James Randi did a great job on this channeling bullshit in 1988, all these years later still people believing...
I see your frustration, but It's not about believing things... it's about figuring things out. Or, to put it another way, it's about searching for meaningful patterns in the information field. <rant mode=on> This is how science works as well. They build sensors, they collect data, they search for patterns in the data, they match the pattern with an abstract mathematical model, they extrapolate from that model and build expectations for the next version of sensors. You can also say that science is about "believing" that the reality works one way or another, until they figure out otherwise. So, we can likely agree, that science attempts to find the truth about reality, by looking only into a narrow subset of the whole information that is available. That's a challenging task. It's like trying to figure out about an elephant only by studying its tail.  The idea here is to extend the definition of sensors from repeatable mechanical devices to a broader set. What if we treat humans as sensors too! Yes, some of them might get "broken" like mechanical ones, others may give out misinformation on purpose, but given enough time and exposure to the data, there is a good chance that one might actually find something. The only reason not to look there is if one doesn't have the capacity to handle the data stream or ability to recognize patterns in it. <rant mode=off> So, from that perspective, what I've posted here is legit, until I figure out otherwise  |
|
|
|
Ok, 4 responses and about 90 views for a topic with the word "channeling" in it. Not so bad For those who were wondering what the "right" answer is... well I cannot tell you how I know it (besides the fact that the information passed a few of my consistency checks), but it is legit. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise. |
|
|
|
Here is a story of a mother, who lost her 20-year old son to suicide, after which he began communicating with her through a medium (another human being). Here is how she describes the series of videos that they've made: "Channeling Erik: Interviews with my son in heaven and the afterlife. After my son, Erik Medhus, took his own life, he began to visit friends, family and the readers of my blog, http//:www.channelingerik.com. Eventually, he began to share what he had learned from the Other Side." Below is an intro video to the series: "Channeling Erik: Interviews With My Son in the Afterlife" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfebuohwieoAnd here are a few real-time sessions with Erik, where his mother (audio only) asks him all about consciousness through the medium (female in the video), who claims to see his spirit on the Other Side. As she channels, medium attempts to preserve boy's slang and emotional makeup (f-words included) and from what you'll see does a pretty good job there. Wanna hear all about consciousness from a perspective of a 20-year old with physical limitations removed? Go right ahead "Channeling Erik: All About Consciousness, Part One": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDnE41XifT0"Channeling Erik: All About Consciousness, Part Two": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we69ZLrN_Z8"Channeling Erik: All About Consciousness, Part Three": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfJPaEa8jOM"Channeling Erik: All About Consciousness, Part Four": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyi14Dz7ngIf they were to fake it, how hard would it be to combine the information given in the channel with the performance of expressing it in a language of a youngster while having real-time dialogue with his mother. So the question boils down to - real or fake? You decide! |
|
|
|
so the rocket is fueled & ready to go ?  edit: i wonder what the spoon is needed for ? "There is no spoon" |
|
|
|
My personal view is if this forum is as libertarian as it is supposed to be you should never feel the need to apologies to the people in advance, people who do not share your views. They will mock you anyway. So have fun and share away.
Agreed. Mocking is fun! ...
But that is nonsense. It is not that the circle is the result of intelligence, but that it requires intelligence, consciousness, etc to discuss it as an abstraction.
...
This is a very good point. The next step would be to ask whether the "circle" exists without intelligence/consciousness discussing it as an abstraction or is it created by the mere fact of some consciousness describing it. Or the other way to put it: "Do mathematical structures give rise to consciousness or does consciousness give rise to mathematical structures?" From my empirical experience my consciousness is the root to everything else I get to think about, there is no outside to it. In the end it all boils down to definitions in our language. What is "intelligence"? What is "abstraction"? What is "proof"? What is "what" and who is asking? .....
In my view, God is not separate from its Creation (and is definitely not a bearded elder on a cloud).....
Prove it. Because God is "a bearded elder in a cloud (read datacenter)": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wdKlWXyUkcsee the difference? If you draw a perfect circle, then measure its diameter, measure its circumference, divide circumference by diameter, you get PI, always.
