For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Where did Uri Geller demonstrate this? Please don't say the spoons.Greylorn Ell wrote:... conscious entities capable of manipulating matter (like Uri Geller has demonstrated is easy when you know how) are required. ...
Elsewhere, GE:GE: The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I."
.My first book, written under my real name, was a metaphysical story that did rather well, especially in foreign language translations, and remains a popular internet cult classic. Two of its chapters have been filmed, republished, excerpted by a respected philosopher, and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness
The chapters were not misused, as explained in an earlier post.Miedaner used both chapters to present strong beliefs of the sort that would normally be associated with an atheistic position, and that is how Hofstadter employed them. However, he knew better. "...Anna Klane" was presenting a theory that, while certainly not a Christian perspective, was decidedly not atheistic. It used those chapters to show an alternative viewpoint, ultimately employing them to support its unique perspective about the relationship between soul and brain. Had Hofstadter been philosophically honest he would have mentioned as much within his discussion of those chapters.
Haven't been able to find a copy of this filmette; would really like to see it - perhaps on youtube ??My only complaint is that, as in "The Mind's I", Martha's story is interpreted incorrectly, the opposite of its intended context. And it is not a short story at all, but a chapter in a short book. Alas. I'm still delighted; the finished product recreated the tears I lost writing it.
the Book Club: 'Anna Klane and 'Mind's I' - viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12524 ]Blaggard,Blaggard wrote:Or you could just say that bacteria that exhibited this behaviour were more likely to adapt to hazardous conditions and hence the trait would be more likely to accumulate in bacteria over time. Which is somewhat less scary and fits with all available evidence. There's no reason to think any creator had to do anything because such a situation would of arisen by sheer asexual fitness in bacteria, heredity of such phenotypes is hardly then some mystical event that could of only happened by the hand of an engineer. The blind watchmaker makes his watches randomly by mutation some watches don't work some work far better than others and these the watchmaker keeps and these in turn are improved upon. There's no mystery to genetics. The formation of both endospores and exospores seems a natural process that already existed ie the replication of self with a mutation which inhibited certain enzyme formation, it seems pretty clear you could easily see how such a state of affairs could happen by little more than selection pressure in the environment and DNA mutation.However, a gene programmer who anticipated the hostile environment could program a bacterium to survive it. You might want to consider endospores as evidence of intelligent engineering. Yep, scary! But consistent with the available information.
Your ideas about intelligent design are not very well reasoned, you seem to run with the idea that not understanding things means God slides in or a designer, when there are as many viable scientific hypothesis and in fact theories (this area of research is hardly baron of study) somehow an intelligent designer is the only clear winner? Which is an example of selective reasoning, ie only picking the lines of reasoning that support your case and ignoring the vast swathes of research on bacteria that explain this mechanism in far more depth than you probably care for and don't seem to have to resort to magic to reason its existence.
Why do people insist on such biased and clearly unscientific methodology as if its some logical paradigm that has shifted the evolution of reason by some unfathomable degree, when really it's just evidence of cognitive dissonance a lack of study of the science itself and god of the gaps style argument.
There are dozens of theories about how life got started how it evolved, why it evolved out there, why pick one that requires some magic bearded guy on a sky cloud over all the other viable alternatives? What is the motivation to ignore all other rational explanations because you want to believe someone designed us? Clearly your hypothesis is just one of several hundred not to distinguish itself in any meaningful way so until it does then surely the current theory is fine. Why do we need an engineer at all?
Biogenesis of RNA has been demonstrated in labs, poly aromatic hydrocarbons have been found in asteroids, as have simple enzymes formed from chains of hydrocarbons. the flagellum of a cell has been explained in detail to the satisfaction of all science if not the ID community, and at the current time their still exist gaps in understanding, for example but evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. It took a billion years for simple bacteria to develop and archea which do not require oxygen to survive only hydrothermal energy, I'm pretty sure that makes the process complicated as it wends its way up to man kind, but not irreducibly so.
