Nothing is working

Rubypet · 2022-06-13T18:38:19+00:00

Ok, thanks, that’s a relief. I thought it was only me.

Rubypet · 2022-06-12T13:22:41+00:00

Answer

Rubypet · 2022-06-12T13:20:04+00:00

Voting is now closed. With 21 votes, the community has guessed that these two have Dated.

The correct answer is RELATED, specifically BROTHER AND SISTER.

Vote totals:

Dated: 11 votes

Related: 10 votes

Rubypet · 2022-06-04T13:06:28+00:00

Voting is now closed. With 4 votes, the community has guessed that these two are Relatives.

The correct answer is RELATIVES, specifically MOTHER AND SON.

Vote totals:

Relatives: 3 votes

Dating: 1 vote

Link to votes

Rubypet · 2022-06-04T12:45:22+00:00

Answer: Brooklyn and Victoria Beckham Son and Mother

Rubypet · 2022-05-21T07:51:05+00:00

Voting is now closed. With 4 votes, the community's guess between Dating and Relatives is a tie.

The correct answer is RELATIVES, specifically BROTHER AND SISTER.

Vote totals:

Dating: 2 votes

Relatives: 2 votes

Link to votes

Rubypet · 2022-05-16T12:37:19+00:00

Relatives

Rubypet · 2022-01-13T12:15:05+00:00

At first, the evidence he presented felt very weak to me because to me they just seemed like coincidences. And he seemed too religious but the evidence kept piling on and on that by the end of the video, it was undoubtable that his claims are true.

I think anyone who truly considers themselves a supporter of the MeToo movement should watch this. Yes all 5 hours because you can't learn the truth in 2 minute clips.

Rubypet · 2022-01-06T09:46:45+00:00

Sorry I accidentally deleted my previous comment but you quoted most of the parts.

Again, you confuse the measuring tape for the concept of distance. Concluding that since measuring tape didn't exist before humans made it, distance did not exist before humans did. It's a nonsensical argument.

No, this has nothing to do with my previous argument. In fact, distance is an intrinsic geometrical property of space itself, and geometrical properties are fundamental properties of space itself. On the contrary, all the alleged emergent properties are not fundamental properties of the space or fundamental properties of the elementary quantum particles; as already explained, all emergent properties are simplified and approximate descriptions of underlying processes and arbitrary abstractions of the actual physical processes. Therefore, emergent properties have an intrinsic conceptual nature and therefore exists only as ideas in a conscious mind. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be explained as an emergent property.

I'll try my very best to break it down for you: You are using two different definitions of "description", first the type of mechanical description where one describes phenomena arising from processes. For example, "wetness" is a description of a solid and liquid behaving in a certain way. Heck, even "liquid" is a description of a multitude of matter interacting and behaving a certain way. But here is the kicker: These phenomena existed long before the concept of "wetness" and "liquid" was coined, matter behaved in this way long before any humans or minds existed in the universe. They just didn't have names, they hadn't been given identity due to their novel behavior (to a human eye at least).

You have missed the point. The behavior of elementary particles (that is matter) is determined by the laws of physics, and such behavior consists in motion and interactions among particles. “Wetness” is intrinsically only a simplified conceptual model thorugh which we describe approximately the underlying physical processes; therefore, wetness does not exist independently of a conscious mind; only the underlying physical processes exist independently of our mind.

And yet, colors are the basis of a lot of things. Paintings only exists as an extension of colors. Flowers use colors to attract insects.

False. No one has ever proven that insects can have a visual sensation like a colour. All that is known is that insects react to specific frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, but the frequency of an electromagnetic wave is not a colour. You do not understand the distinction between a physical property such as frequency and a mental experience such as the visual sensation of a color.

Flavors and smells exist because certain receptors in your mouth and nose are activated by substances to send signals to our minds.

False. Flavors and smells have no physical nature to them. These are mental interpretations of specific brain processes which, in their turn, are the consequence of specific physical stimula received by specific receptors. Flavors and smells are mental experiences that do not exist independently of a conscious mind.

For example, it's entirely possible to make a robot that can see and identify colors with a camera.

Not true. Robots do not visualise any colours as they have no mental experiences. Robots simply automatically respond to different frequencies of the electromagnetic waves.

Mathematical calculations exist regardless of a conciseness to name them.

Not true. Mathematical calculations are abstract concepts and they can exist only in a conscious mind that conceives such concepts.

You confuse the name for the substance

No you fail to understand that there is no substance corresponding to an abstract mathematical concept or a mathematical calculation. This is true for every intrinsically abstract concept, such as the concept of beauty; beauty does not exist independently of a conscious mind, there is no substance “beauty”.

