Why believe in the supernatural?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-04-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(09-04-2014 03:39 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 08:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, Lumi, you don't use the scientific method because you don't actually understand it, and so don't value it. You don't know how to think scientifically. If you did, you would see that the scientific method only requires thinking.

You have found a woo path of pseudo-intellectual non-science and, in your resentment of any criticism or skepticism have turned on science like a cornered animal. In the last 2+ years, you have gone from a little odd to outright daft.
It seems to me the method you use for pointing me out as pseudo-intellectual and daft is the method of comparison with what is familiar to you. Which means that people like me are not familiar to you and you're guessing. The same goes if you pity me for my "obvious" insanity (you'll think so when you read further) - again, you'd be comparing and guessing something that you don't know by your own standard.

What if I routinely use skepticism and explain science to people, who need it, such as every Christian I meet? What if I debunk the very notion of faith and explain evolution to them? What if I only tell people what's new to them, not what they already know? What if I wrote a bachelor's thesis defending atheism and teaching science in schools? What if I totally get you?

But what if get things from so many points of view, that even their proponents do not recognize their own stuff? What if I think so much, I learn so much, I feel so much and I experience so much, that I have a hard time explaining it in terms familiar to you, much less in terms of science? Do you find it hard to believe that such people even exist?

(09-04-2014 08:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem is that you have over-interpreted the 'data'. You continue to assume that what is inside your head is necessarily caused by something external. You have not demonstrated that in any way.

You don't need any equipment to do so except a pencil and some paper with which to record your experiences and correlate them to external events. That is the scientific method of data collection as a basis for hypotheses.

You've skipped that and gone directly to dark matter esoteric woo-woo fields.
I have begun in esoteric woo fields, I was born that way. Anomalous sensory inputs, anyone? Lifetime of experience and observations. I remember being a small kid, reading Christian and anatomy books, yet noting with disappointment that the occult perceptions are not described in them. Took me hell of a many years to discover the right books. Yeah, I'm a guy comparing things with what is familiar to me, just like you. The skill of putting a square peg in a square hole never loses its value since we were children.

Do you mean that some kind of a journal would be of some value? I have some, though I stopped writing it, when things got too intense and personal to describe easily. It's not long ago though, I could go back, finish it, translate it... Do you wish me to?
I don't know what do you mean by external events to correlate, but I have some books that describe historical accounts of such events. They're weird, though. Lives and paths of mystics and occultists. Some describe the bodily sensations incurred to a great detail, like sequences in which the "energy" passes through which part. I have experienced these sequences before I have read about them in books. Evidence enough for me, perhaps even for scientists, but not for physicists. Some productive research to be had here is the research of transcendent psychology, of a part of human personality that gives the deepest sensation of insight, bliss and divinity. Sometimes I feel like a small hurting vacuum tube plugged into this invisible sun. Then I understand why people are so little motivated to report this under the rigour of science. I am in a treasury of great value, busy grabbing treasures left and right, paining under their enormous weight, completely incapable of taking on an additional strain. I am under enormous pressure health-wise, emotionally, mentally and spiritually by any meaning of the word. Under the pressure, I change into a better person and I wish nothing more. Lord (Byron) knows I need it and that science can wait.

Man, if you scratch the surface of one's humanity the right way, you reveal no animal beneath, you reveal divinity. Please, don't assume that I boast. What I do is so painful and strenuous that it's almost not worth it. I tend to laugh bitterly at the thought that anybody would try this kind of life style out of desire for superiority. It's just too painful and occult, like mathematics. (ha ha, funny) I can get you some books to read up on the experience, though. Then you may decide what's there to study about this kind of experience. Maybe you'd see opportunities for research that I don't.

I am not guessing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2014 04:21 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(09-04-2014 05:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  I am not guessing.
Man, your standard is high. By your standard, you should have perhaps allotted me a few possible paragraphs in Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV.
I know there were epileptics who had seizures of ecstasy. Not really my case, my meditation is not that good, it takes effort and I can get out of it and I can type forum posts during it Tongue

(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Because "seriously, you guys, I totally have compelling subjective personal experience" is what is used to prove everything from UFO abduction to Jesus to Vishnu to homeopathy. It's all bullshit.

The track record of "I have incommunicable subjective personal experience which is inadmissible for controlled investigation" in actually demonstrating and examining verifiable external phenomena is an unbroken chain of failure.
When I use some word that I think is appropriate, people want it back. When I use some word that's not claimed, people say it's woo. If I'm extra careful, it's not stressing the importance.
But please, keep an eye on me, noting if my rhetoric is improving by any measure. Maybe this post will break through! Tongue

(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You say correlating studies, I say confirmation bias and crankery.

(thought experiment: is there anything for which I could conceivably fail to find "correlation" for somewhere online? I think not)

No. You should - if this is something experienced and explored by others - be able to show where other people made valid inquiry.

And then you should - if this is something repeatable, predictable, and verifiable - be able to show why nobody with any credibility is involved. "lol conspiracy" is not an answer.

I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying "this", where "this" is something you have nonetheless been unable to even begin to articulate.
It's difficult to search online something you can't easily put into words. Took me years to find some at least approximate research. The more scientific a research is, the more vague it is in terms of correlating with my experiences, which are very detailed. Most instruments are still so basic, that my senses provide more detail.
The problem with older written sources is, unless I experience their contents in practice first, I have no chance to understand them.
Science starts from zero, often with concepts of its own, woo writings don't, woo writings just qualitatively sum up countless people's descriptions across the ages, including mine. That's why in woo community everyone knows what I mean when I say etheric body, but in science a few people have stumbled upon various aspect of this phenomenon and it is not guaranteed they'd recognize their work is related.

I think you'd be interested that even woo writings can be studied scientifically, as a qualitative source of information on people's experiences. Correlation should then filter out what is made up. I have never seen you start with this approach, you went directly to physical research, that's the standard you're used to. Do you think someone would be interested in this kind of groundwork? I can't judge, for me these are obvious basics.

(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  STOP FUCKING SAYING THAT.

"Dark matter" means something.

"Plasma" means something.

You can't just smush the words together so that neither means something. If I've told you that once I've told you a thousand times.

That's physically incoherent regardless. Electromagnetic interaction is present in all conventional matter (proper term: baryonic). "Fields" are not "projected"; that's the realm of science fiction television, not reality.

If you can propose a positive consistent definition of "living" and substantiate that with a coherent physical theory, well, that I'd listen to.
I propose there is a "field" around living organisms, that measurably dampens electric field, in proportion to vitality or complexity of that living organism. This vital "field" is present to some small degree in all matter and there are increased values near water or metal surfaces, but human vitality far outstrips these. Presence and intensity of this "field" is a very good indicator of a living organism, such as compared a living person to a dead corpse, or a fresh leaf to a leaf left torn off a long time, even vacuum-sealed with no moisture loss.

I say "field", because it fits the definition of a field only partially. Instead, the source seems to be external (atmosphere or the sun) and the ability of a material to hold a "field" is proportional to its internal complexity and vitality (which may partially correlate with electric properties, but the field is not electro-magnetic). A fascinating subject that keys into my other philosophical research, but I'd probably use some forbidden words if I described it further.

(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "lol conspiracy" isn't an answer.

Quantum objects tunnel through potential barriers all the time. That's how electron microscopes work. Hell, that's how the sun works.

"What a ridiculous idea!" doesn't mean shit when it comes to modern physics. Naive physical intuition is long since dead by the wayside in terms of helping us understand fundamental physical processes.

We assume dark matter - real dark matter, not whatever you're misapplying the term to - to "pass through" (a simplified but generally sound description) conventional matter, and we further assume this must be happening all the time. I have friends and colleagues working on dark matter detectors right now. Others are doing similar work across the planet.

Does this purported cultural bias extend to all cultures? On the whole planet?
Yes, of course, it's a bias based on a lack of physical perception. The things we expect to be tiny, invisible, intangible and in far distant cosmos, we don't expect them to participate in our living organism on our most conscious processes.

