WOW,
ALL OF THOSE THOUGHTS...

SO, HAS ANYTHING BEEN REFLECTED ? ? ?

THAT STATEMENT IS YOUR OPINION, (and its irrelevant anyway.) Whether a conclusion is "true" or not is--- also an opinion.

(Its irrelevant because you are still treading beyond the starting premise and how a person arrives at their premise is non of your business... and it is a completely other matter and other argument.)

AND It is is simply YOUR opinion that the premise is false.

You cannot prove it is false you can ONLY suggest that you think it is false. (You think logic requires proof that a premise is correct.)

Well, guess what. It doesn't.

And "Proof" is only a matter of belief anyway.

No matter how much 'evidence' a person thinks they have, it is not proof until they can convince someone to AGREE WITH THEM.


IN YOUR OPINION... the premise false.

That is an opinion.

Now tell me, does anyone AGREE WITH YOU? ANYONE?

That may very well be true.

But if it is true think about this just for a little tiny bit.

Who's the one who's always accusing other people of being illogical?

Every conversation we ever have with you is defending against your accusations that's we're being illogical.

So we just toss it right back in your face like mirrors.

No one accused you of being illogical other than to point out the illogical nature of your very accusations that everyone is illogical except for you.

It's getting to be like a broken record anymore.

This discussion has gotten so way off the original post, I forgot what we were even talking about.

Oh now I remember.

Can we see what kind of person (an author) is or how he thinks by what he writes.

Yes we can.

And we can form an opinion.

Oh yes.

I don't know how to fit that in with the research done into such things as Remote Viewing.

There is no known physical explanation for Remote Viewing. So I don't have a problem with postulating a non-physical source for it. It seems perfectly logical to me to postulate a non-physical source for phenomenon that apperas to be in direct conflict with the laws of physics.

Now there's an intelligent woman!

She understands how logic works, and she also respect the right of others to start with whatever premises they choose.

Creative, if you want to claim that a particular premise is 'illogical' you must PROVE that it's false.

If you can't do that, then you have nothing but utterly empty accusations that are nothing more than your own ungrounded opinions.

This is all we ever see from you. It's just the same old story over and over and over again. Empty accusations that other people's premises are illogical.

I've shown concretely how scientists themselves often postulate the existence of things that cannot be proven to exist.

That's a must if any progress is to be made. Otherwise they'd just have to stop dead in their tracks and wait for a proof that may never be forthcoming.

In fact, all of Classical Newtonian Physics was based on the false premise that time and space are both, seperate, and absolute.

So the vast majority of science was built on false premises,

Yet you claim:



Your claim here has historically been shown to be utterly false.

The false premises that Classical Physics was based on produced vast amounts of true conclusions!

So even this mere opinion of yours has been historical shown to be a false opinion.

Nothing you ever argue for ever stands up to scrutiny.

Yet you have the audacity to continually accuse other people of being 'illogoical'.

Your logic always flies like lead balloons.

Nothing you ever say holds up to scrutiny.

All your opinionated accusations thus far have been totally empty and devoid of any merit whatsoever. They have nothing to do with anything even remotely logical.

And we wouldn't even bother to point out this fact if it wasn't for your constant accusations that everyone else is being illogical but you!

Where's that mirror at?

By your very own logic the person who is making the accusations is probably the one who is guilty of them.

That was your premise!

Well if there's any truth to it you better go look in that mirror then.

I'm not convinced that it is in direct conflict with the "laws of phsyics".

As I've pointed out, the laws of quantum physics is "Accepted Physics".

The two pillars of modern physics are "General Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics".

Quantum Mechanics has already postulated the existence of a non-physical quantum field that permeates everything. It's an omniscient field.

It has also been assigned very weird and "Classically Non-physical" properties such as quantum entanglement and the property of non-locality.

So I'm not at all convinced that remote viewing can't potentially be explained via the properties of the quantum field.

Just because we haven't explained it at this point in time doesn't meant that we may not find an explanation for it eventually.

Moreover, if that explanation comes from the science of "Quantum Phsycis" and the quantum field, can we truly say that a 'physical explantion' has been given?