There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.
Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.
If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.
That's the problem. You see, the circle needs me to do all these manipulations to construct it. And from the looks of it I cannot say for sure that there is a single unique way to arrive to that construct. In fact you will most likely see this pattern a lot as you go. So what is circle then? A path in a chain of logical conclusions or a destination? Can there be a destination without a path? |
|
|
|
|
I voted for "The Matrix", maybe because I watched it way earlier than "Inception" and I was easier to impress at the time.
Great thread overall with lots of great movies listed.
Here are a few deep ones from my list:
"Donnie Darko"
"Mr. Nobody"
"The Game" with Michael Douglas
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
And this hints at intelligent design how?
The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree?.... No and no, and this is demonstrably a false assertion leading to a false conclusion based on incorrect premises. Errors all 3 steps of the way. Don't take this too critically, it's not uncommon for people to see evidence of God in places like math, quantum physics, the structure of the Universe, etc... I am addressing your assertion of a logical proof and that neither have you provided, can it be done, or should it be done. I never mentioned God in this new thread, only intelligent design. So you don't agree that: 1) results of the experiments form a pattern that has a mathematical structure. 2) mathematics is a result of intelligence (consciousness) I don't know how you see the Universe, but it sure doesn't look like a chaotic mess to me I also thought that Garrett Lisi was right after all after reading about the quantum mechanics geometrical symmetry.
Intelligent design is idiotic. God made the cosmological constants, then the universe build itself and life!
In my view, God is not separate from its Creation (and is definitely not a bearded elder on a cloud), because there is nothing else except God to create out of. As a way to distract you all from boring day-to-day stuff and mostly for its entertainment value I present you "Amplituhedron - A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics": https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/Once again scientists have figured that complex interactions of particles in physical reality can be described by a single elegant geometric shape, which together with Garrett Lisi's E8 theory starts looking like a trend. Simplicity is good. However, this reminds me of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem stuff again, which, translated into "common sense" says that you can't fully describe a (non-trivial) system from within itself. If we could, just imagine the possibilities! A fully-functional scale model of the universe with miniature scientists making even smaller fully-functional scale models of the universe!? That's basically what these positivist attempts at a "theory of everything" boil down to. However, all it takes is a slight change of thinking to realise that we already have "fully functional scale models of the universe" inside our heads. I've just found a wonderful explanation of how it can all work by Tom Campbell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RMOGFaOLSQIt starts off by criticising existing scientific models of String Theory and Holographic Universe for their lack of wholeness (inability to explain the whole spectrum of phenomena instead of just physical reality) and various assumptions; and instead focuses on information and consciousness as the underlying true reality in which physical layer emerges as virtual simulated reality and serves as a playground for further evolution of consciousness. He also mentioned how emergence of Time was the next step in the evolution in order to explore new levels of complexity never possible before and how Process Fractals are the basic building blocks of this self-aware evolving system. |
|
|
|
And this hints at intelligent design how?
The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree? The article also mentions that space-time along with quantum mechanics are emergent from the geometry, so make what you want out of it. How can a music be a prof of intelligent designer? Everything in the world and universe has its own frequency, giving music as a prof of a God is just stupid.
When Edgar Cayce was asked in his usual trance-channeling state "What is the Universe?". His short and only answer was: "Music of the Spheres". So, earth is 6000 years old?
Will we need to worship this designer in some way (sing songs, sacrifice goats etc), or can we just ignore the fact and get on with our lives as normal?
Ok apparently it was my (failed) attempt at trolling. I got bored and decided to see what happens if I post this. No need to sing songs or worship anyone, just relax and proceed as normal, I will be careful next time. Well, if we're living in a computer simulation, then obviously there is a designer/programmer of the " Matrix computer code". What you may question is if we live within simulations within simulations within simulations, then it may only be the very first world that would have happened by evolution alone. All simulated worlds run largely on evolution but may have variable amounts of code. It does look more and more like simulation to me. Maybe there is a reason we all love playing computer games - we are in one! Thanks for the links I'll have a look! |
|
|
|
Speaking about markets volatility and overall craziness in the world economy, well... ...prepare for a year of a full moon: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iTAPZIsX0zU at 11:41 and at 12:22 it says that we already won, so just fasten your seat belts and enjoy your ride  |
|
|
|
Pretty sure they all knew what was going on already, years ago.