If I should speak frankly, I don't perceive this "matter" in its natural state. My sources call this natural state "negative", as opposed to "positive" (radiatory). The only case when it's tangible to me, is when it serves as a conduit for some kind of force. It can be condensed into tangibility as a cloud, or it can be forced into carrying force in the body, in which case it is also tangible. But the only reason why I have explored my "energy conduits" to such a detail is, because my meditation pours massive amounts of force into them and they flare up as lines and pools of fire or pressure under my skin. It is most obvious that this "positive" state practically does not occur naturally, not unless there's some obvious actor involved, such as a trained person, a sun, or a planet. Only active agents, such as trained people or perhaps Reich's devices ever change the "negative" into "positive". Otherwise it's naturally dormant, or active on such a low level that I can't detect. As far as I am concerned, vast deposits of dark matter sitting out there in interstellar space will be never detectable, because they only react to purposefully forced vitality and complexity of a living organism.
What I do, not leaving these conduits dormant, is a highly unusual activity and it causes health and psychological changes. It has historical precedents and is well-known in occult literature.

(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The problem is that you're making a gigantic error in generalising subjective personal experience as though it were absolutely coherent physical evidence. It's not even that unreasonable after that point - I think you're very scientifically ignorant, but it's not like that's a character flaw Tongue - but since it proceeds from such a gigantic leap of faith...

Also, protip: your brain is made up of "only solid, visible matter". So there's that.
I know, this is no evidence, but for all practical purposes, I have no reason to treat this experience as anything but an objective, coherent phenomenon. I don't know how to treat it in any other way. Would you treat one of your limbs and some of your attentive memories as an unproven hypothesis?
It's not a leap of faith, it's a fact of perception and I must take it seriously, or I'd have to go into some massive pretense of dissociation from my senses and memories according to my vague impression of naturalistic, positivist skeptical ethos, which I despise as philosophically incomplete, an ideology.
- I get every perception of being absolutely coherent. For example, there has never been a day in my life when this perception did not work or worked differently. Which suggests it's wired somewhere deeply in the nerve system.
- I had several independent confirmations that this is an objective, external thing - when circumstances randomly turned out to be favorable. As I said, people normally don't produce the "positive", tangible energy, unless trained.


(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Incoherent. You can't simultaneously say that and say that you - a physical entity - can detect whatever-the-fuck it is. Notwithstanding your citation of various old cranks who also used "non-exotic matter" in the flawed experiments you use to justify your beliefs.
I can not presume that my brain is made up of only one kind of matter. One kind of matter is a scientific fact, but if my perception and hypothesis holds, then it has involved the other kind of matter all along and all past studies of the brain must be revised with regard of this hypothesis. If my hypothesis holds, there has never been a physical object devoid of this other kind of matter and no other object is as infused with it as the living biological brain. According to my hypothesis, the physical matter as we know it, is derived from the other kind of matter, I don't know how, but compared to the "ghost matter", the visible matter has a denser atomic structure.
There is the battle for re-interpretation of the brain, or of the whole concept of life and matter. The re-interpretation will offer a new language, a new way to think about life and this will allow do devise new kinds of physical experiments.

(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  My issue isn't with your attempting to explain things, it's your explaining things so poorly.

New terminology can only be reasonably coined by those who understand the existing terminology. You don't understand the existing terminology. Somehow you've latched onto some buzzwords like "dark matter" and just throw them around all willy-nilly. That's not productive, and it doesn't help anyone figure out just what you actually mean.
That's a great truth, new terminology must grow from the old. The problem is, the old terminology offers no special reason to make the new! Only woo terminology actually pays attention to the anomalies.
My problem is not just ignorance, but also that I must maintain continuity with my written sources. My written sources describe my experience to a great detail, except that
- it's not the degree of detail we find in science
- it's not the language of science, but another internally consistent terminology, non-contradictory with science.
- non-contradictory, except it puts forward claims such as that this or that is THE "dark matter" limitedly known to a scientist, that it actually exists in four varieties, and that it interacts with complex, living matter. More so, that a complex living matter is a direct result of long evolutionary interaction with forces in the "ghost matter", and without it, the organism dies.

For centuries, there have been various phenomena such as light, crackling fur when rubbed with amber, jerking frog legs on copper rails, stones and metals that attract each other, and lightning. Nobody ascribed great importance to these phenomena. Nobody knew, that they are manifestation just of a few forces and that these forces are related to each other.
We are now at the stage of jerking frog legs and lightning. We have the electric field dampening around living organisms. We have the blue glow discovered by Wilhelm Reich. We have the standard neutron counter reacting to lightning when orgone-charged. We have the biologically closed electric circuits of Bjorn Nordenström, with electrically measurable outlets on skin surface. We have polycontrast interference photography, which captures ambient light polarized by the vital field. We have advanced versions of Kirlian photography, which is basically pumping voltage into objects to reveal an outline of the vital field. We have a wide assortment of subjective experiences of these things and historical accounts of their sequences. We have the weird, non-baryonic stuff far away in space.
What we don't have, is suitable paradigm, a language to talk about these phenomena within current physical concepts in a testable connections. Every paradigm has its anomalies. The current paradigm in physics puts high emphasis on certain theories and phenomena and the ones I listed are typical anomalies, most of which can be seen as mere doubtful curiosities, safe to ignore (except dark matter, of course). We need a paradigm, a language, that includes the present anomalies and works with them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We need a paradigm, a language, that includes the present anomalies and works with them.

what anomalies are not currently being pursued within the existing scientific paradigm ?

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I propose there is a "field" around living organisms, that measurably dampens electric field, in proportion to vitality or complexity of that living organism.

What observation are you basing this opinion on ?

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2014, 08:32 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Because "seriously, you guys, I totally have compelling subjective personal experience" is what is used to prove everything from UFO abduction to Jesus to Vishnu to homeopathy. It's all bullshit.

The track record of "I have incommunicable subjective personal experience which is inadmissible for controlled investigation" in actually demonstrating and examining verifiable external phenomena is an unbroken chain of failure.
When I use some word that I think is appropriate, people want it back. When I use some word that's not claimed, people say it's woo. If I'm extra careful, it's not stressing the importance.
But please, keep an eye on me, noting if my rhetoric is improving by any measure. Maybe this post will break through! Tongue

The fundamental gaping flaw in that is the part where you presuppose your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

Crazy people have sensory experiences which are not real. You... you do understand that, right?

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  You say correlating studies, I say confirmation bias and crankery.

(thought experiment: is there anything for which I could conceivably fail to find "correlation" for somewhere online? I think not)

No. You should - if this is something experienced and explored by others - be able to show where other people made valid inquiry.

And then you should - if this is something repeatable, predictable, and verifiable - be able to show why nobody with any credibility is involved. "lol conspiracy" is not an answer.

I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying "this", where "this" is something you have nonetheless been unable to even begin to articulate.
It's difficult to search online something you can't easily put into words. Took me years to find some at least approximate research. The more scientific a research is, the more vague it is in terms of correlating with my experiences, which are very detailed.

And that's a serious problem.

Because you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Most instruments are still so basic, that my senses provide more detail.

Do you see the problem with that?

It's the part where you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The problem with older written sources is, unless I experience their contents in practice first, I have no chance to understand them.

Then they are badly written.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Science starts from zero, often with concepts of its own, woo writings don't, woo writings just qualitatively sum up countless people's descriptions across the ages, including mine. That's why in woo community everyone knows what I mean when I say etheric body, but in science a few people have stumbled upon various aspect of this phenomenon and it is not guaranteed they'd recognize their work is related.

I think I see what's gone wrong there.

It's that you've presupposed your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

Science actually has to make sense and be communicable. These are not things quackery concerns itself with.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think you'd be interested that even woo writings can be studied scientifically, as a qualitative source of information on people's experiences.

Yes. Indeed so.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Correlation should then filter out what is made up. I have never seen you start with this approach, you went directly to physical research, that's the standard you're used to. Do you think someone would be interested in this kind of groundwork? I can't judge, for me these are obvious basics.

