171 thoughts on “Telepathic Boy?

  1. Neil Rickert: When we talk of an ideal circle, we are really talking of shared imagination rather than shared experience.

    Right.

    Or maybe it’s another word, not exactly “imagination”, but close to that — and not close to what normal people mean by “experience”.

    And “shared” imagination/mental event is a pretty doubtful concept in any case – which could be why fifthmonarchyman is eager to call it “shared experience”. He wants – illegitimately – to imply that imagining ideal circles (alongside someone else) is the same sort of shared action as playing a game of catch or eating a meal (alongside someone else). The latter two are legitimate shared experiences.

    But what could it possibly mean to claim that we both “share” having a mental image of the ideal game of catch or the perfect meal?

  2. Are you excited, non materialists?

    My precognition says, “fake”

    Not a materialist, but I’m not excited about it.

    As I pointed out here:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/james-randis-million-dollar-challenge-intelligent-designers-elusiveness/

    Why publicize this stuff. If someone can do it, they should utilize the gift to read peoples minds and annihilate people in poker games and retire billionaires since they can get all the inside information they need to trade securities.

    No need for things like the James Randi challenge. If this were are phenomenon we could leverage at will, there would not be any need for publicity, in fact, one might want to be quiet about having such secret weapons in ones arsenal.

  3. stcordova: If someone can do it, they should utilize the gift to read peoples minds and annihilate people in poker games and retire billionaires since they can get all the inside information they need to trade securities.

    Exactly! Let’s wait and see if anything develops. Parlour trick or Earth-shattering discovery?

  4. Neil Rickert: When we talk of an ideal circle, we are really talking of shared imagination rather than shared experience.

    Is imagining an object an experience? I would think so. What would preclude it from being such?

    peace

  5. hotshoe_: “shared” imagination/mental event is a pretty doubtful concept in any case

    So you would say that objectivity is an illusion? If not why not?

    peace

  6. Elizabeth: I’m genuinely curious because I really have very little idea as to what the word “materialism” is supposed to mean.

    Oh please. I explicitly created a thread on materialism so that this “excuse” could be seen for what it is.

  7. Patrick: For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real…

    Reminds me of Neil Rickert, who doesn’t know what a ‘real code’ is.

  8. Mung,

    Religions do not welcome disruptive changes to their models of the world

    NEWS: Neither does “science.”

    I provided evidence that at least some scientists do.

  9. petrushka: Mung’s posts on the topic of code have been almost entirely qoute mines. None of the people he has quoted would support his position that code and translation together are a prerequisite to evolution.

    Apparently, any quote of anyone constitutes a quote mine. And quote-mining is bad. And accusations of quote-mining are equivalent to accusations of dishonesty.

    In support of his allegation of quote-mining, petrushka offers but a bare assertion. No evidence. Just assertion.

    Apparently that’s what it means to be a “skeptic” at the skeptical zone.

    petrushka

    I don’t give IDists credit for being able to communicate well enough to be dishonest or disingenuous.

    Well gee then, I guess that absolves you of any responsibility for your allegation that I have quote-mined my sources.

  10. Neil Rickert: May I request that Mung stop falsely ascribing motives to people.

    I’m pretty sure this site has a Complaints department. Or maybe I’m thinking of the Whine Cellar. Request away, Mr. “I don’t know what a real code is” Mathematician.

  11. Allan Miller: I don’t think the translation system a code in the pre-genetic code sense. But also, I don’t think the translation system itself a code in the pre-genetic code sense.

    Could you kindly decode this for me? I can’t make sense of it.

    I don’t think the translation system is a code either, if that’s what you are saying.

  12. Elizabeth: ETA: However, I agree that if Richard wants to discuss the implications of telepathy for “non-materialists” he needs to define what he means. I thought he meant “people who self-identify as non-materialists”. Or people who think they aren’t “materialists”. Am I right, Richard?

    Calling Richardthughes!

Leave a Reply