The designs are very pretty and very smart within a very narrow context which makes a number of rather wishful assumptions. Let me list a few items I think may have been overlooked by the design team. . .
1. You have to travel out into the middle of a Nevadan wasteland to wind the clock every 100 years. Oh boy. 100 years? This assumes that we will not even once during the next ten millennia be reduced to very hard living conditions which preclude such luxuries as leaving the family hearth to make an exhausting and largely meaningless pilgrimage out into the middle of nowhere to maybe screw up something we were not trained for and no longer have the education required to read the instruction manual to do right. --All to satisfy the high-minded notions and general Gee-Whiz factor of a team of long-dead geeks. Hmm.
2. Valueless metal? The kind which is enormously strong and doesn't corrode? When I'm looking to make knives or a new plough, that kind of metal is worth far more than crappy bog iron.
3. Vegetable life. Fascinating stuff. Faster than it looks, eats rock, and is basically about as predictable as a seed in a bit of bird poop on a random gust of wind. One tree taking root in the wrong spot and, "all your clock are belong to us". --The fact that the current clock design requires sunlight for daily calibration means that the chance of vegetable matter interacting with it goes waaaay up.
4. Ice. Ice ages happen and 10,000 years is plenty of time to see another one. --This does not mean that Nevada will be covered in a blanket of frozen water. But it does mean that the biosphere will adjust itself enormously, creating all kinds of random conditions. New bodies of water, new weather patterns, new migratory paths, new forests, new deserts. Nevada may seem desolate today, but it may be a rain forest in ten thousand years.
5. Basic human nature. How many of your parent's vital passions did you adopt? At a 100 years, you've got about three to four generations between windings. Even in an advanced culture like ours, most people reading about a big clock project will yawn and not get it, (certainly not enough to commit themselves to the high-skills task of maintenance.)
I think there are two solutions.
A) Embrace life in a far greater way; (Make the clock mobile so that it won't risk being eaten by the planet, use religion; it seems to be the only thing which can last for any appreciable length of time. Survived the last dark age after so many wonders were forgotten. (Jesus will come to the Jews in 10,000 years so long as you wind this thing and don't tell anybody. Something like that.) This, however, is probably futile. Religious artifacts tend to get scattered to the four winds despite all precautions. While religion is good at preserving certain ideas, those very ideas make them the target of vitriol and war.
The best we can really expect is for some diluted and largely mangled spiritual philosophy to transit the millennia. We've actually got a few examples floating around today. Not so many clocks though. . .
B) Remove life from the equation altogether. If you can build a weight which takes a 100 years to fall, then why not a 100 of them? Or 50 which take 200 years to fall? This way, you can put it deeper underground, away from trees, fickle humans and glaciers. The only problem with this is that people will forget. There's a very good chance it will reach its final tick, send up its flag and then set in for the really long wait. . .
Which raises the question. . .
I wonder how many ancient clocks there are currently sitting around in deep underground vaults? --If some people working in some off the department books are to be believed, if they are willing to talk to you, then the answer is, "More than one."
So I finally installed Ubuntu on a machine, having decided that it was high-bloody-time that I learned how to use Linux. It's been the sore spot on my geek cred for years now.
It works nicely at first glance, but in trying to install a Wacom graphics tablet, I found myself lost and confused. Help forums at Ubuntu seem to assume a working level of knowledge which I simply didn't have, and gaining that working level of knowledge required, from what I could determine, that I already have it. It felt like I did back in grade school when I was first trying to come to grips with the world literature, politics and global history. --It's all inter-woven, no one piece is understandable without knowing the whole.
--But unlike the world of literature, politics and global history where there is a huge, organized, multi-billion dollar education system filled with teachers and learning resources, Linux for the most part only has engineers. --And most engineers suck at communicating with people who are not engineers. This isn't a criticism. I think engineers are awesome. But it does mean that I banged my head against the computer screen and made almost zero headway after two days straight.
I have long been aware that engineers simply organize and communicate ideas differently. --Much like Linux, the engineer's brain is similar only cosmetically to that of the non-engineer brain. (This comes as no surprise to me whatsoever; everything in the world, I realized some years ago, is metaphor.) Vi is an excellent example of this. Never have I encountered a more non-intuitive system of editing than with that gawdawful program. But then, I must remember, I learned how to manipulate text on a computer screen starting at a very young age, always using software programs which managed keyed in text and commands which were universally consistent. If I came today to a text editor with no knowledge of computers, then I'd probably be baffled and alternatively enraged by the complexity of the whole thing. Vi is the result of a different evolutionary path which only engineers were exposed to while growing up. Everybody else was taught the Microsoft/Apple way.
The "man" files in Linux, (which I eventually found out about), seemed like a brilliant idea, but because they were written and organized by engineers for engineers, they were no help to me whatsoever. Even though I could detect a human warmth in the billions of lines of instructions, the logical streams used to convey information were such that they very quickly fused my synapses together and drove me insane. It's like English v.s. Chinese. Not Fucking Compatible.
It reminded me of being in Math class, where I struggled mightily for years on end until being ejected from highschool having mastered only the bare essentials. I later learned from discussing this with an awesome girl I later fell in love with, that she had experienced pretty much the same thing. (We fell in love in part because we understood one another instantly on every subject; felt like we'd been wandering around on an alien world most of our lives, etc.,) Turns out, as everybody knows but doesn't realize until it hits them square in the face, that there are different learning styles, and I'd been an extreme example of the one which fit worst with the teaching system as applied to mathematics. The problem is, while Linux is just a complex system which can be learned and understood regardless of how you happen to learn, the people doing all the explaining appear to embody an extreme expression of the exact other way of thinking which doesn't fit with my head.
Learning Windows is little better; it took me years. And Apple. . . --I still get a headache whenever I try to get a frickin' Mac to do anything useful. At least with Linux when I get frustrated it's because the road signs through all the HAL guts confuse me. With an Apple, not only are there NO road signs, but the Ritalin-soaked Fischer-Price OS won't even let me look under the hood; if I can't get what I
"HAL" is a questionable and somewhat creepy marketing move.
But "Cyberdyne"? Now that's just plain stupid. It'll take more than an army of Japanese boys in power suits (dreaming of pink hair, high skirts and higher-pitched baby voices) to stop Harlan Ellison from ripping into your jugular.
That chill which went down all of your spines when you first read the article just got chillier, didn't it?
I'm no Obama fan, but given the choice between soft and hard fascism. . . The Bush legacy is going to keep on giving for a while, I think.
It's because of stuff like this that people who know their history got all worked up over the Neo-con rise to power and the Iraqi war D-Day which half of the ignorant folks here were practically ejaculating over with little visions of 'command & conquer' tanks dancing before their eyes. Sorry, guys, but you got skunked, and now the law enforcement in Virginia and other strong-holds of armed and brain damaged, "Is it a W or an M," people have their list criteria compiled. And if the Virginian state police can think it, then you can be 100% certain that Fatherland Security got there first, probably in the first six months. And the scary thing about such people is that they don't think. --Once you're labeled, that's it for you. The assault-rifle wielding black-armor task-force orcs with "POLICE" or "ATF" or whatever printed in white upon their backs who surge through apartment building hallways in that half-crouched war zone walk. . . You can't say, "Hey, let's talk about this. You've got the wrong guy! I voted for McCain!"
No. They don't listen. It's been programmed out of them, Mister Buttle. You'll have plastic cutting into your wrists, because some infantile W or M person has made a brain-damaged decision which they don't have the emotional maturity to admit might have been the result of a personal error.
The ironic part is that I suspect more than half the AC posts around here are keyed in exactly by the 'command & conquer' people.
That's how it works. Even those who salute the flag have a fair chance of ending up crucified.
Ahh... yes. And the reason that guy is taking you out to dinner is because he's interested in the long-term survivability of your (future) offspring.
The argument is that the point of a sex drive is that it takes care of such things automatically without you realizing what is going on. You can bounce around through life believing you are an autonomous, choice-driven being when the exact opposite is usually the case.
