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
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
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
. 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
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
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
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]