Well, in some ways we can. Because the properties of the quantum field are defined within the modern science of quantum phsyics.

However, those properties have already taken on "spiritual qualities", such as quantum entanglement, and non-locality.

Scientists don't write book entilted 'The Ghost in the Atom' for no good reason.

Any quantum physicists worth his salt will confess that the properties that the quantum field must possess are indeed totally baffling to the human imagination.

Many scientist's have referred to quantum physics as nothing less than "Spooky".

So I'm not sold on the idea that things like remote viewing are necessarily against the "Laws of Physics". Perhaps they may be in conflict with the old Classical Laws of "Macro Physics". But they aren't necessarily in conflict with the laws of "Quantum Physics" at all.

Not fully explained perhaps.

But are they in conflict? No.

If the above is true, and if that is what you believe I will add this:

If your premise that "spirit does not exist" is a false one, and the brain and mind is the true thinking source of a person, then your ultimate conclusions could also be false.

To add to that, you cannot disprove the existence of spirit, so the existence of spirit cannot be completely ruled out.

I personally think your premise is false, so to continue with an argument on the grounds of your current premise would be a futile waste of time for me.

Sky,

I will respond to your last post a little later.



I want to personally thank you for not openly making personally insulting remarks about me and sticking to the topic and things being written about it. Very much appreciated.

Well personally, I’m not convinced that RV directly conflicts with the laws of physics either, for the exact reasons you have very eloquently and articulately put forward in several posts. I don’t see anything, other than quantum non-locality, that could explain Remote Viewing in a scientific manner.

But as you said, Remote Viewing is a “macro” phenomenon. And it seems to me it that, without postulating “spirit”, it would be extremely difficult to logically link quantum phenomena to the “macro” phenomena of Remote Viewing, without using the exact same logic you used – the brain being permeated by the quantum foam.

So I am looking forward to Creative’s reply.

Research quantum foam and quantum field theory, then get back to me.

http://www.siue.edu/~wlarkin/teaching/PHIL106/validity.html

Read up!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3541933/validity-definition

And just in case the dots are not connected yet... this one explains exactly what has been done here with the spirit/quantum argument.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/LogAnalogy.htm

Are you sure those definitions are correct? ? ?

Those foulish buplishers can sure benefit from your wisdom!!!

And your spelling!

According to these definitions, my argument is "valid" based on the premise that spirit does exist. (I believe that premise is true.)

(Note that the premises don’t have to be actually true for an argument to be valid.)

The fact that you don't think that premise is 'true' makes no difference and does not change the validity of my argument. It only speaks to your opinion of whether or not the premise, hence the conclusions --are true or not.

So the argument is "valid" and "logical" assuming my premise is true, which is my point. That you don't believe the premise is true, -- that is your opinion, and a completely different argument.

Now if you want to address whether or not the premise is "true" then you simply have to start another debate regarding the truth of the premise concerning the existence of spirit.

BUT I am not interested in that argument. My argument only concerns the validity and logic of the argument itself based on my assumed premise.

When you disagreed with the premise, that is where the argument fell apart. At that point you have to address the new argument which is a new subject altogether...that is.. the existence of spirit... which was not what the original argument was about.

That is an entire new thread.

We both know that "proof" of the existence of spirit or "proof" there is no such thing will not be forthcoming either way.

That you think my "belief" is illogical is your opinion. That the assumption of the existence of spirit ruins your entire argument is obvious.

But it is improper to tread on the other side of my premise and call me "illogical" when you have no idea how my logic arrived at that conclusion. You are simply assuming it is illogical.

Who is that addresed to? (No quoted post.)

This entire subject about whether spirit exists or not came about on page 8 where I first stated my opinion that people are not their brains or their thoughts. Below:






Here is where the subject ran off track with a new debate APPARENTLY about the existence of "spirit."

I simply used the term "spiritually."

WELL EX-CUUUSSSSEE ME!

False premise cannot logically lead to a true conclusion.

Ok Micheal, these are direct quotes from the web sites that you cited:



This one supports the positiong of JB and myself. It does not support your position.

So thank you for having pointed to that confirming information.

