my ignorance

[AaronAgassi]

AronAgassi , Seems you came here to discredit any work of Laura & Ark Had you put ANY research into your deed you wouldn't be so transparent to all here lol keep chaseing your tail I guess OP's have no choise ... You will never understand the FreeWill aspect .

Impugning ulterior purpose on my part seems like Ad Hominem. Indeed the only discredit that I can accomplish can come from the straight answers I can't get to the most fundamental of straight questions in all of science.

 

[AaronAgassi]

The experimental testing of an hypothesis, in order to be scientific, requires conditions of refutation, a range of explicit conceivable outcomes inconsistent with prediction from said hypothesis. I have only been asking what is hypothesis of your work together here, and the conditions of refutation. Also whatever experimental controls. I will also need to understand question said hypothesis seeks to answer the explanatory gap left by current understanding. I hope this clears things up.

I guess you missed this:

I imagine we would do a rigorous experiment on superluminal communication (the proposed mode of communication with the C's) if we could, but I think we do not yet know how to do this. Ark has made a mathematical theory on superluminal communication that was published in a peer reviewed journal (not that there aren't problems with peer review but that is a whole other can of worms). I am not skilled enough to follow the math myself, and math does not necessarily describe reality. Assuming that he was rigorous in his work (and knowing Ark, he was; I simply can not check it myself), then a logically coherent, mathematical picture of how superluminal communication could work does exist.

Well, do not worry. My "theory of kairons" is probably wrong. It is too primitive. It is just one step. Then there will be next step, then another .... These steps will either lead somewhere or not. As I wrote in the previous post science is a game. Science is also similar to detective inquiries. A good detective has some "feeling" - he follows his nose, and sometimes he will be able to uncover the crime that other DCIs could not do. I see something in the channeling, I have some "feeling" about it (not about "all channeling", but about "some channeling"), I follow my nose. My own hypothesis about it is not yet fully formulated, it is vague. There are many theories about paranormal, but I am not satisfied with any of them. A new theory is needed, but it does not exist yet. Therefore there are no clear hypotheses that can be tested. We are just at a "Playing with the phenomena" and "playing with alternative theories" stage. I consider it being exciting.

As reasonable as you try to sound, there is something odd about how you ignore the responses that basically tell you that we don't think your model of science is sufficient to answer deep questions about the fundamental nature of reality. And we don't have all the answers... And it is a precarious venture...

There... You are free to consider us not valid scientifically and go on to debunking someone else somewhere else.

I try to be civil on this board, but there is something about your responses that reminds me of a dog gnawing a bone. Have you ever seen a dog chewing on a bone and so intent upon it that it is not aware of anything else, eyes rolled up in the head with the sublime joy of it? And there could be a prime rib with arms and legs dancing around in front of that dog, and he still wouldn't notice. All he would know is to keep gnawing on that bone.

Doggedly speaking: Thank you, Patience. I had no clue that this is what anyone was saying. But it's not my model, it's Popper's, and Epistemologically fundamental to the Scientific Method. Can you present whatever other model you subscribe to?

 

[clerck de bonk]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

You might be interested to have a look here: _http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

Until my standing questions are answered, nothing else can be pertinent or even intelligible.

IMO, all of Your "standing" questions have been answered already and very intelligibly at that. I retract my previous statement that You only want proof because it's evident You don't.
About intelligible. Very few of Your questions can be understood, do You take pride in this?
To an intelligent person, would it not be of the utmost interest to make oneself understood?
This especially when asking questions from people you never met before, virtually or physically.
Ever heard of semantics?

 

[AaronAgassi]

The experimental testing of an hypothesis, in order to be scientific, requires conditions of refutation, a range of explicit conceivable outcomes inconsistent with prediction from said hypothesis. I have only been asking what is hypothesis of your work together here, and the conditions of refutation. Also whatever experimental controls. I will also need to understand question said hypothesis seeks to answer the explanatory gap left by current understanding. I hope this clears things up.

This is a very interesting thread. Thank you AaronAgassi for starting it.