You are a researcher. So get back to work, do your thing.marjoramblues wrote:Thanks for answering the question re alleged misuse. I have replied - disagreeing with your position.Elsewhere, GE:
Oh, so it seems you are Terrel Miedaner, author of 'The Soul of Anna Klane' - copyright, the Church of Physical Theology.My first book, written under my real name, was a metaphysical story that did rather well, especially in foreign language translations, and remains a popular internet cult classic. Two of its chapters have been filmed, republished, excerpted by a respected philosopher, and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness
Are you, really ?
So - please, tell me - how were the chapters misused?
And how have they been used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when ?
However, I remain curious as to how the novel was used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when. Perhaps too long ago to remember...?
This entire comment demonstrates that you know nothing of science, nor of its history. Our conversations are done.Blaggard wrote:I find this especially specious given the revolutions in science that happened in last two centuries where very quickly existing paradigms were demolished in a day just by the publishing of a viable and testable hypothesis, such as the quantum revolution and the evolution of species which stood in the face of the more belief based ideas of creationism, and other types of speciation at the time. The existing paradigms are not waiting for everyone to die before suddenly ID becomes accepted, because it can't happen, science really does have nothing to do with God. If you are looking for a battle on the existence of a designer you seem to be attacking the wrong target, philosophy is the place best suited to existence questions. Science must remain mute on things for which there is no evidence. Dawkins when he is talking about the selfish gene is talking science, but when he's talking about The God Delusion that is philosophy, sure it can be based on some form of science, but at the end of the day they people who are most likely to provide a viable defence are philosophers like Dennett et al.Greylorn Ell wrote: Gee,
Thank you!
In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn notes that empirical evidence which does not fit into the current explanatory paradigm is always dismissed by those who have vested their time and maybe career in the current paradigm. It will not be accepted as valid evidence until someone devises a different theoretical paradigm into which it fits.
The new paradigm itself will not be accepted until the preponderance of those who have bought into it die off.
My theories provide a paradigm into which all paranormal phenomena fit. They also incorporate the recently discovered phenomenon known as "dark energy," which has been labeled "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." And I'm about to die off.
Greylorn
Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.Arising_uk wrote:Where did Uri Geller demonstrate this? Please don't say the spoons.Greylorn Ell wrote:... conscious entities capable of manipulating matter (like Uri Geller has demonstrated is easy when you know how) are required. ...
Marjoram,marjoramblues wrote:I am not interested in debate practices, nor looking to attack anyone.Gee wrote:
You also do not have much to say about consciousness, but seem interested in debate practices. In debate, a person looks for a weakness in their opponent's position and then attacks it, which makes for long detailed posts that take the thread off topic. Please note that after 1,000 years of this style of debate, we have learned little about consciousness, and have succeeded in reducing this concept to a war between science and religion, Monism v Dualism. This style of debate does not give us answers and reduces the discussion to anger, frustration, non-cooperation, and useless posturing. If you want to fight with someone, go find the neighborhood bully, and have a go at him.
Merely responding to GE's points/positions, following on from the concept of 'beon'.
There is no need to be so rude about interested people following different threads of thought; in my case wishing clarification about references to old novels, philosophy books - dealing with different aspects of consciousness.
Alas. You've learned otherwise. Sense of entitlement, sense that the establishment is keeping you down, the entire science community are nit wits apparently for not agreeing with your "ID" nonsense, hmm my crackpot alarm is tingling big time.Sure you'll be criticized, but if your ideas are interesting, the criticism of nitwits is high praise. And if you persist and find acceptance, you'll find that the acceptance of your opinions is the booby prize.
Yeah you are smarter than all the scientists on the planet, you do have quite a cavernous and misplaced sense of self worth, if you really think everyone who is working in the field are nit wits. This frankly says more about your psychology than it does the psychology of Scientists.I got it that you are as comfortable standing behind the opinions of educated authorities with their heads up their collective asses as the average Muslim is singing Muhammed's praises and kowtowing to their Mullahs. Do what you will, but have the integrity, please, to not lump me into any category of collective nitwits, especially the category that yours thinks it's smarter than.
