Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Guys... am I looking at this chart right? It's taken from the wiki on t c syndrome. Is this pic really saying that someone has to screw one of these things (er... thingpeople) to make another?

At 3/23/11 11:35 PM, JordanD wrote: I do know enough though that this should be looked into more, and not casually dismissed by a "oh that's ridiculous".

Wait I'm confused. Are you saying I should look into it more and not casually dismiss you or the other way around?

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. Why not go give it a look?

Can they astral project?

At 3/23/11 10:10 PM, Hybridization wrote: If you are mature enough

Thanks. Love you too.

JordanD, you seem to be ignoring me. Does the subject matter I'm presenting not fascinate you?

At 3/22/11 08:06 PM, JordanD wrote: Lol i have no idea if light changes its base wavelength, as it's visible in all dimensions of consciousness.

You've lost the context again: "How about the visible light we perceive in our current "dimension of consciousness"?"

To which you replied: I would assume 7.23 or whatever the number was.

And you're using that terminology "base wavelength" again, when you've already admitted you have no idea what the distinction might be between a wavelength and a base wavelength, if any.

Red has a different wavelength than blue, yet we see both, and neither have a 7.23 cm wavelength at the speed at which we generally see them.

As for music, everything we hear is still vibrating within this 7.23cm wavelength. At least through my understanding of it.

Are you aware that sound propagating at a 7.23cm wavelength is higher than even a soprano can sing?

And what do you mean by "within"? Wavelength is a discreet length, not a range.

At 3/21/11 11:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yeah, I sort of realize that now...I probably should have used another word like "pseudo-science" or "bullshit" huh?

Ah, but then you wouldn't be referring to what he's referring to as magic!

Well, Avie, I don't think he considers any of what he's put forth to be supernatural.

At 3/21/11 06:40 PM, JordanD wrote: oh just like working on it. He's a mechanic right? Or even if he wasn't, I'm not saying he'd do it magically.

You seem to have lost the context. Reminder:

{ to identify a goal and then work through details to achieve it } != { to identify a goal and expect it to happen }

You are, not at all cleverly, relying on the abstraction { to plan and then to act } to refer to either half of the above false equivalence when it suites you.

But more to the point...

By your own criteria, the vast amount of what you've shown us is parts. So you're not just looking at the big picture. And { the whole is greater than the sum of its parts } does not preclude that { the conclusion is derivative of its precepts }. And someone who's using the quote to excuse dissonance between whole and part, probably shouldn't then go on to claim it all fits together seamlessly.

Uhh.. This person cured cancer by willing it out of her body.

haha, Pwnt.

I guess it's not part of one's "Increased Self responsibility" to help others currently unable to help themselves.

You've yet to respond to my previous post, have yet to define new age ism such that what you believe does not fall into it, and have yet to show me that you understand what in your posts was actually a straw man argument.

And seeing as you figure the entire spectrum of visible light has a 7.23 cm wavelength, I'd like to point out the irony of your using radio as an analogy to demonstrate that we're tuned to 7.23. Also, how do we hear any tone besides om (or in musical terms: D in the 8th octave)?

At 3/19/11 07:11 PM, Ericho wrote: I mean, I am not going to be praying for or against him and will instead simply do nothing.

Ok, but how is that neutral? Why are you neither praying for nor against him again? Or is your decision to neither pray for nor against him completely unrelated to your feelings about him?

At 3/19/11 12:20 PM, JordanD wrote: Or maybe I'm just looking at the big picture, instead of seeing things in parts.

All you've been doing is essentially going, "here look at these parts." For instance...

It's the left-brain right-brain scenario. Most people see and understand things as parts, because we all function out of the left brain. However if you look at this stuff with the right brain, you see the whole.

... tada.

And it's like they say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Make up your mind as to whether anything you say has any relation to your 'whole' conclusion or not.

By this, i mean you're looking at the science and saying "it's credible" and looking at every ancient prophecy and religious notion about end-times and saying "It's retarded" and then bashing them together.

No actually, I'm saying that what you put forth as science, is not science. But great job dismissing me on the notion that I'm functioning off of broad prejudices in the midst of claiming that my problem here is my not seeing in broad strokes.

But if you were to look at everything objectively

There's that word again. You don't seem to know how to use it.

Sure, I may get confused and do your straw-man argument a few times, which is what you're getting pissed about.

Regurgitating an answer I just gave you by no means shows me any understanding on your part. And given you're track records, I'm inclined to assume you're attempting to placate me in the interest of 'moving the conversation forward.' So. Show me that you actually understand how what you did was a straw man.