Scientists don't take things seriously if they aren't framed scientifically. Why would they? What possible point would there be?

The moment you say anything not strictly qualitative and descriptive you have gone ahead and made several staggeringly gigantic and unfounded assumptions about things, the most important of which is that you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

You can't seem to help yourself from doing so.

A scientifically approachable statement would be one without all the incoherent drivel:
"In circumstance X I experienced sensation Y".

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  STOP FUCKING SAYING THAT.

"Dark matter" means something.

"Plasma" means something.

You can't just smush the words together so that neither means something. If I've told you that once I've told you a thousand times.

That's physically incoherent regardless. Electromagnetic interaction is present in all conventional matter (proper term: baryonic). "Fields" are not "projected"; that's the realm of science fiction television, not reality.

If you can propose a positive consistent definition of "living" and substantiate that with a coherent physical theory, well, that I'd listen to.
I propose there is a "field" around living organisms, that measurably dampens electric field, in proportion to vitality or complexity of that living organism.

Okay. That's immediately and trivially testable, once we ignore the hilariously undefined use of terms like "vitality" and "complexity".

Dampening an electric field is a well-known phenomenon; it is known as dielectric behaviour. The most reasonable physical explanation for what you've attempted to say is that I am guessing you mean to say that permittivity is affected by proximity to biomass.

That happens not to be true. Or perhaps it is true, but trivially so. Since you have not defined your terms, I cannot be sure what you mean.

An electrical field is a physical phenomenon. There are electromagnetic interactions and patterns present in all life, of course, but all of them behave exactly according to known theories. If anything is to have an effect on electrical fields, it must be a physical phenomenon.

I still have no idea what you are talking about.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This vital "field" is present to some small degree in all matter and there are increased values near water or metal surfaces, but human vitality far outstrips these.

Again, behaviour of electromagnetic fields at dielectric boundaries is extraordinarily well known and well studied.

Can you elaborate?

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Presence and intensity of this "field" is a very good indicator of a living organism, such as compared a living person to a dead corpse, or a fresh leaf to a leaf left torn off a long time, even vacuum-sealed with no moisture loss.

There is no known electromagnetic effect incommensurate with known biochemical processes.

Can you elaborate?

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I say "field", because it fits the definition of a field only partially.

I rather suspect you don't know what "field" means in any field of physics.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Instead, the source seems to be external (atmosphere or the sun)...

Won't fly. Anything from the sun (which is one million times farther away than the centre of the Earth) would be negligible compared to local sources.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... and the ability of a material to hold a "field" is proportional to its internal complexity and vitality (which may partially correlate with electric properties, but the field is not electro-magnetic). A fascinating subject that keys into my other philosophical research, but I'd probably use some forbidden words if I described it further.

To interact with electromagnetic phenomena it must itself be an electromagnetic phenomenon.

By definition. End of story.

You're referring to some sort of capacitance. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny beginning of formulating a physically coherent thought. So that's... progress, I guess...

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "lol conspiracy" isn't an answer.

Quantum objects tunnel through potential barriers all the time. That's how electron microscopes work. Hell, that's how the sun works.

"What a ridiculous idea!" doesn't mean shit when it comes to modern physics. Naive physical intuition is long since dead by the wayside in terms of helping us understand fundamental physical processes.

We assume dark matter - real dark matter, not whatever you're misapplying the term to - to "pass through" (a simplified but generally sound description) conventional matter, and we further assume this must be happening all the time. I have friends and colleagues working on dark matter detectors right now. Others are doing similar work across the planet.

Does this purported cultural bias extend to all cultures? On the whole planet?
Yes, of course, it's a bias based on a lack of physical perception.

Tough shit. Physical perception is all there is.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The things we expect to be tiny, invisible, intangible and in far distant cosmos, we don't expect them to participate in our living organism on our most conscious processes.

I have no idea what you mean.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If I should speak frankly, I don't perceive this "matter" in its natural state.

Oh, so you're back to presupposing your subjective physical experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  My sources call this natural state "negative", as opposed to "positive" (radiatory).

Radiative.
(that's the proper term in English)

The opposite is absorptive.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The only case when it's tangible to me, is when it serves as a conduit for some kind of force.

Force is a well-defined physical phenomenon.

I can pretty much guarantee that's not how you're using the term.

What do you mean?

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It can be condensed into tangibility as a cloud, or it can be forced into carrying force in the body, in which case it is also tangible. But the only reason why I have explored my "energy conduits" to such a detail is, because my meditation pours massive amounts of force into them and they flare up as lines and pools of fire or pressure under my skin. It is most obvious that this "positive" state practically does not occur naturally, not unless there's some obvious actor involved, such as a trained person, a sun, or a planet. Only active agents, such as trained people or perhaps Reich's devices ever change the "negative" into "positive". Otherwise it's naturally dormant, or active on such a low level that I can't detect. As far as I am concerned, vast deposits of dark matter sitting out there in interstellar space will be never detectable, because they only react to purposefully forced vitality and complexity of a living organism.
What I do, not leaving these conduits dormant, is a highly unusual activity and it causes health and psychological changes. It has historical precedents and is well-known in occult literature.

There you go saying fucking dark matter again. And those are about the only two words that made sense, misapplied though they were.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The problem is that you're making a gigantic error in generalising subjective personal experience as though it were absolutely coherent physical evidence. It's not even that unreasonable after that point - I think you're very scientifically ignorant, but it's not like that's a character flaw Tongue - but since it proceeds from such a gigantic leap of faith...

Also, protip: your brain is made up of "only solid, visible matter". So there's that.
I know, this is no evidence, but for all practical purposes, I have no reason to treat this experience as anything but an objective, coherent phenomenon.

Yes.

You do.

You so fucking do.

It's called skepticism. And it's the only way we have ever learned anything about anything.

Ever.

Presupposing subjective personal experience to be at all representative of external phenomena is a useless dead end.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know how to treat it in any other way.

Skeptically.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Would you treat one of your limbs and some of your attentive memories as an unproven hypothesis?

I'd like to say I'd be open to the possibility that it is merely my own perception that is unreliable.

But part of being crazy is not knowing you're crazy.

Excellent false analogy, though. Since I could in fact base my opinion on the existence of other people's limbs. If I somehow thought I had three arms, it's not surprising that most people would disagree. And do you know what? It is far, far, far more likely that they would be correct than that I would be.

So there's that.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not a leap of faith, it's a fact of perception...

Yeah, declaring that doesn't make it so. Circular reasoning is not valid.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... and I must take it seriously, or I'd have to go into some massive pretense of dissociation from my senses and memories according to my vague impression of naturalistic, positivist skeptical ethos, which I despise as philosophically incomplete, an ideology.

Appeal to consequences.
("I wouldn't like it if that were true, therefore it's not")

You know that's a fallacy, right?

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  - I get every perception of being absolutely coherent. For example, there has never been a day in my life when this perception did not work or worked differently. Which suggests it's wired somewhere deeply in the nerve system.

Yes. Your subjective personal experience is not self-refuting.

That means nothing.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  - I had several independent confirmations that this is an objective, external thing - when circumstances randomly turned out to be favorable. As I said, people normally don't produce the "positive", tangible energy, unless trained.

You might think so, but unless you can demonstrate so to other people, you're on par with apologists using the Bible to prove the Bible.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Incoherent. You can't simultaneously say that and say that you - a physical entity - can detect whatever-the-fuck it is. Notwithstanding your citation of various old cranks who also used "non-exotic matter" in the flawed experiments you use to justify your beliefs.
I can not presume that my brain is made up of only one kind of matter.

Yes. You can. Unless demonstrated otherwise.

Subjective personal experience backed up by confirmation bias is not sufficient demonstration.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  One kind of matter is a scientific fact, but if my perception and hypothesis holds, then it has involved the other kind of matter all along and all past studies of the brain must be revised with regard of this hypothesis. If my hypothesis holds, there has never been a physical object devoid of this other kind of matter and no other object is as infused with it as the living biological brain. According to my hypothesis, the physical matter as we know it, is derived from the other kind of matter, I don't know how, but compared to the "ghost matter", the visible matter has a denser atomic structure.
There is the battle for re-interpretation of the brain, or of the whole concept of life and matter. The re-interpretation will offer a new language, a new way to think about life and this will allow do devise new kinds of physical experiments.