People are machines. Only the lucky ones who realize this have a chance of growing beyond the boundaries of the operating system.
I lived once in a smallish apartment for a while over a couple of Winters. I was surprised to learn that I didn't have to turn on the heat once all season, and even had to open the windows a few times because it got too warm.
I thought at first that this had to do with the position of my apartment in relation to the Sun, the ambient heat put out by the surrounding apartments and the basic heating maintained by the building to stop pipes from bursting. And then I returned after a long weekend away where the lights had all been left off, and it was freekin' cold!
Though, I should add that my computer was also off. --That sucker generates a lot of waste heat. I wonder if I'd have needed to wear sweaters more often if it was running on an Atom chip. . ?
I don't get this sentiment. If the Internet has shown us anything, it is the fans are the most critical audience. If the movie had been bad, there would have been a riot.
Well, I think there are degrees of 'Fan'.
A small subset consists of those who camp out for a week before the opening of "Phantom Menace" and who confuse the experience of camaraderie with "Good Film". I know guys who swear to this day that they loved that movie.
"Serenity" was similar, (another film I considered sub-par compared to the original series), in that the fans formed a powerful collective joy amongst themselves in the 'fight' to see a film made and who lost all critical faculty as a result.
I also couldn't stand Kevin Smith's "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back". After really enjoying "Dogma" I couldn't believe how stupid his new film was, but the fan base was so tightly wound with a sense of supporting a favored under-dog that it didn't really matter what the film was about.
I love being Fan(atical) about something, (and it doesn't happen often enough these days), but when I recommend the stuff I am that way about, I always take a moment to qualify my reviews with the fact that I'm lacking a degree of sanity on whatever I happen to be promoting with such zeal.
I know that is a broad generalization, but it's also generally true. --I remember visiting Spain during that "Running of the Bulls" thing, being surrounded by thousands of back-packing drunk kids from all over the world.
There were many different vantage points to watch the festivities from. You could stand on the ground and crane your neck. You could sit on the thick timbers of the fenced off roads where the bulls ran. Or you could sit waaaaaay up on the edge of various stone precipices on the stadium and various over fucking-nuts places to sit when you've got an alcoholic beverage in one hand. Guess what accent those lunatics were cheering with?
There's Public Relations tactical magic at work here, I have no doubt. The article reeks of it.
Still, I retain enough fan-boy in my genes to get excited at the mere suggestion that Star Trek might not suck. Eleven dollars? I can see clear to put my critical faculties and general discontent with Abrams on hold for a couple of hours. It can't possibly hurt more than Indy and those stupid skulls.
I hope. Oh, lordy, I do hope. --That's the genes talking as well.
No kidding? I didn't realize it was the same guy. That's actually pretty good casting, in a comic-book kind of way. The idea of Vulcans always kind of creeped me out. Remember Spock in the first ST movie when he showed up and his jubilant friends were weirded out by his totally inhuman response and lack of affection with their reunion as a result of having spent years back home re-calibrating his Vulcan-ness?
Having trouble with feeling is a common issue with both Spock and Sylar. In Spock we'll get to see the other side of the same coin.
Rats. I might have to actually go watch this film. I do hope that the "standing ovation" report stems from honest audience reaction rather than from the tactical play book of some PR firm.
Ugh. Who am I kidding. With luck, both are true. It's idiotic to think that marketing isn't heavily involved in this story.
Nicotine, like caffeine is a very curious drug. It has the effect of sharpening perceptions, increasing awareness and calming down fear-based reactions without adversely affecting judgment.
I find it rather telling that governments spend so much energy villainizing tobacco. One of the first governments to launch whole-heartedly the whole "Anti-smoking" campaign was Nazi Germany. --I think it might have something to do with population control. Wars on Terror, and similar, count on manipulating fear responses and un-clear thinking in populations.
Fear of Addiction is used mercilessly as one of the tools in this campaign. And I don't think it has anything to do with the government caring for our health. --Otherwise, why not campaign against the various well-known causes of obesity? Or the epidemic levels of mis-prescribed anti-depressants? Or any of the dozens of things which are both common and harmful. My guess is that these other things don't act to strengthen the collective mind of the populace.
I notice that when I hear the word, "Addicted", I feel a slight subterranean urge to start acting.
--That is, to put myself through the drama of addiction. The cravings and the various difficulties. I wonder how much of this is really based on chemical addiction and how much of it is based on behavioral programming.
Coffee and tobacco are interesting. I've played with both. I wanted to try tobacco for a number of reasons and it was pretty cool. "Quitting Smoking" is this buggaboo of a thing in our society, so after I'd been smoking this pipe for several months, (and really quite enjoying it), I said, "Okay. Let's see what this Quitting Smoking thing is all about."
I was a little disappointed. Quitting smoking is pretty easy. It takes seven days for the chemical addiction to be overcome. After that it's entirely a question of behavior and brain chemistry. (Some people are naturally attracted to tobacco because it balances out their neural chemistry. There's a reason why cigarettes are so popular among those with various imbalances. It's self-medication and it helps. A lot. --For these people, I imagine that "Quitting Smoking" is probably much more challenging.)
It's basically like having a mild flu. It gets worse and worse until withdrawal symptoms peek somewhere between day 3 or 4, and then it smooths out. After 7 days are up, you're pretty much in the clear. The difficult part is this: Imagine having the flu, not the worst you've ever had, but pretty uncomfortable. Normally, you'd just tough it out because you have no choice. But with nicotine, you can make the symptoms vanish instantly. Hmmm! --The other part I found really entertaining was seeing the kinds of tricks my rational mind tried to play. As the symptoms progress, your mind will concoct all kinds of logical-seeming arguments for just smoking one more time. Coffee doesn't do that. --Coffee addiction is child's play. Two days, one head-ache, no real cravings to speak of, and you're back to normal. Big deal.
So overall, the whole notion of "Addiction" seems much overblown from my perspective. (Drugs are different for different people; you can't choose your base brain chemistry defaults, --not like behavior programming, which with enough work can be altered.) --Addiction is just a bodily reaction to a substance which you can measure and take into account. Knowing that quitting is just a process with a recognizable cost, I have no fear of using coffee when appropriate, and if I ever go through a period of extreme, prolonged stress, I'd certainly consider using tobacco again. It's really a pretty amazing drug, --though it does make you smell funny and if you smoke the crappy kind, it screws up your breathing. (That was another thing I wanted to learn about. All arguments of toxic additives in big tobacco products aside, the paper in cigarettes is soaked in a weak bath of salt-peter or something akin to it. Take all the tobacco out of a cigarette and light the paper and watch what happens. It's almost like slow-motion magician's flash paper. I found that cigarettes made me cough up fleghm, but that pipe tobacco, organically grown did not. Hmm.)
My current 'addictions' include Coffee and downloads of sci-fi TV. But with no current Doctor Who and Dollhouse heading for the axe, I guess that issue will resolve itself.
I forget sometimes where I came from myself. --The world really is pretty locked down. I started out the son of an engineer and a big fan of science. Did the model rocket, and build your own radio thing as a kid. At a party many years later, somebody brought out a Chinese divination system based on an old game, and proceeded to do readings for people. It was unlike anything I'd ever chanced across before; all I'd seen of the esoteric was the newspaper horoscope section which I'd always found to be entirely silly; a clear example of vague information being used to trick people into seeing more than was there. This system, however, crossed some kind of line. It was starkly accurate to the point where each person was quite shaken by the accuracy and depth at which it worked. I came away from that rather stunned.
Of course, I knew it was possible to manipulate things like cards and tiles and such, and so I decided to investigate further. It wasn't an immediate process, over the next several years, I met at random people who were similarly tuned to this kind of stuff, and I'd grill them. --One of the first people I met was a girl who was good at palm reading; who at one party was reading palms. After reading one guy, she turned to her boyfriend, white in the face and said, "That guy had NO life-line. I didn't want to tell him." The next night that guy, in his 20's, died in his sleep from heart failure. --I walked through dozens of episodes like that, both happy and sad, but never really had any direct experiences.
