God and other associated things

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

I dismiss them on the basis that I don’t consider all biblical claims to be true.

Then you can’t claim to know anything Jesus said or did, as I told you right at the start.

@Sheldon

Well we cannot know what if anything Jesus did say,

So the hilarity here is palpable fro example here:

@rat_spit

And Jesus also said:

I shall dismiss all claims you make about Jesus on the same basis from now on.

@rat_spit

Jesus is and always will be an archetype of the human psyche.

Dismissed, based on your own rule.

@rat_spit

The essence of the message of Christ is the important thing.

Dismissed based on your own rule.

@rat_spit

More important than that is his divinity

Dismissed, based on your own rule.

@rat_spit

I showed you how radically he described

Dismissed etc…

@rat_spit

You have to be creative and with the Bible

Good to know, I am taking your advice when addressing your biblical claims from now on, it will certainly save a lot of time.

@rat_spit

Probably why he volunteered to be executed on a cross

Dismissed etc…this is much easier, you’re right.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

If it’s utterly irrelevant wtf did you raise it?

Synatheisa. Look it up. It’s real.

Why would I look it up if you claim it is irrelevant?

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

That’s a false equivalence fallacy, right on the heels of your previous no true Scotsman fallacy, your original assertion was simply untrue, though I doubt you even remember or care what that was.

Kay. Is English your first language Sheldon. Use English.

Ad hominem fallacy.

@rat_spit

Expand on your silly fallacies so that we can actually have a discussion.

You would need to learn what the fallacies mean first, and honestly address them, given your spiel is relentlessly irrational, and has been for years, despite it being explained, I hold little hope have any desire to reason rationally now, but by all means address these latest ones, and I will happily give your response due diligence.

@rat_spit

To be a Christian you must practice compassion.

Like 96% of the German population did during the Nzis era you mean, or like they did in the largest christian church that signed a concordat with Nazism, or the during the crusades, or during the Inquisition, or the 30 years war, etc etc. you are still peddling the same no true Scotsman fallacy.

@rat_spit

Since various Nazis clearly had no conscience and did nothing to practice life affirming values it is plainly absurd to qualify them as Christians because they merely claimed to be a Christian or claimed it as their religion.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

More dishonest deflection, rather than admit you were wrong about altruism and evolution being mutually exclusive

Okay. I was wrong. How about I blow you too?

That won’t be necessary.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Muscle and blood?

Love? Compassion?

We can objectively evidence that the heart contain muscle and blood, you can’t objectively evidence that human emotions exist in or are created by the human heart, Ipso facto I don’t believe your claim.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Emotions are created by the brain, your heart is a pump made of muscle.

You are a robot made of sperm.

Ad hominem fallacy.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

By your rationale mother teresa was not a christian, since she not only revelled in the suffering of others, but believed the more they suffered the closer to Jesus they became?

No.

Yes, that was your argument, you’ve even repeated it in this post.

@rat_spit

there are clear indicators that one is certainly not a true Christian.

No, there is bias claim that all christian must be a certain way, and when the facts demonstrate otherwise, you resort to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

@rat_spit

The basic requirement is a belief in Christ based on an understanding of compassion.

That’s your opinion, I can only address facts and objective evidence, not biased subjective beliefs, especially when that belief is at odds with those facts and objective evidence. repetition won’t change this, anymore than a logical fallacy will.

@rat_spit

The moment you start killing people and making a practice out of killing people you absolve your self of the title.

No true Scotsman fallacy. I note you are calming all US servicemen and women, who serve their country and kill while serving are not christians, interesting. Does that include the ones who fought and died against the christian Nazis?

@rat_spit

the only true Christians in Germany at the time where the Jehovas Witnesses who refused to partake in the war and were persecuted for this.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

@rat_spit

Nazi Germany is not an example of a people who were in touch with Christ.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Just how long are you planning to repeat this fallacy, to prop up your irrational claims?

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

1) untestable, 2) there’s no evidence for consciousness of inanimate matter, 3) there’s no explanation how the “rudimentary” consciousness of molecules and atoms can combine to produce to the complex consciousness of humans and (surely) other mammals, 4) and we have made no progress in understanding consciousness by considering or adhering to panpsychism. It seems to be a view that, ultimately, will not help us understand consciousness.”

1. it is testable. I should in theory be able to effect external reality with the force of my mind alone. That could be measured easily. In fact, the quantum measurement effect already suggests this to be a fact.