Then make some god-damned testable and falsifiable predictions.

The more fundamental a theory, the easier it is to test.

Whaddaya got?

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-04-2014 09:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  My issue isn't with your attempting to explain things, it's your explaining things so poorly.

New terminology can only be reasonably coined by those who understand the existing terminology. You don't understand the existing terminology. Somehow you've latched onto some buzzwords like "dark matter" and just throw them around all willy-nilly. That's not productive, and it doesn't help anyone figure out just what you actually mean.
That's a great truth, new terminology must grow from the old. The problem is, the old terminology offers no special reason to make the new! Only woo terminology actually pays attention to the anomalies.

Confirmation bias again.

If the terms are inadequately defined, you have no reason to think any other delusional woo-heads are interpreting them anything like the way you are.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  My problem is not just ignorance, but also that I must maintain continuity with my written sources. My written sources describe my experience to a great detail, except that
- it's not the degree of detail we find in science
- it's not the language of science, but another internally consistent terminology, non-contradictory with science.
- non-contradictory, except it puts forward claims such as that this or that is THE "dark matter" limitedly known to a scientist, that it actually exists in four varieties, and that it interacts with complex, living matter. More so, that a complex living matter is a direct result of long evolutionary interaction with forces in the "ghost matter", and without it, the organism dies.

A coherent theory makes falsifiable predictions.

Give me some falsifiable predictions.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  For centuries, there have been various phenomena such as light, crackling fur when rubbed with amber, jerking frog legs on copper rails, stones and metals that attract each other, and lightning. Nobody ascribed great importance to these phenomena. Nobody knew, that they are manifestation just of a few forces and that these forces are related to each other.

A) those were given substantial significance;
B) even hundreds of years ago the connections were beginning to be understood.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We are now at the stage of jerking frog legs and lightning. We have the electric field dampening around living organisms. We have the blue glow discovered by Wilhelm Reich.

Reich is a fucking incompetent hack from 80 years ago.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have the standard neutron counter reacting to lightning when orgone-charged.

Word salad.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have the biologically closed electric circuits of Bjorn Nordenström, with electrically measurable outlets on skin surface.

Word salad.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have polycontrast interference photography, which captures ambient light polarized by the vital field.

Word salad.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have advanced versions of Kirlian photography, which is basically pumping voltage into objects to reveal an outline of the vital field.

Yeah, we fucking know what that is.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have a wide assortment of subjective experiences of these things and historical accounts of their sequences. We have the weird, non-baryonic stuff far away in space.

We have a wide assortment of subjective experiences and historical accounts of alien abductions.

So there's that.

(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What we don't have, is suitable paradigm, a language to talk about these phenomena within current physical concepts in a testable connections. Every paradigm has its anomalies. The current paradigm in physics puts high emphasis on certain theories and phenomena and the ones I listed are typical anomalies, most of which can be seen as mere doubtful curiosities, safe to ignore (except dark matter, of course). We need a paradigm, a language, that includes the present anomalies and works with them.

A coherent theory makes falsifiable predictions.

Give me some falsifiable predictions.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
10-04-2014, 09:38 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
Well fuck Luminon, see what happens when you don't just butt heads with a skeptic, but one who is also a trained scientist? You should have quit while you were just dealing with me... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-04-2014, 01:44 AM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2014 07:36 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(10-04-2014 09:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well fuck Luminon, see what happens when you don't just butt heads with a skeptic, but one who is also a trained scientist? You should have quit while you were just dealing with me... Drinking Beverage
I'm not afraid of them anymore. These trained scientists, they're just glorified artisans. Yes, it's cheeky to say that and yes, it may make them mad and they'll say I'm crazy. But it's true. Scientists are not concerned nor equipped to deal with truth in general, but truth within their own (or any other) scientific field. They pretend that they're something more, because there is a war going on against Christians and woo woo. But we can not win against vague claims with science, that's like fighting with high-powered lasers against fog. Only philosophers have the broad fly-swatting instruments to deal with the general, unknown or ill-defined stuff.

Scientists only as good, as their theories and instruments, this is what they have and this is what they want, not more, not less. All their requirements are formal demands of scientific method, theories and instruments. The problem is, they get carried away and make claims about philosophical principles and reality that they can't defend and this is where my work starts.

Scientists may not succeed at interpreting phenomena that they are unable to define by concepts within their scientific field or measure with their instruments. Their instruments are constructed to test a particular theory and not much else. Science actually works by shutting out most of reality in order to pinpoint one particular small aspect of reality and add it to our knowledge, rinse, repeat. But by repeating, scientific fields may get so over-specialized, that a some real thing may produce several phenomena that fall into several different scientific fields, where they are dismissed as mere anomalies, due to being few and far in between. This is again where I come in. I have many more objections to scientists and science, objections of philosophical and political nature, from the point of which scientists are corrupt. They are correct in scientific sense, but that sense is applied and misapplied too broadly. People go to science with wrong questions and get wrong answers or wrong silence on some answers. There is a lot of work for people like me. Science isn't even a big problem today, it's one of areas which work quite well, there are much more urgent things. The corruption is mostly social, developmental, political, cultural, yes, religious as well - science is with all its abilities somewhat corrupted and misused by the general state of corruption, which most scientists do not even register, with rare exceptions like Bucky Fuller or B. F. Skinner. Even some more star-eyed scientists like Lawrence Krauss look turn their gaze beyond the planet, rather than to its problems and solutions. So the point I'd make for now, is that science is just an instrument (or set of instruments) and scientists are artisans, nothing else, not more, not less. Never forget that.

One thing I'd want to do to scientists legitimately is to wrestle away from them the cultural monopoly on truth and logic in general and have them handle only exceptions to general truths of empirical or mathematical nature, besides their main work. I must obey science in everything that science positively says, but everything else belongs to philosophy under its own peculiar rules, which I must obey as well.

(10-04-2014 04:48 PM)sporehux Wrote:  what anomalies are not currently being pursued within the existing scientific paradigm ?
I repeat,
We have the electric field dampening around living organisms. We have the blue glow discovered by Wilhelm Reich. We have the standard neutron counter reacting to lightning when orgone-charged. We have the biologically closed electric circuits of Bjorn Nordenström, with electrically measurable outlets on skin surface. We have polycontrast interference photography, which captures ambient light polarized by the vital field. We have advanced versions of Kirlian photography, which is basically pumping voltage into objects to reveal an outline of the vital field. We have a wide assortment of subjective experiences of these things and historical accounts of their sequences. We have the weird, non-baryonic stuff far away in space. What we don't have, is suitable paradigm, a language to talk about these phenomena within current physical concepts in a testable connections.


(10-04-2014 04:48 PM)sporehux Wrote:  What observation are you basing this opinion on ?
Observations made using this equipment of mine and study of older literature written by people who could use that equipment as well. Then I searched online for research and theories that seem to be based on the same phenomenon.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The fundamental gaping flaw in that is the part where you presuppose your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

Crazy people have sensory experiences which are not real. You... you do understand that, right?
I have ascertained that I'm not crazy. Crazy does not mean hallucinating. It means so disturbed and damaged, that hallucinating is a side effect of the underlying pathology. Pathology is generally unstable and hallucinations are unstable as well. I am quite stable.

That being said, I have no idea whatsoever what the hell your problem is. I think it's purism. You assume that I have presupposed something. Not exactly. For years I had no opinion on externality or internality of my perception. Then I stumbled upon a few occasions when my perception had independent, objective, external connection. Since then I am pretty sure it's objective. But I don't understand why is that a flaw. Frankly, it is not going to be me who convinces the world, it's probably going to be some machinery, so why does my opinion matter? I utilize the phenomenon for my purposes under the assumption that it's real. If I had any other purpose for it, that would require it's not objective, then I'd try that. Is there a specific purpose you have in mind, or do you just insist on scientific purism, unreal until proven otherwise by some machine wrapped in white lab coat?

