GW/CC is not man made.

Besoeker · 19-01-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paullotion

What is the source of the graph.

Information readily available in the public domain:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
173 142 143 155 157 155 144

Akria · 19-01-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paullotion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

You asked who made the graph.
I said I did.

Yes but the question was,who made the graph and can you post a link,you answered i did,that implied that you have posted a link,all you had to say was i made the graph.

What is the source of the graph.

To my mind, at least, it was fairly obvious what Besoeker meant when he said 'I did'. If he'd meant a link then I'm quite sure that he would have quoted it again in that post.
Then again, I suppose it depends on which word you put the emphasis.

Besoeker:
It might help if you did post the source of these statistics. Just an idea.

Thus far, I would say that a lot of this thread appears to be nonsensical. All this palaver about 'remote viewing' and such things; remote viewing is just another form of pattern-recognition. Admittedly it's very good pattern-recognition, but pattern-recognition nonetheless.

As for that ludicrous post about using only 35% of our minds: untrue.
It is a commonly quoted fact that a large portion of our brains are unused and, like most commonly quoted facts, it's also untrue.
Evolution has not seen to fit to equip us with anything for which we have no need: even the appendix, long thought to be useless, is now thought to have some sort of helping effect on the immune system during a person's early life.
All of our brain is utilized in some way or other, though maybe not consciously. There are for example the breathing and circulatory 'mechanisms', for want of a better term. These take up a significant portion of the brain but are also impossible to utilize consciously.
In any case, there is a difference between the mind, which (I assume) was mistakenly used, and the brain.
The mind is your consciousness, defined in the simplest and clearest manner I can think of. It is the sum of all your thoughts, emotions, instincts, memories, decisions and other such things. Think of it as an operating system for the hardware of the brain, or think of the brain as the processor to enable the mind, still the operating system, to operate.

Anyway, just getting a word in.

Akria

Edit: I was writing this while Besoeker posted his. I would like to apologise to Besoeker, who has now named his sources (sort of).

Besoeker · 19-01-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

Edit: I was writing this while Besoeker posted his. I would like to apologise to Besoeker, who has now named his sources (sort of).

No apology required, grumpy young fellow...........

The data was collated from the met office and a US met site. I do put some time into checking data.
All the data is in the public domain. The trend line I added is just a bit of standard mathematics.

But my point wasn't about the source.
I was just attempting to show that using selective data is a flawed method on which to base conclusions.

paullotion · 19-01-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

Thus far, I would say that a lot of this thread appears to be nonsensical. All this palaver about 'remote viewing' and such things; remote viewing is just another form of pattern-recognition. Admittedly it's very good pattern-recognition, but pattern-recognition nonetheless.

As for that ludicrous post about using only 35% of our minds: untrue.
It is a commonly quoted fact that a large portion of our brains are unused and, like most commonly quoted facts, it's also untrue.
Evolution has not seen to fit to equip us with anything for which we have no need: even the appendix, long thought to be useless, is now thought to have some sort of helping effect on the immune system during a person's early life.
All of our brain is utilized in some way or other, though maybe not consciously. There are for example the breathing and circulatory 'mechanisms', for want of a better term. These take up a significant portion of the brain but are also impossible to utilize consciously.
In any case, there is a difference between the mind, which (I assume) was mistakenly used, and the brain.
The mind is your consciousness, defined in the simplest and clearest manner I can think of. It is the sum of all your thoughts, emotions, instincts, memories, decisions and other such things. Think of it as an operating system for the hardware of the brain, or think of the brain as the processor to enable the mind, still the operating system, to operate.

Interesting,RV have been used by the Militarily and the Police to solve,unsolved crimes.
The Brain is the organ of the mind so as you say our thoughts,emotions,ect are located there,we have little understanding of all its uses and even though some parts are unused does not mean that they cannot be ultilized in some way if we could only understand how too.
As you say the appendix is believed to be first line of defense for the immume system as is the Tonsils,if people have had there appendix and tonsils removed they seem to be at greater danger of infection.

I stick by what i have stated.

g hall · 19-01-2007, 09:07 PM

Remote viewing
http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

I know it's the Skeptic's dictionary but the fact that the late great Isaac Asimov debunked it is more then good enough for me

paullotion

Quote:

Interesting,RV have been used by the Militarily and the Police to solve,unsolved crimes.

