Fukushima's melted cores have moved into the earth

[Tyger]

Bring what "things" into what "existence"? I can certainly visualize a stack of $100 bills, and there is no doubt that they exist in my subjective visual experience, but to bring them into material reality requires something called a printing press. Or are you saying you can just manifest them out of thin air somehow? If so, I'm sure there must be a lot of people doing psychic counterfeiting.

What 'things' indeed. Read the sentence - there lies the answer to this question. Why do you need me to answer the question for you?

If you want a discussion on 'manifestation' maybe you should start another thread.

The mind-body connection is but the first and most obvious illustration of the effect of the mind on the physical. It is the most intimate connection - and for a long time it was not recognized by materialist science. Not so very long ago one would have been mocked in the medical establishment for suggesting such (but that's a complicated story - in many ways the materialist blind has been in effect for only a scattering of decades in the 20th century).

Of course why do that when you can just get a 900 number? Oh but of course you think I'm being nonsensical when I mention 900 number psychics?

You are using the sensational and gaudy to stand as representative of a whole view of reality? Nonsense - yes - and more. Specious thinking - very far from the rigor of your vaunted critical thinking.

How many of them are legitimate in your opinion? More than scientists do you think? That's the impression I'm getting.

If you are getting that impression then you are not reading my last post - and most of my responses to you. This is more proof to me that engaging in dialog with you is a serious waste of time.

Surely you don't think that the percentage of working psychics are doing more actual psychic whatever than the percentage of working scientists who are doing actual scientific work? Really? You honestly believe that?

You posit the premise - then suggest this is what I think - and then mock what you have posited I believe. Are you for real?

LINK: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated."

 

[Randall]

You posit the premise - then suggest this is what I think - and then mock what you have posited I believe. Are you for real?

You're the one who said, to quote: "I think there are other ways of looking at the world, 'divining' the world, that will come to the fore as materialistic science crashes and burns in its one-sided and dangerously blind alley." So I've not "posited the premise". You spelled it out your position on "divining" and "materialistic science" pretty clear there. So why shouldn't I suggest that's what you think? As for what you interpret as mocking, that's not mocking. That's an expression of utter disbelief that somebody would actually defend that position.

 

[Tyger]

[

You're the one who said, to quote: "I think there are other ways of looking at the world, 'divining' the world, that will come to the fore as materialistic science crashes and burns in its one-sided and dangerously blind alley." So I've not "posited the premise". You spelled it out your position on "divining" and "materialistic science" pretty clear there. So why shouldn't I suggest that's what you think? As for what you interpret as mocking, that's not mocking. That's an expression of utter disbelief that somebody would actually defend that position.

Yes, I said that - but this is what you were saying:
"Oh but of course you think I'm being nonsensical when I mention 900 number psychics? [Yes, I do - because I am not talking about that kind of stuff.]

How many of them are legitimate in your opinion? [I don't much care - except insofar as I do care about how many unethical surgeons are out there and bogus psychologists plying dangerous drugs to the unwitting.]

More than scientists do you think? [Nope - I suspect the venality of humankind expresses itself in equal measure across the full spectrum of human occupations.]

That's the impression I'm getting. [How you are getting that impression only you know since I have not brought up nor discussed 900 psychic chat lines and have instead referred to them as sensational and gaudy.]

Surely you don't think that the percentage of working psychics [interesting idea - 'working psychics']

are doing more actual psychic whatever [you need to have this conversation with whoever talks to you about 'working psychics - okay? you have so much static in your mind about this idea of the 'psychic' that you are unable to hear what I say - do you understand that?]

than the percentage of working scientists who are doing actual scientific work? [well, given what I know about scientific work - I best take the 5th amendment ]

Really? You honestly believe that?" [No, you believe it - this is your construction, ufology.]

I'm sorry to say that you've connected dots that are not there. My talking about alternate ways of 'divining' the world is not me talking about '900 number psychics' - you have made that leap to the psychic talk lines (not me - never even entered my head) - and totally ignored what I have said about the sensational and gaudy.

There's a lot of static in your thinking about this whole realm. You confuse and conflate human psychology with the subtler realm. Just as opportunists jump on the bandwagon of the UFO culture to make a buck - so do people commandeer other stuff - like the psychic, I suppose - to make a living wage. Are you familiar with that impulse?

 

[Randall]

Yes, I said that - but this is what you were saying:
"Oh but of course you think I'm being nonsensical when I mention 900 number psychics? [Yes, I do - because I am not talking about that kind of stuff.]

If you're going to compare the scientific landscape to the psychic landscape in order to make a valid comparison, then you need to compare the whole psychic landscape to the whole scientific landscape rather than omitting the evidence of 900 number psychics in order to make your case more valid. You might as well just say that compared to all the fraudulent scientists, all true psychics are more trustworthy. So what? That's not the point here. The point was that although science has it's problems, what rationale is there that the cure is "divination"? It's a completely faulty assumption because there are obviously problems in the land of diviners as well. Anyway. Let's not derail this thread OK. If you want to continue this, then let's move it somewhere else.

 

[Tyger]

I am very ready to stop this because there is just not enough time to be making all these tacking adjustments.

If you're going to compare the scientific landscape to the psychic landscape in order to make a valid comparison, then you need to compare the whole psychic landscape to the whole scientific landscape rather than omitting the evidence of 900 number psychics in order to make your case more valid.

No, because the 900 numbers are in the area of human psychology - nothing to do with psychism per se (unless there are some genuine intuitive people on the lines - which is possible). It also has to do with commerce and people making a living. Recall me mentioning that regarding the UFO community - do you understand my reference?

Also, this is your deal, you've set up this condition as stated above: 'then you need to' - that's your opinion - and it's based on an inability to read and understand content, as well as individual words. That's what I'm experiencing given the scale to which I have to address your accurate reading of the text delivered.

You are absolutely riveted in how you are thinking about this subject. You display a significant lack of mobility in how you are able to handle disparate points of view. My impression is that you have a very definite sense of what you think reality and consciousness is - and rather than amiably accept a new opinion that is at variance to your ideas and see it as a welcome source of a new perspective - you seem challenged by endless 'wrong thinking' and appear bound and determined to corral the 'newbie' into your way of thinking, by hook-or-by-crook.

You might as well just say that compared to all the fraudulent scientists, all true psychics are more trustworthy.

No. Just exactly what is a 'trustworthy psychic'? I for one have intuitions - and I know intuitive people - and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong, as are they, as is everyone. Everyone has an intuitive sense. The best psychologists and doctors and counsellors and teachers have an intuitive sense. Figure out 'trustworthy' from there.

So what? That's not the point here. The point was that although science has it's problems, what rationale is there that the cure is "divination"? It's a completely faulty assumption because there are obviously problems in the land of diviners as well. Anyway. Let's not derail this thread OK. If you want to continue this, then let's move it somewhere else.

Here is an example of my using the word 'divining' - and I even put it in quotes - as in 'divining' the world - a poetic term - and you shoot the word to mean that I was referring to 'divination'. That's how you got to 900 numbers, I guess - and the whole scramble above. The word divining can be used in any number of instances without referring to divination. Scientists divine the make-up of the atom. A teacher divines the calibre of a student.

Anyway, it really is impossible to have a conversation with this level of informational scrambling. So I agree, time to bow out.

 

[Randall]

Returning to the topic of Fukushima, here's a pretty good link to a news page: Fukushima Update | Nuclear News from Japan

Tokyo Electric Power Company has transported
22 fuel assemblies from the Unit 4 of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Loaded into
a cask ( pictured below ), the fuel assemblies were
transferred from the crippled reactor building to the
nearby common pool building at the power plant
for safe storage.

The removal of all fuel inside the Unit 4 spent fuel
pool is anticipated to take until the end of 2014.

 

[stonehart]

 

[stonehart]

 

[stonehart]

[78,000,000,000 Bq/m3 of all β] More tank leakage found | Fukushima Diary

 

[stonehart]

 

[stonehart]

 

[Randall]

Re: Thorium Reactors

There are a few details the video left out, like it's not thorium alone that's being used, but a mix of thorium with plutonium oxide, which is obtained from the spent fuel of current light water reactors. The overall energy production process does seem to be safer than those in use today, and although the waste is still radioactive, it becomes safer in a shorter period of time. This isn't a perfect solution, but definitely seems to be the lesser of two evils. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are a few other things we aren't being told. Let's see how the one in Norway does: Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy | ExtremeTech

 

[stonehart]

There are a few details the video left out, like it's not thorium alone that's being used, but a mix of thorium with plutonium oxide, which is obtained from the spent fuel of current light water reactors. The overall energy production process does seem to be safer than those in use today, and although the waste is still radioactive, it becomes safer in a shorter period of time. This isn't a perfect solution, but definitely seems to be the lesser of two evils. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are a few other things we aren't being told. Let's see how the one in Norway does: Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy | ExtremeTech

The burn of the fuel is also far more efficient than light water reactors and given that the fuel use is more efficient the waste product is significantly less but yes you are correct in that some plutonium oxide is needed.
Anyway I posted that Thorium item to show that I am not anti nuclear at all I just think we are going the wrong way about it.

 

[Tyger]

Just how long does that chicken on a raft bit go, Stonehart? I lasted one minute - and some seconds.

 

[stonehart]

Just how long does that chicken on a raft bit go, Stonehart? I lasted one minute - and some seconds.

God knows the most I have done is 4mins .. i think it would drive you mad any longer

 

[stonehart]

 

[stonehart]

Take what you will from this.

 

[stonehart]

 

[stonehart]

 

[stonehart]

Not sure if many people still read this thread but I will keep posting anyway.

Today's news.