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And that's a serious problem.

Because you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.
I am post-supposing, actually. I made some random observations that convinced me. But I still don't understand what does it change about the situation.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you see the problem with that?

It's the part where you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.
Will you please finally cut the crap and get to the point? If I had a heart attack, I'd have exactly the same attitude to its existence.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Then they are badly written.
No, they are written in the only way that doesn't make people like you complain that someone uses scientific words incorrectly. People have to invent a whole new language or copiously borrow words from Sanskrit.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I think I see what's gone wrong there.

It's that you've presupposed your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

Science actually has to make sense and be communicable. These are not things quackery concerns itself with.
Science does not have a monopoly on communicability. It is the most reliable way to communicate, but not the only one.
Quackery is... how would you define quackery, anyway? From what I can tell, quackery is an instrument to get money and power, not to make sense. Thus I am offended that you think that I can't tell if something makes sense or not. Indeed, that judging degrees of logical consistency (internal, external) is sometimes the only instrument I have and it is very reliable at detecting quackery.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Scientists don't take things seriously if they aren't framed scientifically. Why would they? What possible point would there be?

The moment you say anything not strictly qualitative and descriptive you have gone ahead and made several staggeringly gigantic and unfounded assumptions about things, the most important of which is that you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

You can't seem to help yourself from doing so.

A scientifically approachable statement would be one without all the incoherent drivel:
"In circumstance X I experienced sensation Y".
Let's say that usually I cause circumstance X that makes me experience sensation Y. However, more than once there was a completely unexpected sensation Y, caused not by me, but by another trained person. Let's call it circumstance Z. Circumstance Z is external, unexpected, but also quite random, uncontrolled and uncaused by me. Before circumstances Z I did not make any presupposition, which was well into my late teens. After them, I feel quite justified to make the presupposition, as far as my personal activities are concerned.

I must add, that the phenomenon itself has always felt completely real and mostly external to the body. So far, I was unable to collect any evidence to the contrary. I don't know how such a negative evidence would look like, I can't imagine it. But I believe I'd know it if I saw one. If I had a confirmation bias, I'd surely have gathered much more positive "evidence" than I had Undecided

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Okay. That's immediately and trivially testable, once we ignore the hilariously undefined use of terms like "vitality" and "complexity".

Dampening an electric field is a well-known phenomenon; it is known as dielectric behaviour. The most reasonable physical explanation for what you've attempted to say is that I am guessing you mean to say that permittivity is affected by proximity to biomass.

That happens not to be true. Or perhaps it is true, but trivially so. Since you have not defined your terms, I cannot be sure what you mean.

An electrical field is a physical phenomenon. There are electromagnetic interactions and patterns present in all life, of course, but all of them behave exactly according to known theories. If anything is to have an effect on electrical fields, it must be a physical phenomenon.

I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, behaviour of electromagnetic fields at dielectric boundaries is extraordinarily well known and well studied.

Can you elaborate?

There is no known electromagnetic effect incommensurate with known biochemical processes.

Can you elaborate?
You know, if you have a good memory. I am talking about nothing new, only this device again. As far as I understand it, it projects an electric field through an electrode and then measures its decrease in proximity of other objects. They say it does not prefer electric conductivity of things such as metals, it gives some of the highest values for living matter, so it's an anomaly. The highest values of all are apparently given for layered materials designed by Wilhelm Reich, such as special kinds of blankets, which makes even less sense in present knowledge.
It is certainly no simple effect of electro-magnetic induction with metallic objects. The effect works at a distance varying with "vitality", which suggests that living organisms have an unknown field of their own, that counteracts the known field projected by the device.
"Only the Reich-type of OEFM, as now reproduced by Marett of
Heliognosis, will show a constant sustained reading of the life-energy
field, showing it is not merely some kind of electrostatics.
The LEM detects, as Reich argued, a completely new parameter of our
existence."

Experimental report 1
Some tech details and experimental suggestions

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I rather suspect you don't know what "field" means in any field of physics.
No, but I know how does a responsive matter behave within a field. I have a lifetime experience controlling my biological field of some kind, within which an anomalous matter is condensed - and more. It actually confused me quite a lot, because objectively we have no chance to see such a behavior of matter, unless under high voltage and temperature. The only model which corresponds to that is behavior of plasma within an electro-magnetic field. It is very strange to feel such a behavior of matter around and inside of one's own body. It is something that has no correspondence in daily life.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Won't fly. Anything from the sun (which is one million times farther away than the centre of the Earth) would be negligible compared to local sources.
Many JDM's experiments respond to solar/daily activity, controlled for temperature, of course. Perhaps there is something in connection with solar wind or radiation. There simply are no local sources, except living organisms, storms, perhaps in some cases also rivers or geologic phenomena. All devices that gather this kind of "field" are gatherers, concentrators, isolated spaces. An isolated space can not be a source of anything, that would violate some law of thermodynamics.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To interact with electromagnetic phenomena it must itself be an electromagnetic phenomenon.

By definition. End of story.
Eventually yes, there are examples of electro-magnetic interaction, such as the blue glow, but first the anomalous field must be concentrated and excited. It seems to respond much more to electro-static phenomena, actually.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're referring to some sort of capacitance. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny beginning of formulating a physically coherent thought. So that's... progress, I guess...
Capacitance is closer. Most of the experiments place a great emphasis on materials with high capacitance, such as boxes with walls out of organic and metallic layers. However, the mysterious "field" gets concentrated in an empty space within the boxes, not inside the walls, as a capacitor charge would.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Force is a well-defined physical phenomenon.

I can pretty much guarantee that's not how you're using the term.

What do you mean?
I refer to specific tangible sensations which probably can not be easily referred to, unless you experience them on your own skin. As I said, this phenomenon has no equivalent in daily life or language. The only language that comes close is the jargon of woo community - the "energy" and "vibes", or perhaps if a poetically-minded person would want to describe the behavior of a plasma ball toy to a blind person. That's as close as the independent verbal description can go. The X-ray anatomic paintings of Alex Grey are very accurate as well. But perhaps plasma is the best concept for you. The body has some kind of fields, which are controlled by conscious activity. The strange matter and "energy" responds to these fields and conscious activity in the same way that plasma responds to magnetic or electric fields. This is the meaning of the classical occult truism, repeated ad nauseam, that "energy" follows thought. "Energy" is the cold and hot stuff of "etheric body" that behaves like plasma in EM field, not otherwise specified, unless scientists analyze it.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes.

You do.

You so fucking do.

It's called skepticism. And it's the only way we have ever learned anything about anything.

Ever.

Presupposing subjective personal experience to be at all representative of external phenomena is a useless dead end.
Skepticism or no skepticism, the course of my actions, investigation and meditation remains the same. I have no way to apply the skepticism, except that I disregard observation that were not clear enough to remember with certainty. My situation is really that much limited, the phenomenon is rather useless without scientific investigation, except that it allows for some very sophisticated meditative exercises, some interesting interventions into the nerve and endocrine system.
In order to use skepticism, I need to get into a situation where skepticism will make a difference. So far there were very few of these situations and if I got any results at all, they were in favor of the objectivity of my perception.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'd like to say I'd be open to the possibility that it is merely my own perception that is unreliable.

But part of being crazy is not knowing you're crazy.

Excellent false analogy, though. Since I could in fact base my opinion on the existence of other people's limbs. If I somehow thought I had three arms, it's not surprising that most people would disagree. And do you know what? It is far, far, far more likely that they would be correct than that I would be.

So there's that.
Well, I might counter with studies of ancient Chinese, Indian, Christian and Egyptian schemes of much the same thing I perceive. It's not like I'm the only one in history. The energetic wiring of the body was apparently utilized in mystery cults of some religions.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You might think so, but unless you can demonstrate so to other people, you're on par with apologists using the Bible to prove the Bible.
I don't consider my positive experiences an external evidence, but a justification enough for me personally. Other people didn't have the same access to evidence that I had at the time.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Then make some god-damned testable and falsifiable predictions.

