Incredible New Documentary: "Quantum Communication"

page: 10
120
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


If you're not arguing an Aristotelian/materialistic philosophy, then what are you arguing?

Besides "the documentary is idiotic" and "you're an idiot," I mean. Try not to think with your hands when responding.




PS You DID agree to the terms of the board when you signed up, and calling me and others idiots and retards over and over is probably going to result in moderation eventually whether I report you for it or not. I'm surprised your post where you circumvented the censors is still there, I guess no one alerted you for it after all.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Uh, I could have sworn I was arguing against the inaccuracies of the film.


Yeah, I've seen you trying, but you don't have an argument, and I am trying to show you why. First of all you haven't actually proven anything wrong, you've only expressed doubt towards claims in the documentary. So that leads to point #2, that you are arguing from the viewpoint of an outdated philosophy.

The philosophy you are arguing, even if you are unaware of it, is the one I am pointing out to you. You still refuse to even comment on that.



Well, obviously bitch and bitching are not under the censor. Not sure why it's a surprise if your seeing the word as it should be spelled as it is. Again... idiotic mentality there. Go ahead, report to mommy you pansy. I can quote a few dozen times across a few threads where you've equally attacked me, yet I don't whine about it like you do. If you wanna play, then play. If you don't, then go complain to your momma. I'll forgive you if you want to bitch out, at least then I'll garner a better understanding of how 'big' you are.


I've never pushed the board terms the way you are doing, and I'm not sure what you think you're gaining or even contributing to the discussion by continuing to do that. The whole reason there are rules against it in the first place is because it isn't conducive to a reasonable discussion. Do you know what that means?



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Again I present you with

Aristotelianism:
en.wikipedia.org...


Materialism:
en.wikipedia.org...


Can you explain how you are NOT arguing from these points of view?



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Princess, listen to me for one minute OK? I already told you what pages to look on for a few of my arguments that prove a few of the assertions the film made were wrong. Please don't ignore that in such an idiotic manner.


Stop pretending I haven't read the posts you're talking about. I've been following the thread for a while and some of the posts you were referring to were responses to other posts of mine already. You didn't prove anything baby. You didn't post anything different than the trash talk and other garbage you continue to post now, running in circles and threatening to rebut things but never actually doing it.


Cupcake, I'm not arguing philosophy, That's what *you are* trying to argue.


I understand that you are completely ignorant of the philosophies I have linked for you, and still refuse to read them and comprehend my point, but when (or if) you finally do, you might realize that you were arguing on their behalf this entire time.

Like I said before, even science itself is based on philosophy. Science and critical thinking (aka philosophy -- literally "love of wisdom") are not separate things. The perspective you are espousing is clearly and blatantly a materialistic view that is completely debunked by empirical science from quantum mechanics, for example entanglement, in which information has been measured to travel faster than the speed of light, which can NOT be a physical phenomena per Einstein.

Just look at the links, realize you are arguing from assumptions they Greeks came up with, and that these assumptions are now totally out the _ And you will begin to realize why you are so confused about these issues, and why quantum mechanics is so revolutionary in the field of science, and why so many people say that it's bridging science and spirituality. It's because it actually is. But being unfamiliar with philosophy and spirituality yourself, you can't be expected to realize this. You are stuck in a very small box and refuse to come out of it and play real ball.


This is what you are saying: Mind has nothing to do with physics.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


You are arguing materialism: everything consists of matter, everything is mechanical, there is no intelligent input in what the universe does, all meaning is inherent to objects and does not come from the observer.

Whether you refuse to acknowledge it or not, it is exactly what you are arguing. Your opinions are NOT based on science, neither is materialism. It is NOT scientifically validated, in fact it has now finally been conclusively debunked with the advent of quantum mechanics. This is what I am telling you, whether you want to hear it, or just call me an idiot all day like a 4-year old.


All I know is that an idiot who argues like an idiot deserves to be called an idiot until it sinks in that he's arguing like an idiot. If you can't discern what I am arguing and wish to raise straw men instead, then your an idiot.


I understand what you are saying better than you even do. That's the whole problem. Calling me an idiot over and over only shows me that you're too immature to come up with a more intelligent response.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
If you want to spout pure BS, then at least have the balls to back that BS up. Refute the points I raised rather than give me BS empty claims. You do have balls don't you?


You didn't prove anything so as for me to refute anything in the first place. Would you like to remind me what exactly you've proven about any claims made in the documentary?


