April 12th Show

[BrandonD]

To: jpw.in.wi

Why do you feel the need to post such grahic pics

To quote him, these pics are "the right visual impact to go along with what I've written".

Some interesting facts about this subject:

Images seen by the viewer as graphic or shocking are taken in by the limbic system (the regulatory and "emotional" brain). For a short time this brain more or less short circuits the frontal cortex or rational faculty of the brain.

During this time, a person can be directly influenced on an emotional level without the interference of their critical thinking.

Something worth being aware of, I think.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

To: jpw.in.wi

Why do you feel the need to post such grahic pics

A sort of little experiment, I guess. I caught such hell over posting certain other graphic pictures from a particular context, so I was curious to see if the same reaction would be provoked by graphic pictures taken from a totally different context. You're the only one who questioned them--credit to you!

Or, wait, that couldn't have been my true motivation ...

Images seen by the viewer as graphic or shocking are taken in by the limbic system (the regulatory and "emotional" brain). For a short time this brain more or less short circuits the frontal cortex or rational faculty of the brain.

During this time, a person can be directly influenced on an emotional level without the interference of their critical thinking.

... oh, that's right! I was actually trying to short-circuit the critical thinking faculties of the forum members who read my posts so I could secretly influence them "on an emotional level".

Sneaky, aren't I?

 

[SyS_Config]

Show was April 12, first crop circle of 2009 found 2 days later, actuall, 14, and the 19th, they are a little late late, but when the guests showed up, I knew the circles were right around the corner.

Somehwere in this mystery, there seems to be..for lack of a better word..a pattern..
I understand LMH wasted no time connecting these and the recent Kite, in the Netherlands, mistaken as a drone snatched up by the dronies as proof, there
is something that connects all these things...

I established contradictions with the witness statements and his camera, which said Sept8 2007..(he reports it now)
and time where he said no wind..retrieving data I found inconsistancies in light , as the time camera said was sunset..
unlike his picture..he then changed story..to 130pm and 5pm..and his statement no wind, when there was plenty according to
the days marine chart. Another poster 1111 noted it looked like a waldof box kite, and that area is popular kite and windsurfing area.
How, does LMH get off connecting this to crop circles, and ETs monitoring a nuclear plant, is absolutely bizarre, as most of the theories I have heard on CC's period.

All I can think of is..money. and its showtime now..get the popcorn out.!

 

[BrandonD]

... oh, that's right! I was actually trying to short-circuit the critical thinking faculties of the forum members who read my posts so I could secretly influence them "on an emotional level".

Sneaky, aren't I?

I'm not referring to some premeditated scheme of yours. I'm not even referring to some premeditated scheme of the makers of the "Passion" movie.

Some quirks of our psychology are intuitively understood by some of us, even if they aren't understood on a "technical" level. Such people with an intuitive understanding will often take advantage of these quirks, without even being aware of exactly what they're doing.

All they know is that the technique works. Or in other words, "it has the right visual impact to go along with what I've written." Hey if a technique successfully converts people, then that reinforces the righteousness of one's beliefs, right?

I'm not saying that you're necessarily doing this, because I don't know you. But as I said before, I think it's an aspect of our psychology that everyone should be aware of.

 

[SyS_Config]

IMO, just the essence of propoganda, the essence of many virals, with suttle hints here and there to touch on subconscious fears and or even hopes, , and lots of repetition. Nothing strange ,I think ,about that, or you would not have thousands of data miners doing analytics to see what makes you buy what or accept what. Data is big money, and power.
Getting to the Sherwoods, like some of the others in that field like Linda, who sits as a board consultant, for a crop[ circle organization, and authored books on same subjects, their belief and behaviour reflects what they put out, in such a way as to convince you that there are connections. The dots are so close together , you can really draw whatever pattern you want. This last one was a stretch to hi-lite these peoples mindset. If you don't "see" its because you are not one of "chosen" mentioned here briefly on the last pink background paragrah..
Then the Emperors Robe syndrome sinks in, well..after all..we all want to feel chosen..its a primal thing. daddy loves me best..
http://forum.theparacast.com/the-question-bank-f15/questions-for-the-sherwoods-show-t4230/

They arent the first to use all kinds of visual and written cues, every religion, or dogma, and cult , and huxter has them. Some better at it than others.