The more fundamental a theory, the easier it is to test.

Whaddaya got?
I'm trying! See above. If the LEM device turns out to be a mere detector of some familiar electro-magnetic parameter, it's a serious blow, because it's the easiest to test and it's kind of central to connecting the "evidence" I have. It connects things like the vital "field", atmospheric phenomena and the world of electro-magnetic detectors, perhaps even cosmic radiation. A lot depends on that. I could make my case without it, but it would take some serious and expensive work on my part. With the device, someone already did the work for me. It connects the dots!

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Confirmation bias again.

If the terms are inadequately defined, you have no reason to think any other delusional woo-heads are interpreting them anything like the way you are.
The terms are adequately defined, it's just a whole different language. All I need for an appropriate definition and comprehension is a semantic triangle.
Firstly, the word. The word is arbitrary, my sources often choose something from Sanskrit.
Secondly, the idea. The idea is qualitatively described by my sources, as to the relation of some Sanskrit or Hindu word to things like endocrine glands, nerve plexi, brain centers, as to sequence of the ordered activity of centers, often as to the feeling it produces and ways it reacts to thoughts, and so on.
Thirdly, the real thing or sensation itself. That is again left to me to experience. I have often had the experience first and then I read the description of the idea behind it in my written sources. Or I had read the description and did not understand, until I experienced the sensation, the orderly activity through experimental practice.
Delusion doesn't get people anywhere with a study and practice like that.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A coherent theory makes falsifiable predictions.

Give me some falsifiable predictions.
I hope I did already. There's a device that detects an anomalous "field" (or body template) of "élan vital" around living objects and it's nothing electro-magnetic. This "field" has been predicted in my written sources long ago, because people like me treat it like a part of their body that they control. I say "field", because it is a material concentration, not curvature of space-time or anything like that. The matter that it is made of is not our normal, solid and visible matter, the prediction says it's THE dark matter.
The prediction also says the "field" consists of a mesh of many (about 70,000) filaments of streaming energy, a few large, some minor. It also consists of many vortexes formed where the filaments cross, especially seven major vortexes or centers along the spine. Through evolutionary development, these vortexes stimulated the mutation and growth of ductless endocrine glands, which are found nearby, and nerve plexi.
The whole thing, when fully active, produces a torus field of WTF, with skull and end of spine as south and north poles.
My humble contribution to that is, it's fuckin' true, it fuckin' works and it has fuckin' huge impact on future medicine and psychology.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A) those were given substantial significance;
B) even hundreds of years ago the connections were beginning to be understood.
A) The phenomena were visible, tangible, external things. Everyone were able to see and touch them. What I describe is beyond the threshold of conscious perception of an average untrained person. Yet such people also existed and they had put into religious symbolism the endocrine glands, major centers and pathways of "energy".
B) We can find this symbolism in some religious art implicitly and explicitly spelled out in my written sources. Do you ever wonder why Descartes considered the pineal gland the seat of the soul? It's a small gland that doesn't do all that much, certainly doesn't itch like balls when they need some use. So why did he even notice it? Because when Descartes did his heavy thinking, he felt his pineal gland vibrate! Of course not the gland itself, but the local "field" equivalent of the gland. I can confirm that this sensation indeed does occur after many years of meditation. Therefore, chances are I am at perhaps as spiritually advanced as Descartes Tongue Which is not a great compliment, because the lotic of his ontology was deeply flawed Undecided

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have the standard neutron counter reacting to lightning when orgone-charged.

Word salad.
Shit, no!!! Read and repent!

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have the biologically closed electric circuits of Bjorn Nordenström, with electrically measurable outlets on skin surface.

Word salad.
Bollocks. Remember that? I wish your money depended on it, that would motivate you to get some qualitative text interpretation skills. But free service isn't pleasant and I'm still supposed to pay you with gratitude, so thanks for your attention, I guess.

(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 04:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We have polycontrast interference photography, which captures ambient light polarized by the vital field.

Word salad.
No, just a reference to this. You shouldn't consider the following professions: translator, sociologist, semanticist, philosopher, antropologist and waiter in a restaurant. You'd just say "word salad" to everything and then do nothing. However, if I was a criminal, I'd like you to be my judge. I'd have a hard time to convince you of the existence of crime and pleading insanity would be ridiculously easy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
[Image: Deepak%2BChopra%2B-%2BTaking%2Badvantage...2Byear.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
14-04-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The fundamental gaping flaw in that is the part where you presuppose your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

Crazy people have sensory experiences which are not real. You... you do understand that, right?
I have ascertained that I'm not crazy.

Protip: this is what crazy people say. The insane are not known for their skill at self-diagnosis.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Crazy does not mean hallucinating. It means so disturbed and damaged, that hallucinating is a side effect of the underlying pathology. Pathology is generally unstable and hallucinations are unstable as well. I am quite stable.

"Crazy" isn't a clinically valid term, so that's irrelevant. But it sure as hell colloquially means disconnected from consensus perceptions of reality, and that sure as hell describes you.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That being said, I have no idea whatsoever what the hell your problem is. I think it's purism. You assume that I have presupposed something. Not exactly. For years I had no opinion on externality or internality of my perception. Then I stumbled upon a few occasions when my perception had independent, objective, external connection.

You must be using the words "independent", "objective", and "external" in some new sense I am unaware of.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Since then I am pretty sure it's objective. But I don't understand why is that a flaw.

Because everyone thinks their subjective personal experience is special and none of it is in any way compelling.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Frankly, it is not going to be me who convinces the world, it's probably going to be some machinery, so why does my opinion matter? I utilize the phenomenon for my purposes under the assumption that it's real. If I had any other purpose for it, that would require it's not objective, then I'd try that. Is there a specific purpose you have in mind, or do you just insist on scientific purism, unreal until proven otherwise by some machine wrapped in white lab coat?

Fuck you.

I'd take you a lot more seriously if you weren't continuously denigrating the motives and integrity of all scientists in all fields as some sort of degenerate monolithic fantasy.

But since that's what your underlying confirmation bias requires, I won't hold my breath.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And that's a serious problem.

Because you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.
I am post-supposing, actually. I made some random observations that convinced me. But I still don't understand what does it change about the situation.

Repeat after me:
Subjective personal experience is not evidence.

Dowsers think they can actually find water. Psychics think they can actually read minds. Faith healers think they can actually mend limbs. Mediums think they can actually summon spirits. It's all horseshit until proven otherwise.

Can you prove otherwise?

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you see the problem with that?

It's the part where you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.
Will you please finally cut the crap and get to the point? If I had a heart attack, I'd have exactly the same attitude to its existence.

And your perceiving that you're having a heart attack does not mean you are having a heart attack.

People are admitted to hospital on false alarms to the tune of thousands per year.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Then they are badly written.
No, they are written in the only way that doesn't make people like you complain that someone uses scientific words incorrectly. People have to invent a whole new language or copiously borrow words from Sanskrit.

If an introductory text is not clearly accessible to an educated layman it is a bad text.

Sanskrit in place of Greek or Latin is a classic hallmark of quackery.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I think I see what's gone wrong there.

It's that you've presupposed your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

Science actually has to make sense and be communicable. These are not things quackery concerns itself with.
Science does not have a monopoly on communicability. It is the most reliable way to communicate, but not the only one.

That isn't what I said. I didn't say only science was communicable; that's a straw man. I said science must be communicable.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Quackery is... how would you define quackery, anyway? From what I can tell, quackery is an instrument to get money and power, not to make sense.

No. Most quacks are self-deceived. It is an open question whether the people at the top of the pyramid actually believe their own drivel. It is a bona fide fact that most of those below them do.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Thus I am offended that you think that I can't tell if something makes sense or not. Indeed, that judging degrees of logical consistency (internal, external) is sometimes the only instrument I have and it is very reliable at detecting quackery.

I didn't say that, so I'm unclear as to where you draw offense.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Scientists don't take things seriously if they aren't framed scientifically. Why would they? What possible point would there be?