2. if you allow consciousness to exist as a simple particle, let’s say, then it interacts with all matter. When it interacts with a complex system like a brain we get “awareness”

3. again, there’s no rudimentary or complex consciousness - there is just a carrier particle for information that flows between objects - for example an “ear” is a complex physical object which relates to perceptual stimuli via the consciousness carrier.

4. I’ve made significant leaps in my own understanding of consciousness by considering that it may exist as a carrier boson.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

1) untestable, 2) there’s no evidence for consciousness of inanimate matter, 3) there’s no explanation how the “rudimentary” consciousness of molecules and atoms can combine to produce to the complex consciousness of humans and (surely) other mammals, 4) and we have made no progress in understanding consciousness by considering or adhering to panpsychism. It seems to be a view that, ultimately, will not help us understand consciousness.”

1. it is testable.

No it’s not, it is an unfalsifiable concept. However by all means publish your work, the field of neuroscience will no doubt be grateful for this paradigm shifting event. Do let us know

@rat_spit

I should in theory be able to effect external reality with the force of my mind alone. That could be measured easily. In fact, the quantum measurement effect already suggests this to be a fact.

fantasy and gibberish.

@rat_spit

if you allow consciousness to exist as a simple particle, let’s say, then it interacts with all matter. When it interacts with a complex system like a brain we get “awareness”

A bare claim repeating the original in a circular reasoning fallacy is not objective evidence.

@rat_spit

again, there’s no rudimentary or complex consciousness - there is just a carrier particle for information that flows between objects - for example an “ear” is a complex physical object which relates to perceptual stimuli via the consciousness carrier.

That has no relevance to point 3 in my post? It doesn’t even make sense.

@rat_spit

I’ve made significant leaps in my own understanding of consciousness by considering that it may exist as a carrier boson.

And tis bare unevidenced assertion has what to do with point 4 in my post?

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Then you can’t claim to know anything Jesus said or did, as I told you right at the start.

He still exists. The same personage which exists as the human manifestation of compassion is identical to the man depicted in the Bible. When you know why they call it “compassion” you also know why they say, “the guy from the Bible … that’s the same guy who I have a personal relationship with.”

@Sheldon

I shall dismiss all claims you make about Jesus on the same basis from now on.

The only thing that matters is compassion. Once you really understand compassion the personage of Christ and the authenticity of the New Testament are inevitable consequences of each other.

@Sheldon

Why would I look it up if you claim it is irrelevant?

Oh Sheldon. Have we not passed the two month stage of this romantic relationship. Work with me babe.

@Sheldon

relentlessly irrational,

I quite prefer it that way. How abysmally boring it must be to always think logically. How absolutely depressing to live in a life without mystery or purpose - especially when your purposefully ignoring the divine realities that surround you.

@Sheldon

Like 96% of the German population did during the Nzis era you mean,

Uhh? The Nazis practiced compassion? Is that what you’re saying?

@Sheldon

That won’t be necessary.

I’ll pay you?

@Sheldon

Ad hominem fallacy.

Beep boop. I am a robot. My heart is made of blood and meat. My emotions are chemical reactions in my cerebral cortex. Beep boop.

@Sheldon

No, there is bias claim that all christian must be a certain way, and when the facts demonstrate otherwise, you resort to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Yeah … there is … and there is certainly a bias that this way is incongruent with murdering and killing on massive scales. Any questions?

@Sheldon

who serve their country and kill while serving are not christians, interesting. Does that include the ones who fought and died against the christian Nazis?

It’s a sin that Jesus can forgive.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

No it’s not, it is an unfalsifiable concept. However by all means publish your work, the field of neuroscience will no doubt be grateful for this paradigm shifting event. Do let us know

The CIA, KGB, etcetera invested heavily into psyops - on the hunch that they could extract valuable intelligence data through the use of remote viewing. They also killed at least two goats by stopping their hearts using just the power of their mind. I’ve done it before. In fact, I accurately predicted your date of birth by mentally travelling to Wales and viewing your “history”. Your history is a tunnel which exists above your head. I tracked that with the revolution of the earth around the sun back to - what was it - 1965? Whatever. I was dead in the rights about it. And you insisted I gleaned the information from your disclosure of that information. Except that you weren’t able to produce any evidence of this. You simply maintain that you would do something as stupid as disclose your age or date of birth on a public forum. Not the dumbest thing in the world to do, but even if you ever had or did, I know without a doubt that this wasn’t how I determined your date of birth.