Frankly is there any point given the sheer nonsense you have provided as evidence so far, including the specious maths, claims that Uri Geller confirms that psychic powers are possible.If you want to pursue this level of discussion, I'm happy to do so. However it would be a complete waste of my time to pursue it with you at your current level of ignorance. Read my three chapters on Darwinism, do the math I've proposed above, peruse both of Behe's books, explain why you think that Darwin's finches represent different species, study Paul Martin's essay on codons, and come back on a separate thread when you've done some thinking instead of parroting.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.Arising_uk wrote:Where did Uri Geller demonstrate this? Please don't say the spoons.Greylorn Ell wrote:... conscious entities capable of manipulating matter (like Uri Geller has demonstrated is easy when you know how) are required. ...
Even better, read some books about Uri Geller. Or maybe use the internet. Geez, are people getting that effing incompetent?
Or you could just read the wiki which is at least likely to be unbiased by Gellers lawyers or Gellers own claims.Geller has claimed his feats are the result of paranormal powers[14] given to him by extraterrestrials,[30] but critics such as James Randi have shown that Geller's tricks can be replicated with stage magic techniques.[16]
In the early 1970s, an article in The Jerusalem Post reported that a court had ordered Geller to refund a customer's ticket price and pay court costs after finding that he had committed fraud by claiming that his feats were telepathic.[12] In addition, a 1974 article also hints at Geller's abilities being trickery.[31] The article alleged that his manager Shipi Shtrang (whom he called his brother at the time)[clarification needed] and Shipi's sister Hannah Shtrang secretly helped in Geller's performances.[31] Eventually, Geller married Hannah and they had children.[32]
In 1975, two scientists (Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff from the Stanford Research Institute) said they were convinced that Geller's demonstrations were genuine.[33] Since that time, however, notable scientists, various magicians, and skeptics have suggested possible ways in which Geller could have tricked the scientists using misdirection techniques.[16][34] These critics, who include Richard Feynman, James Randi and Martin Gardner, have accused him of using his demonstrations fraudulently outside of the entertainment business.[35][36] Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman, who was an amateur magician, wrote in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985) that Geller was unable to bend a key for him and his son.[37] Some of his claims have been described by watchmakers as restarting stopped mechanical clocks by moving them around.[38]
Geller is well known for making predictions regarding sporting events. Skeptic James Randi and British tabloid newspaper The Sun have demonstrated the teams and players he chooses to win most often lose.[39] John Atkinson explored "predictions" Geller made over 30 years and concluded "Uri more often than not scuppered [i.e., destroyed] the chances of sportsmen and teams he was trying to help."[39] This was pointed out by one of Randi's readers, who called it "The Curse of Uri Geller."[40]
During the Euro 96 football game between Scotland and England at Wembley, Geller, who was hovering overhead in a helicopter, claimed that he managed to move the ball from the penalty spot when Scotland's Gary McAllister was about to take a penalty kick,[41] something that, if true, would be against the rules of Association football, as the ball would then have been "Out of Play". The player ended up missing the chance to equalise for Scotland.
In another notable instance, in 1992, Geller was asked to investigate the kidnapping of Hungarian model Helga Farkas; after he predicted she would be found alive and in good health, she was found to have been murdered by her kidnappers.[42][43] Geller was a friend of Bruce Bursford and helped him "train his mind" during some cycling speed record-breaking bids in the 1990s.[44]
In 2007, skeptics observed that Geller appeared to have dropped his claims that he does not perform magic tricks. Randi highlighted a quotation from the November 2007 issue of the magazine Magische Welt (Magic World) in which Geller said: "I'll no longer say that I have supernatural powers. I am an entertainer. I want to do a good show. My entire character has changed."[45]
In a later interview, Geller told Telepolis, "I said to this German magazine, so what I did say, that I changed my character, to the best of my recollection, and I no longer say that I do supernatural things. It doesn't mean that I don't have powers. It means that I don't say 'it's supernatural', I say 'I'm a mystifier!' That's what I said. And the sceptics turned it around and said, 'Uri Geller said he's a magician!' I never said that."[46] In that interview, Geller further explained that when he is asked how he does his stunts, he tells children to "Forget the paranormal. Forget spoon bending! Instead of that, focus on school! Become a positive thinker! Believe in yourself and create a target! Go to university! Never smoke! And never touch drugs! And think of success!"[46]
In February 2008, Geller stated in the TV show The Next Uri Geller (a German version of The Successor) that he did not have any supernatural powers, before winking to the camera.[47]
In 1978, Yasha Katz, who had been Geller's manager in Britain, said that all performances by Geller were simply stage tricks, and he explained how they were really done.
