how about a new forum

[Frog420]

for everything that can't be proven as real, like religion, psychics, and all the rest of the crap that people insist on posting in the NLP and Hypnosis forums... thanks :D

[Unregistered]

for everything that can't be proven as real, like religion, psychics, and all the rest of the crap that people insist on posting in the NLP and Hypnosis forums... thanks :D
I'll second that!

[Jack]

Hello,

I quite enjoy the 'crap' only because the reason it is posted does have something to do with hypnotherapy and NLP, but perhaps not overtly.

Jack

[Don]

Frog, it seems you think that because something "can't be proven as real" under your personal belief system that it doesn't exist.

Well, as we all know, personal belief systems can be very limiting.

[Merlin]

>for everything that can't be proven as real...

You are so sadly limited by your beliefs.

[Unregistered]

>for everything that can't be proven as real...

You are so sadly limited by your beliefs.
Beliefs or superstitions held despite their limitations? Isn't finding truth, science you can use and rely on to work without belief, more important?

[Terry (existing)]

Gee Frog, I don't believe I can prove that you are real since I have never heard of anyone called "Frog" before. Perhaps you too are a figment of our imaginations? Better be ready to prove you are real if you can (G)
Meantime, a Jolly, Holly Christmas to those who don't believe in religion, and a very special Christmas filled with peace and goodwill to those who celibrate the Birthday of Christ on this day. Happy Honiker, (hope I spelled it right) and greetings to those of other faiths who celibrate during this season, but who's cause to celibrate is unknown to me.....May peace decend on us all, and give us a taste for it so great that we work to achieve it........

[Don]

Many years ago, a kook presented his belief that all of the contenents were floating and had at one time been part of a larger, single content. He was laughed at and mocked by the scientists. Now it is a central theory for geology.

Ever hear of that old children's song "Ring Around the Rosy," with the line, "A pocket full of posies?" The scientists at the time thought that the plague was caused by something in the air and suggested that people keep flowers in their pocket to prevent infection. Of course, that scientific concept proved to be completely wrong.

In the early 20th century, less than 100 years ago, the main cause of death in young women in the West was childbirth because doctors thought cleanliness was stupid. They also didn't believe in infections caused by microscopic organisms.

Doctors also believed in phrenology (because it could be measured) until the middle of the 20th century, but they didn't believe in Freud's concept of the unconscious because, uh, it couldn't be measured.

Some of my favorite facts included scientific beliefs that people couldn't communicate if they went faster than the speed of sound and rockets wouldn't work in space because there was nothing (i.e., no atmosphere) to push against.

Accepted objective facts are certainly a measure of what is "real," but they are not the only determination of reality and quite often those "facts" change as events prove they were not facts at all.

Heck, the existentialists have struggled for years to prove than anything other than they, as individuals, exist. I mean, how do you [b][i]really[/i/b] know that the universe exists behind you? You can't see it or know it? How do you really know that your computer and everyone other than you are not simply figments of your imagination?

[skip]

Don,

"Heck, the existentialists have struggled for years to prove than anything other than they, as individuals, exist. I mean, how do you [b][i]really[/i/b] know that the universe exists behind you? You can't see it or know it? How do you really know that your computer and everyone other than you are not simply figments of your imagination?"


Because God wouldnt fool me like that! ;)

[Unregistered]

Ever hear of that old children's song "Ring Around the Rosy," with the line, "A pocket full of posies?" The scientists at the time thought that the plague was caused by something in the air and suggested that people keep flowers in their pocket to prevent infection. Of course, that scientific concept proved to be completely wrong.

Who exactly were these fully fledged Elizabethan scientists living before there was even a notion of the scientific method?

What you're reporting here and attributing to "scientists" is in fact a folk tale. Google is our friend, as usual, here.

Names, attributions and published, peer-reviewed papers. That's the way science works: attribution, ridicule of the wrong and getting steadily nearer the truth by trying harder and building upon that which is proven. Why believe something you've merely been told when you can learn the scientific method and go some certain way to finding out the truth? The only reason I can see is that fantasy is better than reality, but as we know from working with the human mind, reality IS magic.

There's no need to cling to belief: Find out. You're allowed. No one will strike you dead. I promise.

[skip]

Frog,

First of all, things like you mention, beliefs that have no proof, and you should give more than a casual glance to Epistomology sometime, tend to set off some of the lower emotions in us, and many respond with behavior they wouldnt advise their children to use.

For moderators, and normal visitors alike, it is dismaying to see perfectly good discussions degenerate into protracted commentary about each others mothers.

Personally I like for threads to "drift" where they will. It represents reality. People read what was written and respond to what, in them, was "touched". So the thread often takes an unexpected turn, and often a delightful one. I would miss the spontenaiety, if we were to have too many slots to put things in, and everyone went around trying to figure out if this was in the right slot or not.

Besides hypnosis would have to go into the 'unproven slot' too, and then what would we have to talk about in the former hypnosis slot?

Perhaps we would all be better off; simply considering the whole site to be under the "understood, but unstated" umbrella, of "Unproven".

How would that be, does it fit with your sensibilities better now?

skip

[skip]

The annoying thing about the truth is, that it is only true, until new facts are uncovered.

Then we update the truth, per the scientific method, as we should.

Not being smart enough to know what is currently true, and what is in need of updating, I choose to have something else as the God of my idolotry.

Heresy, I know.

Im so bad.

skip

[TaffyE]

:) What would you call it

"Unprovable Crap Etc." :)

[Terry (existing)]

Hey Taf, just remembered, you are celebrating Christmas during your summer eh? Well Merry Christmas to you, and just so you won't feel left out, I can tell you that though we do expect to have a couple of snow falls before the big day, we also expect Christmas Eve and the day itself to be well above zero, and once again, like you we will have another brown Christmas without a flake in sight (sigh) Just like Calgary,

"if you don't like the weather, wait a minute".

[Merlin]

>superstitions held despite their limitations?

Well, you see, myself and others here regularly do that which is considered by many to be untrue or impossible.

Which is the more limiting?
To fly in a 747, or know it is impossible?
To travel more than 10 MPH, or know it is impossible?
Travel *around* the world, or know it is impossible because i'd fall off the edge?
Hypnotise people, or know it is impossible?

>Isn't finding truth, science you can use and rely on to work without belief, more important?

For me, no.