Because i'm not getting tied up on tiny details.

You're introducing them as corroborative evidence - things like,

space-time [...] consciousness grid [...] 15,000 year old sphynx [...] Sumerian Tablets [...] Phillidalphea Experiment.

So yeah. You are dealing in lots of apparently unimportant tiny details.

I would assume 7.23 or whatever the number was.

For someone supposedly writing a book, you've really done very little research on the things you claim to know the truth about.

Oh. and please do define what you mean by new age ism.

At 3/18/11 10:18 PM, JordanD wrote: Just trying to move the conversation forward.

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

It's always the tiniest details with you isn't it?

<sarcasm> Yeah sure. Noting the misrepresentation of space time is totally the tiniest detail to the notion that, according to science, we will transcend the first three dimensions of space time (x,y,z) and enter the fourth (time). </sarcasm>

How about the visible light we perceive in our current "dimension of consciousness"? At what wavelength does that propagate?

Besides, i did say that you can find the official documents and showed you the documentary.

Describe to me what you did and why I have a problem with it. Before you do it again, note that I am referring to the same thing to which I was referring when I said, "you did it again." Good luck.

At 3/18/11 07:22 PM, JordanD wrote: Well [...]

You did it again. Do you know what you just did?

At 3/18/11 11:40 AM, Ericho wrote: While I detest this guy, I can't really make fun of him as he's dying because that would be stooping to his level as he mocked many people who recently died.

Yeah, cause trash talking is totally acceptable as long as it's true and not funny, and in no way satisfying the same urge that 'making fun' would. See, you could have made your point perfectly clear without reminding us how horrible Hitchens is.

Some people seem to be praying for or against him, so I will simply take a neutral side and not pray for him.

Please explain how that's a neutral side. The irony should be delicious.

I think it's a good way of respecting them, even though I don't think he deserves it.

Nice.

At 3/17/11 10:53 PM, JordanD wrote: Has nothing to do with faith. it's the difference between a conscious being in the 3rd dimension and one based in the 4th, that's all. I thought it would help make sense of how they view things. I guess not.

"Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step."

"My entire world flipped upside down when I decided i would take a leap of faith."

Then, you tell me a story whereby an individual who, by faith, listened to a being from a higher dimension, and turned out the better for it. The difference to which you're referring is merely the ability to see a bigger picture, but your parable by no means amounts solely to illustrating that difference - nor was this difference any particular mystery. You know this. Your parable adds nothing to the discussion that I did not already express an understanding of in my criticisms.

How about, instead of making broad strokes based on the notion that I just don't get it, you actually address the criticisms of the things you've said? You're developing a habit of leaving the things you say dead in the water, then substituting your cases for them with analogies and well, fallacies.

Moreover, you continue to ignore the fact that while you exploit science to lend credence to what you say, you refuse to entertain the notion that you're misusing, misrepresenting, and just plain ignoring science too. This is all the more insidious when you parade it all around as science.

It is does not jive with modern science to say that we only exist currently in the first three of the four dimensions of spacetime. If that's what you believe, then regardless of whether you believe what you're saying is true, you are in disagreement with modern science, so don't claim otherwise.

And since consciousness has everything to do with everything, then it has to do with faith.

Iunno, could be

You used both terms.

Tell me. Which dimension is visible light in?

I wouldn't say it's newage-ism, i mean, a LOT of this stuff is getting grouped in with newage-ism, but ultimately it just has to do with consciousness. At least to me.

As an analogy, I'm not Christian, but ultimately it just has to do with Jesus being the son of God.

Things have labels. Get used to it. What you believe so far falls under new age belief. It's a pretty vast topic, and by no means completely cohesive. Hell, half the things you say don't actually mesh with the other without broad excuses like, "well it's true to me," and, "it's beyond comprehension."

And since consciousness has everything to do with everything, i.e. that it is a non exclusive subject, then not only is it disingenuous to say "it just has to do with consciousness," but contradictory to claim new age is not included.

Mmm.. it's all really how you interpret it. It's true for me, doesn't mean it has to be true for you.

1. So you respond to my criticism that { you responded to my criticism with a non sequitur } with... another non sequitur. Are you at all interested in addressing my criticism?

2. You know it wasn't long ago you were touting your belief as objective.

It's true for me
At least to me

You're not talking to yourself, no referring only to yourself. Do you understand why I'm making this point?