I also started reading. Carlos Castaneda began that, and from there, the other important books showed up on my reading list as necessary. The interesting thing with Castaneda is that one slowly comes across the notion that intent shapes experiences in a very practical way. --Which is really pretty obvious. "I intend to experience a bowl of Cheerios. I go and prepare one and thus my intention is realized." The neat part is that you learn that it works without the need for a discernible linear physical approach. --And that was when I started meeting teachers who could do some of the *really* intense stuff. Those who I call, "Powerful People". --My last girlfriend was one of these, and she has no interest in the esoteric world at all, but she is able to shape reality in the most uncanny of ways. She has experiences which are TOTALLY off the map which she doesn't understand. By the time I met her, I'd accumulated an encyclopedic knowledge of this kind of material and was able to explain and help her through many of her experiences. She's the kind of person who finds herself jumping into a car and driving off willy-nilly because she feels a strong urge and then finds herself an hour later standing at the center of a fresh crop circle.
My own level of awareness has increased a great deal over the years. I know and feel stuff I shouldn't; it seems that having enough iron in your diet is an important component, meditation helps a lot, but that for the most part, one's genetic make-up appears to play a large role. I've seen and done some pretty weird stuff, but some of the people I've met experience things in a far greater capacity than others by default. But in terms of sculpting experiences and knowing why the world is as it is. . , anybody can do that.
Simple steps to take. ..
Chinese and Western astrology are considered sort of entry points, because they offer easy evidence that 'something is up'. I like Theadora Lau's book on Chinese astrology. It was one of those early, "You have GOT to be kidding me!" works; I'd recommend her work; it's cheap and easy enough to find. Also, Suzanne Miller's Astrology website here, http://www.astrologyzone.com/ is a good representative of the Western model. Carlos Castaneda's books, despite their flaws, are also a fun read, so even if you get nothing out of them, (though I don't see how that is at all possible), it won't be a waste of your time. (Those books are wher
He doesn't have to be. All he needs to do is to set up experiments that are verifiable and falsifiable.
Actually, I think you are mistaken in this. --Impartiality is a requirement of good science. This is why we perform double-blind tests; in an effort to combat our own proclivity in fooling ourselves; it is fascinating to me that even such attempts don't always take the full spectrum of possibility into account. In any case, it's a two-way street; the ability to affect results is possible for both the True Believer and the. . , well the other flavor of True Believer. Whatever you Truly Believe in has the potential to skew your results. Randi, if you will investigate, has Big Issues with this. It verges on straw-grasping comedy at times.
You have failed to demonstrate this. Instead, you have resorted to the old personal attack line, and superficial mumbo-jumbo about "we can't prove it, so it must be true" nonsense.
Wow. I didn't say this at all; if you came away with that impression, then my efforts at clear communication have been a failure, but I don't think it has as much to do with my methods as it does your inability to read clearly. "Attacking" and "Describing" are quite different things. By contrast, you seem quite angry and irrational; even stooping to call school-yard names at people you disagree with. Your inability to recognize what has been said offers an excellent example as to why impartiality is important if you want to see clearly. I suspect, however, that you don't actually want this, and in fact, you define something I said earlier; "If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are. It's really that simple. --The only real difficulty is that those who do not want to know also feel the need to diminish and prevent those who DO want to know. If you don't want something to be there, then you have to deal somehow with those who are not satisfied to consume the same lies you are satisfied with."
You are making a rather angry effort to attack those around you who do not share your view, making no effort to hear or address the legitimate points. High emotion has no place in true science.
You would need an impartial observer to make such an experiment.
Exactly. And to say that Randi isn't impartial is a massive understatement. The man is a giant ball of bullying, ill-reasoning ego and he has demonstrated this more than once. For this reason, he and his challenge can be crossed off the list of things to be taken seriously.
The interesting thing is that there have been experiments which have been conducted in a far more mature and scientific manner. The results of such experiments tend to be ignored, or discredited in the public 'official' realm, and often with a high degree of emotion, (which speaks volumes as to the people doing the discreditation). In other realms, military for instance, things are very different. If you find and ask the right people with the right job descriptions at the right moments in their lives, you will learn all kinds of fascinating things.
On a personal level, studies can also be conducted. --Though, it tends to be more difficult to do things in a properly scientific manner. --However, one can study phenomena using rationality and good sense. --In much the same way as you might learn how to fold bed sheets or figure out the source of a buzzing noise in your house, we have bodies and senses and we can use them to solve all manner of problems very effectively. The results of such explorations, however, are not particularly useful in proving anything to others in the public at large, (especially if the people we are describing our activities to become angry and defensive when the subjects of bed sheets or buzzing noises are brought up; people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of such things), but for the individual and those who share an interest, such explorations are extremely valuable.
So why not take their findings and report the most important discovery of recent times?
Well, it actually happens with a fair degree of regularity. Go look for yourself. The world is bustling with knowledge, stuff you can test and verify yourself.
The problem is that the kinds of people who post rewards for proof of bedsheets are not really looking for bedsheets. They are looking to shore up the edges of their non-bedsheet containing realities. If they wanted to find bedsheets, they would go out and find bedsheets. It's really not that hard. And so the battle to convince such people is entirely fruitless. --Unless one is willing to basically rape James Randi of his dearly held belief structure, squash his giant ego, make him look like a fool in public and take away his money. --Try to recall the last time you had to admit you were wrong to a bunch of people, say on Slashdot, who were frothing at the mouth in anticipation of calling you a bunch of names. Were you even able to admit that you were wrong? Most don't have what it takes to do this seemingly simple thing. Now take that same feeling and increase it many times, and you will find an approximation of the position James Randi is in. He is never, NEVER going to let it happen, and a read-through of his methods shows just how far he will go in order to make sure of this.
A real scientist would not be difficult to work with, and indeed, they can be worked with and have been.
But given just how important and profound such a 'discovery' would be, -it would change the face of humanity and the ability to enslave it, given that, it is quite easy to see why the media does not support such notions. --Why it promotes idiocy and charlatans.
And so, official culture, like Randi, will not ever bend. But that doesn't mean you can't go looking on your own steam. In fact, it is the only way. But you need to be brave. --Because it will never be sanctioned, it will never be 'okay' and the self-policing mind-slaves of our world will never reward you with their respect. Or a million dollars.
That fact is well understood by those in the know. Randi's challenge is meant to keep people inside the cage. Those on the outside have no more need for such things.
Saying 'you have to believe to be able to reproduce this experiment' is not science, ok?
No, it's not 'ok'. This isn't a school yard where, "repeat it louder," is considered a valid form of reasoning.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read my other response to you before you wrote this non-argument. I think that might have clarified the issue a little more. It's a hard concept to wrap one's head around.
Listen, feel free to believe in anything you like. I'm not stopping you in any way. I'm not even demanding you to prove your beliefs true. The original poster started talking about science, however, and that's when I do start asking for results reproduced by independent parties.
The poster I was responding to brought James Randi into the equation. James Randi is not a man of science.
I'm as fascinated by the scientific method as you are, but I do think it is important to distinguish between real science and 'cult of science'. There are very few scientists out there who are not corrupted by discriminatory and prejudicial belief systems. Further, science is severely limited in the exploration of certain phenomena due to the nature of consciousness.
Consider: If a force exists which is capable of being neutralized through the unconscious intent and will of observers who do not want to see it, then how do you measure it? I've never seen an experiment performed which takes this question into account.
Yes, it sounds as silly as, "I'm invisible, but only when nobody is looking," but it is still an entirely valid question. Science will be limited until it knows how to answer this.
True that money isn't everything, but if I could move stuff around with my mind, or read the details off an envelope that's inside a safe, I wouldn't feel like a freak, I'd just feel FREAKIN' AWESOME! And I'd want to know how I did what I did, and how to teach other people to do it (if possible), and whether there was anything else I could do that I hadn't discovered yet. I'd want to know what my abilities meant for conventional science, and what new engineering techniques they would lead to. Hiding away a gift that could fundamentally change our understanding of the world would be a crime against humanity.