I prefer to be like a bumble bee, stupidly flying about not realising flight for me is aerodynamically and scientifically impossible.

Science is wonderful. It has great value.
But given the choice I'd rather bend the spoon with 'my mind' rather than have science prove I can't.
I'd rather 'remote view' than be shown why it cannot be done.

Science is just a map. A map of a territory.
But if science errs, maybe the map doesn't show Ireland, shall I move? Shall I tread water because 'science' says there is no land there?
I'd rather believe that science's map is lacking certain territory.

[Don]

Don,

"Heck, the existentialists have struggled for years to prove than anything other than they, as individuals, exist. I mean, how do you [b][i]really[/i/b] know that the universe exists behind you? You can't see it or know it? How do you really know that your computer and everyone other than you are not simply figments of your imagination?"


Because God wouldnt fool me like that! ;)

You Kant mean that!
;)

[Don]

They were the doctors and scientists of the times. But because their research turned out to be in error, their works are now rare and difficult to find.

And there certainly was the scientific method back then. In fact--much to many scientists' dismay--the scientific method was invented by the alchemists and magicians of the time. For a full example of documented research, see, for example the works of Dr. John Dee (who had the largest library in England at his home in Mortlake, and whose personal "shewstone" was recently stolen from the British Museum) and Edward Kelly.

[TaffyE]

Thank you Terry,
and Nadolig Llawen a Blwythyn Newyth Da i chwi. (Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you)

Yeeees, Christmas in the summer. Probably around the high 20's. Not at all like it was in Wales.
Our first one here was something of a culture shock. Santa on the back of a ute, in boiling sun and sweating like a pig.
Still, to paraphrase - it's not the weather, it's the season of good will that counts the most
If you don't like the weather only applies to the southern states. Here in Queensland it's great, except when the humid northerlies blow. Winter can be a bit chilly though, when it drops as far as 17 :) :)

All the best to all our lurkers, posters, and even the odd troll or two

[Merlin]

Well Toto,

I guess we're not in Kansas anymore!

[Simple Guy]

Guest,

The advancement of science takes place, at times, in spite of, not because
of "Names, attributions and published, peer-reviewed papers." The
pursuit of science has too many times taken second fiddle to maintaining
the status quo of accepted thoughts, egos and limited ways of thinking.
Take the viability of the Wright Brothers flying machine, the effect of
B Vitamins on homocysteine, the bacteriological basis of most stomach
ulcers, etc, as examples. James Audobon never made the cut among
the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, despite his living
within 30 miles of the Academy steps. His breakthrough "Birds of America"
was published in England, due to the academy members blackballing
his efforts in America. Something about his non-pedigree roots. Some leading
scientists at the time of Edison's lightbulb discovery dismissed Edison as a fraud.
Thankfully, the public was presented with the discovery and made up its own mind.

Sometimes science works because of serendipity. Sometimes it's due to lunatics that
aren't bound to the normal way of seeing things. Sometimes people come to
an advancement because they just don't know any better. Sometimes
people commit the heresy of discovery without the requisite of posessing
professional or academic credentials. Do the peer review gatekeepers sometimes
feel threatened by such things? Do they sometimes seek to protect vested interests?
Yes and Yes. Not all peer review journals are headed by open and honest minded people.
There is also the issue of the influence of the allocation of grant money
and advertising money in some of the more prestigious scientific journals,
as having a negative effect on which people are selected to participate
and the areas of allowable inquiry. I don't paint all journals and their
gatekeepers with this broad brush, neither do I cannonize those
respected journals that have abandoned their ethics and intellectual honesty.

[Unregistered]

>superstitions held despite their limitations?

Well, you see, myself and others here regularly do that which is considered by many to be untrue or impossible.

Which is the more limiting?
To fly in a 747, or know it is impossible?
To travel more than 10 MPH, or know it is impossible?
Travel *around* the world, or know it is impossible because i'd fall off the edge?
Hypnotise people, or know it is impossible?

>Isn't finding truth, science you can use and rely on to work without belief, more important?

For me, no.

I prefer to be like a bumble bee, stupidly flying about not realising flight for me is aerodynamically and scientifically impossible.
Not THIS urban myth again! The bumble bee clearly flies, doesn't it. It is, therefore, plainly not impossible. It obeys the very well understood principles behind aerodynamics just as the 747 or anything else that actively flies does too.

Science is wonderful. It has great value.
But given the choice I'd rather bend the spoon with 'my mind' rather than have science prove I can't.
I'd rather 'remote view' than be shown why it cannot be done.
If you're happy thinking you can do these things then I'm not about to stop you!

Science is just a map. A map of a territory.
But if science errs, maybe the map doesn't show Ireland, shall I move? Shall I tread water because 'science' says there is no land there?
I'd rather believe that science's map is lacking certain territory.
Science gets better at mapping the territory. Belief just decides what it thinks is the territory. Much of science's map is enturely provable. Would you travel on a 747 if the designers just thought it looked like a shape that should be okay in the air instead of finding out?

[skip]

Sometimes I get the horse before Descartes!

Coginto Ergo Potato

I think therefore I yam!

skip

[HypnoLurker]

>
Science is wonderful. It has great value.
But given the choice I'd rather bend the spoon with 'my mind' rather than have science prove I can't.
I'd rather 'remote view' than be shown why it cannot be done.

Merlin, I'm curious. Were the comments above metaphorical or do you really believe you can do these things with mind power?

I ask because your posts generally show much knowledge and sense. But I'm sure you realise that science cannot prove a negative - it is up to those making assertions to prove that they are real phenomena rather than just a delusional belief system. To date, not a single spoon bender or remote viewer has ever demonstrated under controlled condtions (ie. conditions that isolate the claim being tested) that they really occur.

One of the things that hypnosis suffers from is an image problem. In many people's eyes it gets lumped in with paranormal phenomena, which serves to undermine the perception of hypnosis with the public. Very often when I tell people that I'm a hypnotherapist they automatically think I'm some kind of weirdo. (Maybe they would have done anyway :)).

[skip]

Hypnolurker,

Is it ok if I respond to this, in my own way, Merlin may choose to respond or not, as she sees fit.

For me, who was once on the 'side' of the scientific principal, and laws of 'reality' crowd, I can understand your concern. I also agree with the public perception problem.

I believe I can do anything. And that means anything from spoon bending, to flying unaided by apparatus, to curing cancer, to living forever, to ... well you get the picture.

