Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mobius

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
I am going to weigh in here a bit.

So far as my reading goes, several people here feel victimized by The Divine Society's leadership and practices. I'm going to be frank: There won't be much further toleration for attempts to lambaste these people for sharing their experiences. There won't be any more 'rebuttals', challenges of their character, or other such nonsense. If you think they've misunderstood something or otherwise are in error, you're welcome take it up with them courteously in private. I repeat, public attempts to discredit them, in any manner, will not be tolerated.

Victim blaming, including for dissenting from a group, is an abhorrent practice that I will not suffer to have here.

2
Voting Forum / Re: Vote: New Rule: Advertisement of External Groups
« on: October 15, 2015, 10:29:19 AM »
I am opposed to this measure, personally.

I do not believe it should be the role of the Council to explicitly be the judges of 'good' thought and organizations. Our aim should rather to be to provide the information and resources to outfit readers with the capability to make such evaluations themselves.

3
Well, I don't see anything productive coming out of here. Thread locked.

The Yellow Magician, your complaints are lodged and under review, but I highly recommend that you lay off the brave rebel against the Man routine if you genuinely want to be taken seriously. Furthermore, we do not tolerate threats or calls for violence using "your innerness" any more than we would any other hypothetical weapon. Do not repeat this.

4
It fascinates me, at times, how people can come to such fantastical conclusions about the staff here. No sensible person should have any interest in aspiring to attack random strangers on the Internet, metaphysically or otherwise, and probably the gravest insult here is the notion that we might ever be so small and petty.

I've been on this forum for about a decade now, and have contributed as a staff member for most of that period. In that time, I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen this cycle. It seems almost invariably every few months we'll have someone come along who is rude and so very full of themselves, which places them in conflict with other members, which places them in conflict against us. How many times have I heard the stories of our boundless totalitarianism and villainy! Our ceaseless crackdowns on thoughtcrime, and an unending hunger to have our constantly egos fellated!

It gets a bit wearisome, after a while.

We don't ask for much. The essence of the rules for this site boil down to "don't be a dick". Get along with others, be polite and courteous, provide only and respond well to constructive criticism, and things will go well. This is true both on Veritas, and life in general. For some reason, some individuals find this request excessively burdensome.

Every time, it makes me throw up my hands. I've yet to find a magic bullet for this problem, despite years of contemplation. The simple fact though, is, that the issue is not mine.

Get along with everyone here, and there won't be any problems. Make an ass of yourself, and action will be necessary. Simple as that.

Protip: Threatening to beat people up probably counts as ass behavior.

5
Psionics / Re: Transhumanism and Psionics
« on: April 18, 2013, 10:01:14 AM »
Psi does not appear to have a biological basis, so I'm skeptical that it could be directly augmented via technology. Greater understanding of brain science and cognition will enable us to improve capacity for focus, however, so psi may be easier to learn in the future.

Mind uploading is a bridge so far into the future that it is difficult to speculate about, if it is even realistic at all; for now it is just a fun scifi trope. What interactions it might have with the soul are equally ambiguous.

6
Main Hall / Re: The rules thread
« on: October 05, 2012, 01:24:18 PM »
Our concern isn't about vulgarity, actually. Vulgarity has its place.

The issue is one of mutual respect. That's our #1 rule, and I think we can all agree that it is something worth fostering! We want people to do their level best to play nice and be courteous to one another. Sometimes, that can be hard! That Guy can really get under your skin, and you want to tell him off. We understand that that happens, and while we might ask you to try to tone it down and cool off.

Sometimes, though, it seems that there are people who can't quite cool off. They, for whatever reason, can't or won't show the level of respect to others that we're asking for. When that happens, our warnings have to get more serious, and eventually things like bans have to happen. If someone just can't seem to get along with most of the people here, its ultimately better for everyone, that person included, to give them a break for a time. Hopefully, they'll chill out. That's the theory, anyway. It does not always work out, and then the bans need to get longer and longer. Its unfortunate, but we've also had some pretty remarkable turnarounds.