 

[Drew UK]

Right but to be clear the geology IS the earth. The biosphere is ON the earth and IN the earth but it is not THE EARTH and thus the earth itself is not "alive".

See? You actually agreed with me after all...

Can somebody define the criteria of "alive" - what must something possess to be a living entity?

Until you have a solid understanding of what "alive" means, we cannot debate this any further - my definition is this (contrary to the biological science fraternity): anything that can undergo change (chemically, thermodynamically, kinetically, physically and electrically) - i.e. anything that can change one state of energy into another state (Note I mean state not form - choice of words are important).

 

[Schuyler]

Until you have a solid understanding of what "alive" means, we cannot debate this any further - my definition is this (contrary to the biological science fraternity): anything that can undergo change...

Are you suggesting you have a 'solid understanding of what "alive" means' by making up your own personal definition? That's fine as far as it goes, but I always thought language was made up of shared definitions to make communication possible. You seem to be indicating that everyone else MUST use your definition before we can 'debate this any further.' If that is, indeed, the case, then I think you are absolutely right. No one can discuss the issues with you. Few people think rocks are alive.

A discussion on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

[jpw.in.wi]

I'm not referring to some premeditated scheme of yours.

Thanks ...

Hey if a technique successfully converts people, then that reinforces the righteousness of one's beliefs, right?

... I think.

 

[CapnG]

Can somebody define the criteria of "alive" - what must something possess to be a living entity?

Sesame Street defined if for me when I was four years old. I still remember the chorus of the song: "You need eat and breathe and grow! And that is how you know... oh-oh... oh-oh-oh you're alive!"

You can go ahead and attempt to make excuses to get around that definition but I think by-and-large you'll find that's pretty much the minimum requirement list.

 

[Drew UK]

Few people think rocks are alive.

If only facts could be based on the majority view,

Thanks for the reference -

Modified :

anything that can undergo a prescribed change (chemically, thermodynamically, kinetically, physically and electrically) - i.e. anything that can decrease its internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy.

Thats kind of interesting - and takes it back to crop circles - this is the dynamics of crop circle formation - it is creating order (negative entropy) from the free energy around it.

Henceforth,

Crystals, Ice, Polymers growth can be considered "living" since they decrease internal entropy using reactants with free energy.

And, rocks may be alive dependent on whether there lattice structure is more ordered (is forming internal decrease in entropy) or not.

Does that sound better?

 

[Schuyler]

If only facts could be based on the majority view,

We're not talking about facts here; we're talking about language definitions and, yes, language definitions go by majority view, otherwise there is no language. You can make up your definitions if you want, but unless the majority agree to abide by your definition, it amounts to self abuse.

 

[CapnG]

If only facts could be based on the majority view

Au contraire. Facts are indeed based on the majority view. If a scientist does an experiment 100 times and gets the same result 99 times, the 1 anomolous result doesn't invalidate the experiment, it is simply discounted as anomolous.

In language (as Schuyler mentioned) majority is not even required, merely concensus.

So go ahead and do all the mental gymmnastics you like to try and make the case that rocks can be considered alive. You can start calling trees "floons" if you like too. Just don't be surprised that nobody else cares.

 

[Drew UK]

So I am the "hunted" one- were working in teams now - CapNG and Schuyler, and indeed your provocative statements are in need of some reciprocal advancement.

I remain brave, however and shall continue..........

To put it simply, I have advocated the model of a rock being alive - you have slammed downed that idea as absurd, "which makes sense, you have your directionality, your preferred ideas - the sun rises and sets, the planets, moon and stars revolve around the earth, or does it?".

I will inject my honesty into this debate, I cannot prove for definite that a rock is alive. But I say with absolute certainty, that you cannot prove that it is not alive, or that even that you are alive?

Regardless of language, put forward your contrary evidence/ideas no matter how ambiguous they appear (I will use a translator), or even demonstrate your argument with pictures - if it makes your case more solid.

I will do so, as well.

That aside, it is a fruitful debate - for if I would ever prove without reasonable doubt that a "rock" - or any other matter has certain attributes that makes it consciously and intelligently aware of its surrounding environment - then the aspects of paranormal phenomenon may become to make more sense.

Stop looking at the eclipses of the unexplained, start looking at the rudimentaries.

Please, continue ................................................