And I have been invited to, among other things, jump off the Eiffel Tower. I am condifent that I would fly, I do when I jump off my garage, it is the landings, at present, that need the work. :)

So why would an other wise rational, seemingly intelligent individual, choose to hold preposterous beliefs? I think that was the essence of your question to Merlin.

The key here is choice and what actually constitutes preposterous.

Lets tackle the latter first. We dont know whats preposterous and what isnt. I can remember when tha atom was the basic unit of matter. No small thing, and pun intended. Then they found out that atoms were made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons, the new basic units of matter. Then they discovered that these tiny creatures were made up of even smaller stuff, quarks, and wierd energies they called strange flows. I feel sure I havent done it justice, but I also feel sure that they will continue to find even smaller basic units of matter. You might want to take note that somewhere in the 30 years it took to do all this, they lost a bit of arrogance, and stopped claiming they now had the basic unit of matter! Good for them.

I use this example to point out that while I can agree that there may be "laws of science or nature" that are immutable, I cant agree that we can be sure we know what they are. The incredible things is, that neither can anyone else. Reference the study of Epistomology, how we can know what we know, that I recommended to Frog, who will no doubt ignore my recommendation.

We can assume, or believe that some of what we know is irrefutable truth, and some is still in the process of being difinitively discovered. And there are too many things that happen that cannot be measured or explained by the 'laws of science', for anyone of us to believe we have it all. The real trouble is we dont really know which is which.

So we live in a world bounded by "Laws" that we arent sure are difinitive, we simply believe they are, because no one has broken them yet. And we are unsure which of them will be broken tomorrow, as so many of them have been broken repeatedly, in the past. If we have learned one thing, it should be, "We dont know for sure."

And that puts us in a position of comparing beliefs. You believe there are immutable laws, I dont. Your belief, my belief.

And since we dont know for sure, we can only say things like, "You cant really fly." or "At one time no one could fly, until someone believed it was possible, and then figured out how."

See sometimes, these "immutable" laws of science get broken accidentally, and sometimes they get broken deliberately. Accidentally like the discovery of x-rays, or deliberately like flying. AND importantly, when they are broken deliberately, it is because someone chose to believe the law was breakable, before anyone knew for sure. The belief comes before the invention.

And it is the deliberate ones, the ones where belief comes first, that I am keenly interested in. Because serendipity might not be controllable. :)

If, as I postulate, we dont know what the limits actually are, or indeed if they really are limits, then it is sure that believing there are limits and that we do know what they are will guarantee those limitations falsely.

And IMO that would be a big mistake.

Even bigger than occasionally being called a fool.

Because I know how the mind works.

The unconscious doesnt distinguish between reality and imagination. Just notice what happens, in your current reality, if you imagine all sorts of terrible things about to happen to you. Just notice what happens if you imagine good things.

And the interesting thing is, that your mind will actually work to 'create' the reality you believe to be true. If you believe the world is against you, your mind will focus on every scrap of 'evidence' that supports that view, and will 'deleat' (using the accepted psychological definition of deleation) any evidence to the contrary.

In other words the mind will 'create' the reality you expect to percieve, and thus your belief will be validated. I cannot count the many experiements that have shown this to be true, even to physics experiemnts that show the experimenters actually DO influence the actions of matter based on their expectations. Pretty heady stuff.

So where does that leave us?

We each have a belief, which we know to be untrue. If truth is irrelevent here, then what is the criteria on which to base our belief?

I say "useful" is a better criteria until we do actually know the truth, and that's based on the assumption that "truth" is actually useful.

As an athelete, is it more useful, or less useful, to believe that I can score a goal, irregardless of the truth of the matter?

As a suitor, is it more useful or less useful, to believe that my amorous advances will be well recieved, irregardless of the truth of the matter? (Note:There is a fine line between true love, and a stalking charge. Caveat Emptor!)

As a business man, is it more useful or less useful, to believe that I can be successful, irregardless of the truth of the matter?

Would I even make the effort, to pick up the remote, to change the channel on the TV, if I didnt believe it would work?

See as a human being, it IS more useful, for me to believe that I can extend beyond the "laws of science", because in that way, I will make the effort, and discover which of them is actually an immutable law, and which of them is a false limitation.

If I dont take on that belief, I will never make the effort, and will have erroneously limited myself, because of a false belief, that it cant be done, or worse that it is just me that cant do it, while others can.

Now I am sure, as a hypnotist, you deal with the limiting effects false beliefs have on your clients. And I am sure you spend a lot of time clearing that up, and thus freeing them from the shakles of limiting beliefs.

What is wrong, with taking that same theraputic concept, and applying it to yourself, with respect to the beliefs you have? Which of them do you know for sure? Oops Epistomology rears its ugly head. And which is better, to believe limiting beliefs, because some of them are correct, or to push the envelope?

I choose to push the envelope. I make that choice because I know that if the law I am pushing is real, it will let me know, and if it isnt ...

It is a deliberate choice, made by a reasonable person (presumably), and one which I frankly cannot imagine any intelligent person failing to make. But I understand not many people have examined it in this light. Not many people understand that what we think is true is really mere belief. And that is the key that causes all the other dominos to fall. Truth is out there somewhere, and it may or may not be mutable, I rather imagine it isnt. But until I can know what it is, I will choose useful to be the criteria I judge by, because I know the tremendous limiting and liberating power belief plays in everyones life, and I want liberation over limitation.

I cannot remember the characters in this Greek Myth, but I think it illustrates my point. Two fellows were drinking, and bragging as Greek Mythological characters were wont to do. They were bragging about their physical strength. One even claimed that he could lift a yearling bull. Now thats a bull calf, one year old, and probably 750-1000 pounds, at the time, I suspect they are heavier now.

Well an argument ensued, and heritage was questioned, and then things got serious, a bet was made. 50 gold soverigns, a fortune, one sure to completely bankrupt the loser.
(Make a mental note about the follies of mixing alcohol and testoserone coctails)

Well, at put up, or shut up time, the one fellow said, "Meet me here one year from now, and I will complete the bet."

He then went home, procured a newborn bull calf, about 50 pounds, and proceeded to lift it every day. One year later he went back, with the yearling bull, that he had been lifting every day, and lifted it, to the dismay of his antagonist.

It is stories, metaphors like that, that show me that people thru the ages have understood how powerful belief is. And they are always structured in such a way as to have the moral be, "Believe you can."

