs.
Essanach 2 years ago
Google the following article:
"James Randi - His Amazing Role in the Great Psi Media Circus by Sam Nicholls (1991)"
Essanach 2 years ago
another crybaby who won't take Randi's test?
I don't get why you're spamming against James Randi.
Lets say you publicly claim: "I can tell you what card you picked out of a deck, even when I'm not in the room with you"
What is wrong with actually testing this, with a test both you and I agree to, for one million dollars?
If you can't do it you can't do it, you could try again though.
This is no different than a kid trying out for a sports team at school - show us what you can do!
jloiterer 2 years ago
Yes, another 'crybaby" scientist who, along with every other serious scientist, won't go anywhere near the fraud Randi and his set up of a "challenge". They know Randi to be without credibility, objectivity, or honesty. Randi is a joke, as are the JREF and their "challenge". I am providing evidence of Randi lies and fraud as a response to the claim that his "challenge" proves there are no legitimate psychics. It proves nothing of the sort, as the evidence given shows.
Essanach 2 years ago
I like you videos, but I think you ought to give up the singing......
masterplumbermark 2 years ago
Nice voice!
EmpoweredByKnowledge 2 years ago 2
Do you see how far we have strayed from discussing the evidence for psychic phenomena and it's scientific investigation, all because you prefer ad hominem as a tactic to derail reasonable discussion?
Clearly there is little point in me attempting to pursue that discussion with you. But, if you can't beat em, join em.
You're an abusive, arrogant, jackass who is considerably less intelligent than you imagine yourself to be.
Wow, that felt good. I can see why you are addicted to such behaviour.
Essanach 2 years ago
"...all because you prefer ad hominem as a tactic to derail reasonable discussion?"
You're the one who brought up ad hominem when it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. A personal insult is not an ad hominem unless it is used to justify an argument. It is not my fault that you do not understand what the words that I just typed mean when presented in the order that they appear above.
PS- I think you're projecting a bit there, especially with the second half of that sentence.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Terence McKenna's time-wave zero theory?
PhillipThunderGrunge 2 years ago
There now exists quadruple blind studies proving psychic abilities
Go and find them- its easy- as is it then to deny this scientific truth- but notscientific
drajwright 2 years ago
No, there does not, not any that I can find that are actually scientific in nature, that is.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I hate to say it, but this seems a lot like Timecube Law.
CPS222 2 years ago
i agree ..
Akirilus 2 years ago
Rob, I love your stuff, but psychic readers use a technique called cold reading. This technique has the reader use generalities that apply to everyone, and then in a very subtle way extract more information from you and regurgitate it back in such a way that it seems they "know" something about you that you didn't already tell them - but you did. I am fascinated by your visualization of the 10th dimension but there is a danger when trying to incorporate absolutely everything into the idea.
jloiterer 2 years ago 2
actually what I said above relates to what you said about maps, how a smaller map can be more useful as a guide. Incorporating ghost stories, religion, psychic phenomena and whether animals have souls or not really makes it hard to get a handle on things. Like I said though, I love your visualization of a 10 dimensional multiverse, and I watch all your video blogs.
jloiterer 2 years ago
But you are making an assumption here. Namely that 'cold reading' completely explains all 'psychic intuition' and that all 'psychics' employ cold reading. This is not so. The challenge is to remain open-minded rather than assume that, just because cold reading can be employed, that it is always employed and always adequately explains 'psychic' phenomena. I don't think it does, by any means.
Essanach 2 years ago
Then how come nobody has one the one million dollars that the Amazing Randy's foundation has put on the block for a number of years now.
jloiterer 2 years ago 2
To use this point you raise as any indicator of the truth, again we need to make several assumptions. Is Randi - as 'amazing' as he may claim to be LOL - actually qualified to investigate this scientifically ( same goes for his org)? Is he open-minded? Are his methods sound? Is he biased? (He stands to lose a lot of money as well as take a serious dent to his ego if he is ever proven wrong) You see my point.
