If he DID and DID, and J.P Morgan DID ... then someone somewhere in the intervening century WOULD have. But nobody DID. So I consider it very unlikely that there was anything to it except rumor, sweet juicy rumor.
The expected response from you Heis. Twisting things in favor of material logic so that you must have the upper hand instead of agreeing to disagree. You will forever use the same condescending tone because of the inflated scientific ego that you have grown over the years. You are so far deep into materialism that you couldnt even comprehend what Sheldrake was saying in his article. I could use the same argument that you are using, but I feel that I have a better understanding of the situation. Opposite passions collide and results in pointless attempts to get the other to see things in a different view yet we both think that each other is far too deluded to understand anything the other says... Yet you still try and engage those that you KNOW wont budge from their views.
LOL but inventors DID follow up on Tesla's studies and improved on it! Man I am starting to like this exchange lol. Money is power in this world, and if knowledge reduces the flow of money than that knowledge will be repressed. If free/unlimited energy were made public then 200 trillion dollars worth of limited energy would be useless. No oil, no coal, no hydro, no NOTHIN. Making this technology public would NEVER make up for that 200 trillion dollars that would be lost. Please watch the parts of the video I told you to watch and quit spewing arguments out of ignorance lol I never felt more in control.If he DID and DID, and J.P Morgan DID ... then someone somewhere in the intervening century WOULD have. But nobody DID. So I consider it very unlikely that there was anything to it except rumor, sweet juicy rumor.
But what benefit in playing what-if games? It's a bit like saying what if Cindy Crawford DID show up at your front door and she DID most huskily say "I have had the most revealing dream about you" ... the end result is the same. cn
Your attempts to shut others up have become more subtle, but still recognizable. No matter the reason I engage you, you will continue to be engaged. Condescending or not, my words are there to critisize, it depends on your ability to explain and defend, to find and communicate merit.
You are not talking to me, unless you have not been reading my posts. I believe there is more to conscious existence than material things. Afterall, I accept psychology and sociology, which are not sciences.
This is not what an argument from ignorance is BTW. But anyhow, no one is saying that because he has positive results his methods are flawed. We are saying that because his methods are flawed he is getting positive results. This is what I mean when I say you have a problem understanding nuance.
Sheldrake uses the controls he sees fit, and discounts those he doesn't like, which is also known as pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with materialism, Sheldrake has "American idol reject" syndrome.
The United States isn't the whole world. Don't you think the Germans would have done this, if they could? And I don't mean the woo <cough> foo fighter thing either.
Is debate about control to you Chief?
You might get a bit of ignorant argument. ~couldn't resist~ cn
heh, there is a bit of special irony there. Being ignorant about what an argument from ignorance is, and arguing about it. Not a bad representation of the Chiefs entire forte.
Oh so all of the sudden you are able to understand what Sheldrake is trying to say? I think the copy-n-paste is being used here...
Why would this information be impossible to repress by J.P. Morgan? He would of been one of the first to know about it, he was a powerful man and he made things happen. Not expecting anything, Teslas lab was burnt down and all information was lost and he was threatened to not continue his studies on radiant energy. How would this information of got leaked when it was so quickly put under wraps? How would other countries have knowledge of this extensive research if barely any of them knew he was studying radiant energy? How many countries even cared that he was doing these studies?... Money is the world man and this form of knowledge would of threw 200 trillion dollars down the drain, making those in power MUCH less powerful.
Even though you know your engagements are completely useless, you engage. You like wild goose chases. And I do criticize and explain, then you criticize and explain, then I criticize and explain, forever and ever pointlessly. With both sides saying that the other is refusing to learn... Because one side likes wild goose chases...
If you think these aren't my words I welcome you to locate the page I copied from. I have heard of Sheldrake's research since back in 2006 when he did the telephone study. I've listened to him debate Richard Wiseman, and heard him interviewed on Theater of the Mind. Morphic fields were integral to the plot of Torchwood last season. I realized this was the person you were championing about 10 pages ago, and no, I still haven't followed your original link.
Exactly, when his assumptions are criticized, like asking these questions,
He defends by making more assumptions. He heaps more bullshit onto the pile to cover up the bullshit that's being pointed to. When it's pointed out that science values parsimony when making assumptions, he says science is outdated. It is only the disqualifying controls he has problems with.
I don't think they are useless, which is why I engage. If my goal were to change your mind I might reconsider, but obviously that is not my motivation.
That paragraph was not addressed to me, or else it was written to me by someone who has not read my posts on the subject. I do not take the position that life is only about material concepts. I believe Tyler was discussing that issue with you.
I am saying he relaxes any protocols which allow him to massage the data, on top of misunderstanding the distinction between science and pretend science, and why it's important to distinguish. You would like me to say something like "therefore every positive result must be flawed", but I didn't, unless you ignore nuance and make assumptions. I am saying he ignores methodology which controls for certain errors because his very hypotheses depends on those errors.
My explanation still counters the errors you presented. Chemicals compounds are not living organisms so they have less of an effect of the fields of reality. Their mechanisms and habits are more fixed. A puzzle would be easier to solve if many that share a similar consciousness/personality were doing that puzzle. Bikes would be easier to ride if many kids that share a similar consciousness/personality were learning to ride a bike.
So your motivation is that you are protecting people from being fooled because the information being presented doesnt sit well with how you view material reality? Please tell me your motivation for these wild goose chases.
You would like for this to be an issue of motivation. The only motivation we need to criticize bad ideas is to agree that some ideas are worthless and some are useful. Even useful ones have room for improvement.
Again, you would like me to make this argument, but I am not. Ive made statements such as
and
And just so there is no confusion, I accept that there may be a sacred element to our consciousnesses and that element could very well be beyond the understanding of science. I value spiritual investigation, I just don't over value it. I accept that science may be too objective to fully grasp the subjectivity of consciousnesses, but I do not accept the false dichotomy that this means we have to accept pseudoscience.
This is not a counter, this is an example of you making as many assumptions as needed to support your view. Show to me that these aren't assumptions and I will pay attention. You do not think similar minded people find puzzles an interesting hobby? You don't think similar personalities are attracted to video games? You think bike riding is so uncommon that not enough of the same group has learned to ride? Certainly all types of people have learned to use the English alphabet, yet it has not gotten any easier for kids to grasp when learning it. Are there just not enough of the same personalities that read for it to become easier? How many Chinese children have learned to use chopsticks? Shouldn't they be using them shortly after birth by now?
Yes, you said "this is not my motivation" for engaging in wild goose chases, so I figured the topic was motivation. It seems like you twisting things in your favor again. Can you tell me your motivation for starting wild goose chases? Im trying to improve science by taking the materialism out of it because I'm convinced things like the soul, the spirit world, and god are not of material.