At 3/16/11 02:38 PM, JordanD wrote: Yes, that's what i meant.

According to what you say below, it's not what you meant.

That's 2 completely different topics.. You perceive the jalapeno pepper in 3 dimensions, other senses like taste wouldn't factor into axis of dimension.

Oh. So then taste transcends the 'third dimension of consciousness'?

Your consciousness isn't existing in the 4th dimension. You're conscious OF the 4th dimension, you're aware it exists, but you're not there.

Then don't tell me science backs you up, because science does not support this notion.

And before you tell me that science has proven spacetime, allow me to demonstrate the far less than perfect relationship you're exploiting: Science has proven wood to exist. Therefore, science supports the notion that wood is indestructible.

Here's a scenario, between a being of 3rd dimension consciousness communicating to one based in the 4th. A man is rowing down a river, the river is very bendy and curvy so you cannot see far in front of you, as it's all covered by trees. The being conscious tells the man he should get out of the water, and carry the canoe through the woods. The man agrees, and does what the higher being tells him to do. Eventually he comes out of the woods and back to the river, where he gets back in the canoe. He turns back and see's that the path he was on would have led him down a large waterfall with rocks at the bottom. He eluded death because the higher conscious being could see the path that he was on.

Stop preaching and start communicating. This does not address what I was saying at all. It's just a small parable about why I should have faith.

I'm seriously not telling you i think it's hard for YOU to comprehend

My criticism has nothing to do with you singling me out. It has to do with the excuse by which any amount of incoherence is accounted for by labeling it 'beyond comprehension.' In one instance you say science and faith fit perfectly. In the other, you say essentially that faith can't actually be coherently expressed according to the constructs on which you base it.

You should hear the descriptions of even higher levels of consciousness. It's like, everything is formless, you are conscious of everywhere and everything. I can't comprehend how that would be, i don't think anyone can at this point in time.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about comprehending time as a three dimensional model, which we can do already.

Everything is vibrating though, modern science figured this out.

And that's about where the science stops.

Wavelength determines dimension. It's just like a radio set, when you turn the dial, you pick up a different wavelength.

Analogies are not case studies. Careful.

This dimension that we are in - by that i mean all the stars and atoms going infinitely in and out forever - have a base wavelength of about 7.23 centimeters.

Is there a difference between a base wavelength and a wavelength?

That's because they work together, flawlessly. I see that, which is what I'm trying to tell you guys. We now have the knowledge of knowing exactly how science and faith fit together, it's through consciousness.

Given the mess above, you've got a long way to go, and a lot of sources not affiliated with newage-ism, before you can start making claims like that.

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?

1. This is a non sequitur. It does not address the criticism to which you're replying except by trying to affirm 'truth' by talking around it.

2. It is not safe to say that.

At 3/15/11 11:54 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: What intrinsic geometry describes the flavor of a jalapeño pepper?

Whoops. Broken question. If it were a description, it very well wouldn't be intrinsic.

What intrinsic geometry is the flavor of a jalapeño pepper?

And as an addendum... consider that any representation of higher dimensions with lower (and subsequently fewer) dimensions are exactly that: representations (not presentations). So to say that the true form of time is spherical is actually nonsensical. It's a representative form. And we certainly already comprehend representative forms of time.

At 3/15/11 10:17 PM, JordanD wrote: Lol why do you think that? The mayan calendar IS the most precise calendar on the earth.

That's not what he said.

And consciousness actually has everything to do with everything.

As would everything. But if this is a valid response to such differentiation as I provided, then rather than...

"it talks about how currently were only Conscious"

... you should have said...

"it talks about everything"

But you didn't, because you understand that such differentiation is meaningful. And since you do, I can only assume you are aware that what you just did was side step the distinction I was making.

Right now, everyone on earth is conscious of only 3 dimensions. the XYZ axis. However, we observe physical things in 2 dimensions, as planes. If you were to move your consciousness into the 4th dimension of consciousness, you would observe time in a spherical manner. It's not something that's easy to comprehend because right now because our consciousness is based in only 3 dimensions.

In other words. This is pseudo-science derived from the concept of spacetime. Great.

Let's clear some things up.

By "dimension of consciousness" you mean "dimension(s) of which one is conscious." If you don't see the difference, we're in big trouble.

Everyone on earth, barring those unconscious, are conscious of (and can comprehend) space and time. Physical things are perceived in three dimensions, despite the means by which the brain receives imagery. Time is inferred, innately, from the change that manifests along its axis.

