Discussion in 'Parapsychology' started by Hermann, Nov 28, 2022.
Now that right there is some fine woo. I wish you bad luck in your fleecing efforts.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
How many times has the experiment be videoed with consistent results?
Surely with such simple equipment being required
the financial support should not be over $200 Australian
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All your comments follow the motto: „What can not, that must not be!“
Nobody has reported an own simulation. As an „exphysicist“ I know, it is impossible to inverse the spin of the pendulum so quickly, without strong forces. Also to stop the movement suddenly, seems to be impossible.
75 years ago my aunt was using the pendulum daily for selecting the right medicine. I have watched the movement carefully with great surprises. Always when I took her Pendulum in my hand, I could only find the Lot.
Now at the age of 87 I could see in the above link strange pendulum movements, without any physical reasons. Such I have never seen before with such power.
Please do not lie to yourself. Try to simulate all the shown movements and you will see, it is not possible. Why do you regard Materialism as your Religion without any doubt?
I suggest you take this nonsense somewhere else. This is a science forum.
Then rather than jumping to the "omg! It's mysterious and the signs of the afterlife" type nonsense, you first go and visit your local optician, as you seem to be needing corrective glasses. The "physical reasons" are the clear manipulation of the pendulum by the woman holding it. You can see her hands and fingers move, slightly but sufficiently, to achieve her desired result.
Now, it may be that you are unable to reproduce what she does, but then I can't comment on how shakey your hands might naturally be to make such fine manipulation more difficult. But, really, it's not hard to achieve if you have reasonably shake-free hands and fingers.
So, please, take this nonsense elsewhere.
The onus is on you to support your claims with evidence.
We have no need to be convinced there is any "afterlife" involvement unless you can first demonstrate:
- "afterlife" even exists
- this is only explainable via your claim
Notice that trying to denigrate your detractors in "Polemic attacks" is not one of those tasks.
Your work is cut out for you.
The guy in the video below is a hypnotist rather than a magician. But it's still the equivalent of the late James Randi performing a feat of someone like Uri Geller, but revealing how it's done without mystical forces, intervening spirits, etc.
James Hazlerig: Ideomotor Movements (link)
EXCERPT: Ideomotor action: What happens is when I think about these [pendulums] moving [and controlling each in a specific manner], my hands move in tiny little ways that are completely imperceptible. In fact, I once hung this up on the other side of a room and I stared at it for an hour thinking about it, trying to make them move. And you know what happened, my wife told me to get a real job. Because these stones did not move unless I was touching the stick. And that's the science behind all of this.
James Hazlerig: Ideomotor Movements
The Pendulum Show from the magician James Hazlerig was excellent!
James Hazelrig seems to be a hypnotist from Austin, Texas in the USA, who makes some use of pendulums.
This does not seem to have anything to do with what you were previously talking about.
I think the more accurate motto is, "stupid shit can be ignored".
It's plainly stated in the very first sentence that he's a hypnotist.
He's no more an all around skilled magician than some of your spiritualists, but can still ably manipulate three pendulums to perform different types of behavior at the same time. And that directed control being mediated through a stick, no less.
If instead he was babbling about the pendulum behaviors being the result of spirits ("It's impossible for a human alone to do this!") you'd be buying into that. But he tells the truth, and you can't handle it.
End result is that your cognitive abilities suddenly take a nosedive, to protect your beliefs from the reality of it. So that you can't even apprehend that first statement that he's a hypnotist.
And lack inferential capacity to grok the significance of the video, though I bet you don't need someone to hold your hand and guide you through toilet duties. (Pretty selective about when you're dense and when you're not, eh?)
We don't. We test and doubt the excrement out of it
What remains is our materialism
You however continue digging through the excrement complaining there must be more
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm a "materialist" only with respect to explanatory approach. (See methodological naturalism). IOW, it's not a metaphysical conviction or ontological dogma.
We don't have direct access to a non-represented external world, but only the one that our brains or minds output for us, which will always feature natural causes (when it's possible for us to obtain a firm, non-debatable explanation for _X_ at all).
Erwin Schrödinger: The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence. Its becoming manifest is conditional on very special goings-on in very special parts of this very world, namely on certain events that happen in a brain. That is an inordinately peculiar kind of implication, which prompts the question: What particular properties distinguish these brain processes and enable them to produce the manifestation? Can we guess which material processes have this power, which not? Or simple: What kind of material process is directly associated with consciousness? --What is Life? Mind and Matter
That represented (empirical or phenomenal) environment is inter-subjective -- objective or "public" in that manner (we can have consensus about it) because non-damaged brains (figuratively) run the same operating system. In contrast, those suffering from clinical conditions or drug influences (hallucinations) can experience all manner of bizarre circumstances and entities inhabiting their version of outer experience.
We explain the represented world with its own contents, not those of a hypothetical domain that could only be speculated about.
While you might be a metaphysical realist and choose the "supernatural" as one of the options for a so-called ultimate reality, it is pointless to seek explanations in the context of a prior in rank level to which there is no access. Any more than [figuratively] the characters of a video game would have ingress to the technological substrate generating their limited environment.
Even a scientific realist view of particles (matter) as really being excitations in 24 quantum fields -- despite that being something wholly different, abstract, and weirder than the phenomenal world that your neural processes present to you via every moment of everyday life -- is itself still a product derived from human intellect and experiment directed at and interrogating the regularities of the empirical or phenomenal world. It's both something that can be revised and even dispensed with over time (in favor of a better theoretical construct). Thus, it thereby also belongs to the phenomenal world (that manifested world of Schrödinger's and Kant's) -- not a noumenal realm uncontaminated with the evolution-derived filtering preferences and qualitative properties of consciousness. (Granting that a particular individual believes in a mind-independent realm to begin with that lacks the latter's useful cognitive deceptions, or is not agnostic about it. See quotes below.)
EDWARD S. REED: Thomas H. Huxley, like all the other scientists in the group -- and like almost all scientists in Europe or America at the that time -- was not a materialist [though popularly construed as such], despite his belief in the progress of mechanistic physiology. He argued in two directions: one from the external phenomena of science (say, the data of physiology) and the other from introspective phenomena (for example, our belief in free will). He was inclined to believe that most (or all) introspectively revealed phenomena would prove to be caused by externally revealed ones.
But in any event he was a phenomenalist, arguing that what is real is phenomena. If the soul (or the unconscious) is not real, it is because it is not part of the phenomenal world.
This panphenomenalism was widely labeled positivism when it was propounded by scientists. In the loosely defined meandering of the term, positivism dominated the European intellectual scene from approximately 1870 to 1890. Yet that type of positivism is inherently unstable when applied to psychology. The externalist (physiological) analysis of behavior and mind attributes all psychological states to antecedent causes. Introspective analysis reveals both intuitions of freedom and the appearance of autonomous psychological states. The two seem irreconcilable. --From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James ... p.121 to 122 (1997)
Positivism was not only agnostic with respect to religion, it was also antimaterialist. This antimaterialism was expressed in a very novel way -- with reference to the new Erkenntnislehre -- mental states or behavior. Matter for Huxley was just what is was for Mach or Hertz: a set of phenomenal observations made by scientists. It is thus remarkable but true that the most reviled "materialists" of the 1880s--Huxley, Tyndall, and Clifford--were all phenomenalists of sort or another and not materialists at all.
The positivist impulse gave new life to a variety of panphenomenalism, one whose adherents were surprisingly uncritical about the analysis of those allegedly basic mental phenomena, sensations. Thus, thinkers as different in outlook and interests as Huxley and Mach, Taine and Spencer, Wundt and Lewes all agreed that the basic "data" on which all science was to built were sensations. --From Soul to Mind: The Emergence of Psychology, from Erasmus Darwin to William James ... p.159 to p.161 (1997)
Whatever moves the pendulum, there is nothing whatsoever to connect it with any afterlife. You might as well call it"proof" of invisible unicorns.
As an actual working engineer, I know that it is possible to induce resonances rapidly, and damp them out just as rapidly. Many power supplies do exactly that. ZCS supplies, for example, start a very strong resonance, then stop that resonance dead half a cycle later.
Electrical resonances are excellent analogs of mechanical resonances, with very similar behaviors.
It is possible. I have done it.
But have you managed to contact the afterlife?
Well, I tried, but my credit card was declined.
You should have used Bitcoin.
Separate names with a comma.