 

[Schuyler]

Bull shit. Nobody is working in 'teams.' On this issue CapnG and I happen to agree with each other this time. That's all. IMO you can't go making up or warping definitions to something no one else shares to promote your cause. If you want to claim rocks are alive, and then proclaim a Unified Theory of the Universe and Everything based on that, go right ahead. I suspect it is going to be a pretty lonely road. On the other hand, maybe you'll start a new religion and be revered by millions.

If we can't come to terms on definitions, there is nothing to debate. The whole thing has been laid out for you. You continue to reject it. End of discussion.

 

[CapnG]

Please, continue ......................

No. Entertaining as your Cleese-ian rebuttals are, I've seen "the argument sketch" several times and refuse to pay another pound. I'm better off going to the "hit on the head" department, it makes more sense than this.

 

[Drew UK]

If we can't come to terms on definitions, there is nothing to debate. The whole thing has been laid out for you. You continue to reject it. End of discussion.

Are you completely NON COMPUS MENTIS?

Then DEFINE it!!! - Reject it? I have seen your reference, and I choose to accept it, I have modified my statement - I totally accept you to defend your statement.

I want you to debate it, thats all.

The discussion remains open, and I remain open.

Except this: =
Au contraire. Facts are indeed based on the majority view. If a scientist does an experiment 100 times and gets the same result 99 times, the 1 anomolous result doesn't invalidate the experiment, it is simply discounted as anomolous.

CAPNG - I hit you over the head 99x with a hammer, 1X i miss? What are your conclusions?

My conclusion - learn statistics (incorporated in every profressional scientific result), it probably means that you are ...............(i'll let you fill in the gaps)............

 

[CapnG]

CAPNG - I hit you over the head 99x with a hammer, 1X i miss? What are your conclusions?

That you can't frame an argument worth jack. Or you're a psychotic. Possibly both. The fact you don't understand that your rebuttal actually proves my point is both sad and amusing at the same time.

Feel free to keep rambling incoherently on, I shan't be wasting my time to respond though.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

I have a strong feeling I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but ...

Can somebody define the criteria of "alive" - what must something possess to be a living entity?

Until you have a solid understanding of what "alive" means, we cannot debate this any further - my definition is this ....

What you're doing here is taking a term--in this case "alive"--and arbitrarily assigning a definition to it while neither clearly detailing and defending the reasoning behind your inclusions of the specific attributes of the thing you're defining, nor your exclusions of the objectionable attributes found in the standard definition. It's like taking the term "apple" for example, and saying, "You've heard the Fruit Fraternity dictate what an "apple" is to the masses. But I say an apple is a conglomeration of sugar molecules, vitamins and minerals that undergoes chemical processes while suspended above the ground for an extended period of time, and therefore ...." with no explanation of where this is coming from, why the standard definition of "apple" isn't sufficient, who the members of the Fruit Fraternity are, and exactly what the secret agenda behind its imposition of the standard definition is.

It just ends up sounding silly.

A good definition for "alive" that is deduced from observing nature might be, That body is alive which is animated by a soul, or the first principle of life. (The nature of that soul is a whole other debate...promise I won't even try to go there.) To quote Aquinas,

For it is clear that to be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, does not belong to a body as such; since, if that were the case, every body would be a living thing, or a principle of life.​

My neighbor's cat is alive now because of the presence of a soul--the first principle of life--which animates him. If he gets run over by a car, his living body will become a dead body--absent the presence of a soul. If his soul were not the first principle of his life, then I might be able to say he's actually still alive, in spite of the tire treads running the length of his body.

But roadkill is dead, period! In fact, ALL dead bodies are not alive, just like rocks and snowflakes and sea foam are not alive; otherwise they would have to be their own first principle of life.

Okay, I asked for it: now show me how stupid I am. I had fun trying, though :

St. Thomas Aquinas *(Before you get all hacked off, you've got to admit he was quite a smart guy--
and, let's not forget, an especially big fan of the guy on the far right, who also had some dynamite dendrites ....)​

 

[swatcher]

To: Drew UK

I applaud you for having an open mind about "life".

All the best.

 

[swatcher]

I have a strong feeling I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but ...

May I point out the obvious? Thomas' viewpoint is that of a 13th century Christian. I'm always very suspicious when any quote starts with: "For it is clear that ..." No, it ain't clear, 'cause I don't fall for a circular argument.

And now to your cute cat story ;-) When the bio-mechanical "machine" gets damaged it stops functioning. Where is the mystery in that?