You're a hard person which is not wrong to view this world through your perspective. But one must question the very tools one uses to reach a hypothesis as it is still based on 3rd density concept/protocol. For example a dog can never prove that algebra either exist or not due to the very nature of tools used is based on 2nd density concept. Even i hold a written formula in front of it's face, still the dog will not understand that he's staring at algebra.

Have you ever read an article and have this heart felt resonance that it contain the truth?

All hypothesis begins from unfounded conjecture. This admits, along with anything else, any beginnings from hunches and intuition. All hypotheses regardless, are then subject first to critical preferences and then to reality testing.

Indeed, any hypothesis is a reflection of whatever state of abstract comprehension. And for an assertion to be true, said assertion must be precisely true, therefore for an assertion to be true, the assertion must first be precise. Indeed an hypothesis must be adequately precise to yield specific enough predictions in order to provide clear experimental conditions of refutation. And experiment must then be framed with controls in order to eliminate foreseeable ambiguity.

A vague idea may be of value, in so far as it may guide formulation of testable hypothesis, without which, further investigation, without any clear Epistemological Methodology of the Scientific Method, may even seem somewhat Quixotic.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

You might be interested to have a look here: _http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

Until my standing questions are answered, nothing else can be pertinent or even intelligible.

IMO, all of Your "standing" questions have been answered already and very intelligibly at that. I retract my previous statement that You only want proof because it's evident You don't.
About intelligible. Very few of Your questions can be understood, do You take pride in this?
To an intelligent person, would it not be of the utmost interest to make oneself understood?
This especially when asking questions from people you never met before, virtually or physically.
Ever heard of semantics?

I have received no response directly to the point, no answer actually to my question, such as might come as, for example: "The hypothesis is that..." "Hence the hypothesis predicts that if in the lab we do X under the specified controlled conditions, then Y will consistently result. Hence the conditions of refutation are if Z or Q where ever to be observed instead." Or "The test group is..." "The control groups are..." And so on.

As for the nature of proof, asked and answered repeatedly.

 

[Cosmos]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

You might be interested to have a look here: _http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

Until my standing questions are answered, nothing else can be pertinent or even intelligible.

IMO, all of Your "standing" questions have been answered already and very intelligibly at that. I retract my previous statement that You only want proof because it's evident You don't.
About intelligible. Very few of Your questions can be understood, do You take pride in this?
To an intelligent person, would it not be of the utmost interest to make oneself understood?
This especially when asking questions from people you never met before, virtually or physically.
Ever heard of semantics?

I have received no response directly to the point, no answer actually to my question, such as might come as, for example: "The hypothesis is that..." "Hence the hypothesis predicts that if in the lab we do X under the specified controlled conditions, then Y will consistently result. Hence the conditions of refutation are if Z or Q where ever to be observed instead." Or "The test group is..." "The control groups are..." And so on.

As for the nature of proof, asked and answered repeatedly.

hello AaronAgassi answers were given to you many times now
it seems like you want a fast answer to your questions without doing any research yourself,

what was the main reason you came to this forum ?
are you familiar with "the wave", "the secret history of the world", "Gurdjieff, Ouspenski"etc,?
did you really read any of the links or answers that people gave you in this thread ?
are you familiar with the work on the self ? I ask that question becouse as ark pointet out you are behaving like a well working machine.

Aaron you wrote the topic exactly right "my ignorance". that's exactly it. it is your enormous ignorance what is shown in this thread.
and you don't show a single sign that you are willing to step down from your high ross and work on your self and learn something.
I guess you are not far away from being banned.

it seems that all you are doing here is to show your big EGO .
I guess this here is a win or lose game for you and not a straight discussion with the intend to learn something.

 

[clerck de bonk]

I have received no response directly to the point, no answer actually to my question, such as might come as, for example: "The hypothesis is that..." "Hence the hypothesis predicts that if in the lab we do X under the specified controlled conditions, then Y will consistently result. Hence the conditions of refutation are if Z or Q where ever to be observed instead." Or "The test group is..." "The control groups are..." And so on.