Could you provide verifible evidence of this claim please

Akria · 19-01-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paullotion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

Thus far, I would say that a lot of this thread appears to be nonsensical. All this palaver about 'remote viewing' and such things; remote viewing is just another form of pattern-recognition. Admittedly it's very good pattern-recognition, but pattern-recognition nonetheless.

As for that ludicrous post about using only 35% of our minds: untrue.
It is a commonly quoted fact that a large portion of our brains are unused and, like most commonly quoted facts, it's also untrue.
Evolution has not seen to fit to equip us with anything for which we have no need: even the appendix, long thought to be useless, is now thought to have some sort of helping effect on the immune system during a person's early life.
All of our brain is utilized in some way or other, though maybe not consciously. There are for example the breathing and circulatory 'mechanisms', for want of a better term. These take up a significant portion of the brain but are also impossible to utilize consciously.
In any case, there is a difference between the mind, which (I assume) was mistakenly used, and the brain.
The mind is your consciousness, defined in the simplest and clearest manner I can think of. It is the sum of all your thoughts, emotions, instincts, memories, decisions and other such things. Think of it as an operating system for the hardware of the brain, or think of the brain as the processor to enable the mind, still the operating system, to operate.

Interesting,RV have been used by the Militarily and the Police to solve,unsolved crimes.
The Brain is the organ of the mind so as you say our thoughts,emotions,ect are located there,we have little understanding of all its uses and even though some parts are unused does not mean that they cannot be ultilized in some way if we could only understand how too.
As you say the appendix is believed to be first line of defense for the immume system as is the Tonsils,if people have had there appendix and tonsils removed they seem to be at greater danger of infection.

I stick by what i have stated.

I have not said that 'remote viewing' does not have its uses, nor that it does not work. I am merely stating that it is not as mysterious as one would think.
It works much of the time, but it is pattern-recognition. Suppose a young girl is murdered. Now, it is possible, using the location at which the body was dumped/found, whether or not it has been sexually assaulted, and so on and so forth, to construct a sort of general type of person who might have committed the crime.
From this a remote viewer is then able to take into consideration other details and, miraculously, give the name of a person who fits into the pattern.
Often remote viewers have no idea how they do it. They believe that they really do have some sort of paranormal power of something like that.
It is, however, merely a very advanced form of pattern-recognition.

As to what you stated about the brain: I did not say at any point that any portion of the brain is unused. IT IS ALL USED, but it is unknown what some parts in particular are used FOR and many of the things the brain is used for we have no control over.
We have no conscious control of the beating of our heart or our attempts to keep breathing.
In effect, what you have said is backing up my statement.

Lastly, I would advise that you improve your grasp of the English language. It really is most atrocious and it took me several seconds to work out what you were trying to say.
Then again, if I were to ding everyone for their poor grasp of English then I would never stop.

I actually quite liked the graph by the way, Besoeker. It was very well done. May I ask how you did it? I tend to use a program called Autograph for graphs but it is annoyingly unstable.

Akria

Besoeker · 19-01-2007, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "Akria

I actually quite liked the graph by the way, Besoeker. It was very well done. May I ask how you did it? Akria

Just Excel.
And a macro to present it in a clearer format.

paullotion · 19-01-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

I have not said that 'remote viewing' does not have its uses, nor that it does not work. I am merely stating that it is not as mysterious as one would think.
It works much of the time, but it is pattern-recognition. Suppose a young girl is murdered. Now, it is possible, using the location at which the body was dumped/found, whether or not it has been sexually assaulted, and so on and so forth, to construct a sort of general type of person who might have committed the crime.
From this a remote viewer is then able to take into consideration other details and, miraculously, give the name of a person who fits into the pattern.
Often remote viewers have no idea how they do it. They believe that they really do have some sort of paranormal power of something like that.
It is, however, merely a very advanced form of pattern-recognition.

I think you better do more research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

As to what you stated about the brain: I did not say at any point that any portion of the brain is unused. IT IS ALL USED, but it is unknown what some parts in particular are used FOR and many of the things the brain is used for we have no control over.
We have no conscious control of the beating of our heart or our attempts to keep breathing.
In effect, what you have said is backing up my statement.

We do not use all parts of our minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

Lastly, I would advise that you improve your grasp of the English language. It really is most atrocious and it took me several seconds to work out what you were trying to say.
Then again, if I were to ding everyone for their poor grasp of English then I would never stop.

So that`s the level you have sunk too.

http://www.crvmanual.com/docs/hp95.html

Westcountryman · 19-01-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

We do not use all parts of our minds.