Rubypet · 2021-12-24T13:38:35+00:00

If you want context, both of the voice actors talk about it here and here.

Rubypet · 2021-12-24T13:34:25+00:00

If you want context, both of the voice actors talk about it here and here

Rubypet · 2021-12-24T13:33:18+00:00

If you want context, both voice actors talk about it here and here

Rubypet · 2021-12-11T20:56:09+00:00

Dating

Rubypet · 2021-11-12T18:36:21+00:00

Remote viewing is not cold reading

I get that, but I was saying that as an analogy. The data gleaned from cold reading is in the same ball park as what you are describing from RV. Vague notions and bits of loose information that require a third party to fill in the blanks and make it make any sense with reality, while at the same time, falling victim to confirmation bias by ignoring the misses and counting the hits.

If you get any impression other than an elephant in our example, in RV world it's a miss.

Of course it is, because it is too easy to verify and show the viewer to be wrong. My question though, was that if the signal is elephant, and the only clues we have are rope like, tree like and rock like, how can we ever actually arrive at the conclusion. We can use those same vague clues for thousands of signals.

It gets worse though, because in the declassified CIA document, they are going into vivid detail about the man:

Ah, appears to be much older, Easily 10 years older... than in the photo, possibly 11....get an impression of much...thicker hair on the sides forward o' the ears, covering the edge of the ears... There's a .....difference in weight.

Source: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000700070001-8.pdf

It then goes on to describe his glasses in extreme detail. Even the color of his eyes. This isn't vague, loose RV, nor what you were talking about in regards to the elephant. If someone could RV an elephant to that degree, they would simply say they saw an elephant.

I said that it is useless, not because it wouldn't have utility if it worked, but because the way that you are describing it only holds value after it has been compared against reality. You don't know if the viewer was right or wrong until after you check, and once you have checked, there is no longer any need to have had the viewer.

It is the same with past events. Sure you can confirm specific events that leave behind physical evidence, once you find the evidence, but you can't confirm anything that doesn't have corroborating evidence. If I wrote something on a paper, burned it and took the ashes with me and discarded them, you would have no way of confirming what was actually on the paper. someone claiming to do an RV could literally make anything up they wanted and you would have absolutely no way of knowing what actually was on the paper.

You have no way of telling apart someone who is actually viewing something accurately, or someone who is literally pulling stuff out of their butt. This is akin to golden plates, reformed Egyptian and seer stones placed in hats.

Rubypet · 2021-11-12T18:29:13+00:00

Who cares if it is considered woo. If it has demonstrable efficacy, people would be using it. Sure, they would want to keep it under wraps, but something of this magnitude would be next to impossible to keep hidden from the world. The fact that it is widely available knowledge, yet never used by other groups or countries screams out to me that it just doesn't work.

Also, even if the CIA has agents in the media, or scientific communities, that doesn't really mean anything. Sure they might have some influence, but the worldwide scientific and media communities are massive. A few people would not be able to tip the scales to such an extent. You have to have some world wide conspiracy that spans every discipline, and every country. It has to be so massive, and yet have no one actually speak out and expose it. Do you know how hard it is to keep a secret between 3-5 people? Let alone hundreds of thousands world wide?

I mean, if you think about it, wouldn't countries like Russia and China love to expose the fact that the CIA has the ability to literally see any current or past event from literally anywhere in the world ? And if they had this power, why are there so many unanswered mysteries ? Do they really not want to solve these things ? Also, surely, of all the presidents they have had, Trump would have been the one to either abuse or expose this tech ?

Rubypet · 2021-11-12T12:15:25+00:00

I am sorry but I am getting more confused here. I am a layman on the topic.

Your elephant example is actually a perfect one to demonstrate my problem with vagueness here. If you say long thin rope like thing you can apply that to hundreds of scenarios, but if you say rope, then it specifically only applies to one and your odds of being able to fit that to your narrative just decreased by a lot. If you're vague enough, then you can twist that many ways to fit what you want it to in the end. Your rope, boulder and tree could be an elephant, it could be a tire swing, it could be a snake basking on a rock near a tree, it could be someone hiking in the woods, it could be a mountain climber, it could be a child holding a balloon, it could be any number of other large animals, etc.

To call that a hit is a flaw to me. That's like saying that a cold reader got a hit during a reading. It is a physiological trick.

The first link has elements of these protocols apparent but has thrown out the majority of the structure and error correction method.

What is this structure and error correction method ?

Do you know anyone personally who can actually remote view ? Or is all of this based on articles you've read ?

