Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/6/11 05:53 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You are aware, however, that I am not convinced this happened.

You need to be more specific.

It's not something I have made a secret of. I have said, more than two dozen times that my BS detector is tingling.

Well... so what?

However, IF (and I usually capitalize if too) it is true...then the claim is undeniable.

How is this not a truism? And if it is not a truism, how is it correct?

What claim of mine is this challenging? How?

What claim of yours is this backing? How?

What onsequence is this to the dispute? If it did not follow that the claim is undeniable, what would this mean to your greater argument?

But I have also made allowances that error could've happened, and that tests could've been misinterpreted.

Have you concluded that there has been no substantial error? If so, what weight does skepticism have against a charge that you believe some particular thing?

the fact that I kept looking, and couldn't find anything claiming she was lying would have to lead them to conclude that I wasn't trying to prove the story right.

That's a far cry from representation your search was given when you primarily exhibited it. So...

Cutting out the things in the (...) makes me seem far more onboard than the actual comment does. And I think you know that. And I think the (...) was meant to achieve that.

... given that I didn't actually think your statement about what you found on google was evidence of skepticism, me cutting it out wouldn't exactly be me hiding something I thought was evidence of skepticism.

It's cut out, along with another sentence, because its sentiment was already expressed in a later sentence ("no one is contradicting it") that explicitly contributed to what I was highlighting: not that you weren't skeptical; but that, if we're both talking oranges, you're making claim 3.

It adds even more when I point out that it happened before anyone called bullshit on me. And that it was the very first time I actually looked at and commented on his link. "Faith helps" is hardly equivalent to "OK, I looked at this and tried to do reasearch, and I just can't prove it wrong."

To which post are you referring? A time stamp would be useful.

Even if I had signed on board for this (and I didn't) like you are saying, I went from 3-2-1. It is therefore dishonest to claim that I went from claiming "Hey man, faith is cool and stuff" to suddenly claiming it could cure cancer. You've got a massive error in your logic. And I pointed it out. And now, instead of simply saying that you got it wrong, you're digging deeper.

If I make claim x, then exhibit y as evidence for x, I am implicitly operating on the construct {if y, then x}.

***

If you maintain that the woman did will cancer out of her body, what is it that you're skeptical of?

Are you distinguishing between skepticism and disbelief? Do you maintain that the former necessitates the latter?

Are you still claiming that you were asked how it could be possible that positive attitude could help? Do you care to clarify what specifically the nature of such help would be - or if there was such a nature in mind when some variation of the question was allegedly asked?

What aspects of the story do you not believe? What aspects of the story are you skeptical of? Do you see a difference between these two questions?

Actually, I may have presumed too much...

If you maintain that the woman did will cancer out of her body, what is it that you're skeptical of?

Are you distinguishing between skepticism and disbelief? Do you maintain that the former necessitates the latter?

At 4/5/11 05:26 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, yes, something is a bit off there. Because 3 was never claimed by me.

You are aware however, that it was claimed by JordanD, and the story was exhibited as proof of it. Not only that, but the post to which you replied as if it were in err, was a criticism of claim 3. And in your criticism, you went so far as to say that, "believing you'll beat cancer is as important as anything else in beating cancer," and then accusing the-universe of diminishing the role of belief, when he was apparently in much the same boat as you now allege to be: skeptical that the woman healed herself by will alone.

Then, shortly before starting to play up your measured skepticism, you said, "If a woman refused treatment, and got better, for lack of a better term, she DID will the cancer out of her body. [...] This happened, no one is contradicting it. Therefore, this case is proof you are wrong. Until someone has a better explaination, this is solid."

Or are you saying you never said you personally could will cancer out of your body?

And I have repeatedly said I am skeptical of this story.

Yes. It really adds a good bit of murk to the conversation.

However, if the story is true, it is proof that faith can cure you.

If by true you already mean to imply that it as been shown to be true, then your statement is a truism, and I don't really see what point it's making.

If on the otherhand, you distinguish between truth and something proven to be true, then proof does not inherently follow truth, and your argument is incorrect.

And, as you've done several times already, you fail to verbally acknowledge exactly what aspect of the story would have to be true. This is actually very important to the dispute at hand, and the distinction that you seem to be glossing over repeatedly to deny that you're still giving us oranges instead of apples.

I see no way around that.

Well, that's because you may have bracketed the issue in such a way that there would be no way around the conditions being correlated. Ofcourse, by bracketing it in such a way, you have severed it from the dispute at hand, and ended up not really making much of a point at all.

What you have done however, is managed to frame a hypothetical whereby you get to say the story is proof that faith can cure, and then follow it with a sentiment of incredible certainty. Nicely done.

Finally, when asked how it could be possible that positive attitude could help

No one ever asked that. Has all this mess really been because you think someone did?

So what is a bit off is taking a claim I never made, reversing the arguments to claim I ramped up from 1-3, instead of claiming 2 then arguing 1 to back up my case.

The order of presentation was not to make a claim that you ramped anything up. It was to organize the implication of your argument to highlight the problem. The problem doesn't go away simply by shuffling the order in which the points were made. In actuality, claim 3 came first, before you showed up.

Make up a moronic counter story to pretend that all of their valid points are wrong.

Counter story? It's an analogy.

We have an extraordinary claim: faith healing / invisible cats.

We have an event: being healed / being mauled.

We have corroboration: experts conclude that healing has taken place / that a mauling has occurred.

We have your rather bizarre take on peer review: testing the healing / mauling would be both negligent and inapplicable to the specific case at hand (the latter being the implication of your 'it only takes one' argument).

And finally we have the facsimile of your, "Until someone has a better explaination, this is solid."

So there you have it, the sentence by sentence breakdown.

Ugh. Your mother loves you. We get it.

... asshole.

Well... my honest guess is that you're just pulling a muscle.

Once my dad sneezed some type of cottage cheese substance, then ran around the house in hysterics thinking his brain was melting out of his head, rambling on about what he needed to collect before he could go to the hospital. He'd seen a special on discovery about some bacteria that turns your brain to mush a few days prior, so he kept talking about that too.

Turned out he'd suffered some kind of hallucination brought on by low blood sugar or something.

Sneezes.

At 4/5/11 01:58 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Helpful, but no. It actually hurt on top of and inside my shoulders and armpits.

Hmmm... exploding lymph nodes...

... I'm a doctor.

eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonsillolit hs

Yeah... and fuck taxonomy. Trying to fit me into some neat little box with its names are stuff. I'm not a reptile!? SO UNFAIR!

At 4/4/11 05:06 AM, WolvenBear wrote: This isn't rocket science. The alcoholic who hates his life is usually in worse health than the guy who loves his life and wants to extend it.

So...

1. Someone on a self destructive bent could probably benefit from a change of attitude.

... abstracts to...

2. Attitude (faith) helps.

... gets reappropriated to...

3. Cancer will leave my body because I believe it will and/or want it to.

Something is a bit off here.

***

Everyone should beware of invisible cats. I got mauled by one yesterday. Experts have looked at my scratch and they all agree it is from a cat. Since this single occurance cannot be peer reviewed - i.e. any duplication or attempt would be both extremely dangerous (therefore negligent on account of the scientists) and not actually a test of this one occurance - so as I was saying since this cannot be peer reviewed, and no one can deny it happened, you must agree that invisible cats are dangerous.

Well... not sure about a word specifically tied to coping, but "confirmation bias" kinda fits your description.

Patternicity (the provincial term for apophenia) and 'cognitive dissonance' might be some other keywords that might get you further along on google. Maybe pair any of the three with "coping."

At 4/3/11 05:17 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 4/3/11 05:07 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: It's not the drug... it's whose pockets you're probably filling.

God forbid you help put a kid through school who home grows his own dank.

<sarcasm> Right. Cause by "probably" I meant "definitely no matter what". And since, according to my own words, I'm so against the drug (as oppose to who might be getting rich off it), I automatically assume anyone who sells it is evil and everyone who buys it is helping evil. </sarcasm>

It's not the drug... it's whose pockets you're probably filling.

I shutter to think of all those men castrated and lobotomized by evil scientists to test Viagra before it hit the market.

At 4/1/11 12:34 AM, Ravariel wrote: You would be wrong. Copyright and patent law are separate. Pharmacological items fall under patent law. That's why we have generic versions of... most drugs. If it was under the (frankly idiotic, but completely irrelevant) copyright system no generics would exist. They do, ergo you are wrong. QED.

Ravariel. Obviously Big Pharma doesn't copyright their drugs. They copyright their logos and names and such. So copyright totally applies to Big Pharma.

... making JordanD right!

Right JD?

At 3/31/11 04:09 PM, JordanD wrote: Scientists DO want to treat and cure cancer and save the world, however hundreds of super-rich companies have patents on tons of different procedures that if we were to share them and actually perform these experiments, the cure for cancer would be found QUITE easily.

Ok. What legal recourse does Big Pharma have in the event that a group of scientists use the law of attraction to implant positive mindsets into those with cancer?

people like you call us crazy.

Cause anyone who's wrong about anything is either crazy or grossly ignorant, of course!

If you really want to experiment, you only have to give it a try.

"We can comprehend how it works sure, but is it not safe to say that you don't truly know it until you experience it?"

"It is not safe to say that."

Seeing as you find all this stuff fascinating, you definitely want to discuss this. That's of course why you left this dispute dead in the water when it came up several days ago.

At 3/30/11 01:58 AM, Orange wrote: I can't really get into action movies with women doing the killing or whatever, it seems stupid. Kill bill was the only exception it was fun

Well hey now what about Alien?

At 3/30/11 01:30 AM, roderickii wrote: I'm interested in what you consider a NON-childish storyline. And it needs to be a theatrical movie, no pullin anime out your ass...

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a pretty good example of a non-childish 'storyline' taking place in a mental institution.

Don't get 'badass' or 'x-treme' confused with 'non-childish.'

Though really... it's more to do with execution than storyline, whether or not a movie is childish or not. And well... there are a lot of childish movies that are a lot of fun.

I probably won't be seeing sucker punch on purpose or any time soon.

I've always considered the "I'm not an authority" a fancy way of trying not to say "I'm less responsible if I don't take action." You're still making a choice and in so doing killing one person or nine.

Given the dilemma, and making the assumption that each of the individuals are of equal value to whatever society they'll be reintroduced to, my idealism would say, "kill the tenth." I don't think I'd personally have the nerve to do it myself, nor dole out the task to another.

At 3/30/11 12:10 AM, JT1 wrote:

At 3/16/11 07:30 AM, suprememessage wrote: Also heres a question for anyone too ask.
You need lumber.
Do you more desire the cuttiong of the wood or the lumber it produces.
And in this case does anything really matter about the details? Because by the end you still
have your desired outcome

It does matter, if I have to do something that is wrong to get the wood.

Ahem.

Keywords to google: Certified Wood; Forest Stewardship Council; Sustainable Forestry Initiative; American Tree Farm System; Tree Plantations (or farms)

At 3/16/11 07:30 AM, suprememessage wrote: Also heres a question for anyone too ask.
You need lumber.
Do you more desire the cuttiong of the wood or the lumber it produces.
And in this case does anything really matter about the details? Because by the end you still
have your desired outcome

Uh well... depending on how you cut the wood you greatly vary the efficiency with which you produce the lumber and the quality of the lumber itself.

At 3/28/11 05:16 PM, JordanD wrote: I found a lot of your questions were basically just mocking me, and I've acknowledged lots of them already with "I don't know" and also in some cases, answers.

The point is to clarify, not to mock. You thrive on ambiguity. I want you to be explicit.

Additionally, if you don't know the answers to some of those questions, it's important that I know that, so that we can discuss them further and you may figure something out.

I think I've been pretty civil, actually.

So clarify. Answer the questions. And as you do, please note what about each is mocking, and remind me what your original answer was.

I realize for the connection of sacred geometry with human form and our connection with higher realms is something that does not make sense easily without the proper knowledge.

Uh no. Actually the connection of sacred geometry to much more than the human form makes plenty of sense. Whether or not sacred geometry connects us in a "higher realm" is presumption by any objective standard.

And there is a LOT to cover. Like how its outside of the electromagnetic spectrum for example, or rather..the spectrum is contained within something much greater.

Except the story about background radiation references a roughly 7.3 cm wavelength in the microwave band of the electromagnetic spectrum. So, if you're going to say the wavelengths you're talking about are not in the electromagnetic spectrum, how is the 7.3 cm wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum found by Bell relevant?

I thank you though, because you've given me this realization of the HOW it must be taught ;)

Somehow I doubt you're ever going to be particularly clear or honest about where science leaves off and your faith picks up.

And yet, the proof is all around you if you know what you're looking for. People who are emotionally negative are worse off than people who are emotionally positive. I know the argument was brought up before "No, sometimes people who are more negative are better", but it all boils down to how you FEEL. If you feel good about life, and go into every day understanding that you'll have great days, you'll continually do so.

You seem to have forgotten, so I'll remind you: I'm not disputing the notion that positive thinking has physiological and pragmatic benefits.

What you feel, and what you manifest are always a match. No exception.

That's because you deduce from this conclusion that any manifestation that does not match what you feel must not have been manifested by you. There's actually several names for this fallacy.

Proverbs 12:1

At 3/26/11 11:36 PM, JordanD wrote: Lets put it this way, everyone is subconsciously connected. He thought of me when he saw the 1000$ thing, but it was HIS choice to act upon that thought.

You're leaving out a pretty important part of your story where you implanted an urge/thought in your friend's mind.

Is it your responsibility to exploit the weak of mind for your personal gain?

How does any of this explain why you can't cure someone else's cancer? It would seem to suggest that you can.

Why did you say I was casually dismissing your 7.23cm wavelength when I wasn't?

Have you googled the electromagnetic spectrum yet? Do you really need help finding links?

Do you understand the difference between your interpretation of "placebo effect" and the description you copied from wikipedia?

Of the three channelers you know of in winnipeg, do you recommend any for our experiment?

Do you still consider the following adequate grounds to withhold discussion of wavelengths? { Well because i'm not a scientists, i don't have access to Molecular emission scanners and stuff like that. }

Do you still maintain that the following is mocking science? { Hey guys. Did you know people can fly? You just have to spread your arms and run really fast. Here's a video of a person flying. Even science has shown that people can move through air and objects can generate lift. We all have this ability. || Hey guys. Did you know that telekinesis is real? You just have to will it. Here's a website of a guy who's making a career of being telekinetic. Even science has shown that people can lift things up. We can all lift things up. }

Do you still maintain that the following is true? Do you understand what the point of following is? { "Here's a quote about how you shouldn't believe anything: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle || Here's a quote about how you need money to have friends:"Wealth maketh many friends. [Proverbs 19:4]" - Bible || Here's a quote about how married couples shouldn't have sex: "If there is such a thing as a good marriage, it is because it resembles friendship rather than love." - Michel Eyquem de Montaigne" }

Do you still maintain that science is irrefutable?

Have you figured out why you refer to wavelengths as base wavelengths yet?

Do you still maintain that, according to modern science's concept of space time, that human beings are only in the third dimension?

potentials happening

How wonderfully nonsensical. Maybe you mean, there are millions of potential realities... not happening... cause they're... potential.

Now you defend your position with the double slit test. Right?

every single day, yet only 1 reality takes place. Why is it this SPECIFIC reality happening? The answer is because of us.

You've already established that. You've yet to make a cogent case for it.

You guys still seem to be having trouble with what exactly a placebo and the placebo effect are.

At 3/26/11 04:39 PM, JordanD wrote: Never!

Why should a detail so apparently tiny and insignificant be so important to cling to?

I'm assuming Winnipeg is your area. Of the three, is there one you recommend or do you merely know of them?

My Motion graphics teacher's wife, my friend christine, and theres this metaphysical place in osborne village called "Be Still: A holistic alternative". I haven't been there, but they do lots of different energy work.

Ok. Read what I asked a little more carefully.

I already explained that. Read what i wrote above.

So you're not responsible for what your friend thought because he allowed you to put thoughts in his head? And it's apparently ok for you to take advantage of the weak minded?

So... how does this stop you from giving someone cancer again?

At 3/26/11 12:11 PM, JordanD wrote: Last night i tried to learn more about it but there wasn't too much on it

Excuse me what? You're having trouble finding information on the electromagnetic spectrum?

so i mean we can discuss it, but i'm out of answers for you for now at least.

It's pretty simple actually. Just admit what you put forth as science is actually well... bollocks.

That's true.

So then don't tell me, "Well because i'm not a scientists [...]"

I did, but you didn't so that's my bad.

So then why'd you say it?

For chanelling? [...] they exist dude.

"If you google it, i'm sure you'd find at least 1 or 2 people who do professional channeling in your area, if not more. I know of at least 3 in Winnipeg."

I'm assuming Winnipeg is your area. Of the three, is there one you recommend or do you merely know of them?

I'm not being doubtful of whether they exist.

I'm not responsible for what he thought though!

"I think that through my thinking 1000$ could have had some kind of subconscious effect in him thinking of me when he saw it. [...] he told me he just got this urge to send it to me [...]"

At 3/25/11 06:58 PM, JordanD wrote: Well because i'm not a scientists, i don't have access to Molecular emission scanners and stuff like that. So it's hard for me to be like "Oh yeah let me run this test..." you know? It's cool stuff to discuss though.

So discussion of the wavelength dilemma is on hold until you get access to a molecular emission scanner?

You're also a novice of everything you've discussed so far (occasionally by your own admission), and that hasn't stopped you from sticking to it nor espousing it in relative detail. So obviously your level of expertise doesn't have shit to do with it. Try again.

And again, You say "not just you," which would include me. So, are you saying that I casually dismissed your claims about wavelengths?

Your level of interest in their ability to astral project has me wondering if you even remember the experiment we were going to try.

Of course i remember. And you're the one asking if channellers can project, so it's up to you to go find out yourself (about them doing it).

You said you knew of at least three in Winnipeg. Do you know any more than that they exist?

I think that through my thinking 1000$ could have had some kind of subconscious effect in him thinking of me when he saw it.

So why are you responsible for what other's think, but not for what others may be ailed by?

At 3/25/11 12:55 AM, zag wrote: that will take me far enough to conclude that what I'm experiencing is true (at the moment it happens)... but is it really? we as humans have only our own sense of perception with which to judge the world around us. we see a door and decide to turn the knob. I cannot absolutely conclude that this door is real though. nothing can ever really be proved or unproved...

The absolute cannot be proven nor refuted. The essential function of any effective truth is that it can be proven or refuted.

the first person might find the idea of a wooden door preposterous (and of course, vice versa)
who's to really say what the door is made out of (and who, if either party, is insane)

Well, is it a semantic issue or a functional one? Do these two individuals merely describe the same object by different names, or are distinct qualities being attributed? Because as soon as you begin attributing qualities to a thing, you begin laying claims that reference consequence. And consequence, effectively, can be proven. Both parties obviously distinguish strawberry from wood, so inherently maintain a set of attributes that varies between the two materials. So there's a allegedly meaningful criteria. And the method follows from that.

The catch in all this is that absolute truth is effectively impotent. Basically, criteria that is solely absolute, is meaningless to us.

I do hope that I've properly conveyed my thoughts. sometimes, I tend to go off on tangents... and for that, I apologize.

I think it's a worthwhile tangent.

At 3/24/11 12:56 PM, zag wrote: I've tried concentrating on the fact that I truly know nothing and that makes having any kind of conversation hard (or even a life for that matter)
but in the back of my mind, I have to tell myself that knowledge is more or less a lie (I'm sure that comment is going to draw attention... and I'll explain when someone asks)

You may have already considered this, but have you tried sorted 'truths' according to the following dichotomy:

1. effective - whereby there is a demonstrable empirical value for explicit relationships between things, or subjective experiences that do not violate the precedent set by those more empirically defined phenomena.

2. absolute - whereby the experiential or demonstrable effect of a phenomena is a manifestation of a truer form that cannot be defined via experience or empiricism.

If I open a door, I can say, "I am effectively opening this door, but absolutely I cannot say."

At 3/24/11 09:39 PM, JordanD wrote: Not just you, but everyone. We need to look into this stuff more. Not just the wavelengths thing, but our understanding all of this stuff.

Nice side step. Want to try again? This time without deferring responsibility or making passive noncommittal goals or abstracting the subject away from anything that could actually constitute scrutiny?

If it's pushing your agenda, we get your abridged dissertation. If it's not, we get any number of excuses or side steps.

You say "not just you," which would include me. So, are you saying that I casually dismissed your claims about wavelengths?

Highly possible. It depends on the person. Why don't you ask them?

Your level of interest in their ability to astral project has me wondering if you even remember the experiment we were going to try.

On another note...

"We create our own realities, I am not responsible and cannot cure anyone elses cancer but my own"
[...]
"2 days later, i got a PM on newgrounds from a friend i hadn't talked to in 3 or 4 months."

Are you responsible for anyone else's involvement in you getting $1000?