The fact that the US Govt spies on everyone is not really a secret to most people who know how both the internet and govt works.
This ^ One should always assume that everything is recorded when using third party services (internet, phone, skype) even if they say they don't. I'm now even thinking that modern day gadgets with cameras and microphones can be turned into a spying device on demand (even when you don't use them) not to say about upcoming Xbox with Kinnect. I bet it's funny always being watched On the other hand we are moving towards open society without secrets and the recent leaks only support the point. So privacy will be a privilege of some really smart people willing to put additional effort to achieve it (unless of course all the hardware designs and software protocols suddenly become open source and everybody understands exactly how they work). It's good when you don't have anything to hide |
|
|
|
Wow I hope you're enrolling your kid in college early and getting him violin lessons. That's impressive that at age 2 he can already comprehend bitcoin and general market dynamics. A lot more than can be said about a lot of the members of this forum  New kids are different in a way that they are quantum. They don't learn in a linear way. That's the generational change we are witnessing, a change in the DNA. |
|
|
|
...
Basically, again, this woman is talking about children and her wide interpretation means that every miner is a money transmitter. Consider this: The miner creates a block which includes transactions. Anyone who creates transactions is theoretically transmitting money now.
...
Well technically it's not that simple, transactions that miner includes in a block are already transmitted by the network and most of the nodes have them. Miner only provides a time stamp (in terms of blockchain's block count) for a bunch of transactions by publishing a solution to the proof of work problem along with already existing and already transmitted transactions. So technically miners do not transmit transactions (full nodes do), they only time-stamp them. Dear Jennifer Shasky Calvery,
Why haven't any of the CEO's, chairmen, or directors of HSBC, Wachovia or other banks caught money laundering over the past several years gotten thrown in prison or personally paid enormous fines?
Until these injustices are remedied you can't expect the Bitcoin community to cooperate.
+1000 They really need to fix their own problems on the part of "integrity and transparency", as they claim in the document, before exploring new territories. Yeah and rename that "office of terrorism" too! I mean, who in their right mind would want to cooperate with an organization who reports to the office with such a name. Maybe it's a trap and we all will be later tagged by the Prism as "aiding the enemy" I'll just leave it here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KP6pBS6uptE |
|
|
|
Office of Terrorism? Isn't that just CIA?
LOL Here is my theory (it was revealed to me in a dream). They want to amass more bitcoins via market manipulation err regulation so that they can fund more terrorism (through the Office of Terrorism of course) so that they can in turn push for more regulation. In the mean time they want complete records of MtGox database so that they can track down large bitcoin holders around the world and extort their bitcoins by fabricating fake sex charges against them ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=hl4NlA97GeQ at 5:07). In order to achieve their ends they pretend to look as friendly as possible and all wear smiley shirts (google George Carlin smiley shirts, http://youtube.com/watch?v=eWhdDypWJPs at 5:50). |
|
|
|
It was an interesting watch, thank you.
I'm glad you liked it. Didnt watch the whole thing tho  The part of the interview relevant to his involvement in the Middle East is in the first third of the video, but once I got to the middle I simply couldn't stop watching, had to go to sleep later than normal that day |
|
|
|
From the beginning of the second page: FinCEN ... reports to the Office of Terrorism ...
I know I'm hyperventilating, but I could never imagine they had the Office of Terrorism!!! Ouch! I mean should it read Anti-Terrorism? Well, on the other hand, if you check out one of the recent threads https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231091.0things will start to add up. |
|
|
|
As the video linked in OP is about 2.5 hours long I have updated the OP with some description for those who don't have a luxury to spend hours a day on some random YT videos. Here is another interview with Bill from another whistle-blowers channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUwH3qT3fmY |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