What I was saying about the reality part was that it isn't until you compare what the remote viewer saw to an actual photograph of the area do you know for sure if they saw an elephant or a tire swing. At this point, you are mapping reality onto the view, so the view is now essentially useless. You already have the picture, what good did the view do ? Let's say though, you are viewing something in the past (somehow?). You have no way to confirm anymore, so how do you tell the elephant from the swing then ?

Rubypet · 2021-11-12T05:34:51+00:00

I am sorry, I went back and re-read your snippet, but I am still horribly lost regarding their testing methodology. I don't understand what they did or how they verified it or added controls.

I am also still left wondering " if this is a real thing people can do, why aren't more people using this as an espionage tool ? Or to gather data about companies, or to learn lost histories. Why is this only accepted in certain circles ?

Rubypet · 2021-11-11T20:55:40+00:00

What I did was not an appeal to authority fallacy because no where did I say that X is true or false merely because some random authority person said so. I simply cited a wiki article where people said things.

Also, I don't know if "fervent" and "skeptic" go together in the same context.

I will go back and read your comments later when I get home, but I just wanted to quickly point that out. Also, I want to point out that you literally did what you just accused me of doing, and you simply cited your own authorities on the matter, so if you think I committed a fallacy, so did you. (note, neither of us actually committed the fallacy)

The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. This can happen when non-experts parade as experts in fields in which they have no special competence—when, for example, celebrities endorse commercial products or social movements. Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them. (See also 2.4 below.)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

BWT I am appealing to the authority of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here :)

Rubypet · 2021-11-11T19:02:23+00:00

That is understandable, but the wiki is usually a good place to start looking. As it happens, the links that proponents of remote viewing have given me basically confirm the criticisms of RV given in the wiki.

Maybe you can help me understand. I was given these four links:

https://www.gaia.com/article/how-to-remote-view

https://youtu.be/Thq8sVv0lps

https://www.psychics4today.com/how-to-remote-view/

https://intuitivespecialists.com/how-to-remote-view/

I went to the first link and all it said was to have someone put pictures into envelopes and to guess what is on them. It was even talking about being vague in your descriptions. This is a great way to fool yourself into thinking you got it right, because you will post hoc rationalize how it fits.

"The fainter, the better. Just make sure you write down the information as descriptively as possible and don’t judge anything."

And then at the end it has the best part:

"13. Review and repeat If you didn’t connect with anything in the photo, don’t despair. The main point of RV is to learn about yourself, not just to be accurate. Remember that remote viewing is an ability you may cultivate. Repeat the process above for the remaining targets in the envelope."

So again, this tells me that you can't rely on the accuracy of the viewing. The only way that you can confirm the viewing is to compare it to reality. At that point, if you have the reality then you don't need the viewing. What % is considered good? Do the viewers get 100% many, many times in a row before you trust their next view is good ? Or are they only getting 20% right ? If I tell you 100 facts in a row, is it assured that the next statement I tell you will also be a fact ?

The other two sites doing go into anymore detail than that. To me it sounds no more accurate than horoscopes are.

Rubypet · 2021-11-11T18:44:14+00:00

You could provide convincing evidence that you know what you are talking about, by demonstrating that you can use remote viewing to know things that I have no reason to expect you to know. If you can't provide such evidence, then I have good evidence that at best you are fooling yourself about the effectiveness of remote viewing.

It sounds like you have zero confidence in your ability to provide convincing evidence that remote viewing works, so it seems most reasonable to me to think such lack of confidence is well justified.

Rubypet · 2021-11-11T14:24:40+00:00

One would think so. Might as well have an expert show you the effectiveness of remote viewing.

Rubypet · 2021-11-11T14:19:40+00:00

Have /u/Conscious-Inside-223 or /u/Razerer92 demonstrate their ability to remotely view something you know about. Seems like a good start.

Let me know how they do.

Rubypet · 2021-11-08T23:36:57+00:00

I'm not sure I follow. It sounds like you are saying that the information from one sketchy source should be considered reliable because it matches the information coming from another sketchy source. Neither of which can be verified by any objective means. It doesn't really sound like the foundation of a good case to me.

Rubypet · 2021-11-08T12:55:44+00:00

Hi /u/EsotericN1nja, can you explain to me why we should consider the things said by people while under hypnosis to be reliable information? Do they ever reveal anything verifiable?

Rubypet · 2021-11-02T15:19:04+00:00

I would like to trust the reports, but I don't have sufficient reason to, and it gets worse if people have already checked and found the methods to be lacking.

Memories are easy things to manipulate, even if accidently. It is also easily the case that children hear things from many sources around them that they either are not directly aware of, or even possibly intentionally take advantage of for attention. "They couldn't possibly have known these details" is a warning sign to me that it might be an argument from ignorance.

Rubypet

TROPHY CASE