[ExI] CRACKPOTS (was electoral college)

[William Flynn Wallace]

John, if you want spiritualism and witchcraft explained, you need to read
the first few chapters of The Golden Bough.  If the rain did not come after
the rain god was invoked, the rain man was sacrificed and a new one
selected.  The only evidence here was of the beliefs themselves.

Evidence has been sought thousands of times by important people, including
Newton.  Hasn't been found and won't be, I say.  Some people on MOther
Earth are still living in the Stone Age.  Many are still in the witchcraft
stage, which occurs before the religion stage, according to Frazer.  Modern
society seems to be moving out of the religious stage and to what is no
evident.  Used to be, if you weren't superstitious, you weren't one of us.
Now, being so would get you laughed at in any modern forum (though that
would not change those people).

We need some new topics, people.  Some topics have been beaten to death but
have refused to die.

bill w

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:19 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> *>I can expect to see some kind of political bloviation just as much as I
>> can expect your annual anti-curiosity psionics post*.*
>
>
> There are still about 4 months remaining so maybe I won't be able to send
> my iterated psi post this year, maybe this year we will at last get solid
> proof it exists. Maybe but I very much doubt it and I'll bet you it won't
> and I'll give you 1000 to 1 odds. If it does not happen by January 1 2019
> you give me $100 and if it does happen I give you $100,000. So do we have a
> bet? And remember I don't demand that the phenomenon be explained I just
> want solid proof that the psi phenomenon (aka ESP aka Spiritualism aka
> Witchcraft) needs to be explained, that is to say I just want evidence it
> exists.
>
>
>  *> Basically you say "there will never be a paper confirming the
>> existence of magic published in Nature" even though of course any confirmed
>> discovery would immediately leave the realm of magic.*
>
>
> The universe is full of phenomena that scientists can't explain but none
> call it magic and the idea that Science or Nature or Physical Review
> Letters will not print ironclad proof of the existence of psi because they
> can not explain it is utterly ridiculous. Nobody has a clue why the
> universe is accelerating but the people who discovered that it is received
> a Nobel Prize and it is considered by most to be one of the most important
> scientific discoveries of the century.
>
> *> Even a hundred years ago you would be laughed out of the room for
>> suggesting most of what modern physics believes.  *
>
>
> Physicist of a hundred years ago didn't even know the questions that most
> modern physicist are trying to find answers to, you can't understand the
> answer if you don't even know the question. All I want is proof that there
> really is a psi question, we'll worry about an answer another time.
>
> *> If you have solved the hard problem of consciousness and can tell me
>> what the standard model has to do with qualia, I'm all ears!*
>
>
> The hardest part of explaining the hard problem of consciousness is
> confusion over the word "explain". If I say phenomenon X causes
> consciousness I mean if X happens consciousness always follows, but you
> will no doubt say that doesn't explain it because X itself is not
> consciousness, but if X were consciousness that would be saying
> consciousness is consciousness and that's just a tautology and would not
> explain it either. So what is it that would satisfy you? And this is not
> limited to qualia, if you come home and find a broken window and shards of
> glass and a rock on the floor you would not hesitate to say the rock caused
> the broken window even though a rock is not a broken window.
>
> And of course you'll want to know what caused X, if I say Y did you'll ask
> what caused Y, if I say Z did I know what you will ask next. But either
> there is a infinite sequence of "what caused this" questions and reality is
> like a infinitely nested Matryoshka doll with one doll always inside
> another or the sequence terminates in a brute fact, there is after all no
> law of logic that demands every event have a cause. I have a hunch in this
> case the brute fact is consciousness is the way data feels like when it is
> being processed.
>
> Yet another cause of confusion is science just answers how questions, a
> why question implies intent so a why question like why does consciousness
> exist would be appropriate only if science had evidence for the existence
> of God. And it doesn't
>
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180820/f739aecd/attachment.html>