In my experience, people who claim paranormal powers generally do so because they want to feel special, and so they see attempts to verify their 'powers' as personal attacks, knowing they'll only be discredited.
I agree with several of your points, although feeling, "FREAKIN' AWESOME" as you put it, is an ego state which easily prevents the accumulation of real knowledge through the fear of discreditation. What people DO feel is afraid of persecution. It is easy decide that humanity does not deserve to know that which they will kill you for stating. The knowledge is not exactly hidden. It is simply that most just don't want to know.
When you describe your experiments with your father, you are not describing all experiments. You need to look further afield and seek some awareness of your own if you want to find valid experiences. Also, it's not 'magic' by any means. That attitude is problematic.
It is helpful to recognize that many of the forces in question have a great deal to do with consciousness. --Consciousness is affected deeply by mental programming, bias and beliefs. It is entirely possible to suggest something out of one's perceptual range. You can hypnotize somebody into not being able to see the third man in the room. A question to ask is this: "How can you prove that you dream?"
Forget about Randi's challenge. Just prove scientifically something paranormal. Get a Nobel prize (or at least some recognition).
I'll be able to do that when you can prove that you, 'Dream'.
And in fact, I can. --But only for those who have figured out how to prove that they dream.
The answer doesn't come from demanding the world dance for you, but by getting out there and exploring beyond the walls of official culture. --And by letting go of the foolish desire for societal approval and "recognition" as you put it. Knowledge is its own reward. Henry freekin' Kissinger won a Nobel prize, after all. That should tell you something about the natures of Ego and Truth.
So, aside from your word, which is nothing short of one big "Citation Needed", I'm going to see "1 (one) million dollars, verified in a bank account, just waiting to be had", along with a sensible set of rules that should be absolutely no problem at all for anyone having a talent of this kind, and conclude that you are either scorned because you failed it, or just incapable of understanding others might be a tad cynical of those who come with extraordinary claims.
And this is exactly how I felt about things as well until I went to explore the claims and counter-claims surrounding Randi.
Clearly, you have not done this. Why?
--That's a rhetorical "Why?" which I answered in my previous post. Citations are useful and they are out certainly available, but you are not asking for one; you are challenging with a chin-jutting attitude. What does this say about what you really want?
What do I 'win' by convincing you, other than perhaps your respect and that of society's in general? The thing is, I no longer crave society's respect (and certainly not yours) due to the work I have done in re-writing the programming in my own mind. --The combative "Jury Box" system of truth discernment is a feature of our world which has been sold to us through television with the broad suggestion that it can and should be applied in all instances including the scientific forum, but this is not the case. Here's an interesting fact: Many of the forces which exist beyond the walls of 'official culture' have to do with one's state of consciousness, and can be affected and indeed blocked through an application of intent and strong will. If you don't want to see something, then in a surprising number of cases, it is entirely possible to trick yourself into not seeing it. You can even prevent others from seeing. There are a vast number of phenomenon like this.
As for the win/lose method of knowledge distribution. . .
I've already 'won' by increasing my knowledge. Yow win nothing by fortifying ignorance. But we are taught that "Winning = Not Getting the Ego Bruised". "Being Wrong" has been attached with a powerful negative emotional cost hammered into us all through an education system which pitted children against one another through the tactic of age segregation. Age segregation makes it so that leaders are not readily found within groups, thus increasing the competition among children to very high levels while never allowing for a clear 'winner'. One result is that of, "Jocks v.s. Geeks". --The result being a shell-shocked geek community which grows into adulthood with deeply set baggage wrt losing face in any kind of contest. Thus the attaining of knowledge comes in at a distant second to being Right At All Cost. (And when I say, "Right" I do not mean, "Factually Correct". I mean "In line with the official version".) --The age segregation and the combat it forces children to undergo makes knowledge given by authority figures (like the TV) the only safe way of accumulating data because the data given is not accompanied by a sense of guilt or defeat in not previously knowing, but rather a warm-fuzzy feeling. So if you can control the media, and you also control the knowledge stream because the population will police itself, allowing no new knowledge to arise from its peers. The only thing geeks are allowed to say is simply a repetition of what TV's and various other globally recognized media authority figures have stated as being 'true'.
I have to wonder, if there is a large body of science behind paranormal events, why don't the scientists cash in on the Randi Million Dollar challenge (or any of the several dozen smaller ones that are out there, if Randis requirements are too hard)?
Too hard? It's got nothing to do with 'hard'. It has to do with Randi being a dick who will do anything in his power to not know what he doesn't want to know. The man has the thundering ego of a. . , well, a stage magician whose reputation and sense of self-worth are pinned directly to his being Right. Quite simply, he is not capable of being wrong, and therefore he will not be, regardless of what reality has to say about it. Read through some of the case studies of his 'challenge'. The man is loud, rude and biased, about as unscientific as any religious pundit. If you've ever dealt with somebody like that personally, and you probably have, then you'd know that such a 'challenge' is not real, but rather is presented entirely to give the impression of reasonableness, thus giving one the illusory basis for righteous denial of anything which offends and frightens them. It functions, I suspect, from the same part of the brain as extends the Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly form of 'journalistic integrity'.
Any challenger or prize-offerer is going to hold a similar profile. If they truly wanted to Know, then they would. It's not that difficult to go and find and experience this stuff. --Thus, the larger part of the issue is that such 'challenges' make the presumption that truth is owed to the rest of the world. It is not. It is available, but very few actually want Truth. To shove a truth down somebody's throat when they do not want it, is a violation of Free Will.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring. If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are. It's really that simple. --The only real difficulty is that those who do not want to know also feel the need to diminish and prevent those who DO want to know. If you don't want something to be there, then you have to deal somehow with those who are not satisfied to consume the same lies you are satisfied with.
Thus, we get nonsense like the false, 'Randi Challenge'. Pre-fab ammunition available for easy launch from the coward's armchair. Of course, it only works if you don't consider it too deeply, but that's easy for those hiding from truth. Self-deception is a skill improved over time.
I'm talking "Galactica 1980" cheesy. I also didn't find the universal acceptance of the "hey, let's discard every scrap of technology and be cavemen!" idea to be realistic or practical in the least.
This was my general reaction to the whole series.
The difference here was that I didn't have to put up with a solid hour of bad lighting and claustrophobic camera work. I tuned in just to watch the thing die, and much to my surprise, I actually quite enjoyed the show for the first time, thanks to a liberal dose of Green and Blue. Other than that, the show was still "Stupid and Uninsightful" masquerading as "Intelligent". (Just pretend we're shooting "West Wing" and people will think it's clever, and they'll even swallow the whole, "Bad things happen to Good people more Often than they Don't" line of B.S..)
Still, congrats where congrats are due: It's VERY impressive when a series of such high production values sees itself through and ends on a strong note. Based on that, I can almost forgive the fact I hated practically every inch of it from the get-go, but somehow I suspect the two things are related. Formula applied after watching the first half dozen episodes of a series: "If I REALLY like it, it will have to struggle to survive or be Doctor Who, (which like the Muppet Show, exists in its own category where silly walks are cool). If I REALLY hate it, it will get lots of seasons, win too many awards and within four years it will be honored by the freekin' U.N. of all places while I quietly simmer in disgust."
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me your attitude could be the problem.
Guess which word I mis-read the first time through that sentence which made it funny.
-FL
The designs are very pretty and very smart within a very narrow context which makes a number of rather wishful assumptions. Let me list a few items I think may have been overlooked by the design team. . .
1. You have to travel out into the middle of a Nevadan wasteland to wind the clock every 100 years. Oh boy. 100 years? This assumes that we will not even once during the next ten millennia be reduced to very hard living conditions which preclude such luxuries as leaving the family hearth to make an exhausting and largely meaningless pilgrimage out into the middle of nowhere to maybe screw up something we were not trained for and no longer have the education required to read the instruction manual to do right. --All to satisfy the high-minded notions and general Gee-Whiz factor of a team of long-dead geeks. Hmm.