Even the translation of space time to our sense-perception is messy if all you're dealing with is abstraction of x y z and t. Where do hearing, taste, and smell fit into such gross abstractions of x y z and t? What intrinsic geometry describes the flavor of a jalapeño pepper?

But here's where things really go wrong. [ Despite already being able to comprehend and be conscious of spacetime] if I were to be able to "move my consciousness into the 4th dimension" [despite my consciousness already existing in the 4th dimension ] I would "observe" time as a three dimensional construct. Right now I'm alleged only conscious of three dimensions, but if I were conscious of four, I would... see everything in three dimensions.

Now please, do not cast your misuse of language here as my inability to grasp the great complexity of the subject. I bet you had more than an urge when reading this to remark, "see. I told you it was difficult to comprehend." Maybe, it's just difficult for you to communicate it - because it doesn't make sense.

When people who channel "spirits", they are actually just talking to beings of higher consciousness, the universe is full of them. Right now though, were kind of in a bubble because were not consciously aware of them. Also, when you astral project your conscious awareness goes up 1 level TO this level.

And from here on we completely lose touch with anything remotely having to do with spacetime, and shift to a completely different notion of dimensions and smush it together with another ounce of science to give it credibility. In this case, you pick up on the notion that everything is vibrating, and just run with it. Not you personally, your source material.

Here's the thing that's really disturbing about what you're doing. There is absolutely no indication in your discourse of when you leave science behind for those things that you 'just need to have faith' for - there's no indication that you're even aware of where those boundaries are. Hell, when I mocked this logical disconnect earlier, you thought I was mocking science.

And, bigger picture, if you're going to commit to spreading ideas that have the epistemological value of day dream, how would objectivity (if only feigned) amount to anything more than a dishonest means to tout its alleged legitimacy?

At 3/15/11 08:20 PM, JordanD wrote: I watched this video on youtube called Maya of Eternal Time.

Dude... this video couldn't even make it past a minute without being extremely dishonest. I mean that. Literally. I'm not being pedantic. It is dishonest within the first minute.

I mean. I am kind of curious what "dimensions of consciousness" are, but I'm strongly inclined to think it's a pseudo-scientific 'meditations' on relativity and/or quantum mechanics.

At 3/15/11 03:30 PM, JordanD wrote: Both of those would be cool, the latter of them seems more reasonable. I think to find you, i'd have to know you. Typically i've read that when teleporting the astral body, you have to have a connection with that person.

Believing that you don't need to have a connection with that person should remove it as an obstacle, should it not?

Besides, why is electronic correspondence exempt from transference - or is the notion that { we leave our imprint on the things we move } not part of your belief system?

However, at this point in time I'd say no, i can't. At least not yet. I'm still new to astral projection and am not at the state yet where i can just meditate and leave my body. I had a friend who could do that though, she told me she would fly to the sphynx every night and meditate on top of it while in astral. My experiences haven't been nearly as exciting or as often.

Well... wait. Would your friend be willing to entertain our experiment?

In time, maybe a few weeks or a month or 2 (I have no idea how long it really takes to learn, and im sure everyone is different for doing it), i would totally love to try it out. That WOULD be a really fun experiment :D

Well... I'll probably still be here attacking peoples' beliefs :P

Also, we are now like the only people talking in this thread :/ we should switch topics for a while, try and bring the thread back to life lol. What's the general consensus with 2012 in these forums? Is it safe to say that the Theists believe in Jesus coming back and Atheists believe in business as usual?

Well... not all theists are Christian, and "business as usual" kind of implies that nothing momentous will happen in 2012. I don't speak for all atheists, but I doubt the mainstay atheists here claim to be prophets, so.... will nothing big happen in 2012? A lot will probably happen. Momentous things, actually, like the way momentous things occurred the year before, and the year before. So, in a manner of speaking, yes, business as usual.

The reason I ask is that...

... if you could see into my room, I've left a card open on my printer (on my desk). If you could geographically locate me, then I wouldn't have to give out my address, as that'd be superfluous.

If you can't find me, I could leave something for you by a landmark somewhere within several miles of my home or place of work. You could google-maps it, and then astral project to it. Then you could tell me if you found it, and describe something more about it.

I think the former would be the most convincing, as it's far less likely you have friends who would be willing to break into my room.

JordanD, do your powers allow you to geographically locate me?

At 3/11/11 08:03 PM, JordanD wrote: I like how you're STILL on that.