Also, from the web sites you cited:



You haven't done that.

Moreover, the presentation I gave isn't even truly an 'argument'. It's a statement of fact. So I'm not sure if it even could be argued with logically.

My position is simply that scientists postulate the existence of things which they cannot prove to exist and they consider this to be a totally logical approach.

That is not an argument, that is merely an observation of fact.

Then I took that recognized fact, and applied it to spirtitualist who assume the existence of spirit in order to discuss the observed properties that they assign to it. And I simply pointed out that they are using the same approach as science.

So it's really not even an argument that could be argued against. Unless you want to argue that my original observation is false, but I think you'd be truly hard-pressed to argue that you could either prove that the quantum field exists, or that scientists don't postulate its existence.

In any case, that's what you would need to do to refute the claim. You can't just say "That's illogical" without presenting significant reasons for the claim, which you have yet to do.

Finally, about this:



You blatantly demand and accuse JB, Sky, and myself, all of being illogical without having ever made your case. And you act like we're just supposed to accept your ruling on that without taking it personally.

However, if we object and attempt to suggest that you are the one who is being utterly unreasonable and illogical then you demand that we're making personal attacks against you.

You're incorrigible!

You're constantly telling us that we are 'illgocial' and acting like we're supposed to just accept that as the gospel truth.

Yet if we suggest that you're the one who is actually being 'illogical' you get all bent out of shape and accuse use of making a personal attack on you!

Since when is it ok for you to denounce everyone else as being illogical (and they have no right to be offended by that), but as soon as they suggest that you're the one who is being illogical you start screaming personal insult and injury?

We haven't suggested anything about you personally that goes beyond the claims that you make about us!

Moreover, then you take my words out of context and try to twist them all around to mean things that I never meant. When I point out the fact that you didn't comprehend what I had said you take offense to that as well.

So what am I supposed to do? Go along with all your misinterpretations of everything I say?

I don't think so.

The bottom line is that you have NOT been able to support your original accusations that anything anyone has said is illogical.

So you're accusations have gone unsupported thoughout this entire thread yet you keep arguing for the same thing even though everything you have asserted has been shown time and time and time again to be untrue.



I've already shown historical cases where this is clearly false.

All of Classical Physics was based on the false premises that time and space are both seperate and abstolute (unmalleable). Yet many truths were able to be established based on those false premises.

And FINALLY, who are you to say that the existence of spirit is false?

Like JB so intelligently pointed out, your demand that there is no spirit could indeed be the false premise!

So until we can prove one way or the other, then either premise is equally logical to assume!

You haven't a leg to stand on in any of your accusations that other people are being 'illogical'.

And that's what this argument is truly about. You are attempting to assert that the way we build our logical constructs is 'illogical' simply because you personally don't accept the premises we start with.

We don't accept yours!

So it has nothing to do with logic.

It just a matter of personal opinion!

You're constant arguing against that notion is itself an argument that has no basis in logic whatsoever.

You can't prove your premise that spirit does not exist! Therefore you cannot say that it's a false premise!

You are TOTALLY OUT OF LINE HERE!

You are accusing other people of being illogical for considering the possiblity of things that you cannot prove to be false.

Therefore you have absolutely no right to acuse them of starting with false premises!

You are flat out WRONG Michael, and I totally resent reject your utterly ungrounded accusations that spiritualists are being illogical for postulating the potential exisence of something that you cannot show to be false.

Untill you can prove that spirit is false, you can't demand that it's a false premise!

Any layman should be able to understand this simple fact.

Your acusations that spiritualists are being illogical for considering the possible existence of spirit is simple ungrounded in any logical sense whatsoever.

It's just your totally ungrounded opinion and nothing more than that.

If you want people to quite accusing you of being illogical the solution is quite simple. Quit accusing them of the very same thing when you have no rational reason to back up your claims

You have absolutely no right whatsoever to go around telling spiritualists that they are being illogical just because they postulate the existence of something that you personally don't care to consider.

The only way that you would have a right to make such a claim is if you could prove that spirit doesn't exist. But you can't. So your accusations are empty and devoid of any logic. They are nothing more than your own personal opinion. Period.