2. Valueless metal? The kind which is enormously strong and doesn't corrode? When I'm looking to make knives or a new plough, that kind of metal is worth far more than crappy bog iron.
3. Vegetable life. Fascinating stuff. Faster than it looks, eats rock, and is basically about as predictable as a seed in a bit of bird poop on a random gust of wind. One tree taking root in the wrong spot and, "all your clock are belong to us". --The fact that the current clock design requires sunlight for daily calibration means that the chance of vegetable matter interacting with it goes waaaay up.
4. Ice. Ice ages happen and 10,000 years is plenty of time to see another one. --This does not mean that Nevada will be covered in a blanket of frozen water. But it does mean that the biosphere will adjust itself enormously, creating all kinds of random conditions. New bodies of water, new weather patterns, new migratory paths, new forests, new deserts. Nevada may seem desolate today, but it may be a rain forest in ten thousand years.
5. Basic human nature. How many of your parent's vital passions did you adopt? At a 100 years, you've got about three to four generations between windings. Even in an advanced culture like ours, most people reading about a big clock project will yawn and not get it, (certainly not enough to commit themselves to the high-skills task of maintenance.)
I think there are two solutions.
A) Embrace life in a far greater way; (Make the clock mobile so that it won't risk being eaten by the planet, use religion; it seems to be the only thing which can last for any appreciable length of time. Survived the last dark age after so many wonders were forgotten. (Jesus will come to the Jews in 10,000 years so long as you wind this thing and don't tell anybody. Something like that.) This, however, is probably futile. Religious artifacts tend to get scattered to the four winds despite all precautions. While religion is good at preserving certain ideas, those very ideas make them the target of vitriol and war.
The best we can really expect is for some diluted and largely mangled spiritual philosophy to transit the millennia. We've actually got a few examples floating around today. Not so many clocks though. . .
B) Remove life from the equation altogether. If you can build a weight which takes a 100 years to fall, then why not a 100 of them? Or 50 which take 200 years to fall? This way, you can put it deeper underground, away from trees, fickle humans and glaciers. The only problem with this is that people will forget. There's a very good chance it will reach its final tick, send up its flag and then set in for the really long wait. . .
Which raises the question. . .
I wonder how many ancient clocks there are currently sitting around in deep underground vaults? --If some people working in some off the department books are to be believed, if they are willing to talk to you, then the answer is, "More than one."
-FL
So I finally installed Ubuntu on a machine, having decided that it was high-bloody-time that I learned how to use Linux. It's been the sore spot on my geek cred for years now.
It works nicely at first glance, but in trying to install a Wacom graphics tablet, I found myself lost and confused. Help forums at Ubuntu seem to assume a working level of knowledge which I simply didn't have, and gaining that working level of knowledge required, from what I could determine, that I already have it. It felt like I did back in grade school when I was first trying to come to grips with the world literature, politics and global history. --It's all inter-woven, no one piece is understandable without knowing the whole.
--But unlike the world of literature, politics and global history where there is a huge, organized, multi-billion dollar education system filled with teachers and learning resources, Linux for the most part only has engineers. --And most engineers suck at communicating with people who are not engineers. This isn't a criticism. I think engineers are awesome. But it does mean that I banged my head against the computer screen and made almost zero headway after two days straight.
I have long been aware that engineers simply organize and communicate ideas differently. --Much like Linux, the engineer's brain is similar only cosmetically to that of the non-engineer brain. (This comes as no surprise to me whatsoever; everything in the world, I realized some years ago, is metaphor.) Vi is an excellent example of this. Never have I encountered a more non-intuitive system of editing than with that gawdawful program. But then, I must remember, I learned how to manipulate text on a computer screen starting at a very young age, always using software programs which managed keyed in text and commands which were universally consistent. If I came today to a text editor with no knowledge of computers, then I'd probably be baffled and alternatively enraged by the complexity of the whole thing. Vi is the result of a different evolutionary path which only engineers were exposed to while growing up. Everybody else was taught the Microsoft/Apple way.
The "man" files in Linux, (which I eventually found out about), seemed like a brilliant idea, but because they were written and organized by engineers for engineers, they were no help to me whatsoever. Even though I could detect a human warmth in the billions of lines of instructions, the logical streams used to convey information were such that they very quickly fused my synapses together and drove me insane. It's like English v.s. Chinese. Not Fucking Compatible.
It reminded me of being in Math class, where I struggled mightily for years on end until being ejected from highschool having mastered only the bare essentials. I later learned from discussing this with an awesome girl I later fell in love with, that she had experienced pretty much the same thing. (We fell in love in part because we understood one another instantly on every subject; felt like we'd been wandering around on an alien world most of our lives, etc.,) Turns out, as everybody knows but doesn't realize until it hits them square in the face, that there are different learning styles, and I'd been an extreme example of the one which fit worst with the teaching system as applied to mathematics. The problem is, while Linux is just a complex system which can be learned and understood regardless of how you happen to learn, the people doing all the explaining appear to embody an extreme expression of the exact other way of thinking which doesn't fit with my head.
Learning Windows is little better; it took me years. And Apple. . . --I still get a headache whenever I try to get a frickin' Mac to do anything useful. At least with Linux when I get frustrated it's because the road signs through all the HAL guts confuse me. With an Apple, not only are there NO road signs, but the Ritalin-soaked Fischer-Price OS won't even let me look under the hood; if I can't get what I
"HAL" is a questionable and somewhat creepy marketing move.
But "Cyberdyne"? Now that's just plain stupid. It'll take more than an army of Japanese boys in power suits (dreaming of pink hair, high skirts and higher-pitched baby voices) to stop Harlan Ellison from ripping into your jugular.
-FL
. . . that Bush/Cheney are still in power.
That chill which went down all of your spines when you first read the article just got chillier, didn't it?
I'm no Obama fan, but given the choice between soft and hard fascism. . . The Bush legacy is going to keep on giving for a while, I think.
It's because of stuff like this that people who know their history got all worked up over the Neo-con rise to power and the Iraqi war D-Day which half of the ignorant folks here were practically ejaculating over with little visions of 'command & conquer' tanks dancing before their eyes. Sorry, guys, but you got skunked, and now the law enforcement in Virginia and other strong-holds of armed and brain damaged, "Is it a W or an M," people have their list criteria compiled. And if the Virginian state police can think it, then you can be 100% certain that Fatherland Security got there first, probably in the first six months. And the scary thing about such people is that they don't think. --Once you're labeled, that's it for you. The assault-rifle wielding black-armor task-force orcs with "POLICE" or "ATF" or whatever printed in white upon their backs who surge through apartment building hallways in that half-crouched war zone walk. . . You can't say, "Hey, let's talk about this. You've got the wrong guy! I voted for McCain!"
No. They don't listen. It's been programmed out of them, Mister Buttle. You'll have plastic cutting into your wrists, because some infantile W or M person has made a brain-damaged decision which they don't have the emotional maturity to admit might have been the result of a personal error.
The ironic part is that I suspect more than half the AC posts around here are keyed in exactly by the 'command & conquer' people.
That's how it works. Even those who salute the flag have a fair chance of ending up crucified.
-FL
Ahh... yes. And the reason that guy is taking you out to dinner is because he's interested in the long-term survivability of your (future) offspring.
The argument is that the point of a sex drive is that it takes care of such things automatically without you realizing what is going on. You can bounce around through life believing you are an autonomous, choice-driven being when the exact opposite is usually the case.
People are machines. Only the lucky ones who realize this have a chance of growing beyond the boundaries of the operating system.
-FL
I like halogen a lot, too. Lovely color, low voltage and nice, quiet DC.
Just be careful. . .
I know a guy who couldn't figure out why he developed a weird skin rash on his hands, arms and face.
Turns out you can get sunburn from certain brands of halogen lighting system.
-FL
I lived once in a smallish apartment for a while over a couple of Winters. I was surprised to learn that I didn't have to turn on the heat once all season, and even had to open the windows a few times because it got too warm.