If you like, pick a random object from your household and put it in the freezer box of your fridge. Tell me if your freezer box is on the top or bottom of your fridge and give me some time to remote view it. You game?

@Sheldon

fantasy and gibberish.

What’s the current explanation for why observation collapses wave functions? Why the mere detection of an event effects the outcome of the event?

Just fantasy and gibberish of course. Also outstanding fundamental problems in the field of quantum mechanics.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Then you can’t claim to know anything Jesus said or did, as I told you right at the start.

He still exists.

Dismissed as per your previous cherry picking rule, unless you reconsider that, I am not prepared to waste time addressing your cherry picked subjective claims, with facts of the literal texts, only to be greeted with hand waving.

@rat_spit

The only thing that matters is compassion. Once you really understand compassion the personage of Christ and the authenticity of the New Testament are inevitable consequences of each other.

Dismissed, ref your rule.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Why would I look it up if you claim it is irrelevant?

Oh Sheldon. Have we not passed the two month stage of this romantic relationship. Work with me babe.

Lost me sorry.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

relentlessly irrational,

I quite prefer it that way.

I know, you’re not alone, but this isn’t really relevant if one understands what relentless irrationality infers.

@rat_spit

How abysmally boring it must be to always think logically.

I don’t find it so, nor do I see any reason it should be. I am also dubious that this is the primary reason people try to excuse their use of irrational arguments.

@rat_spit

How absolutely depressing to live in a life without mystery or purpose - especially when your purposefully ignoring the divine realities that surround you.

Straw man fallacy, ironically. No point explaining, again obviously.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Like 96% of the German population did during the Nzis era you mean,

Uhh? The Nazis practiced compassion? Is that what you’re saying?

Nope, the exact opposite, 96% of Germans were christians in a 1939 census, it’s still available to this day to view online. The SS were exclusively theists, atheists were not allowed to join. These facts refute your original claim.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

That won’t be necessary.

I’ll pay you?

Thanks, but still not necessary.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Ad hominem fallacy.

Beep boop. I am a robot. My heart is made of blood and meat. My emotions are chemical reactions in my cerebral cortex. Beep boop.

False equivalence fallacy, ironic again, and again not much point explaining. the objective evidence demonstrates that human emotions emerge in the human brain, not in the heart.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

No, there is bias claim that all christian must be a certain way, and when the facts demonstrate otherwise, you resort to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Yeah … there is … and there is certainly a bias that this way is incongruent with murdering and killing on massive scales. Any questions?

None, it remains a no true Scotsman fallacy.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

who serve their country and kill while serving are not christians, interesting. Does that include the ones who fought and died against the christian Nazis?

It’s a sin that Jesus can forgive.

Dismissed, ref your rule, it also has no relevance to the context it was offered in.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

No it’s not, it is an unfalsifiable concept. However by all means publish your work, the field of neuroscience will no doubt be grateful for this paradigm shifting event. Do let us know

The CIA, KGB, etcetera invested heavily into psyops - on the hunch that they could extract valuable intelligence data through the use of remote viewing.

Not relevant to panpsychism, and not relevant to the fact it is unfalsifiable and untestable, even proponents of it accept these facts.

@rat_spit

I accurately predicted your date of birth by mentally travelling to Wales and viewing your “history”.

Not once have you got it right, I have disclosed broad details of my birth on here more than once, so this unevidenced mumbo jumbo isn’t at all compelling.

@rat_spit

You simply maintain that you would do something as stupid as disclose your age or date of birth on a public forum.

I have not disclosed the date, try again. Nor have you managed to produce it, just the information I did share, and since I am posting anonymously on here, that doesn’t represent any great risk.

@rat_spit

that this wasn’t how I determined your date of birth.

You don’t have my date of birth, never have had, the month and the year is all I have shared. However even if I had let slip the date, this sad little display gets a so what? Magical powers, oh ratty ratty, you do make me laugh.

@rat_spit

If you like, pick a random object from your household and put it in the freezer box of your fridge. Tell me if your freezer box is on the top or bottom of your fridge and give me some time to remote view it. You game?

How do you know I own a freezer, OMG, it must be magic!

How about we leave the fake magic show alone, and stick to the point? If I want to watch illusions, I can search YouTube for quality shows.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

fantasy and gibberish.