This, your initial question, was answered in the first reply on this thread by Ark.
Alas, it should have ended there.

 

[HiThere]

These interactions are illustrative of the difference in perspective that people have. To my eyes it now seems safe to assume that AaronAgassi came here only to have his preconceptions about channeling verified, as he hasn't shown anything but indifference towards the threads provided for him.

To me this seems like an ordinary case of someone stroking their own ego through repeating their own mantras, in this case philosophical word salad.
It seems to be worthwhile for these people to engage in rigid exchange of cemented opinions, probably as an exercise to feel more secure in their perception of reality.

I suspect that people of the same ilk laughed at Copernicus and thought Galilei was a moron.

Sometimes one can get a more honest response from these posters through activation of their emotional centre, i.e. their hurt ego. But this one seems utterly self-absorbed and without ability to reach out mentally towards the concepts he was asking about.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Palinurus, how are subconscious brain activity and subluminal perception found inadequate to explain which repeatable observations or results, however complex, and how so? And precisely how does any other particular hypothesis of channeling from whatever sort of other realm, better explain said repeatable observations or results? What are the conditions of refutation and controls?

You might be interested to have a look here: _http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

Until my standing questions are answered, nothing else can be pertinent or even intelligible.

IMO, all of Your "standing" questions have been answered already and very intelligibly at that. I retract my previous statement that You only want proof because it's evident You don't.
About intelligible. Very few of Your questions can be understood, do You take pride in this?
To an intelligent person, would it not be of the utmost interest to make oneself understood?
This especially when asking questions from people you never met before, virtually or physically.
Ever heard of semantics?

I have received no response directly to the point, no answer actually to my question, such as might come as, for example: "The hypothesis is that..." "Hence the hypothesis predicts that if in the lab we do X under the specified controlled conditions, then Y will consistently result. Hence the conditions of refutation are if Z or Q where ever to be observed instead." Or "The test group is..." "The control groups are..." And so on.

As for the nature of proof, asked and answered repeatedly.

PS. As to the complaint that I demand proof: Is what is meant, absolute proof? Certainly I demand no proof, much less absolute proof or certainty. Because all of that is neither possible nor necessary. I have only inquired as regards application of Scientific Method that ever may draw at all closer to truth. I do not assume that the results are in. I only asked as to application of the fundamentals of framing hypothesis to the specifics of your work. I do not inquire as to verification, because there is no such thing. There is only corroboration, and that's never enough. Gathering corroboration without also seeking refutation, is a guarantee of delusion. Science depends upon hypothetical experimental conditions of refutation.

 

[AaronAgassi]

I have received no response directly to the point, no answer actually to my question, such as might come as, for example: "The hypothesis is that..." "Hence the hypothesis predicts that if in the lab we do X under the specified controlled conditions, then Y will consistently result. Hence the conditions of refutation are if Z or Q where ever to be observed instead." Or "The test group is..." "The control groups are..." And so on.

This, your initial question, was answered in the first reply on this thread by Ark.
Alas, it should have ended there.

Notwithstanding that first reply, there remains ambiguity as to whether and hoe science is practiced or applied to your work. Is there perhaps a more accurate word for your ongoing activity than 'experiment'? Are you all then simply parting ways with science? Care to elaborate?

 

[AaronAgassi]

These interactions are illustrative of the difference in perspective that people have. To my eyes it now seems safe to assume that AaronAgassi came here only to have his preconceptions about channeling verified, as he hasn't shown anything but indifference towards the threads provided for him.

I have stated and explained said indifference of mine explicitly.

[quote/] To me this seems like an ordinary case of someone stroking their own ego throgh repeating their own mantras, in this case philosophical word salad.
It seems to be worthwhile for these people to engage in rigid exchange of cemented opinions, probably as an exercise to feel more secure in their perception of reality.

I suspect that people of the same ilk laughed at Copernicus and thought Galilei was a moron.