7
Main Hall / Re: The rules thread
« on: October 05, 2012, 12:29:49 PM »
Some message in the profile of banned person might not be bad but can we really consider Searcher's actions as so hardly breaking rules that he had to be banned?
After all this is an occult community (or at least there are tries to present it this way), shouldn't occultists be able to detach themselves from any sort of personal attacks (or generally most of the personality during discussion)? I usually take it as a sort of indicator to back off and relax a bit when I get offended by some post and sometimes I like to serve this kind of revelation to other people as well (Yup, I am moody person).

I think many people can deal with personal attacks rather well. The staff, in particular, is often subject to them, and are quite used to it. The thing is... even if one is not personally offended by an insult aimed at them, tolerating such behavior is generally not good for the health of a community in the long run. There is rarely any good served by just letting people be snide and caustic, and Searcher in particular has been asked repeatedly to try and be more respectful. He has not done so, so he's been given some time off, in the hopes that he'll reflect on his conduct and be able to contribute more positively when he returns.

I am currently brainstorming some ways the staff might be able to improve our transparency and process, based on ideas that I have seen work well in other communities. Stay tuned.

8
The good of the community is something that the Veritas staff always does have at heart. The karma system was originally implemented with this in mind; observing that similar systems have been productive for fostering and encouraging healthier communities elsewhere, we opted to bring that here as an experiment. So far, we've seen many individuals taking on more productive attitudes and demeanors in pursuit of better score. We feel it has been pretty successful at what we'd hoped it would do. Most of the memberbase that we've spoken to (and polled, in this instance), have found it useful as well, for knowing how the rest of the community evaluates a particular poster that one might not have seen before; it tells a fast story about this new poster. Nothing is ever perfect, and if there's any particular adjustments or suggestions anyone has to tune the system, we will gladly evaluate them. The poll suggests that there is no urgent need for change.

If you are unhappy with your karmic score, Searcher, what you might do is consider what you might do differently or change that might change people's perception of you for the better. For starters, you might want to tone down the level of condescension and rudeness in your arguments.

In fact, I would advise that you do so in general. We want things to be respectful and civil, here. The constant tirade of insults, from "Jr. Jedi" to what have you, are crossing the line. Such continued belittling and disrespectful conduct, to anyone, will be regarded as an actionable rules violation. This is an official warning.

9
Main Hall / Re: Innocence of Muslims, film
« on: September 22, 2012, 08:25:54 PM »
*watches everybody post arguments that are too long for him to read and fry his eyes out when he tries*

I have reduced your karma from 4 to 1 because of your three posts in this thread that have not contributed one bit.  Would be a shame if your karma went negative again.

Let's not be making karmic threats, please.

10
Main Hall / Re: Happy Birthday Mobius!
« on: January 08, 2011, 07:40:27 AM »
Aww. :)

Thanks guys, seriously. :)

11
Psionics / Re: Video Evidence is Pointless.
« on: July 13, 2010, 07:40:08 PM »
As long as it takes. :)

After a certain amount of time it becomes necessary to examine what's been done and to revise. The metaphysical community is in great need of revision.

Absolutely. I believe knowledge about psi that has been gained via parapsychological research, combined with our own experiments, is the sort of direction things are ultimately going to need to take to progress.

Mobius, I have no intention of getting into an argument with you based on your fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the people making the claim. I am asking for the proof. The magic board has a "proof" thread that is going on 40 pages with nothing.

Protip: Giving up is not usually a good way to convince anyone you're right. Especially not the observers. :)

So far as my "fallacy" is concerned: I'm willing to discuss the current situation of psi (with respect to lack of will toward evidence) and the culture around it, with anyone who asks. Indeed, why has no scion come forward to champion the cause to the public? Or perhaps they have, and it failed to make the splash you insist it would. Ultimately, I only have educated guesses and anecdotes to explain this, so make of it what you will.

However, I do make the assertion that psi itself exists much more concretely, because there is an immense body of research and literature on that topic. The case for psi has already been made, and we've shown it to you in our linked literature. If you perceive there to be a problem, the burden is now on you to illustrate it. So far, about all of you've done is make leaps of faith and a few fallacies, as well as some vague mentions of some problems certain studies had. It's going to take much more than that my friend. :)

The video evidence thread on this board is constantly derailed by people coming up with excuses for why they won't can't even give a gesture of goodwill. They hide behind excuse after excuse.

I am a man who withholds judgments. Unfortunately it's hard to express this withholding of judgment with the English language. I am not really trying to make a claim. I am merely asking for evidence.