Essanach 2 years ago
Yes, yes, yes, and no.
Randi has succeeded where other "more qualified" people have failed in exposing frauds because while scientists typically rely their senses to determine the reality of something, magicians like him are extremely adept in thinking outside the box to figure out extremely simple ways to convincingly fool the senses.
Houdini started exposing mediums as frauds because he wanted to try to connect with his dead wife, and found that every one he went to was a scam.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I disagree,Randi himself has been exposed as a charlatan and a liar and his org. untrustworthy. So conclusions on this matter based on Randi's findings aren't sound. I agree there are fakes out there. But we can't assume that just because there are some fakes, that all 'psychics' are fakes, or all use cold reading. We need to maintain an open mind - especially as sciscience is more and more coming to understand how real psychic phenomena could be possible.
Essanach 2 years ago
You seem to think that because Randi exposes frauds he has somehow proven that supernatural phenomena are not possible. On the contrary; the point of the exercise is to encourage critical thinking and not blindly accept things for what they appear to be at face value.
If real psychics exist, we haven't seen them demonstrate their abilities yet. As for your claim of Randi and his organization being "exposed," we'll that's just plain false.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
No, I think the exact opposite. I was responding to someone who suggested that Randi's challenge not yet being met proves that there is no truth to 'psychic' phenomena. I disagree. It proves nothing of the sort.
I also disagree that we haven't seen psychics demonstrate their abilities. There is evidence for this. But if you mean it hasn't been established and accepted as a fact by science as yet, I agree.
Randi and his Org have been exposed as pseudo-skeptics.
Essanach 2 years ago
No, it demonstrates that there's no reason to give credibility to claims of psychic abilities until such abilities have been tested.
No one has ever demonstrated having psychic abilities. There is NO evidence for this.
"Pseudo-skeptics?" Do you understand what the word "skeptic" means? You're making baseless claims without backing them up.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
These abilities have been tested. There is evidence. & there is reason to give credibility if one has personal experience or is acquainted with those few scientists and investigators who have bothered to seek evidence of 'psychic' claims. (Gary Schwartz etc.) Science as an institution is often slow and reluctant to properly investigate and accept things. That doesn't make these things untrue in the meantime or the people who accept them wrong.
Yes, I understand skepticism & pseudo-skepticism
Essanach 2 years ago
"These abilities have been tested. There is evidence."
Again, you're going to need to back these wild claims up.
"& there is reason to give credibility if one has personal experience"
Wrong, personal experience is the least reliable form of evidence. If something weird happens to me, I don't say "wow, it must have been a ghost," I investigate what happened and why. Likewise, if a psychic tells me something that happens to be true, I examine what I know and come to the LOGICAL conclusion.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Also, there's nothing "pseudo" about Randi's skepticism. That was the point that I was making.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
OK, well try these Google searches:
'A reply to Randi by Dr Gary Schwartz"
"The Objectivity of Science Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism by Rochus Boerner" and
"On Pseudo-Skepticism A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi*
Everything about Randi's skepticism is pseudo, I'm afraid.
He is simply not credible.
Essanach 2 years ago
Gary Schwartz' link was a waste of time. There is no evidence there, simply a man bickering with Randi about a subject that he seems to have preconceived notions about. It's not entirely uncommon for people with phDs to be crackpots, unfortunately.
Of course, if you actually read into Dr. Schwartz' experiments or opinions, you would realize that even he admits that they do not provide definitive proof.
The Boerner link doesn't mention anything that applies to Randi.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Perhaps you could provide something that Randi has said to support the claim that he is a pseudo-skeptic, because I've followed the work of the man for about 15 years now, and I've yet to see anything remotely like pseudo-skepticism.
Also, I don't know where you learned logic or debating, but rejecting an unsupported claim is not something that requires "supporting." That's just retarded. It's like asking for evidence that there is no God. Um... hello?