What’s the current explanation for why observation collapses wave functions? Why the mere detection of an event effects the outcome of the event?

I don’t care. Science doesn’t evidence any deity, that’s axiomatic, and this is a very tried old line in apologetics that has been thoroughly rinsed.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

Dismissed as per your previous cherry picking rule,

Nope. I didn’t determine that he still exists via the Bible. So you can’t use that criteria. Funny game you’re playing though. Cute.

@Sheldon

Dismissed, ref your rule.

Again, not determined from anything in the Bible. The mere mention of his existence could easily be dismissed if it was just a piece of text in a book. But the authenticity of the Bible is revealed via direct knowledge of his living personage (and that, as I have consistently maintained is via compassion - something the Nazis did not have).

@Sheldon

Lost me sorry.

I can’t lose you baby. I’ll try harder. I’ll be a stronger man. Give me one more chance!

@Sheldon

I know, you’re not alone, but this isn’t really relevant if one understands what relentless irrationality infers.

And what becomes of those who fail to investigate the contents of their hearts?

@Sheldon

Nope, the exact opposite, 96% of Germans were christians in a 1939 census, it’s still available to this day to view online. The SS were exclusively theists, atheists were not allowed to join. These facts refute your original claim.

Being a Christian and practicing industrialized scale murder on innocent people are mutually exclusive activities. The Nazis were not real Christians.

@Sheldon

False equivalence fallacy, ironic again, and again not much point explaining. the objective evidence demonstrates that human emotions emerge in the human brain, not in the heart.

You’ve clearly never had anxiety before.

@Sheldon

Dismissed, ref your rule, it also has no relevance to the context it was offered in.

Again, the power of Jesus to forgive sins is acknowledged via direct interaction with his holy divinity. That is merely referenced in the Bible. If that’s all there was, yeah … go ahead and dismiss it. I did exactly that for 30 years before realizing the truth.

@Sheldon

Not relevant to panpsychism, and not relevant to the fact it is unfalsifiable and untestable, even proponents of it accept these facts.

You can’t practice remote viewing without ubiquitous fields of consciousness. When did you become an expert on the subject?

@Sheldon

You don’t have my date of birth, never have had, the month and the year is all I have shared.

Bold faced lie. I clearly did years ago and you supplemented the fact by vehemently denying the possibility of it - exactly for the reason that it proved how old you were. Why are you lying?

@Sheldon

How about we leave the fake magic show alone, and stick to the point?

I’m giving you a sure fire way for me to make a fool of either you or myself. If you were so confident that it was impossible you would indulge me and prove me wrong.

@Sheldon

I don’t care. Science doesn’t evidence any deity, that’s axiomatic, and this is a very tried old line in apologetics that has been thoroughly rinsed.

“I don’t care” - the slogan of a defeated intellectual. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That’s a win for me I guess.

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Dismissed as per your previous cherry picking rule,

Nope. I didn’t determine that he still exists via the Bible. So you can’t use that criteria. Funny game you’re playing though. Cute.

It’s your game, you made up the rule not me.

@rat_spit

the authenticity of the Bible is revealed via direct knowledge of his living personage

Is that why there are over 45k wildly different sects and denominations in christianity, that has shed blood to defend what they think is the “correct” version for centuries. You’ll need to find something a lot more compelling than than “that’s what I believe”.

@rat_spit

And what becomes of those who fail to investigate the contents of their hearts?

They don’t end up with large scars on their chest?

@rat_spit

Being a Christian and practicing industrialized scale murder on innocent people are mutually exclusive activities. The Nazis were not real Christians.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

False equivalence fallacy, ironic again, and again not much point explaining. the objective evidence demonstrates that human emotions emerge in the human brain, not in the heart.

You’ve clearly never had anxiety before.

I certainly have, and likely will again. Though all the evidence indicates it is my brain that this emotional state derives from, my heart which is a pump made of muscle, merely reacts to it.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Dismissed, ref your rule, it also has no relevance to the context it was offered in.

Again, the power of Jesus to forgive sins is acknowledged via direct interaction with his holy divinity.

Then at the very least, Jesus will need to do this, and interact with me, before I will believe the claim.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Not relevant to panpsychism, and not relevant to the fact it is unfalsifiable and untestable, even proponents of it accept these facts.

You can’t practice remote viewing without ubiquitous fields of consciousness. When did you become an expert on the subject?