Not worried about a few harmless bites... Alas. You've learned otherwise. Yeah, on it.You do mean the spoons and Uri admitted a long-time back that this was a trick.Greylorn Ell wrote:Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.
Nope, as I followed Geller when he first appeared and it was obvious that he was a good magician but a charlatan with respect to what he was punting.Even better, read some books about Uri Geller. Or maybe use the internet. Geez, are people getting that effing incompetent?
Perhaps we might all do Gee the courtesy of getting back on track. I'm happy to address ancillary subjects such as Uri Geller, who bent a spoon upward within six inches of my face, twice, in front of skeptical witnesses at close range, but such subjects belong on separate threads.Blaggard wrote:I came here to learn about philosophy and certainly didn't expect to find that the scientific sophistication of most of these philosophers is out of date. Not all there do seem to be a lot of people making a well motivated attempt to keep up with the times, science moves fast though, don't bend down to tie your shoe laces the wagon may be out of reach sooner than you expected.
But please let me know if anything I have said about where science is now is out of line, by pm is fine.
I am surprised by the ludditism or post post modern bent of philosophy now that seems to have become a trend to turn on science, when they should be allys, but I guess I shouldn't be the view that science is some sort of ivory tower, the willingness of philosophers to attack things that they haven't even studied in depth. It all seems a bit sad to me. So if you want to wave your pitchforks and torches at science that is fine, science thrives on criticism, hell it is its life blood, but please make sure the science you are talking about is not 20 years out of date or 10 years for that matter, if you have been out of education 10 years chances are at least 50% of what you learnt is now obsolete, 20 and you can probably discount most of what you learnt especially in medicine and biology.
All I am saying is you need to keep up with relevant science, not where you thought science was 20 years ago, it's like attacking your relations because in the past 20 years ago they said I aint evolved from no damn ape, without taking account of what they are saying now assuming of course they are not spouting the same absurdities. It's sophistry and I don't think questioning faulty reasoning in any form is a crime on a philosophy forum.
If you don't like where science is now, or you don't like people who point you to relevant modern scientific information, that's fine just put me on ignore and go about your merry business, but don't slag me off for pointing out you need a little more than 20 year old information to make a relevant contribution to science. It's kinda sad. And I am not going to indulge people who have not done their research and should not be expected to, frankly.
If questioning faulty science and faulty reason based on it is a bad thing so be it...
I'm delighted to know about your extensive library of old books by philosophers who failed to solve the consciousness problem. Good for you! Do you also drive an old used car? Atta-way to save money! Do you treat your body as frugally as you do your mind? If so, according to TV street people, lots of fine, nutritious food with a few bites left can be had from dumpsters behind 4 and 5-star restaurants.Arising_uk wrote:You do mean the spoons and Uri admitted a long-time back that this was a trick.Greylorn Ell wrote:Do your own research or read my difficult little book, or ask Uri. You might even be neighbours.Nope, as I followed Geller when he first appeared and it was obvious that he was a good magician but a charlatan with respect to what he was punting.Even better, read some books about Uri Geller. Or maybe use the internet. Geez, are people getting that effing incompetent?
Your little book is way too expensive for my tastes as I can get Kant, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Leibniz, et al for free now-a-days. Why don't you try POD or make it an e-book and drop the price if you want your message to get out?