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Furthermore, this is the second time you've misused the term "ad hominem." I am mocking you because you're acting like a pseudo-intellectual. You aren't even comprehending the meaning of the terms you're throwing around, and you're expecting me to believe you when you claim there is evidence for psychic phenomena? What is this, third grade?
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Just in case you're still not getting it:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
I fully understand ad hominem and you fail to see how you are meeting the very definition you provide.
I can only say that I feel exactly the same about you. You don't understand proper skepticism, or what pseudo-skepticism is, nor ad hominem, nor the burden of proof. However, I'm content to deal with the argument at hand rather than attacking the one making the argument (which is ad hominem). Can we stick to the discussion at hand and the evidence?
Essanach 2 years ago
You are dense. Read the damn Wikipedia article:
"Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[5][6][7][8][9] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone."
"rather than attacking the one making the argument (which is ad hominem)."
NO, IT'S NOT!
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Calling someone a moron is not an ad hominem logical fallacy. Clearly, you do NOT understand what an ad hominem is, as you've just demonstrated.
An ad hominem works like this:
You: A is true.
Me: You are an idiot, therefore A is not true.
This is what happened:
You: Randi is unqualified to investigate paranormal claims.
Me: That statement makes you a moron.
Hopefully the difference is clear.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
You demonstrated a classic example of Ad Hominem. Compare this definition with your comment which will follow in the next post:
"Ad Hominem: a fallacy in which an argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim...Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making."
Now compare this with....
Essanach 2 years ago
Wow, I explain it to you like three times and you still don't get it. I don't know how to dumb it down any further.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"I am mocking you because you're acting like a pseudo-intellectual. You aren't even comprehending the meaning of the terms you're throwing around, and? you're expecting me to believe you when you claim there is evidence for psychic phenomena?"
Compare this with the definition given. It couldn't really be any clearer. Your rejection of my argument is here directly linked directly to your irrelevant (not to mention inaccurate) insults. Absolute proof of your use of ad hominem.
Essanach 2 years ago
"Your rejection of my argument is here directly linked directly to your irrelevant (not to mention inaccurate) insults."
Not at all. Clearly I am justified in my mocking as reading comprehension is definitely not your strong suit. My insults were based on the things you said. They were NOT being used as justification for my argument. I NEVER said "you're wrong because you're an idiot," I said "you're wrong because your argument is unfounded."
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
"and you're expecting me to believe you when you claim there is evidence for psychic phenomena?"
Oh wait, I get it now. You're saying that this sentence shows that I'm rejecting your argument based on the fact that you're an idiot.
Unfortunately, you're massively mistaken. That statement was made well after I had rejected your unsupported claims. Nevertheless, the point is moot because I wouldn't accept an unsupported claim regardless of how smart you appear.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
(Father forgive me for opening this can of worms,but...) Ok, so I read your rather messy debate with Essanach, and from what I can decipher, He believes in psychic phenomena and you do not, due to lack of quantifiable evidence. So, let me just jump right into the oncoming traffic and ask, What would you accept as quantifiable evidence?
BrutusBlackest 2 years ago 2
A demonstration of actual psychic abilities in a controlled environment which would disallow trickery. Essentially, you apply the scientific method to rule out all other possibilities.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Hi :) Rejecting the subject of a claim as definitely UNTRUE, rather than unproven is a claim in itself and DOES need to meet the burden of proof. Many forget this. Read the articles I listed. The first contains examples of Randi's pseudo-skepticism and the others clearly define pseudo-skepticism vs proper skepticism. The proper skeptical response to my claim would be an openminded: "Supply the evidence please", NOT the counter claim, "there is NO evidence". You see the vital, subtle difference?
Essanach 2 years ago
This is getting aggravating (that's your real goal, right?).
Your claim isn't true. There is no evidence for psychic powers or the supposed pseudo-skepticism of Randi and his foundation. You've yet to post any evidence for ANY of this. I don't need to support my rejection of your claims based on a total lack of evidence.
