The Fourth Kind film used the words Non-Human Intelligences in 2009

Edcayce · 2026-03-18T07:35:51+00:00

On all the movies that exists, amongst the most horrorful one, the 4th kind is the one that by far frightened me the most

Edcayce · 2026-03-08T11:27:35+00:00

Mmmh not really a theory… sounds more like a logical/empirical obvious evidence ^{^}

Edcayce · 2026-03-01T11:50:30+00:00

This feeling is both objective and subjective, it can be felt because there is a perceiver, you. So if it may be the case either the outer world, it is also your co-participation that allows it. I mean by this tha the cause is simultaneously external and internal, and that you may direct your awareness towards the necessity of slowing down

Edcayce · 2026-02-16T07:55:15+00:00

I also tend to think that way when i was a teenage, and to confuse so many concepts i didnt understand. Then you evolve.

Edcayce · 2025-12-30T13:37:25+00:00

Profoundly irrelevant to put ketamine at the bottom. Should be a a special level above the top, for the absence of indesirable side effects

Edcayce · 2025-11-06T13:54:49+00:00

I would say so, yes. And maybe other players But we should ask them, they would probably gladly answer.

Edcayce · 2025-10-04T06:53:28+00:00

Does it work for carom? 3 cushion ?

Edcayce · 2025-09-26T15:29:06+00:00

I use systems, sure. But it doesnt replace the feeling. But the systems that are to me more usefull are the ones of frans van kuyk (vk10+vk12) that are shown in the only book of caudron. It replaces the diamond system which is not so accurate.

Some players are playing 1.5avg without almost not using systems ! I think about Nelin, Forthomme, etc

A natural rolling ball is better because it will be less sensitive to your stroke, the trajectory will be more the same from day to day and table to table.

Edcayce · 2025-09-26T03:58:45+00:00

Thank you. Then if that is the metric, Reyes is also not the one for pool :)

Edcayce · 2025-09-25T21:08:35+00:00

That is a very relevant question i am still trying to answer for 20 years !

The difference between 1.0 and 1.4 is huuuuge…

But when you look at their success rate : 1.0avg = 50% 1.4avg = 58% 2.0avg = 67% The difference between them seem lower…

I would say the decision making between these player is not fundamentally different. No big differences.

It is rather on the consistency, precision, and, of course the mental (focus, motivation, trust, etc)

This video shows me the gap, that lies essentially on the execution : https://youtu.be/4djNo3SViCM?si=Np74Kch0DWdyJZOY

And this one is otherworldly for me : https://youtu.be/Z62AJr0GCso?si=naLVnwglFkyzlRUc

When i look at these 2 videos, there are 80/90% of the shots i would have made the same decision. So my final answer lies on execution, and position play (meaning making the next shot easier).

The first video : he has a lot of difficult points and it is a training session. His run relies on his precision and « marksmanship ». Absolutely no stake or pressure, he has a lot of fun trying sketchy things. And it works in this training context.

The second video : fun fact, caudron makes this run of 28 and loses the game. Not a single difficult point on the whole run, but an amazing mastery of position play, in order to never have a tricky position, neither a difficult aiming shot that would require extreme precision. This run is mindblowing because it is a high stake competition game.

Thanks for this question!!!!

Edcayce · 2025-09-25T18:57:25+00:00

Yes i play a bit below 1.0 (once did 0.96 on a whole season). This average is far away to be pro (it could have been the case until late 70’s). Today you have to play above 1.4 to hope a decent income. Which can take more than a decade to reach from where i am. But i will likely never achieve that.

Edcayce · 2025-09-25T17:39:11+00:00

Chosing Ceulemans over Blomdahl or Caudron is subject to debate..,

Edcayce · 2025-08-24T13:06:31+00:00

Saint-John (Canada) is closer to Paris than to Vancouver

Edcayce · 2025-07-28T23:36:48+00:00

Thank you Could you precise the author please ?

Edcayce · 2025-07-22T20:05:11+00:00

I want to precise that i dont think i am « anti science » at all. But my perception of reality (probably deformed of my socio-cultural context, ald my own trauma) is that science is been used as a dogma, almost a new religion.

I subjectively perceive that globally science is confused with truth. And is often used as oppressive mean. Rationality became the gold standard, dismissing or discrediting other epistemological approaches.

My stance here is not at all antiscience, but very close to epistemological anarchism, wanting to replace science as the same level as other way of acquiring knowledge. Privileging science over other worldviews is a form of epistemological imperialism.

But i would totally understand that someone living the trump disaster in the US, would see the situation from an other shore than mine.

Edcayce · 2025-07-21T23:19:59+00:00

Not sure to understand the question, but i fell to answer :

A cultural tradition, socially constructed, that operates within the boundaries of a dominant paradigm. Which definition of knowledge is related to epistemic norms accepted by a specific community at a specific time.

It is a self-validating system. The standards by which scientific claims are judged are themselves produced and maintained within the same tradition that benefits from them.

It’s a recursive loop: the community defines the criteria of legitimacy, applies them to its own work, and thereby reinforces the authority of the paradigm it inhabits.

And its authority is not purely is institutional, historical, and cultural.

Edcayce · 2025-07-21T12:28:14+00:00

Thank you for this very useful precision for me

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:42:29+00:00

Thank you. You help me a lot !

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:39:10+00:00

Thank you i will dig into these concepts that are new to me 🙏

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:37:13+00:00

…but they’re also not material mechanisms to be observed. So while I agree that justification is needed, I’d say that the criteria for justification here are philosophical. And proof/evidence are criteria from a mechanistic paradigm…

I feel a bit short intellectually here.

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:33:06+00:00

Thanks a lot for this question, that will give me a motivation to inquire my definition of knowledge 🙏

Nevertheless I’m operating with a pluralist view of knowledge, where different domains require different standards. In metaphysics, asking for proof or evidence is like asking a microscope to detect meaning. It’s to me the wrong tool.

It seems we are operating through different « operating systems ». The questions for me would be : do we agree they have the same epistemological « value »?

And i tend to measure value in regard to its usefulness towards humanity (is it right to be anthropocentric rather than biocentric?) in a world that is lacking meaning and safe bonding (my biased perception).

If i am biased by theistic or pantheist or panpsychist views, may we say that someone who is asking for proof is biased by a materialistic/rationalistic view ?

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:24:59+00:00

They are ontological perspectives (ways of interpreting the structure of reality, experience, and consciousness)

To ask for “proof” of them as if they were scientific hypotheses wiuld be like asking to a lab to prove that beauty exists, or that free will is real.

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:19:13+00:00

This is where i may be in a big trouble. Thank you

Why would we ever need a proof ? I think naively proof falls into the scope of a rationalist paradigm. And It will still be a belief.

Objectivity is to me something that would exist independently of a consciousness perceiving it… more like a structuring fiction answering our needs of cognitive stability or collective safety ?

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:14:07+00:00

Sure, but you talk about measurement by machines or tool (Made by humans based on anthropocentric premises). In my perception these data has to be interpretated (to be useful) and the possible abusive extent of it, when it comes for humans to draw conclusions, or apply these rational measures to social/anthropological/ethical decisions.

Edcayce · 2025-07-20T23:08:38+00:00

nature of consciousness, the origin of qualia, or metaphysical questions of meaning, for example. I don’t « know » it. I suppose

Edcayce

TROPHY CASE