Straw man, I'm not arguing philosophy, if you wish to claim I am, then back thatup with an explicit quote made by me in that regard. If you can't then your a BS artist of the highest extreme.


You said in jumbled and half-nonsensical wording on page 5 that the human mind has not been shown related to any physical experiments:


There is no experiment in regards to quantum mechanics that discusses any aspect of Mind having any effect on the outcome of the experiments.


This is really an asinine statement considering every single scientific experiment ever conducted has been intrinsically linked to human minds and ideas, especially in their conclusions, and you will probably say this connection is irrelevant but it isn't, and that's the entire point. You can't separate the scientist from the science, or the philosopher from the philosophy, because you have yet to realize they depend on each other. The whole philosophy from which scientists have approached the scientific method for the past few hundred years (and which you have ignorantly assumed and defend animalistically), that they are being "objective" and totally uninvolved with their work, has been wrong and now materialism is finally being shown the door because of that. The impact of human minds and views on science is now becoming obvious, and the role of the observer is becoming clearer than ever. Meaning is not inherent to matter -- meaning is provided by the observer.



Again, idiot, like I said, I'm arguing against the erroneous claims made by the film. Not philosophy. Are you blind or ignorant or perhaps this ties into your inability to comprehend what your reading? IDK, so I need YOU to explain it to me.


I am trying to, but it's kind of hard when every time I try to make a point you call me an idiot twelve hundred times and tell me what I say is irrelevant. I am almost led to believe you aren't trying to learn anything new.


For the nth time, science is intrinsically related to philosophy. One could even make the argument that science is an empirical extension of philosophy, where even the meaning of the word "empirical" is derived from and depends upon philosophical arguments. They are NOT separate subjects.



Damn, your perhaps the first person I've ever met to claim that the ancient Greeks came up with quantum mechanics. I sure do hope you have substantial evidence to back that claim up.


For someone who kept rambling on about how much of an idiot I am and how much my reading comprehension sucks, you really are a piece of work.

The Greeks came up with what led to materialism, from Aristotle, the philosophy YOU are implying in all of your arguments, without even being aware of it, because you are totally ignorant of philosophy in the first place. That's what I've been saying the whole time. You obviously haven't even been reading my posts. What a shocker considering you carry on exactly like a 4 year old. Greek philosophy has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Re-read my post, or read them correctly the first time.



Your still not positing forth any contrary. Please cite any scientific articles that have proven that the mind has any effect on reality.


Ok, but to demonstrate my point, will you please first take your brain out so I can show you exactly its effect upon reality?


Maybe there are some experiments that have been reproduced and peer reviewed? Maybe tiller really can activate forces with needles and break the very foundation of physics.


Tiller already has peer reviewed work published, since you mentioned him specifically.


"The effects of emotions on short-term power spectrum analysis of heart rate variability" (McCraty R, Atkinson M, Tiller WA, Rein G, Watkins AD. - American Journal of Cardiology, 1996 Feb)

"Laplace-transform technique for deriving thermodynamic equations from the classical microcanonical ensemble" (Eric M. Pearson, Timur Halicioglu, and William A. Tiller - Physical Review, 1985 Nov)

"Corona discharge photography" (DG Boyers, WA Tiller - Journal of Applied Physics, 1973)

"What are subtle energies?" (WA Tiller - Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1993)

"Electronic device-mediated pH changes in water" (WE Dibble Jr, WA Tiller - Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1999)


Your asinine questions, "what effect does the mind have upon reality?" If Bill Tiller heard such a question, he would probably laugh out loud at the blatant stupidity of it. Then again, if anyone COULD function completely independently of their brain, you would be the one to do it, huh? You are apparently completely incapable of realizing the implications of this paradigm shift and what it means, from assuming inherent meaning to realizing observer-given meaning and all its implications. You are still hopelessly stuck in your little materialist box and violently refuse to look outside of it.



You are arguing materialism: everything consists of matter, everything is mechanical, there is no intelligent input in what the universe does, all meaning is inherent to objects and does not come from the observer.


As this is where the current evidence point towards.


Prove it. Show me scientific research or validation of this philosophy.

This is when you will finally have to look at that materialism link I keep posting for you.



I will believe more in what the evidence shows, what can be reproduced and that is observed. Apparently you put belief in magical fairy dust. You damn fairy.