No one is saying effort isnt required. No one is saying that failure isnt possible. No one is saying that you will succeed every time. BUT, and read this last sentence carefully, it is deliberately crafted to say exactly what I mean.

"If you continue to want and believe, any result, other than success, is mere feedback, pointing you to new ways to accomplish what you want, you can only experience failure if you abandon a goal, still wanting that goal."

That simple belief will take you much further, irregardless of where you want to go, than will ever believing, that there are things you cannot do.

Ill let you know when I am ready for the Eiffel Tower gig. :)

skip

PS: I agree that public perception is important. No one wants the profession of hypnosis to be labled as populated with kooks. But even something that sounds kooky at first, makes sense when the reasoning and the thought process behind it are revealed. How we choose to present these radical ideas, is important, to our success in their acceptance. But that again is just a belief of mine, it couldnt possibly be true.

[Merlin]

Simple,

Einstein comes to mind.
He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.
His peers of the time rejected his ideas.

Tesla had a similar problem.

[Merlin]

>Not THIS urban myth again!

It was a scentific fact for many years.
Just like the Earth being flat. Not a myth but rather fact for many centuries.

>Science gets better at mapping the territory.

Eventually, yes. But shall we not do something while science catches up?
If it's accepted as scientifically impossible, how can science ever accept the idea, unless there are those who go against what is accepted as scientific fact?

>Much of science's map is enturely provable.

Science eventually becomes provable *in retrospect*
That is until new science proves the old wrong.

Is light a partical or a wave?
How is it that acting on a photon causes changes in another photon when the two are so far apart that the reaction 'violates the law' of reaction times exceeding the 'speed of light (C)'

[Merlin]

>Were the comments above metaphorical...

No, I have experienced them.

>But I'm sure you realise that science cannot prove a negative

That can be a problem at times.

>To date, not a single spoon bender or remote viewer has ever demonstrated under controlled condtions

Sure they have.
You can find some of the beginning research on remote viewing in the journal of the institute of electrical and electronic engineers IEEE back in the '70s (peer reviewed journal)

I'm not a research librarian and i'm loath to share research documentation, but if you really take the time to research it, you'll find the documentation.
I've even posted references here in the past. <ich>

The problems of the past were that the wronk kinds of tests were used.

As an example, many physicists still argue over light as a partical or a wave. Depending on how the experment is set up, either can be *proven scientifically*.

In actuality, the problem is that time is 2 dimensional. When looking at frequency 2 temporal dimensions are used. When looking at particals, one of the dimensions is thrown out, assuming time is one-dimensional.

[Unregistered]

Science eventually becomes provable *in retrospect*
That is until new science proves the old wrong.
[/QUOTEOr until proved axiomatic, of course.

[QUOTE]
Is light a partical or a wave?
How is it that acting on a photon causes changes in another photon when the two are so far apart that the reaction 'violates the law' of reaction times exceeding the 'speed of light (C)'
Mathematics predicts, describes and explains the "why" of the strange quantum world and experiment is subsequently verifying it. Nonlocality (see: http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html for a nice explanation) is easily understandable. It shows cause and effect. So many psychic phenomenon seem vague and won't submit to concerted study. Transistors rely on bizarre quantum effects but they work whether you believe they do or not.

Not bad for such an imperfect map of a world that belief alone could never have found and certainly couldn't exploit in any rational sense, eh? If But if a map is just belief then I think I'll prefer this one! LOL!

[Unregistered]

Simple,

Einstein comes to mind.
He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.
His peers of the time rejected his ideas.
That's not correct, Merlin. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein.

"...After his general theory of relativity was formulated, Einstein became world-famous, an unusual achievement for a scientist..."

He, in fact, won the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on explaning the photoelectric effect.

By not looking things up we're forced to rely on belief... :-)

[Unregistered]

As an example, many physicists still argue over light as a partical or a wave. Depending on how the experment is set up, either can be *proven scientifically*.
I see what you're getting at, Merlin, but in doing so this, and your ideas about time, also tell me that you don't, with the greatest of respect, really know enough about quantum mechanics for me to continue.

[Unregistered]

In 10.000 years all the "facts" of current science will be neglected and our knowledge from this time will be seen as totally laughable...
why not look at it this way now already ? we could find out so many things which work! .. tell a person living 300 years before now that there will be flying things in the air where 100's of person will sit in.. they would think you are crazy..
i see all the people who say things are impossible.. or are proven to not work like that...
we don't "see" reality.. we see reality processed by our brain...

[Don]

Ah, yes, Descartes.

You know what happened to him, don't you?

He was in a restaurant and had a huge meal. The waiter asked if he'd like some desert. Descartes said, "I think not," and promptly vanished, never to be seen again.



Papadakis brought a pair of torn trousers to a Greek tailor.

"Euripides?" asked the tailor.
"Eumenides?" Papadakis responded.

[Don]

Not THIS urban myth again! The bumble bee clearly flies, doesn't it. It is, therefore, plainly not impossible. It obeys the very well understood principles behind aerodynamics just as the 747 or anything else that actively flies does too.


Not exactly an urban myth, just an example of science originally not understanding physical reality.

In the initial studies of a bee's flight, it became clear that the size of a bee's wings could not support it in flight. This was quite puzzling because, as you point out, the bee does fly.

What hadn't been figured in was the fact that the bee's wings were flexible and controllable, not fixed. Once this was taken into account, the understanding of a bee's flight became clear.

Similarly, Einstein couldn't understand a feature of his theory of relativity. By his calculation, the effects of gravity should be causing the universe to be contracting upon itself, and visual evidence showed that this was not taking place. So he projected a force, the "Universal Constant," that kept the universe from becoming a giant ball of compressed matter.

What he didn't know was that the universe was expanding. This was only determined after he published his theory. Current relativists have abandoned the Universal Constant.

Similarly, our understanding of the universe is not a "universal constant." It grows and expands. Simply because we cannot measure or understand something now does not mean it won't be solid scientific fact in the future.

[Unregistered]

Similarly, Einstein couldn't understand a feature of his theory of relativity. By his calculation, the effects of gravity should be causing the universe to be contracting upon itself, and visual evidence showed that this was not taking place. So he projected a force, the "Universal Constant," that kept the universe from becoming a giant ball of compressed matter.

What he didn't know was that the universe was expanding. This was only determined after he published his theory. Current relativists have abandoned the Universal Constant.