I thought at first that this had to do with the position of my apartment in relation to the Sun, the ambient heat put out by the surrounding apartments and the basic heating maintained by the building to stop pipes from bursting. And then I returned after a long weekend away where the lights had all been left off, and it was freekin' cold!
Though, I should add that my computer was also off. --That sucker generates a lot of waste heat. I wonder if I'd have needed to wear sweaters more often if it was running on an Atom chip. . ?
-FL
I don't get this sentiment. If the Internet has shown us anything, it is the fans are the most critical audience. If the movie had been bad, there would have been a riot.
Well, I think there are degrees of 'Fan'.
A small subset consists of those who camp out for a week before the opening of "Phantom Menace" and who confuse the experience of camaraderie with "Good Film". I know guys who swear to this day that they loved that movie.
"Serenity" was similar, (another film I considered sub-par compared to the original series), in that the fans formed a powerful collective joy amongst themselves in the 'fight' to see a film made and who lost all critical faculty as a result.
I also couldn't stand Kevin Smith's "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back". After really enjoying "Dogma" I couldn't believe how stupid his new film was, but the fan base was so tightly wound with a sense of supporting a favored under-dog that it didn't really matter what the film was about.
I love being Fan(atical) about something, (and it doesn't happen often enough these days), but when I recommend the stuff I am that way about, I always take a moment to qualify my reviews with the fact that I'm lacking a degree of sanity on whatever I happen to be promoting with such zeal.
-FL
Auzzies are nuts. --Good nuts, but still nuts.
I know that is a broad generalization, but it's also generally true. --I remember visiting Spain during that "Running of the Bulls" thing, being surrounded by thousands of back-packing drunk kids from all over the world.
There were many different vantage points to watch the festivities from. You could stand on the ground and crane your neck. You could sit on the thick timbers of the fenced off roads where the bulls ran. Or you could sit waaaaaay up on the edge of various stone precipices on the stadium and various over fucking-nuts places to sit when you've got an alcoholic beverage in one hand. Guess what accent those lunatics were cheering with?
There's Public Relations tactical magic at work here, I have no doubt. The article reeks of it.
Still, I retain enough fan-boy in my genes to get excited at the mere suggestion that Star Trek might not suck. Eleven dollars? I can see clear to put my critical faculties and general discontent with Abrams on hold for a couple of hours. It can't possibly hurt more than Indy and those stupid skulls.
I hope. Oh, lordy, I do hope. --That's the genes talking as well.
-FL
No kidding? I didn't realize it was the same guy. That's actually pretty good casting, in a comic-book kind of way. The idea of Vulcans always kind of creeped me out. Remember Spock in the first ST movie when he showed up and his jubilant friends were weirded out by his totally inhuman response and lack of affection with their reunion as a result of having spent years back home re-calibrating his Vulcan-ness?
Having trouble with feeling is a common issue with both Spock and Sylar. In Spock we'll get to see the other side of the same coin.
Rats. I might have to actually go watch this film. I do hope that the "standing ovation" report stems from honest audience reaction rather than from the tactical play book of some PR firm.
Ugh. Who am I kidding. With luck, both are true. It's idiotic to think that marketing isn't heavily involved in this story.
Cheers!
-FL
It's all about behaviour
Agreed. That was exactly my point.
Here's another. . .
Nicotine, like caffeine is a very curious drug. It has the effect of sharpening perceptions, increasing awareness and calming down fear-based reactions without adversely affecting judgment.
I find it rather telling that governments spend so much energy villainizing tobacco. One of the first governments to launch whole-heartedly the whole "Anti-smoking" campaign was Nazi Germany. --I think it might have something to do with population control. Wars on Terror, and similar, count on manipulating fear responses and un-clear thinking in populations.
Fear of Addiction is used mercilessly as one of the tools in this campaign. And I don't think it has anything to do with the government caring for our health. --Otherwise, why not campaign against the various well-known causes of obesity? Or the epidemic levels of mis-prescribed anti-depressants? Or any of the dozens of things which are both common and harmful. My guess is that these other things don't act to strengthen the collective mind of the populace.
-FL
I notice that when I hear the word, "Addicted", I feel a slight subterranean urge to start acting.
--That is, to put myself through the drama of addiction. The cravings and the various difficulties. I wonder how much of this is really based on chemical addiction and how much of it is based on behavioral programming.
Coffee and tobacco are interesting. I've played with both. I wanted to try tobacco for a number of reasons and it was pretty cool. "Quitting Smoking" is this buggaboo of a thing in our society, so after I'd been smoking this pipe for several months, (and really quite enjoying it), I said, "Okay. Let's see what this Quitting Smoking thing is all about."
I was a little disappointed. Quitting smoking is pretty easy. It takes seven days for the chemical addiction to be overcome. After that it's entirely a question of behavior and brain chemistry. (Some people are naturally attracted to tobacco because it balances out their neural chemistry. There's a reason why cigarettes are so popular among those with various imbalances. It's self-medication and it helps. A lot. --For these people, I imagine that "Quitting Smoking" is probably much more challenging.)
It's basically like having a mild flu. It gets worse and worse until withdrawal symptoms peek somewhere between day 3 or 4, and then it smooths out. After 7 days are up, you're pretty much in the clear. The difficult part is this: Imagine having the flu, not the worst you've ever had, but pretty uncomfortable. Normally, you'd just tough it out because you have no choice. But with nicotine, you can make the symptoms vanish instantly. Hmmm! --The other part I found really entertaining was seeing the kinds of tricks my rational mind tried to play. As the symptoms progress, your mind will concoct all kinds of logical-seeming arguments for just smoking one more time. Coffee doesn't do that. --Coffee addiction is child's play. Two days, one head-ache, no real cravings to speak of, and you're back to normal. Big deal.
So overall, the whole notion of "Addiction" seems much overblown from my perspective. (Drugs are different for different people; you can't choose your base brain chemistry defaults, --not like behavior programming, which with enough work can be altered.) --Addiction is just a bodily reaction to a substance which you can measure and take into account. Knowing that quitting is just a process with a recognizable cost, I have no fear of using coffee when appropriate, and if I ever go through a period of extreme, prolonged stress, I'd certainly consider using tobacco again. It's really a pretty amazing drug, --though it does make you smell funny and if you smoke the crappy kind, it screws up your breathing. (That was another thing I wanted to learn about. All arguments of toxic additives in big tobacco products aside, the paper in cigarettes is soaked in a weak bath of salt-peter or something akin to it. Take all the tobacco out of a cigarette and light the paper and watch what happens. It's almost like slow-motion magician's flash paper. I found that cigarettes made me cough up fleghm, but that pipe tobacco, organically grown did not. Hmm.)
My current 'addictions' include Coffee and downloads of sci-fi TV. But with no current Doctor Who and Dollhouse heading for the axe, I guess that issue will resolve itself.
-FL
Hm.
I forget sometimes where I came from myself. --The world really is pretty locked down. I started out the son of an engineer and a big fan of science. Did the model rocket, and build your own radio thing as a kid. At a party many years later, somebody brought out a Chinese divination system based on an old game, and proceeded to do readings for people. It was unlike anything I'd ever chanced across before; all I'd seen of the esoteric was the newspaper horoscope section which I'd always found to be entirely silly; a clear example of vague information being used to trick people into seeing more than was there. This system, however, crossed some kind of line. It was starkly accurate to the point where each person was quite shaken by the accuracy and depth at which it worked. I came away from that rather stunned.
Of course, I knew it was possible to manipulate things like cards and tiles and such, and so I decided to investigate further. It wasn't an immediate process, over the next several years, I met at random people who were similarly tuned to this kind of stuff, and I'd grill them. --One of the first people I met was a girl who was good at palm reading; who at one party was reading palms. After reading one guy, she turned to her boyfriend, white in the face and said, "That guy had NO life-line. I didn't want to tell him." The next night that guy, in his 20's, died in his sleep from heart failure. --I walked through dozens of episodes like that, both happy and sad, but never really had any direct experiences.