I invite you to peruse the "proof" thread as well as the "best video evidence" thread to see how that's turned out.

You're within your right to be frustrated by the excuse-mongering and lack of demonstration you get from circles like these, I certainly am too. Being yet another soul in the long line of those insisting people should accommodate you, however, is just going to draw ire.

Our fruit will manifest when it is ripe. :)

12
Psionics / Re: Video Evidence is Pointless.
« on: July 13, 2010, 07:05:51 PM »
Of course it can. But it's still a developing field, carrying a lot of baggage. Due time.

By your own statement it's been millennia..... how much time do you want?

As long as it takes. :)

Quote
You are making a claim that the entire field of parapsychology is defunct and not able to produce correct experiments. That is quite the boastful claim. One that, I dare say, should require some at least somewhat extraordinary evidence. :)

I am making no such claim. I am merely asking for evidence for other peoples' claims.

The parapsychology field claims they have experiments to show evidence... but have been unable to produce any correct experiments.

People like you in the metaphysics community insist there is proper evidence, as well as at least one person somewhere who can do something.... but have yet to produce them.

Are you actually familiar with the logical definition of the term 'claim'?

...but have been unable to produce any correct experiments.

Because that's a claim.

It has a truth value. Is that statement true or false?

You're saying its true. Please verify your claim.

Quote
You say "some parapsychology experiments are flawed", and then leap to saying "all of them are therefore flawed" and "the field has generated no results".

No, I am not. I say "some parapsychology experiments are flawed."

You say "but not all of them."

And I ask: "show me ones that aren't flawed."

What is this, then, I wonder?:

...but have been unable to produce any correct experiments.

It would certainly seem to imply your stance is as I said.

Quote
In dozens of parapsychology journals, and it is an amazingly haughty claim to dismiss all of them categorically.

Yes, well kids who think they can go super saiyan can just as well publish their own journals about their feats. The important thing about science is peer review. And no peer reviewed experiment can even make it past the preliminary stages (if there is one, please show me).

Did you try checking the journals? :)

What do you think 'peer review' means?

13
Psionics / Re: Video Evidence is Pointless.
« on: July 13, 2010, 06:45:09 PM »
Quote
Most of the evidence of psychic phenomena is statistical, chiefly (though not exclusively) from random populations. The ability seems to exist -- in trace quantities -- in all human beings, but not in any meaningful or practical form. There are some rare prodigies with strong hit rates, but most of them seem not to have scored good PR guys. :)

That's not different than anything else. Dean Radin made a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9aNl0J8-lo in which he compared this psychic stuff to baseball. He said that a baseball player doesn't even have to hit all the time to be considered a good player. Yet they do it enough to be recognized, and paid lots of money.

Parapsychology can't produce the same? Hm.

Of course it can. But it's still a developing field, carrying a lot of baggage. Due time.

Quote
First of all, yes, several experiments were badly done. That shouldn't be terribly surprising: bad science is everywhere, in every field! That does not disqualify the results of those fields as a whole, but that's a leap you keep insisting on. Can you explain to me how that is?

Because unlike in other fields, parapsychology does not seem to be able to produce any CORRECT experiments.

Yes, there are botched experiments in, say, pharmaceuticals. That's why there are drug recalls for bad side effects that should have been caught. But there are also CORRECT studies being done which are producing medicines which WORK and which help people (whether you believe in modern medicine or not!)

We've seen all the botched parapsychology research- where is the un-botched research? All anyone seems to be able to produce is flawed experiments and conspiracy theories (Dean Radin talks about the scientific climate towards the subject as well)

Okay then. Let's try this again.

You are making a claim that the entire field of parapsychology is defunct and not able to produce correct experiments. That is quite the boastful claim. One that, I dare say, should require some at least somewhat extraordinary evidence. :)

You say "some parapsychology experiments are flawed", and then leap to saying "all of them are therefore flawed" and "the field has generated no results". What is your evidence of this? Where is your proof? Have you gone through each of them in turn, dissected them, found some fatal flaw in each and every one that renders them null and void?