I never claimed to be an expert, and the objections I posted to panpsychism are broadly acknowledged, even by proponents of it. Address them or don’t, I don’t care, since they represent objective facts.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

You don’t have my date of birth, never have had, the month and the year is all I have shared.

Bold faced lie.

What is it? You tried this lie before, and failed, do you really imagine I’d believe you have magic powers either way? That’s a little sad.

@rat_spit

exactly for the reason that it proved how old you were. Why are you lying?

May age is no secret, I know for a fact I’ve shared it many times, and the only one lying here is you, I mean seriously claiming to have magic powers, ffs ratty, let this nonsense alone and stick to the topic.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

It’s your game, you made up the rule not me.

Kay. Well. Play by the rules. Verses in the Bible can only be authenticated upon having direct knowledge of Jesus Christ through the revelation of his divinity in and of the faculty of compassion.

@Sheldon

Is that why there are over 45k wildly different sects and denominations in christianity, that has shed blood to defend what they think is the “correct” version for centuries. You’ll need to find something a lot more compelling than than “that’s what I believe”.

There’s one Jesus and 8,000,000,000 other people. You do the math.

@Sheldon

They don’t end up with large scars on their chest?

Nope. They suffer from either a lack of or an unused surplus of:

• faith
• conscience
• prudence
• energy
• wisdom

A lack results in:

• anxiety
• anger
• fatigue
• torpor
• doubt

An unused surplus results in:

• lust
• shame
• restlessness
• sloth
• self criticism

All of these corruptions prevent the conscious arising of:

• loving kindness
• compassion
• moral authority
• sympathetic joy
• equanimity

Wherein those faculties of the mind are lacking there is no contact with the following avatars:

• Satan
• Christ
• the golden child
• Buddha
• Hathada

And there is certainly no way to achieve a purity of mind wherein the nature of our avatars are not comprehended.

So, yeah. All of that. For starters. Ya dig?

@Sheldon

No true Scotsman fallacy.

So you’re stating, the opposite, in other words? There is a category of Christians who do conduct widespread, premeditated murder on industrial scales?

Or, there are categories of humans who are in fact also frogs?

@Sheldon

I certainly have, and likely will again. Though all the evidence indicates it is my brain that

Good. Then you’re aware of the bottomless pit of angst which resides in the heart when one is experiencing anxiety? Or do you merely experience “mental anxiety”?

@Sheldon

Then at the very least, Jesus will need to do this, and interact with me, before I will believe the claim.

Go knock on his door. He’ll answer.

@Sheldon

since they represent objective facts.

The objective fact is that remote viewing, if at all possible, is only so contingent to consciousness being ubiquitous around the universe. How else can one assume a conscious position of observation in proximity to a target if the precursor consciousness does not already exist near that target? Feel free to offer me an alternative explanation.

@Sheldon

You tried this lie before, and failed, do you really imagine I’d believe you have magic powers either way?

Let me guess what’s in your ice box and we’ll see how quickly that scepticism melts. It was 1965 and I determined that via two results of consciousness. 1. I can place my consciousness in any number of positions relative to you and your body instantaneously because a) I am conscious and b) consciousness is found universally as a ubiquitous substance throughout the universe. 2. All of your past is contained in a dimension which is readily accessible to the mind. The past is literally just one dimension of time (the present and the future being two others). 3. By tracing the motion of the earth around the sun whilst simultaneously tracking your past all of the way back to the very moment of your birth I can determine the number of times your body has gone around the sun. In this case, you arrived on the planet in the year 1965. That fact does not change independently of how many times I review those factors.

@Sheldon

let this nonsense alone and stick to the topic.

You have a quail in your icebox don’t you?

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

Play by the rules. Verses in the Bible

I will, and that is dismissed, as per your rule.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Is that why there are over 45k wildly different sects and denominations in christianity, that has shed blood to defend what they think is the “correct” version for centuries. You’ll need to find something a lot more compelling than than “that’s what I believe”.

There’s one Jesus and 8,000,000,000 other people. You do the math.

The maths is right there in my post, you seem to want to make the same assertion over and over even thought the maths and facts don’t support it, are the Westborough Baptist Church known for their compassion? How about the christians who inflicted the inquisition? I could go on, but since you’re determined to ignore facts in favour of repetition, I can’t be bothered.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

They don’t end up with large scars on their chest?