Oh dear. Do you mean the gravitational constant or are you trying to describe the cosmological constant (the energy density of a vacuum or A for short) here? Who are these relativists that would not have re-admitted A to the cannon to help explain inflation and therefore Dark Matter? Either way, you're getting more confused than Merlin's lumping of Einstein with the Bohr posse!

Universal constants are just a class of constant (Planck's Constant, C, G, etc.)

Am I wandering through a field of intellectual pygmies here or will someone start looking things up before they put fingers to keyboard?

[Unregistered]

Ah, yes, Descartes.

You know what happened to him, don't you?
Doesn't Python namecheck the old graph merchant? Something like:

"Rene Descartes was a drunken fart,
'I drink, therefore I am'"?

Refused to get out of bed until 11am and once spent his days thinking in an oven. Nice bloke, a brain you could boil a kettle on, but not very practical.

[Unregistered]

Guest,

The advancement of science takes place, at times, in spite of, not because
of "Names, attributions and published, peer-reviewed papers." The
pursuit of science has too many times taken second fiddle to maintaining
the status quo of accepted thoughts, egos and limited ways of thinking.
Take the viability of the Wright Brothers flying machine, the effect of
B Vitamins on homocysteine, the bacteriological basis of most stomach
ulcers, etc, as examples. James Audobon never made the cut among
the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, despite his living
within 30 miles of the Academy steps. His breakthrough "Birds of America"
was published in England, due to the academy members blackballing
his efforts in America. Something about his non-pedigree roots. Some leading
scientists at the time of Edison's lightbulb discovery dismissed Edison as a fraud.
Thankfully, the public was presented with the discovery and made up its own mind.

Sometimes science works because of serendipity. Sometimes it's due to lunatics that
aren't bound to the normal way of seeing things. Sometimes people come to
an advancement because they just don't know any better. Sometimes
people commit the heresy of discovery without the requisite of posessing
professional or academic credentials. Do the peer review gatekeepers sometimes
feel threatened by such things? Do they sometimes seek to protect vested interests?
Yes and Yes. Not all peer review journals are headed by open and honest minded people.
There is also the issue of the influence of the allocation of grant money
and advertising money in some of the more prestigious scientific journals,
as having a negative effect on which people are selected to participate
and the areas of allowable inquiry. I don't paint all journals and their
gatekeepers with this broad brush, neither do I cannonize those
respected journals that have abandoned their ethics and intellectual honesty.

Okay, let's try again. Science is predictable magic you can use in your day to day meanderings. Turn on a light switch and, provided physics hasn't made the bulb pop, it'll make photons stream from hot tungsten whether you believe in photons or not. And I do wish you'd furnish us with examples.

[skip]

"Am I wandering through a field of intellectual pygmies here or will someone start looking things up before they put fingers to keyboard?"

I think you could be.

The only question is, "Are the intellectual pygmies, those who know that they know, or those who know that they dont know?"

If indeed there are intellectual pygmies on board.

Out of curiosity, how framiliar are you with NLP's "different strategies of knowing"?

Might come in useful when communicating with someone whose strategy is different from yours. If communicating is your desire, instead of just telling them how wrong they are.

I used to be all reason and logic, and couldnt figure out how my ex wife could make decisions. She sure as hell couldnt explain it to me, and all my rhetoric wasnt convincing to her.

Definately an enigma.

The strangest thing was that she not just survived in this world, she actually managed to make good decisions, and thrive! Now how could anyone possibly do that consistantly with out using reason and logic that 'everyone' could appreciate?

It wasnt unrtil after she was long gone, that I learned about NLP, and 'discovered' the different stretegies people use.

Now I still tend towards my old reason and logic, but I have also learned to be more intuitive, a damned sight more. And both work very well for me. One I can explain the other I cant. Not too shabby for someone who completely mistrusted it before, eh?

What would you say, if I told you you could have personal experiential evidence of your own psychic ability in six months or less, proof to your own personal satisfaction, with very simple easy to do methods? Would you do it, or would you allow your belief to prevent you from actually knowing?

just curious,

skip

[Unregistered]

What would you say, if I told you you could have personal experiential evidence of your own psychic ability in six months or less, proof to your own personal satisfaction, with very simple easy to do methods? Would you do it, or would you allow your belief to prevent you from actually knowing?

just curious,

skip
Well, I'd have to explain that what you're talking about is where I came from. I tried, I really did, but decided in the end that I couldn't, in all conscience, not go with what I know works right here right NOW. The stuff people can actively expand upon with confidence and which will help me a lot more than the honest but morbidly self-deluding intellectual shortcut of what seems to me to be, after a lifetime of trying to show otherwise using science against itself, wishful thinking. I want to know what's real RIGHT NOW and what can be used RIGHT NOW by anyone. I'm not interested in what someone else is interestesd in making me think might be real but only for those that believe what they tell them to believe. True intellectual freedom lies in finding out what's real and repeatable without needing to be persuaded of it. A light comes on whenever you flick a switch. No one needs to convince my eyes of that fact. Sometimes you have to confront people with that level of basic reality to wake them up, Skip. Just to wake them up. Sorry if it comes across as occluded or aggressive, but that's just the way truth is sometimes.

[skip]

It came across confused.

I dont need any justification one way or another, I will form my own conclusions based on your response.

Do you mean "Yes you will honestly try it.", or "No you wont?"

It is a relatively simple question, and requires only a simple answer, just remember I might be an intellectual pygmie, so try not to obfuscate the issue, for me. :)

skip

[Merlin]

>Mathematics predicts, describes and explains the "why" of the strange quantum world...

No. Mathematics *guesses* by probability of events.

Today.
It'll be different tomorrow.
Mathematical prediction doesn't make it right.
It just makes it more palletable to some.

>Transistors rely on bizarre quantum effects but they work whether you believe they do or not.

No they don't. Future transisters might, but current one do not.
and no, I'm not looking for an argument of majority carriers, minority carriers, avalanche, or any other characteristic of either bipolar or FETs.

>So many psychic phenomenon seem vague and won't submit to concerted study.

*some* psi phenomina seems that way.
Never stopped me from doing it.

>but they work whether you believe they do or not.

See, I don't care a whole lot if science proves that which I do daily is wrong. I will 'foolishly' continue to do it. I will continue doing it whether science proves me wrong or not.

>If But if a map is just belief then I think I'll prefer this one! LOL!