"Where are these CORRECT experiments"? The "un-botched research"? In dozens of parapsychology journals, and it is an amazingly haughty claim to dismiss all of them categorically. Further, the Radin meta-analysis analyzes hundreds of these studies, including throwing out or adjusting for those that are known to have issues. Despite what you seem to think, parapsychologists are not bumbling idiots. They know how to do science and statistics too.

Why has Parapsychology not helped people? Because there isn't a theory of it yet, and without a theory seeking to apply it is difficult at best. Ultimately, all those studies, taken as a whole, have done is proven that the psi effect exists. Beyond that... is where communities like ours come in.

14
Psionics / Re: Video Evidence is Pointless.
« on: July 13, 2010, 05:57:19 PM »
Quote
I can speak for the extent of psionic capabilities, and I can tell you that I have never heard of anyone with both the A) ability and B) motivations you described paired. I'm sure one will develop in due time.

That's more unbelievable than the claims that are being made by the psionic community. You know that, right?

Perhaps. :)

Quote
As I said above, no one I know with with prerequisite skills has ever tried. Most of those that profess they can correctly remote view things in fact, cannot.

Really? What about all the people that provided all that so called evidence you talk about?

You telling me that once their careers ended they didn't stop to think that maybe if they get on the news they could get some public recognition, and millions of dollars in endorsement deals? Not even take the Randi Challenge to move out of their parents' basement?

Most of the evidence of psychic phenomena is statistical, chiefly (though not exclusively) from random populations. The ability seems to exist -- in trace quantities -- in all human beings, but not in any meaningful or practical form. There are some rare prodigies with strong hit rates, but most of them seem not to have scored good PR guys. :)

The scientific community has levied my point several times already.

Several experiments were lacking control groups, double blind procedures among other things, as well as leaving holes that could be exploited by things such as the Clever Hans effect.

The fact is, the parapsychology field has yet to present any experiment that satisfies even the most basic scientific method. Those in the community like to feel like there is some conspiracy, but the reason their experiments never get accepted is because they can't do it right.

No matter how brilliant of a screenplay you write, if you don't put it in the proper screenplay format it WILL get trashed, no questions asked.

If you can't even design a proper experiment, expect the same.

First of all, yes, several experiments were badly done. That shouldn't be terribly surprising: bad science is everywhere, in every field! That does not disqualify the results of those fields as a whole, but that's a leap you keep insisting on. Can you explain to me how that is?

15
Psionics / Re: Video Evidence is Pointless.
« on: July 13, 2010, 05:34:18 PM »
Proper methodology is also essential, and developing proper methodology requires a scientific approach.

Part of proper method is showing what you can do, and if the method doesn't get you anywhere, you change the method.

If I'm scrawny, and I learn the proper method to work out, do it, I WILL get results. Even if I am skeptical about it. Period. I can look and see others who get results. Why is the metaphysical community so hesitant to do the same, though it spouts some of the ideologies you have talked about?

It may not be a function of time, but it's been YEARS, decades, even.

Try millennia.

I can speak for the extent of psionic capabilities, and I can tell you that I have never heard of anyone with both the A) ability and B) motivations you described paired. I'm sure one will develop in due time.

Quote
You mean... like all of the money that has been invested in studying psychic phenomena, has confirmed their existence, and has made no one rich?

Yeah, kinda funny..... all these people going around saying they can correctly remote view things, but they live in their parents' basements (I mean that figuratively and literally).........

News gets flashed across the web when a new species of microscopic ocean life is found in Antarctica. Seriously. Who the fuck cares about that? Yet for all of people who supposedly have developed this skill- NO ONE can do it repeatedly enough to manage to get into an accepted scientific journal? NO ONE is able to get on a freakin' daytime talk show or the late night local news segment showing their skills?

As I said above, no one I know with with prerequisite skills has ever tried. Most of those that profess they can correctly remote view things in fact, cannot.

Quote
I suggest picking up a copy of "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin to educate yourself on the history and current status of the field.

Yeah, I've seen stuff by Dean Radin. He's one of the reasons why I got the courage to finally show my friends in the sciences the research about metaphysics.

They tore him apart in minutes.

Correction: You were convinced that he was torn apart in minutes. That is a separate thing entirely from him actually being wrong.

If you actually have legitimate and specific criticisms you'd care to levy, rather than vague nonsense like claiming the entire field is incapable of legitimate science, then I'd be happy to address those.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26