my ignorance

[ark]

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.

You have stated that scientific method is based on doubt. Well, then you should apply it to yourself, otherwise you will be insincere. When you apply it to yourself, you will see that you should doubt in your ability to understand the scientific method. You should doubt in you having free will. So, you should assume that you can be a machine.

I do not like people who are not sincere. Do you want to be sincere and consistent, or are you just babbbling? You can learn something here, but do you really want to?

 

[SeekinTruth]

OK, here's a very important hypothesis: AaronAgassi is so repetitious that there is scarcely any difference between he and a broken record.

If, for instance, he had gone to the Victor Zammit link, he would be reading a whole lot of details about the hypotheses, conditions of refutation, the methods of control, etc for these types of phenomena and be reading for quite some time. In fact, there's a condensation of over 150 years of scrupulous study and experimentation by some of the most remarkable and well-known scientists of their times.

A condition of refutation of the above hypothesis would have been AaronAgassi giving some clear examples of not being a broken record. That the hypothesis is being ever increasingly corroborated is evidenced throughout this thread by his posts.

 

[clerck de bonk]

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

Misunderstool... Is that something I should take offence to? Oh well, nevermind that.

Anyway, I find Ark's reply as to the point as could be regarding Your initial query.
If You don't understand his reply I'm sorry to say I cannot help You.
Others have skillfully tried to help You there though...

 

[HiThere]

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.

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.

I have no personal interest in your feelings as such. But your persisting inability to read about and evaluate the avenues of thinking that lead to the channeling and related activites on this forum makes it logical to assume that you only have a personal interest in exploring the avenues of thought that you are familiar with beforehand, which seems to be a curriculum in science method and/or scientific philosophy.

You do not seem willing to explore the thoughts expressed here and in the provided links, but repeatedly return to the same mechanistic line of thought. You seem to only want to engage in this discussion as long as it remains strictly inside the by you predefined acceptable parameters.

Maybe you started this discussion in order to exercise your argumentative abilities about what you percieve to be the only way to know something (what your curriculum encompasses)?

 

[AaronAgassi]

Patience: No, that's not what I asked. My question was strictly Methodological, generally as might be applied to no matter what specific inquiry. I ask because you seemingly reject Popper's by now standard model of the Scientific Method.

" 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.""

Those are indeed hypotheses. But an overly general hypothesis as, for example: "Rose pollen has something to do with marmosets" is not really testable. There would be many variables, too many non specific possible relationships between rose pollen and marmosets. Indeed in your case, if there is no proposed mechanism for telepathy with ones future self or collective subconscious ectoplasmic holography, then there really is nothing to test. Something more specific might allow the framing of an experiment with any kind of adequate controls. Of course, obtaining the required resources is another matter entirely. But no amount of resource will ever much help without refutability, first.

"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."

What about competition with existing viable hypotheses? What is the explanatory gap? It all rather seems something of a solution in search of a problem.

"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."

What, non specific falsifyability, just as ever might strike you? Seriously?

"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."

Yes, what are the current hypotheses about the paranormal? And where does Ark feel that they fail? But more than this, what actual need for any of it? Where do the most prosaic explanations fail? Science seeks to explain the unknown in terms of the known, whereas religious mysticism strives at the very reverse.

"This moment of following your curiousity and instincts is what a simple statement of the scientific method can not encompass."

On the contrary, such is the source of unfounded conjecture that is the beginning of hypothesis. But it is not more.

"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."

It is the filter of science.

 

[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.

You have stated that scientific method is based on doubt. Well, then you should apply it to yourself, otherwise you will be insincere. When you apply it to yourself, you will see that you should doubt in your ability to understand the scientific method. You should doubt in you having free will. So, you should assume that you can be a machine.

I do not like people who are not sincere. Do you want to be sincere and consistent, or are you just babbbling? You can learn something here, but do you really want to?

Nothing is certain. Therefore, traditional Skepticism demanded doubt of everything all the time. Whereas non justificationism only recommends openness to doubt. If you have any attack or critique upon my view of science and reconciliation of free will thereto, or perhaps you mean: with determinism, if there are specific reasonable doubts I may have neglected, then by all means, fire away!

 

[AaronAgassi]

OK, here's a very important hypothesis: AaronAgassi is so repetitious that there is scarcely any difference between he and a broken record.

If, for instance, he had gone to the Victor Zammit link, he would be reading a whole lot of details about the hypotheses, conditions of refutation, the methods of control, etc for these types of phenomena and be reading for quite some time. In fact, there's a condensation of over 150 years of scrupulous study and experimentation by some of the most remarkable and well-known scientists of their times.

A condition of refutation of the above hypothesis would have been AaronAgassi giving some clear examples of not being a broken record. That the hypothesis is being ever increasingly corroborated is evidenced throughout this thread by his posts.

SeekinTruth, I fully accept they hypothesis that I am capable of repeating myself.

Indeed, to be honest, I do not want to read anything that does not actually begin by explicitly stating it's central question, problems, hypothesis and conditions of refutation. Also experimental controls, as applicable. I wouldn't be interested in the details otherwise. As the saying goes, don't burry the headline!

 

[Al Today]

[...]
if there are specific reasonable doubts I may have neglected, then by all means, fire away!

Mkay... Sure dude... I have no doubts...

Hey Aaron, I did a little web research on you. You do love your ego, donchya? You do love wordsmithing donchya? You do like talking down to people, donchya? Methinks you should consider a career change and go into politics. You're a natural, born for the job. You talk big, you don't live by your words, you're full of -xxxx- and blow smoke rings outta your xxx. But of course, I might be wrong...


Mod's note : Edited to erase some words that are not appropriated on this forum.

 

[Jacques]

[...]
if there are specific reasonable doubts I may have neglected, then by all means, fire away!

Mkay... Sure dude... I have no doubts...

Hey Aaron, I did a little web research on you. You do love your ego, donchya? You do love wordsmithing donchya? You do like talking down to people, donchya? Methinks you should consider a career change and go into politics. You're a natural, born for the job. You talk big, you don't live by your words, you're full of -xxxx- and blow smoke rings outta your xxx. But of course, I might be wrong...


Mod's note : Edited to erase some words that are not appropriated on this forum.

Hi Al Today,

Please calm yourself and although you may have difficulty with the way of thinking of AaronAgassi, do remember to cool yourself before posting anything that does not comply with the rules of this forum.

 

[clerck de bonk]

[...]
if there are specific reasonable doubts I may have neglected, then by all means, fire away!

Mkay... Sure dude... I have no doubts...

Hey Aaron, I did a little web research on you. You do love your ego, donchya? You do love wordsmithing donchya? You do like talking down to people, donchya? Methinks you should consider a career change and go into politics. You're a natural, born for the job. You talk big, you don't live by your words, you're full of -xxxx- and blow smoke rings outta your xxx. But of course, I might be wrong...

Al... You had to spell it out didn't You? Just when I was starting to have some fun ;)

 

[Al Today]

[...]
do remember to cool yourself before posting anything that does not comply with the rules of this forum.

I do apologize for my foul "mouth". I know. Methinks sometimes righteous anger may dictate taking people like him out into the back yard and rubbing their face in the dirt. As written: If you going to play in the dirt, you're going to get dirty. Reminds me of another thread about calling a spade a spade.

 

[HiThere]

...Indeed, to be honest, I do not want to read anything that does not actually begin by explicitly stating it's central question, problems, hypothesis and conditions of refutation. Also experimental controls, as applicable. I wouldn't be interested in the details otherwise. As the saying goes, don't burry the headline!

But without reading the links then how to gather new information, which is what you seem to ask for? Be bold and stray outside of your accustomed thinking patterns for a spell; you might find it interesting.

 

[Al Today]

...Indeed, to be honest, I do not want to read anything that does not actually begin by explicitly stating it's central question, problems, hypothesis and conditions of refutation. Also experimental controls, as applicable. I wouldn't be interested in the details otherwise. As the saying goes, don't burry the headline!

As intelligent he is, as he advertises, all while stroking himself, smirking with a swollen brain, I cannot help but notice he has spelling issues as well as grammar issues. Throughout those diatribes, those issues stuck out.
Dude: It's bury not burry.
Oops...
Wait a minute...
In being the victim, he will say he does that on purpose... donchya know...

edit: On to phase two we go. Scratch, Scratch... So typical... So predictable...

 

[clerck de bonk]

SeekinTruth, I fully accept they hypothesis that I am capable of repeating myself.

Thats a fact, no hypothesis. You're not so good at facts are You?

Indeed, to be honest, I do not want to read anything that does not actually begin by explicitly stating it's central question, problems, hypothesis and conditions of refutation. Also experimental controls, as applicable. I wouldn't be interested in the details otherwise. As the saying goes, don't burry the headline!

Details really is Your thing isn't it? So much so that You can't see the (w)hole? And please use the Spell Check the next time. It's down, right.

You Furry You!

 

[Gonzo]

Aaron,

When you state that you were invited to come here and assess what was going on, I assume whoever sent you was not associated with this network, otherwise you might have been better briefed.

However, I don't feel safe in assuming the desired purpose or results of whoever sent you nor why you were chosen. Unfortunately, you have come her thinking that the Cassiopaea Experiment is a scientific experiment, which it is not, and, due to your preconception, keep looking for the single hypothesis behind this alleged experiment.

This is akin to a man bursting into a house, demanding where his treasure is and the homeowner explaining she has no idea what he is talking about. And yet the man persists in wanting to know where his treasure is. The man is assuming the treasure exists and has closed his mind so that he is not able to hear anything that does not fit his expectation.

This is mechanical behaviour. I am beginning to wonder if you are Aaron's computer in the future sending messages to the past to taint Aaron's reputation as a logical person (although I would have expected artificial intelligence to have advanced further).

If you genuinely want to serve your master on this errand, maybe it would be useful for us know who sent you and specifically what they asked you to accomplish, since we might be able to provide you with specifics to take back. I am concerned that you are interpreting, assuming and filtering the request. That is, unless someone sent you here to appear illogical and to feed yourself on the energies and attention of others.

However, if this is not possible for reasons of national security or some other compelling reason, then perhaps you could merely report back that the term experiment is used in the broader sense, that channeling using a board-type instrument provides inspiration for lines of inquiry which may result in the formation of hypotheses and testing.

Gonzo