You're welcome to believe whatever you want.
There are no requirements here.

[Merlin]

>Am I wandering through a field of intellectual pygmies here or will someone start looking things up before they put fingers to keyboard?

No. You're just caught up in the popular science of the moment.
Wait a few more years. It'll change.

[Merlin]

Or possibly you are the one lacking understanding?

If you wish to claim that my statements do not match current scientific theory, then I'll gladly agree.

Matters not to me what you want to believe.

[Merlin]

>>He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.

>He, in fact, won the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on explaning the photoelectric effect.

You make my point well! Thank you.

You even quoted my post:
>>He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.

Then go on to state he won the prize for the photoelectric effect.

Indeed he did. But it has nothing to do with my statement:
>>He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.

In your haste to prove me wrong, you seem to have totally missed what I stated.

[Merlin]

>Turn on a light switch and, provided physics hasn't made the bulb pop, it'll make photons stream from hot tungsten whether you believe in photons or not

So, when *science* once thought positive charges moved, then lightbulbs were scientifically impossible?

Could it possibly be that the lightbulb would light regardless of the theory as to why?

[Simple Guy]

Guest,

I don't share your view of "True intellectual freedom" as you speak of it
elsewhere in this thread. I wouldn't, however, preach my personal
definition of it to you. You are entitled to your beliefs, whatever they
may be. I would say, though, that any aversion for the grey areas of
knowledge that veer off from the comfort of the "predictable magic,"
tends to limit the advance of knowledge. It's the areas of uncertainty,
that evokes a dis-ease common to intellectuals and pygmies alike.
People generally don't like to have their own notions shaken. Some
people can find situations that rock their understandings threatening
or worse. Societies provide a macro example of this when change
unleashes a backlash that even excepts loss of freedom itself as
an acceptable price for lessening ambiguity. -- Hitler comes to mind, as
does Salem witch history. Professors tend to grade down papers that
challenge their pet theories and propositions. Talk radio has been
studied and found that people listen to those hosts that confirm their
own beliefs. -- It doesn't, by and large, change anyone's mind; it only
makes issues prominent. I am not singling you out as an example of
someone with an aversion for uncertainty. Your posts, though, suggest
to me that this isn't irrelevant to this discussion.

You say you wish I'd provide you with "examples." I'm not sure what
you are speaking of. I imagine that you may be speaking of examples
of the power of belief to predictably and reliably affect the outcome
of things. If so, I could do so, but probably won't because I don't
see any positive purpose for so doing. I'd prefer to let you know that
discomfort with uncertainty is a pretty universal phenomenon. It's
something, though, that can be effectively handled, allowing people
to be more comfortable.

[Unregistered]

>>He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.

>He, in fact, won the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his work on explaning the photoelectric effect.

You make my point well! Thank you.

You even quoted my post:
>>He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.

Then go on to state he won the prize for the photoelectric effect.

Indeed he did. But it has nothing to do with my statement:
>>He never did a Nobel prize for his theory of relativity.

In your haste to prove me wrong, you seem to have totally missed what I stated.

The Nobel Prizes are awarded for DISCOVERY not for theory. Jeeeez. When are you going to try looking things up?

This has descended into pointless point scoring and is intellectually redundant.

[Unregistered]

No they don't. Future transisters might, but current one do not.
and no, I'm not looking for an argument of majority carriers, minority carriers, avalanche, or any other characteristic of either bipolar or FETs.
So, you've looked up a few terms. Good. But what about the obscure branch of quantum mechanics called Surface Physics, developed to explain the semiconductor effect?

You see, for someone with a degree in physics ( hint hint:) ) it's quite obvious you're trying to hit above weight here. Let's stop now. I don't really care what psi effects you claim to produce other than if you can produce them strongly and at will there's a Dr Richard Wiseman (http://phoenix.herts.ac.uk/pwru/RWHomepage.html) who'd love to test you according to a strict, repeatable scientific protocol. But when you try to tell me or anyone else that what is known to be true and works right now is wrong, well of course I'm going to correct you and anyone else with a bit of physics or math reading this will probably look down on you. And that's avoidable.

[Unregistered]

Or possibly you are the one lacking understanding?
Your ideas about time, that mathematics can only "guess" (landing a probe on Titan using just the equations from Newton's 300 year old "Principia Mathematica" looks like a really big guess, doesn't it?!), that axioms change and saying that transistors are classical devices just shows that the inverse is the case.

Look, this is pointless. You're just trying to claim some form of semantic "truth" now in a point scoring exercise. The actual arguent disolved long ago. If you can do what you claim, well good for you. Talk to James Randi about claiming the million dollars he has for one such as you instead of making vague claims. You could retire... :)

[Frog420]

ya know monkeys.... 2 legs, 2 arms, hands and feet, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth... a brain

familiar huh... we aint much more evolved than a monkey... theres a lot more of us than there is monkeys so we've had to adapt... but thats all we did

sorry guys... we're monkeys!

[Unregistered]

Out of curiosity, how framiliar are you with NLP's "different strategies of knowing"?

Of course, and you can read it as a quasi anthropological or even a sociological inquiry into the workings of the human mind with clear applications. This is supported in the literature in its focus on issues of knowledge and knowledge production. In tracing how human beings individually and collectively perceive their world, magic realist fiction, as an example of such an application, critically reviews different strategies of knowing - or rather constructing – reality. All I've sought to do is to contrast received a (i.e. rational, scientific) paradigm of knowledge and its epistemological potential with alternative, “other” modes of knowledge production, chief among which are the beliefs dredged up to provide structure and substance to various forms of narrative.

Or do you simply mean that others hold differing views that, rather than being challenged to produce themselves, should be nurtured, despite their merely subjective assertion? Isn't that a little like:

"I can bend spoons with my mind!"
"Wow! Really! Cool!"

rather than...

"I can bend spoons with my mind!"
"Okay, we have a regular spoon here from the canteen. We'll figure out a way to wire you up, wire the spoon up, put you in an fMRI scanner, video you from all angles and see what's actually causing it and in doing so PROVE you can do it."

What bothers me is that as soon as you get people in a lab their ability suddenly disappears (this is published ad nauseum and "sides" start to appear in any discussion of same so let's not:) ). The one effect that IS repeatable (and this is also published) is that results using exactly the same protocol but in labs where the researchers believe in the effects they are looking for get better results than labs where thy don't. That's the next field of study, but it'll be done using science not by stopping thinking and declaring it as a result in itself, because it isn't at that point because it's not a general case, just a few data.

By embracing and using science as the tool it is, you can stand on the shoulders of giants. By rejecting it for increasingly strange reasons (surely its ability to critically inspect itself is a good thing?) it consigns the one with mere belief into darkness and that's not rfair to the believer or those that might be swayed by poorly thought out explanations.

Or to put it another way: ever heard one skilled reading signs and portents use the phrase "no, it's just a coincidence. It means nothing." :)


See? :)

[Unregistered]

ya know monkeys.... 2 legs, 2 arms, hands and feet, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth... a brain

familiar huh... we aint much more evolved than a monkey... theres a lot more of us than there is monkeys so we've had to adapt... but thats all we did

sorry guys... we're monkeys!
You speak the truth. First to doubt it gets several pages of references to evidence of evolution found in the fossil records and a critique of Leveticus! :)

Why do we, as a sapient species, not find it upsetting that the bonobo is usedfor food and is almost extinct in the wild, while we protect more tangental species in law?

[Unregistered]

>Am I wandering through a field of intellectual pygmies here or will someone start looking things up before they put fingers to keyboard?

No. You're just caught up in the popular science of the moment.
Wait a few more years. It'll change.
No, it will develop as our understanding gets better. In contrast, won't your beliefs remain subjective assertions?

Why not hop on board and find out how you can combine what you say you can do with all that science offers in terms of the understanding and application of your abilities? I simply can't understand someone actively choosing not to use something available for free to the whole of mankind. It puzzles me because such a decision is self limiting and seemingly counter-inuitive, which I find odd in a profession dedicated to helping other people achieve their true potential.

There's still mystery and wonder in the world, there always will be. Surely understanding only increases that sense of wonder? Or is it being dismissed by some as a smokescreen, something to keep knowledge hidden and to deny access by the uninitiated? Just look at how many newbies are denied clear, simple answers here and you begin to see a clear pattern emerge from the data. Please don't be part of that pattern, Merlin. If you are wise enough to be Merlin, surely you're wise enough to see what others see?

[parsa]

Is the point of the discussion here to somehow try to prove that the only things that we should talk about are subjects that can be proven scientifcally?

If that is the discussion...well... then I guess you need to talk about what is scientific proof.

First of all science as theory is mostly just a self consistant system which does not contradict a certain set of rules that at any given time in history the majority has accepted to be true. But, the burden of 'proof' is not a time constant.

Personally, I think that science never tells you what to research or to think about. All it says is that this is what I define as science 'now' and if you bring X or Y I will say science or not science according to this definition.

Now if you wish to choose to only think about issues that are considered scientific 'now' , that is your 'choice'. And that is all it is, a choice.

But, I personally think that science has progressed by the work of the people who didn't limit themselves to what was considered scientific at their time, and of course they had a little luck too:) .

Who knows if anyone would even know Einstien if it hadn't been for Fienman.

See, that's the funny thing. A lot of times people don't understand something and they say it's wrong(what Einstien was saying). But then they 'trust'(something that is totally unscientific) somone(Fienman) who says it's right and then by some magical incident after some time they start understanding it:) .

[Merlin]

The point is that many of the effects (Psi) have been labratory proven.

[Mr Man]

The point is that many of the effects (Psi) have been labratory proven.
Not to take sides or anything, but where and when?

[Mr Man]

Who knows if anyone would even know Einstien if it hadn't been for Fienman.

See, that's the funny thing. A lot of times people don't understand something and they say it's wrong(what Einstien was saying). But then they 'trust'(something that is totally unscientific) somone(Fienman) who says it's right and then by some magical incident after some time they start understanding it:) .
Sorry to but in again but idn't somoene say Relativity made Einstein world famous. Surely atomic explosions would have kept Einstein in everyone's mind because of E=mc^2 LOL! I've had a look around the Internet and it seems Richard Feynman (it is the same person, isn't it?) worked into the early 1990s, so didn't he come after einstein anyway?

Years ago I read "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman". Perhaps I;ve misunderstood this thread, but didn't he teach physics to people rather than just saying it was true. Oh, and he was interested in hypnosis too if I remember correctly.

[parsa]

I spelled both their names wrong:o . Very embarrassing:o .

As far as I know, I might not be correct , there was a lot of opposition towards his theory of relativity. By 1916 he was done with both general and special relativity but it took years till anyone accepted them. It seems that Feynman was a very prominent force for Einstein's acceptance. This is as far as I know, might be wrong:)

[Merlin]

Hello Mr Man,

It was somplace obscure. A place called the Stanford Reseach Institute during the '70s

There was an article written on the early work in the IEEE 'Proceedings'

Later, their work was picked up by the CIA and military intel.

Then it gets messy as the CIA started their mis-information campaign.

[Merlin]

Hi Mr Man,

Feynman was involved in the Manhatten Project of long ago, though he is well known for his work in Quantum Electrodynamics.
Some students of physics will know him from the 'Feynman lectures on Physics' books. I don't believe he wrote them, but they were supposed to be based on his lectures.
He was also involved in the search for what happened in the space shuttle 'Challenger' disaster.

[Mr Man]

Hi Mr Man,

Feynman was involved in the Manhatten Project of long ago, though he is well known for his work in Quantum Electrodynamics.
I think I remember him from the challenger disaster documantaries. He seems like a truthful man. what's quantum electrodynamics, though?

[Mr Man]

Hello Mr Man,

It was somplace obscure. A place called the Stanford Reseach Institute during the '70s

There was an article written on the early work in the IEEE 'Proceedings'

Later, their work was picked up by the CIA and military intel.

Then it gets messy as the CIA started their mis-information campaign.

Hi again Merlin. I'd love to find out more aboutthis but all the stuff I've found on the Intenrt points to some guys called Puthoff and Targ. There IEEE paper seems to be just what they were doing to try to find psi in 1972. The rest (pages and pages) are all about conferences to discuss how to find psychic phenomenon (and a few crank sites, nach!). I'm lost! In the spirit of Christmas can you give me a reference I can look for so I can have a little reading for the holidays :) As I say, I've fouind the IEEE stuff already.

[Merlin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

[Merlin]

Try Vol 64 #3 March '76

I don't remember the '72 paper.