Nope. They suffer from either a lack of or an unused surplus of:

• faith
• conscience
• prudence
• energy
• wisdom

I don’t believe you, not that it’s not impressive to see another sweeping unevidenced caim of course, but by now you’ve had ample opportunity to admit that you were using the heart here as metaphor, a lot simpler than pursuing this nonsensical line of claims.

@rat_spit

And there is certainly no way to achieve a purity of mind wherein the nature of our avatars are not comprehended.

So, yeah. All of that. For starters. Ya dig?

No, it’s just looks like more woo woo gibberish.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

No true Scotsman fallacy.

So you’re stating, the opposite, in other words?

I’ve linked that fallacy for you dozens of times, you can Google it yourself, it’s a very simple fallacy to spot, and to understand.

@rat_spit

There is a category of Christians who do conduct widespread, premeditated murder on industrial scales?

More than one, obviously, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, the RCC, countless protestant christian groups in Europe during wars against Catholics, and the reverse of course, Nazis Germany, etc etc…even the biblical deity did this on a global scale at least once, and we have christian religious apologists like William Lane Craig defending biblical genocide of course. There a good people who identify as religious and some evil people, and everything in between no doubt.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

I certainly have, and likely will again. Though all the evidence indicates it is my brain that…

Good. Then you’re aware of the bottomless pit of angst which resides in the heart

Nope read it again, and you didn’t clip enough text off, if you’re going to misrepresent it that way.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Then at the very least, Jesus will need to do this, and interact with me, before I will believe the claim.

Go knock on his door. He’ll answer.

I am dubious, another metaphor?

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

since they represent objective facts.

The objective fact is that remote viewing, if at all possible, is only so contingent to consciousness being ubiquitous around the universe. How else can one assume a conscious position of observation in proximity to a target if the precursor consciousness does not already exist near that target? Feel free to offer me an alternative explanation.

That has nothing to do with my post that you quoted, you spin this on your onw without me. Panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced, and has no explanatory powers.

@rat_spit

Let me guess what’s in your ice box and we’ll see how quickly that scepticism melts.

Knock yourself out…

@rat_spit

It was 1965

That’s a year, not my DOB, and I already said I have shared my age on here many times, even telling people my birthday was close etc, so the month quite possibly as well. If I have shared the date I certainly don’t remember but it’s possible. You don’t have magical powers ratty, let this one go.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

let this nonsense alone and stick to the topic.

You have a quail in your icebox don’t you?

No, in fact I have never had a quail in my fridge or freezer.

[rat_spit]

@Sheldon

More than one, obviously, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Conquistadors, the RCC, countless protestant christian groups in Europe during wars against Catholics, and the reverse of course, Nazis Germany, etc etc…even the biblical deity did this on a global scale at least once, and we have christian religious apologists like William Lane Craig defending biblical genocide of course. There a good people who identify as religious and some evil people, and everything in between no doubt.

You’d do well to study the history of religion pre-Constantine and post-Constantine - along with the historical implications of how the papacy came into power and changed Christianity completely - along with a slew of other historical and political evolutions in how the religion was practiced. For your listening pleasure; an objective historical summary of Christianity sans religious jargon and influence:

@Sheldon

No, it’s just looks like more woo woo gibberish

What’s the most relaxed you’ve ever been, Shelly?

@Sheldon

Nope read it again, and you didn’t clip enough text off, if you’re going to misrepresent it that way.

Well. That’s the end of that opportunity

@Sheldon

I am dubious, another metaphor?

This time yes. “Seek and yea shall find” “knock and the door will be opened.”

In the spirit of maintaining consistency, a deep appreciation for compassion born out of a healthy conscience will lead you to the highest parts of your mind where our avatars dwell. If you don’t like Christ, search for Satan. I’m sure he’d enjoy your company.

@Sheldon

Panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced, and has no explanatory powers.

Pansychism predicts that I should be able to affect external reality with my mind. We can test for this. In fact CIA KGB and many others have invested heavily in testing the ability of consciousness to transcend space and time. It’s called… wait for it … remote viewing … which is exactly what we could be talking about if you were at all open to new ideas.

More interesting to you perhaps will be the measurement effect - that is: the scientifically established fact that quantum wave functions change state when under detection. Suggestive evidence that consciousness can affect external reality and events outside the confines of the brain … wait for it … the exact prediction and claim made by panpsychism.

@Sheldon

Knock yourself out…

Well, if you’re ready for a fair game, choose something from your living room and stick it in there. Give me a day to reply and I’ll identify it. As per usual, I need to know if your ice box is on the top or bottom of your fridge.

@Sheldon

That’s a year, not my DOB

What I didn’t mention in my concise and extremely detailed account of how I arrived at the exact year you were born is that identifying the month is not as simple a task. I’d need some kind of knowledge of constellations in order to provide you with a month. And then pinning down the day is even harder. But I can guarantee the year.

@Sheldon

No, in fact I have never had a quail in my fridge or freezer.

Well that makes two of us. I’m seeing … I’m seeing … a severed monkey head … hmm am I getting warmer?

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@rat_spit

The CIA, KGB, etcetera invested heavily into psyops - on the hunch that they could extract valuable intelligence data through the use of remote viewing.

The results of these experiments are quite interesting. On one hand, they state that no significant information has been retrieved using these methods, yet they also acknowledge that a “statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory.” This leads me to conclude that while the effect is real, they are unable to apply it for their intended purpose.

It’s clear that if no effect had been observed, they wouldn’t have invested millions of dollars over 30 years investigating it. Perhaps investigating something non-existent for five years is plausible, but 30 years? Strange, right?

[Sheldon]

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

I am dubious, another metaphor?

This time yes. “Seek and yea shall find” “knock and the door will be opened.”

Or become suggestible, and delude oneself?

@rat_spit

In the spirit of maintaining consistency, a deep appreciation for compassion born out of a healthy conscience will lead you to the highest parts of your mind where our avatars dwell. If you don’t like Christ, search for Satan. I’m sure he’d enjoy your company.

I don;t believe Satan exists, and for the same reason, I may have mentioned this before.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Panpsychism is unfalsifiable, untestable, unevidenced, and has no explanatory powers.

Pansychism predicts that I should be able to affect external reality with my mind.

Nope, if you had read the link I originally provided and followed the discourse, you’d know panpsychism makes no real world predictions, which is why it can’t be tested.

@rat_spit

In fact CIA KGB and many others have invested heavily in testing the ability of consciousness to transcend space and time. It’s called… wait for it … remote viewing … which is exactly what we could be talking about if you were at all open to new ideas.

And failed to find an data supporting it.

@rat_spit

More interesting to you perhaps will be the measurement effect - that is: the scientifically established fact that quantum wave functions change state when under detection. Suggestive evidence that consciousness can affect external reality and events outside the confines of the brain … wait for it … the exact prediction and claim made by panpsychism.

So a) you didn’t offer any citations, b) our knowledge of quantum mechanics is clearly incomplete, c) that is not what panpsychism claims, and d) nothing in science evidences panpsychism, as has been explained.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

Knock yourself out…

Well, if you’re ready for a fair game, choose something from your living room and stick it in there. Give me a day to reply and I’ll identify it. As per usual, I need to know if your ice box is on the top or bottom of your fridge.

“As per usual?” You do make me laugh sometimes, I will give you that.

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

That’s a year, not my DOB

What I didn’t mention in my concise and extremely detailed account of how I arrived at the exact year you were born is that identifying the month is not as simple a task. I’d need some kind of knowledge of constellations in order to provide you with a month. And then pinning down the day is even harder. But I can guarantee the year.

Given how often I have shared my age, I am not surprised you’re confident, but you still have never offered the date, and I am not talking about the month.

FWIW, lets say you made a prediction that was astonishingly accurate, and I have no explanation of how you did it. Do you imagine my first thought would be “it must be magic powers”? How many times have seen me explain what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is?

…and you haven’t managed to come up with a single fact I have shared on here, more than once. Dear oh dear ratty…

@rat_spit

@Sheldon

No, in fact I have never had a quail in my fridge or freezer.

Well that makes two of us. I’m seeing … I’m seeing … a severed monkey head … hmm am I getting warmer?

What do you think?

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

The results of these experiments are quite interesting. On one hand, they state that no significant information has been retrieved using these methods, yet they also acknowledge that a “statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory.” This leads me to conclude that while the effect is real, they are unable to apply it for their intended purpose.

Pay attention ratty, not that is how you do levity, brilliant, it can’t be good for a man my age to laugh that hard.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

they state that no significant information has been retrieved using these methods, yet they also acknowledge that a “statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory.”