I also started reading. Carlos Castaneda began that, and from there, the other important books showed up on my reading list as necessary. The interesting thing with Castaneda is that one slowly comes across the notion that intent shapes experiences in a very practical way. --Which is really pretty obvious. "I intend to experience a bowl of Cheerios. I go and prepare one and thus my intention is realized." The neat part is that you learn that it works without the need for a discernible linear physical approach. --And that was when I started meeting teachers who could do some of the *really* intense stuff. Those who I call, "Powerful People". --My last girlfriend was one of these, and she has no interest in the esoteric world at all, but she is able to shape reality in the most uncanny of ways. She has experiences which are TOTALLY off the map which she doesn't understand. By the time I met her, I'd accumulated an encyclopedic knowledge of this kind of material and was able to explain and help her through many of her experiences. She's the kind of person who finds herself jumping into a car and driving off willy-nilly because she feels a strong urge and then finds herself an hour later standing at the center of a fresh crop circle.
My own level of awareness has increased a great deal over the years. I know and feel stuff I shouldn't; it seems that having enough iron in your diet is an important component, meditation helps a lot, but that for the most part, one's genetic make-up appears to play a large role. I've seen and done some pretty weird stuff, but some of the people I've met experience things in a far greater capacity than others by default. But in terms of sculpting experiences and knowing why the world is as it is. . , anybody can do that.
Simple steps to take. . .
Chinese and Western astrology are considered sort of entry points, because they offer easy evidence that 'something is up'. I like Theadora Lau's book on Chinese astrology. It was one of those early, "You have GOT to be kidding me!" works; I'd recommend her work; it's cheap and easy enough to find. Also, Suzanne Miller's Astrology website here, http://www.astrologyzone.com/ is a good representative of the Western model. Carlos Castaneda's books, despite their flaws, are also a fun read, so even if you get nothing out of them, (though I don't see how that is at all possible), it won't be a waste of your time. (Those books are wher
He doesn't have to be. All he needs to do is to set up experiments that are verifiable and falsifiable.
Actually, I think you are mistaken in this. --Impartiality is a requirement of good science. This is why we perform double-blind tests; in an effort to combat our own proclivity in fooling ourselves; it is fascinating to me that even such attempts don't always take the full spectrum of possibility into account. In any case, it's a two-way street; the ability to affect results is possible for both the True Believer and the. . , well the other flavor of True Believer. Whatever you Truly Believe in has the potential to skew your results. Randi, if you will investigate, has Big Issues with this. It verges on straw-grasping comedy at times.
You have failed to demonstrate this. Instead, you have resorted to the old personal attack line, and superficial mumbo-jumbo about "we can't prove it, so it must be true" nonsense.
Wow. I didn't say this at all; if you came away with that impression, then my efforts at clear communication have been a failure, but I don't think it has as much to do with my methods as it does your inability to read clearly. "Attacking" and "Describing" are quite different things. By contrast, you seem quite angry and irrational; even stooping to call school-yard names at people you disagree with. Your inability to recognize what has been said offers an excellent example as to why impartiality is important if you want to see clearly. I suspect, however, that you don't actually want this, and in fact, you define something I said earlier; "If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are. It's really that simple. --The only real difficulty is that those who do not want to know also feel the need to diminish and prevent those who DO want to know. If you don't want something to be there, then you have to deal somehow with those who are not satisfied to consume the same lies you are satisfied with."
You are making a rather angry effort to attack those around you who do not share your view, making no effort to hear or address the legitimate points. High emotion has no place in true science.
-FL
You would need an impartial observer to make such an experiment.
Exactly. And to say that Randi isn't impartial is a massive understatement. The man is a giant ball of bullying, ill-reasoning ego and he has demonstrated this more than once. For this reason, he and his challenge can be crossed off the list of things to be taken seriously.
The interesting thing is that there have been experiments which have been conducted in a far more mature and scientific manner. The results of such experiments tend to be ignored, or discredited in the public 'official' realm, and often with a high degree of emotion, (which speaks volumes as to the people doing the discreditation). In other realms, military for instance, things are very different. If you find and ask the right people with the right job descriptions at the right moments in their lives, you will learn all kinds of fascinating things.
On a personal level, studies can also be conducted. --Though, it tends to be more difficult to do things in a properly scientific manner. --However, one can study phenomena using rationality and good sense. --In much the same way as you might learn how to fold bed sheets or figure out the source of a buzzing noise in your house, we have bodies and senses and we can use them to solve all manner of problems very effectively. The results of such explorations, however, are not particularly useful in proving anything to others in the public at large, (especially if the people we are describing our activities to become angry and defensive when the subjects of bed sheets or buzzing noises are brought up; people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of such things), but for the individual and those who share an interest, such explorations are extremely valuable.
So why not take their findings and report the most important discovery of recent times?
Well, it actually happens with a fair degree of regularity. Go look for yourself. The world is bustling with knowledge, stuff you can test and verify yourself.
The problem is that the kinds of people who post rewards for proof of bedsheets are not really looking for bedsheets. They are looking to shore up the edges of their non-bedsheet containing realities. If they wanted to find bedsheets, they would go out and find bedsheets. It's really not that hard. And so the battle to convince such people is entirely fruitless. --Unless one is willing to basically rape James Randi of his dearly held belief structure, squash his giant ego, make him look like a fool in public and take away his money. --Try to recall the last time you had to admit you were wrong to a bunch of people, say on Slashdot, who were frothing at the mouth in anticipation of calling you a bunch of names. Were you even able to admit that you were wrong? Most don't have what it takes to do this seemingly simple thing. Now take that same feeling and increase it many times, and you will find an approximation of the position James Randi is in. He is never, NEVER going to let it happen, and a read-through of his methods shows just how far he will go in order to make sure of this.
A real scientist would not be difficult to work with, and indeed, they can be worked with and have been.
But given just how important and profound such a 'discovery' would be, -it would change the face of humanity and the ability to enslave it, given that, it is quite easy to see why the media does not support such notions. --Why it promotes idiocy and charlatans.
And so, official culture, like Randi, will not ever bend. But that doesn't mean you can't go looking on your own steam. In fact, it is the only way. But you need to be brave. --Because it will never be sanctioned, it will never be 'okay' and the self-policing mind-slaves of our world will never reward you with their respect. Or a million dollars.
That fact is well understood by those in the know. Randi's challenge is meant to keep people inside the cage. Those on the outside have no more need for such things.
Saying 'you have to believe to be able to reproduce this experiment' is not science, ok?
No, it's not 'ok'. This isn't a school yard where, "repeat it louder," is considered a valid form of reasoning.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read my other response to you before you wrote this non-argument. I think that might have clarified the issue a little more. It's a hard concept to wrap one's head around.
-FL
Listen, feel free to believe in anything you like. I'm not stopping you in any way. I'm not even demanding you to prove your beliefs true. The original poster started talking about science, however, and that's when I do start asking for results reproduced by independent parties.
The poster I was responding to brought James Randi into the equation. James Randi is not a man of science.
I'm as fascinated by the scientific method as you are, but I do think it is important to distinguish between real science and 'cult of science'. There are very few scientists out there who are not corrupted by discriminatory and prejudicial belief systems. Further, science is severely limited in the exploration of certain phenomena due to the nature of consciousness.
Consider: If a force exists which is capable of being neutralized through the unconscious intent and will of observers who do not want to see it, then how do you measure it? I've never seen an experiment performed which takes this question into account.
Yes, it sounds as silly as, "I'm invisible, but only when nobody is looking," but it is still an entirely valid question. Science will be limited until it knows how to answer this.
-FL
It seems we have reached your definition of 'scientific'.
Well, that's cute, but it's not an insight, nor is it accurate. It's an avoidance technique which uses ridicule. Can you address the actual point?