I think Akria was arguing that we do not consciously use all of the brain, but all of it is used, which I would agree with.

Akria · 19-01-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paullotion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

I have not said that 'remote viewing' does not have its uses, nor that it does not work. I am merely stating that it is not as mysterious as one would think.
It works much of the time, but it is pattern-recognition. Suppose a young girl is murdered. Now, it is possible, using the location at which the body was dumped/found, whether or not it has been sexually assaulted, and so on and so forth, to construct a sort of general type of person who might have committed the crime.
From this a remote viewer is then able to take into consideration other details and, miraculously, give the name of a person who fits into the pattern.
Often remote viewers have no idea how they do it. They believe that they really do have some sort of paranormal power of something like that.
It is, however, merely a very advanced form of pattern-recognition.

I think you better do more research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

As to what you stated about the brain: I did not say at any point that any portion of the brain is unused. IT IS ALL USED, but it is unknown what some parts in particular are used FOR and many of the things the brain is used for we have no control over.
We have no conscious control of the beating of our heart or our attempts to keep breathing.
In effect, what you have said is backing up my statement.

We do not use all parts of our minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akria

Lastly, I would advise that you improve your grasp of the English language. It really is most atrocious and it took me several seconds to work out what you were trying to say.
Then again, if I were to ding everyone for their poor grasp of English then I would never stop.

So that`s the level you have sunk too.

http://www.crvmanual.com/docs/hp95.html

On that very same site that you have posted there is a disclaimer at the bottom of the home page, though I am not sure if it is present on the page that you linked to.

Quote:

*Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on external or internal links, documents and content in articles on the CRVManual.com web site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of nor are endorsed by the owners of CRVManual.com. The owners of CRVManual.com do not claim to provide any guarantee of accuracy of the information presented. The inclusion of a link to an external web site is provided for your convenience only. It does not imply any endorsement of products, services, or information contained on the linked site, nor is CRVManual.com responsible for or have editorial control of the content on external sites.

This web site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The CRVManual.com logo and the CRVManual.com introduction are © 2000-2003 CRVManual.com. All Rights Reserved. Contact e-mail address: webmaster@crvmanual.com

Hmmmm... Slightly suspicious, methinks.

Quote:

What is being lost on much of the public, in all of the confusion, is the breakthrough discovery that was created by Ingo Swann at Stanford Research Institute.

This was the real *breakthrough* from the years of research, and the work done in the military unit.

Ingo Swann, a brilliant natural psychic, focused his attention inward and looked at his own process, developing a model of how his own mind accessed information from the collective unconscious, and created a method by which anyone could learn to accurately obtain information on any person, place, thing and event in the past, present or future.

The ability to remote view is not limited to a few natural psychics. It is an innate ability that all humans possess. However, like language, it is something that must be learned, to be effective.

As human beings, data and information is constantly flowing through our perceptual apparatus. We are all constantly accessing information, but unlike natural psychics, most of us can not control the flow of data or lock on to it consistently. Our "psi muscles" are underdeveloped.

When properly trained, this remote viewing structure allows any of us to lock on to the signal line, slowing down the process so that we can retrieve accurate data, more accurately and more consistently than the best natural psychics. The structure is also self correcting, and brilliantly separates the viewer's analysis and imagination from the actual data.

Hmmm... Sounds rather conceited and biased. 'A brilliant natural psychic'; 'the real *breakthrough*'.

I can say nothing of the page to which you directed, however, neither having read it properly beyond a cursory glance, nor particularly wanting to read it properly beyond a cursory glance, nor particularly believing a word of what I read in it.

In any case, as that appears to be a website promoting the existence of psychics and remote viewing, it is not exactly the best source to quote when in an argument with skeptics. The best source to quote would be one which is neither for or against their existence and so on and so forth. Think Wikipedia: a good article is one which one uses sources with a neutral point of view. I suggest that would be a good thing to do here, particularly to encourage me to read it properly. I really don't have time for vanity publishing.

As for 'sinking to that level', I find that most insulting. I was not sinking to any level; I was merely suggesting that, if you wish to be taken seriously, you improve your general grasp of English. It presents a much more professional image, will cause more people to look at you with respect for your opinions and ideas and will, in general, support your views much better, not least because people will be able to understand you.

As for the using all parts of our brains or minds: I give up. You are obviously not going to give up on your line of argument. I continue to disagree, but frankly I can't be bothered to argue with you.

Akria

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode