Originally posted by sirnex
Your fallacy of defective induction, otherwise known as argument from authority in this case is duly noted.
You'll call fallacies when it's convenient for you, but then argue from "common sense" (a totally meaningless phrase) in the next instant. I just
know your penchant for slinging insults, as already demonstrated, and you might want to think an extra time before slinging insults when you're
talking about an Ivy Leage school. If new information were
little-understood, and only the wealthiest schools could afford to invest in them,
do you realize how that could relate to your role as basically the status-quo-maintaining mob that always resists new information? I'm just
wondering if you've ever thought about that.
The GCP, while having a web presence hosted by Princeton has not proven anything it has set out to prove. Even the example of the 9/11 attacks
as cited by the OP video, the GCP claimed no casual relationship occurred. Yet the OP's video cites a distinct change in the Earth magnetic field
during that troubling event.
Causal, not casual. As in identifying a cause. The fact remains that they observed statistical anomalies on dates like 9/11 that indicate a
"coincidence" with large emotional events (emotional to humans). That in itself is what they are studying, and the implications contradict what you
were saying earlier about human energy fields being unable to register a change in the environment. Not to mention you don't have any actual proof
of your claim anyway, you just assume it from ignorance, and argument from ignorance is another fallacy if you want to jot that down.
And where is the evidence for this? In fact if this were true it would violate laws of physics, because electrons are mass and moving
them is performing work, by definition.
Your attempt to deflect my argument against the OP is duly noted.
So now you're playing the robot whenever your arguments get shot down. Okay. You said our energy fields can't do work. Well work in physics is
defined (one definition) as displacing mass. Electrons are mass. They are displaced. The EM energy fields around our body therefore do work
That is not a "deflection," that is what you would call a debunking
of your claim. The EM energy fields do work on a much more subtle level
than the arms and legs they command, but they do work nonetheless and this is how they interact with your body.
The EM fields generated by the human body in no way have any affect upon the Earth's magnetic field.
Again you make a statement with no proof. This is argument from ignorance. Do you have scientific papers to validate this claim?
EM radiation do not have "feelings" Your attempt to deflect from my argument against the OP is duly noted yet again.
So what do you do with all these "deflections" that you take due note of? Do you count them up and see what score you get at the end?
Did you notice the "electro" in the word "electrochemical"? Electric currents are being carried and are the key force involved.
That's why when you grab an electric fence of a strong enough voltage, it causes your hand muscles to clamp down as if you stimulated them yourself,
despite no chemicals being pumped into your hand. But respond by continuing to talk trash about how your body works, and how it's nothing special or
anything to enjoy, please. You're a perfect example of what is wrong with the attitudes of many people in the world today, and will help to educate
Did you purposefully ignore my statement quoted which mentions biochemical reactions in which to formulate a response about electrochemical responses?
Mind you, the two are distinct and separate from one another and both play a role in the human organism.
Yes, I purposefully ignored it, so I could explain what is in the quote of mine immediately above this text. Once again, go back to the original
context. You're trying to say electricity doesn't really control the actions of our arms and legs? Put it this way: without electric flow, you
arms and legs and etc. wouldn't
It's not a deflection unless you can actually find where someone is claiming they can move stuff with their EM field as if they're
using the force from Star Wars. I was responding to something YOU came up with. You're the only one who has such a problem with using your hands that
you automatically want your EM field to move things for you as soon as you learn about it, and think this is somehow an argument against the OP.
Please quote me on where I have specifically mentioned electrochemical responses that which cause motive force in the human body is where my problem
lays. Again, your attempt to deflect from my argument against the OP is duly noted.
You just keep saying electric fields can't do work, don't affect anything, are insignificant, etc. And you are obviously wrong because they control
your body which is perfectly capable of doing work, including your thinking. Without those energies, you would be totally useless. Do you see why
they are significant to talk about now? Not because we think they're going to give us super powers, like you seem to assume. But because of what
they do on the subtle level that you seem to hate, unless it gives you those super powers so you can pick up frogs like a magnet.
You have yet to address my criticism against the OP's video in which it argues that the human emotions can affect planetary magnetic
Yes, I have. I noted that your argument is an argument from ignorance. You just say it doesn't affect it, and that's it. You think because you
won't accept any evidence for it, then that means you somehow have evidence to the contrary. Too bad it doesn't work that way. That's why they
invented the phrase "argument from ignorance." You confuse being debunked with "deflecting." I'm going to assume that's some form of cognitive
I am not attempting to piss on anyone's parade here. A hormonal response simply does not possess the capacity to affect planetary magnetic
fields. It's physics, that's all.
This is the problem. If anything, the physics proves you wrong. You aren't even citing any actual field or laws of physics. You are thinking on a
mundane level, like these forces should be able to pick up frogs or else they're useless. That's literally what your argument has amounted to.
You've posted no sources, nothing to suggest your "criticism" has actually been validated in any way.
Yes, or by contrast, and as you demonstrate yourself, it is also possible to consider the most evolved and elevated aspects of nature as
distasteful and worthless, and to talk trash about them and revile them.
I would hardly consider the perpetuation of archaic prehistoric metaphysical concepts as being "most evolved and elevated aspects of
I was talking about the human body itself being evolved and elevated, not the idea of thinking of it as miraculous. Apparently the more evolved being
to you is a grouch that gets irritated just by people, like Einstein, pointing out that we're part of a much bigger whole, and then starts
condescending to them and talking about how great he feels to know he has more "common sense" than me.
Science doesn't dictate emotions, this is true, but science does tell us how emotional responses occur. Emotions are caused by hormonal
responses to external stimuli.
Sure, but they can't predict how any one person will react to any given stimuli.
I personally detest Einsteinian religion. Could you please provide the quote I was speaking of previously? Or would your acceptance of his
mention of that specific quote hurt your argument that he was a religious man?
I'm not even religious myself. Apparently me posting Einstein quotes is an "argument that he was a religious man." That speaks for itself.
Aww, you don't like the quotes I posted and you want me to go find your favorite one.
If I say only God knows in answer to a question, does that make me a believer of God? Perhaps you lack ability to grasp simple
Oh you're going into denial now. I guess you're going to say his thing about mankind being part of a whole called the universe was a joke, too?
Einstein mentioned God so much that even though he wasn't a Christian, he obviously believed in some intelligent order and he said as much himself on
numerous occasions. Of course
he thought there is a natural order; he was a mathematician.
Do you express feelings of "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law"?
Your ability to take out of context and deflect are as bright as day around noon on a warm summer day.
Well Einstein just put value on feeling the rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, so I thought I would share that quote with you, so
you could reflect rapturously on that amazing harmony of natural law yourself some time and get to know your hero Einstein's view on the world a
Where am I being pessimistic in my criticism against the OP's video? Hormones simply do not affect planetary magnetic fields.
Well maybe pessimistic isn't the right word. It would probably take a harsher word. I mean you resorted to slinging insults early on, and gloating
about how much more sense you had. Those are the kind of personality traits I was comparing to Einstein's quote.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.
I seem to recall someone who was just expressing feelings of satisfaction over their perception of having more "common sense" than
I wish you could briefly reflect upon that quote in your quest to understand the world around you.
Yeah, ignore your own words just to point it back at me. I bet you wish Einstein had been vaguer so you could have pulled that with all his quotes
Did Einstein just say God?
Many non religious persons mention God on a daily basis. Would you like to provide that quote given by Einstein that I was speaking of earlier about
people who wish to take his mention of spirituality and God out of context... Or would you rather me do it for you?
How many people do you know of that don't believe in God, but use God in profound quotes to explain points of view on life, nature, etc.?
Again, you are failing to grasp simple rhetoric in an attempt to grasp at any mere mention of your belief structure. This is if I'm not
mistaken called confirmation bias.
No, no, let's compare again.
It's simple. The "universe" is one thing.
And it contains all things.
Therefore it involves and relates to all things.
Therefore there is a relationship between all things. We call it "the universe." It is a singularity of everything.
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison,
restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.
Einstein's quote reads almost as if he was summing up our entire discussion, rather than just the one point about us being "part of the whole,
called by us Universe." Part of something. That is a relation. You can deny it all you want. It's sad, like you're denying your own family
member or something, like a Westboro member denying their own daughter. You came from the universe yet want to claim that you have nothing to do
All of those are attributed to Einstein. Feel free to check them yourself.
And please, by all means equally feel free to provide the quote in which Einstein attacks the misuse of these quotes in futile and infantile attempts
to call him a spiritual and religious man.
Find your own damned quotes to post.
Ditto. I did not say I was the universe, or anything equivalent to the stupidity you just demonstrated. I said we are part of a whole
that we call the universe, and are thus related to everything within it. I did not say we are equivalent to the universe, or even equivalent to any
other specific part of it. I said there is a relation, represented by the word "universe." I am very careful in my words and my reasoning.
You, on the other hand, have just presented a straw-man due to a misunderstanding of my words. And then on top of that you had the sheer arrogance of
following it up with "What god damn infantile excuse of logic you have." I know saying things like that makes you feel good, but others are going to
read that and feel quite differently about you.
So, you admit to purposefully muddying your language?
That is not in any way shape or form what I just said in the quote above.
In fact I said the exact opposite, that I bolded: I am very careful in my words and my reasoning.
What you just did, was confirm exactly what that quote above is talking about. You don't even understand what I'm saying and you respond anyway.
You don't even respond to what I say. That is exactly what I was just talking about, and you DID IT AGAIN while responding to me pointing it out to
you. Ridiculous. The common sense is just oozing out of you isn't it?
Yes, I agree all things exist within the universe. I do not agree that all things are physically connected to each other.
Did I say physically connected to each other? No. The closest thing to that I said, was that my spine ISN'T physically attached to anything else.
What did I just say about responding to things I didn't even post? You seem to have some kind of negative religious obsession where you assume
everyone is out to convince you of something that was always wrong and always will be wrong, forever, no matter what, "amen." If you didn't try to
read between the lines you would be alright.
Please be more clear with your language and terminology.
That's your fault for reading too much into my posts. Respond only to things that I actually say, and you won't be so confused. Same with the OP.
There is nothing about being physically bonded to anything else, nothing about picking up frogs like we're human supermagnets, nothing about anyone
else screaming when you set me on fire or any kind of garbage like that. You're right that something isn't clear here, but it's not been my
language or terminology, and same with the OP.
Your attempt to detract your "connectedness" argument is duly noted. I suggest buying a dictionary and learning the definition of
Actually you can look up the definitions of words on the internet now, and I welcome you to post it.
The unified field theory nor any derivative to my knowledge remotely suggests that you are connected (again please look up the definition of
the terminology before usage) to a star 13 billion light years away.
It would mean that a unified field gave rise to both me and the star, and that we both continued to exist within that unified field. It's basically
the same thing as saying we are in the same universe, and yes, that in itself is significant. NO!, it doesn't mean "now you have super powers, you
can pick up that frog and other people will scream if we burn you." Okay, is THAT clear enough for you yet?
Please define connected.
Please use a dictionary.
Go ahead and look it up yourself, pick your favorite website and post the definition.