-FL
True that money isn't everything, but if I could move stuff around with my mind, or read the details off an envelope that's inside a safe, I wouldn't feel like a freak, I'd just feel FREAKIN' AWESOME! And I'd want to know how I did what I did, and how to teach other people to do it (if possible), and whether there was anything else I could do that I hadn't discovered yet. I'd want to know what my abilities meant for conventional science, and what new engineering techniques they would lead to. Hiding away a gift that could fundamentally change our understanding of the world would be a crime against humanity.
In my experience, people who claim paranormal powers generally do so because they want to feel special, and so they see attempts to verify their 'powers' as personal attacks, knowing they'll only be discredited.
I agree with several of your points, although feeling, "FREAKIN' AWESOME" as you put it, is an ego state which easily prevents the accumulation of real knowledge through the fear of discreditation. What people DO feel is afraid of persecution. It is easy decide that humanity does not deserve to know that which they will kill you for stating. The knowledge is not exactly hidden. It is simply that most just don't want to know.
When you describe your experiments with your father, you are not describing all experiments. You need to look further afield and seek some awareness of your own if you want to find valid experiences. Also, it's not 'magic' by any means. That attitude is problematic.
It is helpful to recognize that many of the forces in question have a great deal to do with consciousness. --Consciousness is affected deeply by mental programming, bias and beliefs. It is entirely possible to suggest something out of one's perceptual range. You can hypnotize somebody into not being able to see the third man in the room. A question to ask is this: "How can you prove that you dream?"
-FL
Forget about Randi's challenge. Just prove scientifically something paranormal. Get a Nobel prize (or at least some recognition).
I'll be able to do that when you can prove that you, 'Dream'.
And in fact, I can. --But only for those who have figured out how to prove that they dream.
The answer doesn't come from demanding the world dance for you, but by getting out there and exploring beyond the walls of official culture. --And by letting go of the foolish desire for societal approval and "recognition" as you put it. Knowledge is its own reward. Henry freekin' Kissinger won a Nobel prize, after all. That should tell you something about the natures of Ego and Truth.
-FL
So, aside from your word, which is nothing short of one big "Citation Needed", I'm going to see "1 (one) million dollars, verified in a bank account, just waiting to be had", along with a sensible set of rules that should be absolutely no problem at all for anyone having a talent of this kind, and conclude that you are either scorned because you failed it, or just incapable of understanding others might be a tad cynical of those who come with extraordinary claims.
And this is exactly how I felt about things as well until I went to explore the claims and counter-claims surrounding Randi.
Clearly, you have not done this. Why?
--That's a rhetorical "Why?" which I answered in my previous post. Citations are useful and they are out certainly available, but you are not asking for one; you are challenging with a chin-jutting attitude. What does this say about what you really want?
What do I 'win' by convincing you, other than perhaps your respect and that of society's in general? The thing is, I no longer crave society's respect (and certainly not yours) due to the work I have done in re-writing the programming in my own mind. --The combative "Jury Box" system of truth discernment is a feature of our world which has been sold to us through television with the broad suggestion that it can and should be applied in all instances including the scientific forum, but this is not the case. Here's an interesting fact: Many of the forces which exist beyond the walls of 'official culture' have to do with one's state of consciousness, and can be affected and indeed blocked through an application of intent and strong will. If you don't want to see something, then in a surprising number of cases, it is entirely possible to trick yourself into not seeing it. You can even prevent others from seeing. There are a vast number of phenomenon like this.
As for the win/lose method of knowledge distribution. . .
I've already 'won' by increasing my knowledge. Yow win nothing by fortifying ignorance. But we are taught that "Winning = Not Getting the Ego Bruised". "Being Wrong" has been attached with a powerful negative emotional cost hammered into us all through an education system which pitted children against one another through the tactic of age segregation. Age segregation makes it so that leaders are not readily found within groups, thus increasing the competition among children to very high levels while never allowing for a clear 'winner'. One result is that of, "Jocks v.s. Geeks". --The result being a shell-shocked geek community which grows into adulthood with deeply set baggage wrt losing face in any kind of contest. Thus the attaining of knowledge comes in at a distant second to being Right At All Cost. (And when I say, "Right" I do not mean, "Factually Correct". I mean "In line with the official version".) --The age segregation and the combat it forces children to undergo makes knowledge given by authority figures (like the TV) the only safe way of accumulating data because the data given is not accompanied by a sense of guilt or defeat in not previously knowing, but rather a warm-fuzzy feeling. So if you can control the media, and you also control the knowledge stream because the population will police itself, allowing no new knowledge to arise from its peers. The only thing geeks are allowed to say is simply a repetition of what TV's and various other globally recognized media authority figures have stated as being 'true'.
-FL
I have to wonder, if there is a large body of science behind paranormal events, why don't the scientists cash in on the Randi Million Dollar challenge (or any of the several dozen smaller ones that are out there, if Randis requirements are too hard)?
Too hard? It's got nothing to do with 'hard'. It has to do with Randi being a dick who will do anything in his power to not know what he doesn't want to know. The man has the thundering ego of a. . , well, a stage magician whose reputation and sense of self-worth are pinned directly to his being Right. Quite simply, he is not capable of being wrong, and therefore he will not be, regardless of what reality has to say about it. Read through some of the case studies of his 'challenge'. The man is loud, rude and biased, about as unscientific as any religious pundit. If you've ever dealt with somebody like that personally, and you probably have, then you'd know that such a 'challenge' is not real, but rather is presented entirely to give the impression of reasonableness, thus giving one the illusory basis for righteous denial of anything which offends and frightens them. It functions, I suspect, from the same part of the brain as extends the Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly form of 'journalistic integrity'.
Any challenger or prize-offerer is going to hold a similar profile. If they truly wanted to Know, then they would. It's not that difficult to go and find and experience this stuff. --Thus, the larger part of the issue is that such 'challenges' make the presumption that truth is owed to the rest of the world. It is not. It is available, but very few actually want Truth. To shove a truth down somebody's throat when they do not want it, is a violation of Free Will.
In short, if you want to know, go look; nobody is going to go to the trouble of providing anything for you if you can't be bothered to invest the energy to put in the requisite work through exploring. If you don't want to know, then carry on as you are. It's really that simple. --The only real difficulty is that those who do not want to know also feel the need to diminish and prevent those who DO want to know. If you don't want something to be there, then you have to deal somehow with those who are not satisfied to consume the same lies you are satisfied with.
Thus, we get nonsense like the false, 'Randi Challenge'. Pre-fab ammunition available for easy launch from the coward's armchair. Of course, it only works if you don't consider it too deeply, but that's easy for those hiding from truth. Self-deception is a skill improved over time.
-FL
--Those things which make each and every neuron it's own miniature super-quantum-computer.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2069501759514424839
I find it amazing that so much knowledge can be out there, but people seem incapable of connecting the dots in the ways which count.
-FL
I'm talking "Galactica 1980" cheesy. I also didn't find the universal acceptance of the "hey, let's discard every scrap of technology and be cavemen!" idea to be realistic or practical in the least.
This was my general reaction to the whole series.
The difference here was that I didn't have to put up with a solid hour of bad lighting and claustrophobic camera work. I tuned in just to watch the thing die, and much to my surprise, I actually quite enjoyed the show for the first time, thanks to a liberal dose of Green and Blue. Other than that, the show was still "Stupid and Uninsightful" masquerading as "Intelligent". (Just pretend we're shooting "West Wing" and people will think it's clever, and they'll even swallow the whole, "Bad things happen to Good people more Often than they Don't" line of B.S..)
Still, congrats where congrats are due: It's VERY impressive when a series of such high production values sees itself through and ends on a strong note. Based on that, I can almost forgive the fact I hated practically every inch of it from the get-go, but somehow I suspect the two things are related. Formula applied after watching the first half dozen episodes of a series: "If I REALLY like it, it will have to struggle to survive or be Doctor Who, (which like the Muppet Show, exists in its own category where silly walks are cool). If I REALLY hate it, it will get lots of seasons, win too many awards and within four years it will be honored by the freekin' U.N. of all places while I quietly simmer in disgust."
Angels? You should all be embarrassed.
-FL