The Schwartz link had NOTHING to do with pseudo-skepticism. It simply claimed things from one side of an argument, much like what you're doing.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
@Randi and his "test" are only there to disprove the possibility of pyschic's the tests are designed so that you fail them, much like DUI tests.
Jahan917 2 years ago 3
How could that be true? The psychics agree to the testing. I have great respect for the psychics that take the challenge because at least, even if they fail, you know they GENUINELY believe they have the power, and aren't just preying on the desperate.
jloiterer 2 years ago
PS. I occasionally chuckle to myself on realizing that I am actually debating the scientific qualification, objectivity and proper methodology of an attention seeking performer called 'The Amazing Randi' and having to point out why the conclusions of someone like this aren't really relevant to the quest to determine the scientific truth of the nature of our universe and the human ability to interface with it. Even without his demonstrable bias and dishonesty, this would be - and is - absurd.
Essanach 2 years ago
Your ignorant arrogance can only be attributed to higher learning. I'm not sure where you learned to "debate," but they did you a disservice by apparently imparting the idea that debating involves making claims that fly in the face of established fact and backing them up with absolutely nothing.
Maybe they didn't teach you the scientific method in school. In that case, I should mention that it doesn't involve obtaining a science degree. Yep, it's true, ANYONE can do science.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Thanks. Now, can you drop the abusive bluster and tell me what claim you are disputing and would like me to provide evidence for?
I consider your claim that there is 'no evidence' etc, to be as silly as you evidently consider mine, but I'm sure we are capable of a reasonable discussion which stay focused on the discussion rather than ad hominem, if we try.
Essanach 2 years ago
YOU made the claim that psychic abilities have been investigated to show evidence for their reality, so YOU have to back that up. I don't need to support my rejection of your claim, especially when you've failed to produce any actual evidence.
Again, your higher education betrays you. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy; calling you ignorantly arrogant is not an ad hominem when it's not being used to justify a statement. See, you just proved me right, yet again.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Yes, I made a claim that there is evidence to support 'psychic' abilities. You also made a claim, that there is no evidence and that no one has ever successfully demonstrated 'psychic' ability. Neither of us backed them up, probably due to a 500 character limit. (if you don't think that a negative claim needs to meet the burden of proof then you need to read Truzzi's article above) A simple polite request for evidence to back my claim would have sufficed, rather than abuse and ad hominem.
Essanach 2 years ago
The results are independently verified, and the testing is using methods that both parties agree to.
jloiterer 2 years ago
To continue - the first assumption is that all 'psychics' use cold reading, the second is that the Randi Org is capable of or objective enough to properly determine the truth of this matter. While the scientific community in general has yet to become open-minded enough to get serious about finding ways to investigate and demonstrate 'psychic' phenomena, it has begun to understand how it could well be possible for psychic phenomena to be real, as the video discusses.
Essanach 2 years ago
errr.. i don't repeat for repitition sakes but nassim haramein goes over this stuff and makes it make sense. i often see scholars teaching in a method only useful for themselves, frustrating when PHds are supposed to be the best teachers.
part2themovie 2 years ago
@ part2themovie: you'll find the right match. they have different teaching styles, yes.but many people can learn from one of the other or even both of them. just depends on *how* we learn and also what information we already understand from them or other sources. I like both nassim & rob. i find both of them helpful for different things (& i'm not a scientist). just like with anything, go where it feels best for your understanding. (O:
11moonelf 2 years ago
Hmmm ,at least gave a caveat rob.
rmeddy1 2 years ago
This song by Pink Floyd founder, Syd Barrett, is based on Hexagram 24:
/watch?v=1j3zY9FMdO0
"A movement is accomplished in six stages, and the secenth brings return."
astrotometry 2 years ago
nice song...that was a tasty treat!
FrenchConcrete 2 years ago
1st? nice btw
laffe222 2 years ago
Isn't this one of the things that also predicts the 2012 phenomena?
Welocy 2 years ago