The moment you say anything not strictly qualitative and descriptive you have gone ahead and made several staggeringly gigantic and unfounded assumptions about things, the most important of which is that you're presupposing your subjective personal experience to be representative of anything at all external to yourself.

You can't seem to help yourself from doing so.

A scientifically approachable statement would be one without all the incoherent drivel:
"In circumstance X I experienced sensation Y".
Let's say that usually I cause circumstance X that makes me experience sensation Y. However, more than once there was a completely unexpected sensation Y, caused not by me, but by another trained person. Let's call it circumstance Z. Circumstance Z is external, unexpected, but also quite random, uncontrolled and uncaused by me. Before circumstances Z I did not make any presupposition, which was well into my late teens. After them, I feel quite justified to make the presupposition, as far as my personal activities are concerned.

No, ascribing any purpose, meaning, or, God help you, mechanism for such experiences is making gigantic presuppositions.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I must add, that the phenomenon itself has always felt completely real and mostly external to the body. So far, I was unable to collect any evidence to the contrary. I don't know how such a negative evidence would look like, I can't imagine it. But I believe I'd know it if I saw one. If I had a confirmation bias, I'd surely have gathered much more positive "evidence" than I had Undecided

"I'm not biased because I don't think I am" is one of the stupidest excuses going.

So there's that.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You know, if you have a good memory. I am talking about nothing new, only this device again.

That was idiotic pseudoscience last time and it's idiotic pseudoscience this time.

Do you know how I know it's bullshit?
(one of many reasons?)

There are no schematics.

Science is open communication. This is buy our toy, suckers.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  As far as I understand it, it projects an electric field through an electrode and then measures its decrease in proximity of other objects. They say it does not prefer electric conductivity of things such as metals...

THEN WHY DOES IT HAVE METAL ELECTRODES?

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ... it gives some of the highest values for living matter, so it's an anomaly. The highest values of all are apparently given for layered materials designed by Wilhelm Reich, such as special kinds of blankets, which makes even less sense in present knowledge.

What is framed unscientifically can be dismissed as unscientific.

Nothing is quantified. Nothing is made explicit - not the apparatus, not the methodology, not the results.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It is certainly no simple effect of electro-magnetic induction with metallic objects. The effect works at a distance varying with "vitality", which suggests that living organisms have an unknown field of their own, that counteracts the known field projected by the device.
"Only the Reich-type of OEFM, as now reproduced by Marett of
Heliognosis, will show a constant sustained reading of the life-energy
field, showing it is not merely some kind of electrostatics.
The LEM detects, as Reich argued, a completely new parameter of our
existence."

Experimental report 1
Some tech details and experimental suggestions

They don't even say what the god-damn units are.

Which they have to know. It produces a mechanical reading. Somebody wired that shit together - they know damn well what the output is. But they don't tell you.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I rather suspect you don't know what "field" means in any field of physics.
No, but I know how does a responsive matter behave within a field.

That's incoherent. You can't not understand something but also understand how it works.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I have a lifetime experience controlling my biological field of some kind, within which an anomalous matter is condensed - and more. It actually confused me quite a lot, because objectively we have no chance to see such a behavior of matter, unless under high voltage and temperature. The only model which corresponds to that is behavior of plasma within an electro-magnetic field. It is very strange to feel such a behavior of matter around and inside of one's own body. It is something that has no correspondence in daily life.

The behaviour of plasma in electromagnetic fields is exactly commensurate with the behaviour of everything else in electromagnetic fields.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Won't fly. Anything from the sun (which is one million times farther away than the centre of the Earth) would be negligible compared to local sources.
Many JDM's experiments respond to solar/daily activity, controlled for temperature, of course. Perhaps there is something in connection with solar wind or radiation. There simply are no local sources, except living organisms, storms, perhaps in some cases also rivers or geologic phenomena. All devices that gather this kind of "field" are gatherers, concentrators, isolated spaces. An isolated space can not be a source of anything, that would violate some law of thermodynamics.

Except NO. The solar wind reacts in the upper atmosphere. Radiative exposure on the surface is precisely known. If the sun is a source, it cannot possibly be generated by biomass. Protip: the sun is not biomass.

Notwithstanding that all fields necessarily exhibit inverse dependence on distance. Other things on the Earth's surface are tens of metres away. The sun is 150000000000 metres away.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  To interact with electromagnetic phenomena it must itself be an electromagnetic phenomenon.

By definition. End of story.
Eventually yes, there are examples of electro-magnetic interaction, such as the blue glow...

Uh, right. "Blue glow". By which you mean...

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ... but first the anomalous field must be concentrated and excited. It seems to respond much more to electro-static phenomena, actually.

There are no electrostatics in nature.

An electrostatic system is a temporary configuration maintained only through continuous energy input.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're referring to some sort of capacitance. That's a tiny, tiny, tiny beginning of formulating a physically coherent thought. So that's... progress, I guess...
Capacitance is closer. Most of the experiments place a great emphasis on materials with high capacitance, such as boxes with walls out of organic and metallic layers.

What is an "organic" layer? However, the mysterious "field" gets concentrated in an empty space within the boxes, not inside the walls, as a capacitor charge would.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  However, the mysterious "field" gets concentrated in an empty space within the boxes, not inside the walls, as a capacitor charge would.

Fields can't concentrate.

An electric field represents force experienced by electrically charged particles. The electrically charged particles may be concentrated. There is a natural self-limiting factor to this concentration due to same-charge repulsion - overcoming it requires external energy input (this is what an applied field is).

Fields in a more fundamental sense represent a basis for excitations. What we observe as particles are excitations of fundamental quantum fields. This is a roundabout way of saying fields have carriers - electromagnetic interactions are mediated by exchange of photons. But I don't have time for a gauge theory lecture.

What are the carriers of your purported field?

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Force is a well-defined physical phenomenon.

I can pretty much guarantee that's not how you're using the term.

What do you mean?
I refer to specific tangible sensations which probably can not be easily referred to, unless you experience them on your own skin.

Subjective personal experience is inadmissible.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  As I said, this phenomenon has no equivalent in daily life or language. The only language that comes close is the jargon of woo community - the "energy" and "vibes", or perhaps if a poetically-minded person would want to describe the behavior of a plasma ball toy to a blind person.

Incommunicable is inadmissible.

There is furthermore absolutely no reason to suppose that different woo peddlers are consistent in terminology. Since the dialogue is completely unscientific, there is no way to know.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's as close as the independent verbal description can go. The X-ray anatomic paintings of Alex Grey are very accurate as well. But perhaps plasma is the best concept for you.

Look. Stop using that word.

Do you know what "plasma" is?

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The body has some kind of fields, which are controlled by conscious activity.

Conscious activity is electromagnetic activity.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The strange matter and "energy" responds to these fields and conscious activity in the same way that plasma responds to magnetic or electric fields. This is the meaning of the classical occult truism, repeated ad nauseam, that "energy" follows thought. "Energy" is the cold and hot stuff of "etheric body" that behaves like plasma in EM field, not otherwise specified, unless scientists analyze it.

Fine then.

Charge a battery with your mind. Pass go. Collect one million dollars.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes.

You do.

You so fucking do.

It's called skepticism. And it's the only way we have ever learned anything about anything.

Ever.

Presupposing subjective personal experience to be at all representative of external phenomena is a useless dead end.
Skepticism or no skepticism, the course of my actions, investigation and meditation remains the same. I have no way to apply the skepticism, except that I disregard observation that were not clear enough to remember with certainty. My situation is really that much limited, the phenomenon is rather useless without scientific investigation, except that it allows for some very sophisticated meditative exercises, some interesting interventions into the nerve and endocrine system.
In order to use skepticism, I need to get into a situation where skepticism will make a difference. So far there were very few of these situations and if I got any results at all, they were in favor of the objectivity of my perception.

There is no situation in which skepticism is inapplicable. It is a state of mind.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'd like to say I'd be open to the possibility that it is merely my own perception that is unreliable.