I'm still on a lot of things. Just because I haven't waited for you to respond to everything else doesn't mean I'm forgoing it.

Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect.

In medical research, placebos are given as control treatments and depend on the use of measured deception. Common placebos are inert tablets, sham surgery, and other procedures based on false information. However, placebos can also have a surprisingly positive effect on a patient who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug

So now that you've read wikipedia you understand why your original statement was incorrect. Right?

Feel better? Placebos are when you're given a drug assuming it's going to help you, even though it does nothing. And YET, the patient still gets positive results - what what what, because the mind thought it was was going to have positive effects.

Bam, mind power.

Wham. Dishonesty.

At 3/10/11 01:40 PM, JordanD wrote: That's a placebo, when your mind heals you, because you feel healed, or assumed that something that wouldn't help - would.

Oh and by the way. That's not what a placebo is.

Put this in your book. It's about how closed minded skeptics are.

"There is no greater sign of infancy, than the portrayal of dissent as great ignorance."
- Aldo Boehm

At 3/11/11 12:38 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: "Not God."

Is my argument, or issue, or observation concerning the dilemma.

Maybe it's just not explicit enough for me. Your answers don't really identify which assumptions are being tossed to render the dilemma inapplicable.

At 3/10/11 09:18 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: The epicurean dilemma assumes three things: God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists.

If there isn't leeway to argue here, you're insane.

I'm not saying there's no leeway. I have actually argued that, if you suppose a god to which any of those three assumptions don't apply, then the dilemma isn't refuting that god. My point to you, similarly, is that your argument did not describe such a god.

At 3/10/11 01:40 PM, JordanD wrote: I didn't say sugar pills can cure cancer.

I know that. Therein lies my problem with your brand of persuasive rhetoric actually.

At 3/10/11 07:09 PM, JordanD wrote: That's true, but i know from personal experience that this power is very, very real.

"That"? What? My quotes? My contextualization of my quotes?

"But"? How were those quotes disputing your powers?

There have been literally hundreds of "random coincidences" now, that have brought me exactly what i wanted, or got me exactly where i needed to be at exactly the right time.

*bing* What is patternicity and confirmation bias?

I get what I want and get where I need to be remarkably often.

Let me put it this way, would you not agree that your thoughts create your actions? That all of your actions and every move you make START with your thoughts. Why is it so hard to assume that by changing your thoughts, you find ways to get where you want to go faster?

This paragraph epitomizes the slime coursing through your persuasive rhetoric. Such that, on the one hand, were I to dispute the law of attraction, I would apparently have to dispute that actions start with thoughts or the notion that one can employ thought to find more efficient courses of action. On the one hand, deliberation is conflated with creation is conflated with supernaturalism. But on the other hand, were I to suggest any kind of distinction between such things, I get back stuff like, "I didn't say sugar pills can cure cancer," or get written off as uninformed or maybe more to your perspective, unawakened.

Besides, i provided you with quite a bit of reading material above. Once you check out all of that stuff, then come back here and debate them. There's no reason to mock scientific evidence, especially since THAT is irrefutable.

1. I'm not mocking scientific evidence.

2. Scientific evidence derives its importance from being falsifiable, not irrefutable.

3. I'm not disputing wave particle duality, the placebo effect, nor the physiological potency of one's feelings.

4. Your article on Egypt is pretty dishonest. Though, I did come across a website claiming, by the message from a light being of which the author dreamt, that the original head was that of a lion. Since they believe this, it must be true. Maybe they're not believing hard enough.

5. The science of the universe is... science. Sacred geometry, like all math, is derivative and abstract. It does not prove nor suggest origins in and of itself. All it does is mimic some of the most common natural forms. If you want to talk about taking things free from bias, then you aught to liberate your perceptions of sacred geometry from the contexts of divine unity. Mind you, the human form is not a perfect fit for any of the sacred geometries, as is the case with just about any natural instance of such models.

6. As for your miracle man turned entrepreneur, I find it pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that I'd be refuting scientific evidence to be incredulous of him. Oh wait... now that I've pointed that out, you couldn't have done it.

I guess I was brainwashed by all those "professors" with their bias against the divine unity when I had to learn this stuff for arch history/ fundamentals.

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

At 3/10/11 02:47 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: If you read his book he claims that the mind can withstand even the highest of pains. Believe it or not, I'm not making any claims here, but his physical ability was beyond impressive to me.

Well I'm not arguing that the human mind is virtually impotent.