It's going to be interesting to see how you observe any evidence at all without including an observer in the process. Again, I'm sure this is going right over your head. It's okay, the generation that comes after you die will understand it even if you can't. Sometimes people are so incredibly dense to new information that that's exactly what it takes, just ask Copernicus.



Hey, if you want to argue like a three year old idiot, then I call you an idiot as a four year old. Point is, your still being an idiot. I can't control that, it's all up to you. Misrepresent me all you want, all your going to garner out of that action is being called an idiot.


You calling me an idiot is like Hitler calling me hateful.


Wow, way to avoid the request to argue the actual points raised. Moron. w00t! Used a new descriptor!!!


I know! I'm as refreshed as you are!


[edit on 31-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
A third time, you expect me to tell you where to look not once, not twice, but three times? Did you bother looking at any point at all?


You're not even reading what I post.

This makes multiple times you've flat-out IGNORED what I've said about reading your garbage already.

I already told you at least three times that I read all the pages you were talking about and you didn't prove a damned thing, and I asked you to tell me specifically what you have proven, but you ignore that and just keep pretending like I haven't looked at the pages at all. Maybe you are blind? Maybe I should repeat each sentence three or four times in a row so your brain will have a chance to catch up with your eyes?

I've also been telling you this whole time that assumptions inherited from Greek philosophy were outdated and have nothing to do with QM, but you also have been ignoring that/not comprehending it at all every single time I've posted it. I've also been telling you this whole time that assumptions inherited from Greek philosophy were outdated and have nothing to do with QM, but you also have been ignoring that/not comprehending it at all every single time I've posted it. I've also been telling you this whole time that assumptions inherited from Greek philosophy were outdated and have nothing to do with QM, but you also have been ignoring that/not comprehending it at all every single time I've posted it. (No, it's not a typo that I said that three times in a row.) (No, it's not a typo that I'm saying this three times in a row.) (No, it's not a typo that I'm saying this three times in a row.)

I've been trying to tell you for PAGES that your materialistic philosophy comes exactly from these people which is WHY it's outdated but again you refuse to read and think about what I post. I'm beginning to think the reason you can't comprehend the role human consciousness plays in our sciences is because you are so damned unconscious yourself. Really, this stuff is not for you. Go back to playing with your hands in a non-philosophical forum. You are in way too far over your head. Despite having the information repeated to you over and over and over, you can't even comprehend something as simple as me saying that I've already read your posts for christs sake.


When you start reading my posts, and thinking about what they say, I'll start responding to you again. Right now you just ignore anything you don't want to read and pretend I said something else, or are just totally physically incapable of comprehending what I post in the first place. Either way there is no use wasting my time on a troll who doesn't understand what I say in these posts, whether it is intentional or not. Let me know when your reading level reaches at least 4th or 5th grade level, and you are finally interested in learning about the outdated philosophy you unconsciously regurgitate, though this late in life your kids may be your own hope of understanding the next generation of science. I don't realistically think you are going to stop trolling. You'll sooner just be banned the next you get drunk and cuss about being moderated.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I've watched up through part 7. But YouTube is saying now that the video has been removed by the user. Anywhere else we can watch it?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I saw this documentary, but now i can´t find it anywhere anymore??? I would really like to show this to my sister. Can anybody help me.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I think i missed this post when it came out and after reading all the posts I too would like to know if anyone can point me in the right direction to view it too.

Its no longer available on the links!

Hope someone can help.

Al



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
NOOOOOOooooooooooooo! I had hoped I could return and watch this film at my liesure How foolish, not to appreciate what is untill it is no more. No worries I will find you Quantum Communication I will resurect you from the dark abyss of copywrite infringment and return you to the light. The world will know whatever it is you are trying to tell us!



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   




Now you can once again enjoy "This Should Be Taught in Schools."


For the time being at least.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I just re-saw "what the bleep do we know" so wanted to re-see this as well before showing it to my family. Couldn´t find it, THANK YOU.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Stop being such a sourpuss. Even if you were right, no one wants to read all that mean-spirited garbage.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by sirnex
 


Stop being such a sourpuss. Even if you were right, no one wants to read all that mean-spirited garbage.


Classic.... Just classic. Despite the information portrayed being wrong, you'll happily sit there and say who cares whilst using my continued annoyance of lazy people not bothering to check facts as a valid reason for applauding said erroneous information? That's just too cute!





top topics
 
120
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join