But part of being crazy is not knowing you're crazy.

Excellent false analogy, though. Since I could in fact base my opinion on the existence of other people's limbs. If I somehow thought I had three arms, it's not surprising that most people would disagree. And do you know what? It is far, far, far more likely that they would be correct than that I would be.

So there's that.
Well, I might counter with studies of ancient Chinese, Indian, Christian and Egyptian schemes of much the same thing I perceive. It's not like I'm the only one in history. The energetic wiring of the body was apparently utilized in mystery cults of some religions.

Mystery religions used psycoactive drugs. People on acid are not generally considered reliable eyewitnesses.

Since everything you've said is almost impossible to articulate, you once again have no grounds for assuming any other "references" in fact refer to the same things as whatever your personal subjective experience is.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You might think so, but unless you can demonstrate so to other people, you're on par with apologists using the Bible to prove the Bible.
I don't consider my positive experiences an external evidence, but a justification enough for me personally. Other people didn't have the same access to evidence that I had at the time.

That's the first reasonable thing you've said all day!
Thumbsup

Analogy: a faithful religious believer knows that faith is either present or not, and if not knows they will not convince anyone of anything.

But the difference here is that you are not speaking about faith. You are speaking about - in principle - externally verifiable phenomena. That is a completely different kettle of fish.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Then make some god-damned testable and falsifiable predictions.

The more fundamental a theory, the easier it is to test.

Whaddaya got?
I'm trying! See above.

The above are not simple testable predictions.

I want you to give me a simple, testable prediction.

"Under circumstances X I experience sensation Y", remember?

Give me an example of X. Give me an example of Y. Anyone may then test circumstances X for experiencing sensation Y.

If all you have is inarticulate subjective personal experience then I will continue to conclude that you have no special knowledge of any verifiable external phenomenon and are misguided and/or self-deceiving.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If the LEM device turns out to be a mere detector of some familiar electro-magnetic parameter, it's a serious blow, because it's the easiest to test and it's kind of central to connecting the "evidence" I have. It connects things like the vital "field", atmospheric phenomena and the world of electro-magnetic detectors, perhaps even cosmic radiation. A lot depends on that. I could make my case without it, but it would take some serious and expensive work on my part. With the device, someone already did the work for me. It connects the dots!

See above for the numerous issues with that avenue.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Confirmation bias again.

If the terms are inadequately defined, you have no reason to think any other delusional woo-heads are interpreting them anything like the way you are.
The terms are adequately defined, it's just a whole different language. All I need for an appropriate definition and comprehension is a semantic triangle.
Firstly, the word. The word is arbitrary, my sources often choose something from Sanskrit.
Secondly, the idea. The idea is qualitatively described by my sources, as to the relation of some Sanskrit or Hindu word to things like endocrine glands, nerve plexi, brain centers, as to sequence of the ordered activity of centers, often as to the feeling it produces and ways it reacts to thoughts, and so on.
Thirdly, the real thing or sensation itself. That is again left to me to experience. I have often had the experience first and then I read the description of the idea behind it in my written sources. Or I had read the description and did not understand, until I experienced the sensation, the orderly activity through experimental practice.
Delusion doesn't get people anywhere with a study and practice like that.

On the contrary. Delusion can be incredibly self-consistent. That's what happens when a machine built for pattern recognition starts misfiring.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A coherent theory makes falsifiable predictions.

Give me some falsifiable predictions.
I hope I did already. There's a device that detects an anomalous "field" (or body template) of "élan vital" around living objects and it's nothing electro-magnetic.

The fuck it ain't. The "device" explicitly uses electric fields.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  This "field" has been predicted in my written sources long ago, because people like me treat it like a part of their body that they control.

Then please demonstrate.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I say "field", because it is a material concentration, not curvature of space-time or anything like that. The matter that it is made of is not our normal, solid and visible matter, the prediction says it's THE dark matter.

No, it fucking isn't.

Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. You are talking about nothing but electromagnetic interaction.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The prediction also says the "field" consists of a mesh of many (about 70,000) filaments of streaming energy, a few large, some minor.

Using string theory to weave a cloak of legitimacy. Interesting.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It also consists of many vortexes formed where the filaments cross, especially seven major vortexes or centers along the spine. Through evolutionary development, these vortexes stimulated the mutation and growth of ductless endocrine glands, which are found nearby, and nerve plexi.
The whole thing, when fully active, produces a torus field of WTF, with skull and end of spine as south and north poles.
My humble contribution to that is, it's fuckin' true, it fuckin' works and it has fuckin' huge impact on future medicine and psychology.

Okay.

Make a testable prediction.

Then test it.

Then get credible people to test it as well.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A) those were given substantial significance;
B) even hundreds of years ago the connections were beginning to be understood.
A) The phenomena were visible, tangible, external things. Everyone were able to see and touch them. What I describe is beyond the threshold of conscious perception of an average untrained person. Yet such people also existed and they had put into religious symbolism the endocrine glands, major centers and pathways of "energy".

Bullshit. You said yourself than you experience sensations first and then attempted to explain them later. It is therefore not beyond an untrained person.

Nor do you have any basis for forming conclusions as to the subjective experiences of people in the past.

Hundreds of millions of people believe all kinds of historical magic. They disagree violently as to the source (we call that religion).

Why is your interpretation any more valid than "the ability/sensation came from God"?

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  B) We can find this symbolism in some religious art implicitly and explicitly spelled out in my written sources. Do you ever wonder why Descartes considered the pineal gland the seat of the soul? It's a small gland that doesn't do all that much, certainly doesn't itch like balls when they need some use. So why did he even notice it? Because when Descartes did his heavy thinking, he felt his pineal gland vibrate! Of course not the gland itself, but the local "field" equivalent of the gland. I can confirm that this sensation indeed does occur after many years of meditation. Therefore, chances are I am at perhaps as spiritually advanced as Descartes Tongue Which is not a great compliment, because the lotic of his ontology was deeply flawed Undecided

Descartes was a pre-modern man with no medical or biochemical knowledge.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Word salad.
Shit, no!!! Read and repent!

Just because you don't understand the words doesn't mean it's not word salad.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Word salad.
Bollocks. Remember that? I wish your money depended on it, that would motivate you to get some qualitative text interpretation skills. But free service isn't pleasant and I'm still supposed to pay you with gratitude, so thanks for your attention, I guess.

Forgive me for disregarding a source which makes explicit reference to acupuncture, which is by the way not real.

So that's out.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(10-04-2014 08:32 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Word salad.
No, just a reference to this.

A couple shitty context-free images on a deranged website are not convincing, bud.

I note you have not responded to my explanation of coronal discharge to you.


(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You shouldn't consider the following professions: translator, sociologist, semanticist, philosopher, antropologist and waiter in a restaurant. You'd just say "word salad" to everything and then do nothing.

Incoherent nonsense isn't worth my time. It's sad that you think it's worth yours.

Thanks again for slandering my character, by the way. That's always charming.

(13-04-2014 01:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  However, if I was a criminal, I'd like you to be my judge. I'd have a hard time to convince you of the existence of crime and pleading insanity would be ridiculously easy.

Crazy is as crazy does.

No, this is more like the prosecution in a civil suit arguing the accused must be guilty of property damage because he used a ray gun he bought from visiting aliens from Delta Vega to vaporize his neighbour's priceless antique hypercube, the defense is arguing for accident because the while the accused did fire the ray gun, the Vegans hadn't given him the manual for it and he thought it was on the light show setting, and by the way, there's also no external evidence that either the neighbour, the ray gun, the hypercube, or the aliens ever existed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
14-04-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
Goddamn that was entertaining! cjlr you have quite the stamina and the responses contain many memorable quotes.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
14-04-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
When I grow up, I wanna be like Cjlr Drooling

“You see… sometimes life gives you lemons. And when that happens… you need to find some spell that makes lemons explode, because lemons are terrible. I only ate them once and I can say with certainty they are the worst fruit. If life gave me lemons, I would view it as nothing short of a declaration of war."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DemonicLemon's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: