Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Challenge The Materialists And Their Answer Will Be [Crickets]

Lots of snark, no answer to my question of how the ingredient of intelligent design could be removed from what scientists do or why that doesn't make it impossible for science to support the lack of intelligent design.   Without that, the entire line that science can show that has to be regarded as bad scientific thinking. 

On the other hand, I admitted that, for the same reason, science couldn't be done to support the presence of an intelligent design and, by extension, a designer.  But, then, I'm not the one who is trying to use consciousness to disprove the reality of consciousness, the thing that they are using to try to disprove its existence.  Neither am I of the camp which is claiming that the universe created itself, before it existed.  

And I'll point out none of my previous challenges on how the brain would know how to make an idea (the physical structure that IS an idea for materialists) before it knew what to make or how to make it, how it could do that with the exquisite precision that such a feat would require before the idea was there to guide its construction.  Without that, their whole house of cards comes down.  

After last nights tropical deluge here, I'll listen to the real crickets, they're less wrong and more tied to reality than the materialists. 

Update:  No, Sims, I didn't think you would understand the question or that anyone with the ability to think about it for about ten seconds would not understand that there is no way for the materialists to answer those questions.  The fact is that the last one would require them to express a belief in precognition and telepathy, perhaps clairvoyance as well that worked many, many times better than any scientist who has done controlled research in this area has ever reported.  

And now that I've gone over your head, why don't you tell me why Jessica Utts' reasoning in both this paper and in her response to the commentators is wrong.   Especially the points that she and Honorton made about the file-drawer effect and the impossibility of that being relevant to the topic as it really is in real life. 

I have to say, her response to Ray Hyman's ass covering was amusing, though she didn't intend it ironically.   What isn't funny is his documented behavior which is of a piece with what I said this morning and the fact that he's been allowed to get away with it for decades.  And he's hardly the worst offender.  I am thinking about addressing William Feller's creation of categories of disqualifications, ad hoc, and why those are absurd.  But that will take more research than I've got time for right now. 

Now, go say something stupid to the Simels' Friends Network. 

Update 2:  Yeah, sure you did, Simels, 
And I am Marie of Romania. 

Update 3:  Simels is proof of the Bertrand Russell quote on the left side-panel.  He translates everything within the teensy little thing that his mind is and changes the meaning of it to accommodate that modest capacity.   Yet his head hasn't imploded into a singularity, disproves brain-only and gives reason to doubt black holes. 

Update 4:  I don't wonder that the acts of reading something and understanding it seem like psychic faculties to Simels, it would seem to be something that he has never experienced.  The same for drawing a logical conclusion from something read.  The act of reading for him is an act of confirming his pre-existing prejudices, not of understanding what was meant.  No doubt that helped a lot at Stero-Review, it doesn't help much in real life. 


  1. Find me a telepath who can tell you what I'm thinking right this minute and get back to me.

    Until then, you're a credulous crackpot.

    1. Ah, the problem fails on the targer, "what I'm thnking" you've never had a thought in your life.

      You can't understand what Utts and Honorton said and you refuse to even consider it. You are no different from the creationists or the late medieval Ptolemaic astronomy profs who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Only you're sciencey.

      The atheist-materialists have no pants on, they just insist that everyone pretend they don't see what's obvious to be seen.

    2. Prove to me you aren't a Turing test.

      Until then, you're a computer program written by a 13 year old in his Mom's basement.

  2. what I'm thinking right this minute

    You're thinking you're superior, and that Anthony's a credulous crackpot. It ain't rocket surgery.