FYI those claims contradict each other, and of course they’re bare claims.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

It’s clear that if no effect had been observed, they wouldn’t have invested millions of dollars over 30 years investigating it. Perhaps investigating something non-existent for five years is plausible, but 30 years? Strange, right?

I see a string of unevidenced claims, and a truly hilarious claim that 30 years of failing to evidence something, must in fact involve a conspiracy to cover up success. Comedy gold…

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

@Sheldon

I see a string of unevidenced claims, and a truly hilarious claim that 30 years of failing to evidence something, must in fact involve a conspiracy to cover up success. Comedy gold…

As I mentioned, they have observed statistically significant results, but they are unsure of the cause of these results.

REF

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

As I mentioned, they have observed statistically significant results, but they are unsure of the cause of these results.

“Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if, indeed, it exists at all.”

the remote viewing reports failed to produce the concrete, specific information valued in intelligence gathering.

*The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and required substantial subjective interpretation.

In no case had the information provided ever been used to guide intelligence operations. Thus, Remote viewing failed to produce actionable intelligence.*

it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon,
remote viewing, has been demonstrated.

…and the hits just keep on coming…

The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability.

the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous

That’s all from your own link.

---

*There is no scientific evidence that remote viewing exists , and the topic of remote viewing is generally regarded as pseudoscience.

Remote viewing experiments have historically lacked proper controls and repeatability. There is no scientific evidence that remote viewing exists, and the topic of remote viewing is generally regarded as pseudoscience.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

The idea of remote viewing received renewed attention in the 1990s upon the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. government that attempted to determine potential military applications of psychic phenomena. The program ran from 1975 to 1995 and ended after evaluators concluded that remote viewers consistently failed to produce actionable intelligence information.*

CITATION

None of this deals with ratty’s claim that remote viewing represented evidence to support panpsychism either, which is also dubious.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

What about this:

“A statistically significant laboratory effect has been demonstrated, as hits occur more frequently than would be expected by chance.”

“However, no clear evidence has been provided to show that the causes of these hits are due to paranormal phenomena (though the hits are acknowledged).”

“The end users indicate that, although some accuracy was observed regarding broad background characteristics,”

“The conditions under which the remote viewing phenomenon is observed in laboratory settings do not apply to intelligence-gathering situations.”

“These observations provide a compelling argument against continuing the program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether this demonstrates the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, such as remote viewing.”

If I linked this document, it was to show everything, not just a single part.

Have the causes of these hits been clarified? Is there any evidence of fraud?

The conclusions remain as I stated: a statistically significant phenomenon has been observed, but it cannot be used for military purposes, and the causes remain unclear.

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

If I linked this document, it was to show everything, not just a single part.

Yet keep quoting just one small part.

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

The conclusions remain as I stated: a statistically significant phenomenon has been observed, but it cannot be used for military purposes, and the causes remain unclear.

No they don’t, you are citing one part of the conclusions, what I posted are from the report you offered, and offer a more honest impression and full context.

Your own reports says:

“Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if, indeed, it exists at all.”

That sounds pretty definitive to me, and then there was this, again from your own report:

“The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and required substantial subjective interpretation.”

…and this of course:

“The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability.”

…and this:

“the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous”

So no the conclusions do not remain as you stated, as the quotes I offered clearly and definitely showed. Beyond that science widely regards this idea as unevidenced pseudoscience, that fact alone is pretty telling.

[JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU]

Nothing you’ve said changes the following:

‘A statistically significant laboratory effect has been demonstrated, as hits occur more frequently than would be expected by chance.’

While the document is indeed critical, emphasizing the unclear causes and limited practical utility, it does not negate the validity of the statement above.

So, what are we supposed to do with this statistically significant effect? Ignore it?

[Sheldon]

@JESUS_IS_WITH_YOU

Nothing you’ve said changes the following:

‘A statistically significant laboratory effect has been demonstrated, as hits occur more frequently than would be expected by chance.’

Of course it does, right here:

Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena

…and again here:

“The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and required substantial subjective interpretation.”

…and again here:

“the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous”

You still have not acknowledged the fact that science widely regards this idea as unevidenced pseudoscience, do you not accept this to be the case?

Beyond that the study does not evidence remote viewing exists or is possible, it states this definitively in the conclusions, which I quoted for context, as you only quoted one small part.

And again for context, ratty offered the unevidenced pseudoscientific idea of remote viewing as evidence supporting panpsychism, which of course it does not.