Sometimes one can get a more honest response from these posters through activation of their emotional centre, i.e. their hurt ego. But this one seems utterly self-absorbed and without ability to reach out mentally towards the concepts he was asking about.
[/quote]

It seems that what you are recommending as an avenue of inquiry, is Ad Hominem, a notorious logical falsity of relevance. Instead, do at all please consider that perhaps I simply do mean what I say. If you still want to explore my feelings, then perhaps we can take it from there.

 

[clerck de bonk]

This, your initial question, was answered in the first reply on this thread by Ark.
Alas, it should have ended there.

Notwithstanding that first reply, there remains ambiguity as to whether and hoe science is practiced or applied to your work.

Who are you referring to? Ark, me or the wall?
Btw, hoe? Is it the tool or how? Anyhow, use the spell check, this wasn't the only one...

Is there perhaps a more accurate word for your ongoing activity than 'experiment'? Are you all then simply parting ways with science? Care to elaborate?

??? I'll elaborate this much; I find Your logic lacking.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Perhaps I misunderstool why you find that intial respons by ark so adequate and conclusive. Kindly do spell it out.

 

[AaronAgassi]

ark: Not to digress, but you do so virulently accuse me of ignoring how science rules out free will and perhaps you mean, also, consciousness. In case I have not been clear: No! I do not ignore that canard, I explicitly deny it. Science does no such thing. Science is not Reductionist.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Doggedly speaking: Thank you, Patience. I had no clue that this is what anyone was saying. But it's not my model, it's Popper's, and Epistemologically fundamental to the Scientific Method. Can you present whatever other model you subscribe to?

I may be naive, but assuming this is an honest inquiry and not that you are asking a question for which you have already decided you know the answer, I will try to answer this honestly and briefly.

We don't know yet know what alteration or addition to modern science will allow us to solve such seemingly difficult problems as why, when it seems the average person wants to raise and feed their children, is this so hard to do? In physics, what is the relationship between electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces in physics? In math, what is the transition and/or relationship between the discrete and the continuous? In biology, is altruism an evolutionarily effective survival strategy?

We suspect the ponerization (the process where psychopathic individuals pathologize entire systems of people) of science has something to do with it, that many scientists would find ways to study many seemingly intractable problems if they were allowed to.

So... The basic question, "Can the modes of thought and inquiry normally separated between religious and scientific categories be melded to allow the most objective view of the world possible?"

The channeling inspires directions of research, whatever its source, and it has led researchers here into unexpected and fruitful directions such as diet. Though we do not know in any definite way what the source of these channelings are, we do find that the fact that inspired directions of research do yield fruit is indicative of... Of what? That maybe where there is smoke there is fire... We are following our noses assuming the possibility that chance is not the sole mover in the universe. And it could very well be that we are observing by chance certain events that paint a picture of a universe that has an ordering force as innate as entropy but that really consciousness did arise from the chance ordering of matter...

But we wish to be bold as well as cautious... Our researchers gather information and try to come to conclusions from it. And they won't be scared off from their conclusions for anything other than a very good reason.

We do not have a laboratory where we try to form an experiment that could falsify hypotheses such as "The C's are Ark and Laura in the future" or "The UFO phenomena is a manifestation of human subconscous activity." We gather information, some of it discarded by mainstream scientists, and try to come to a working hypothesis from it; an idea that seems to explain what we are observing. This idea, whatever it may be for that case, is falsifiable in the sense that if a seemingly solid bit of information surfaces that brings to doubt this working hypothesis then the hypothesis can be discarded.

Off the top of my head, I can not give an example as I am in a bit of a hurry, but such hypotheses are researched in many directions. Some people research psychology, others history, others physics, and so on.

As Ark mentioned specifically about his research, he is not satisfied with any current hypothesis about the paranormal. He is still doing his detective work looking for that direction that seems to have the right feel. This moment of following your curiousity and instincts is what a simple statement of the scientific method can not encompass.

I do not think we can answer your question in the way you seek. It is still too early in our journey, and later on, we may find it was not the right question in the first place. Not a bad question... But not necessarily the one that optimizes the information you receive in the response.