>The rest (pages and pages) are all about conferences to discuss how to find psychic phenomenon (and a few crank sites, nach!).

Even if you try to search Remote Viewing, you'll find mostly crank sites. Everyone wants to make a buck.
But cranks don't invalidate the phenomina.
I'm not specifically endorsing Puthoff & Targ's work, just sharing some research.
I do it differently (naturally I think my method is better )

>As I say, I've fouind the IEEE stuff already.

I encourage you to look again.

[Mr Man]

Try Vol 64 #3 March '76

I don't remember the '72 paper.

>The rest (pages and pages) are all about conferences to discuss how to find psychic phenomenon (and a few crank sites, nach!).

Even if you try to search Remote Viewing, you'll find mostly crank sites. Everyone wants to make a buck.
But cranks don't invalidate the phenomina.
I'm not specifically endorsing Puthoff & Targ's work, just sharing some research.
I do it differently (naturally I think my method is better )

>As I say, I've fouind the IEEE stuff already.

I encourage you to look again.

Hi again Merlin.

I found a copy of the published paper at http://www.espresearch.com/espgeneral/IEEE-329B.shtml

I will read it asnd get back to you?

[Mr Man]

Hi again Merlin.

Wow! What a paper! It looks really impressive, but I do have some questions about it though if you don’t mind staisfying my curiosity.

I know this was a long time ago but is it possible that the experienced remote viewers just seemed good (the beginners were not very good it seems!) at it because they were better cold readers? I know that sounds really really sceptical, but if you look at the transcript in appendix b, it certainly looks like the viewer is hedging his (her?) bets. What I mean to say is that the viewer was supposed to be see the experimenter at the remote location. In response to the question “what do you think Hal is doing while he is there?” S6 says “I have a sense that he is looking at things trying to project them.” Now, to my mind, that sort of thing sounds like something anyone could say. Now, I do a party cold reading act and, well, I’m trying to keep an open mind here…

What really struck me also was the idea of the judges and the secondary panel. Some of the pictures the viewers drew are really wobbly and it was left to a judge to decide if they were what they were supposed to be seeing. On page 336, the picture of the swimming pool complex drawn by S1 looks nothing like the city map. The panel were asked to match transcripts with real places. I found this a “force” like you do in card tricks because it meant that they sort of had to match one to the other. The text doesn’t say they could simply not see a good enough match as an opiton.

The other thing is the comment in the paper itself that though in the experiment where the experimenters were at remote locations, there’s never any sense of action. One point made is that even though trains are roaring past a level crossing (I think it was that anyway) the viewer didn’t mention the rail traffic at all.

I have to admit I then found the Wikipedia page on the experiments when I was trying to see what else the authors have done since and there are a lot of criticisms of their original work.

I don’t know. It looks interesting, but I think it would be a good idea to repeat the experiment using more modern methods and thousands of subjects to get lots of data. Ws could find a general effect across the general population if we did that? Just my 2 cents worth, but something I found very interesting non the less. I expect that science guy will shoot me down but I don't care! I liked reading it.

[Unregistered]

Hi again Merlin.

I found a copy of the published paper at http://www.espresearch.com/espgeneral/IEEE-329B.shtml

I will read it asnd get back to you?
This is mildly diverting as a historical document in terms of showing how the science of generating experimental protocols has developed, but nothing more.

One notes, for instance, that the field of remote reading did not enter the mainstream after its publication, which goes some way in explaining what others thought of it at the time.

[Merlin]

I would agree there are a few questions based on that one paper.
It was early work.There has been much more work since but since I'm not a reference librarian I'll leave it to you to research.

There have been things done which cannot possibly be 'cold reading' such as seeing rings around Jupiter similar to Saturn before the sattelite ever found them.
Such rings were scoffed at and it was thought it must be proof that RVing was nonsense. Yet much later, sattelite pictures confirmed such rings.

This is not a website to defend anything. We just sometimes discuss ideas.
I've stated I do (something like) RV.
Now it really doesn't matter to me what the research on the topic is. I do it. It's that simple. The science may say it's laughable nonsense. It doesn't matter to me. I DO IT!

Now you know about it. You've read sme papers about it. You've heard from me. I DO IT.

You may choose to explore it for yourself (I DO IT) or you can believe it is nonsense. It won't change what I do in any way.

I will tell you that I use different methods than Puthoff or Targ were investigating.

[Terry (existing)]

First it's a frog, and now it's a monkey, and in both guises it can type and put together sentences just like me....... I am amazed.......

[Mr Man]

I would agree there are a few questions based on that one paper.
It was early work.There has been much more work since but since I'm not a reference librarian I'll leave it to you to research.

There have been things done which cannot possibly be 'cold reading' such as seeing rings around Jupiter similar to Saturn before the sattelite ever found them.
Such rings were scoffed at and it was thought it must be proof that RVing was nonsense. Yet much later, sattelite pictures confirmed such rings.

This is not a website to defend anything. We just sometimes discuss ideas.
I've stated I do (something like) RV.
Now it really doesn't matter to me what the research on the topic is. I do it. It's that simple. The science may say it's laughable nonsense. It doesn't matter to me. I DO IT!

Now you know about it. You've read sme papers about it. You've heard from me. I DO IT.

You may choose to explore it for yourself (I DO IT) or you can believe it is nonsense. It won't change what I do in any way.

I will tell you that I use different methods than Puthoff or Targ were investigating.
Hi Merlin.
Okay okay! YOU DO IT (LOL, sorry but you kept saying it!), but how? And can you use it in everyday life and if so how do you use it. What do you do? Is it accurate. I've never met a real remote viewer (I expect you can tell!)

[Merlin]

>(LOL, sorry but you kept saying it!),

We ca have fun, can't we :)

>but how?

Too big a subject to cover here.
Basically, you already do it, all the time.
The task is to separate RVing from Imagination.
That takes knowing what to do and practice.

>And can you use it in everyday life...

I do.
I train my students to.

>and if so how do you use it.

To know future or past events.
Something like a very accurate history book.

>Is it accurate.

'It" is always 100% accurate for the past. The future is likely, but not set in concrete. The future depends on how many human choices will be available to divert things.

'It' is always accurate. It must be.
Your interpretation and how much imagination interferes can vary.

>I've never met a real remote viewer (I expect you can tell!)

Everyone is/can do it. It's a part of our nature.
Most of us have it drilled into us when we are very young that it cannot be.

[Merlin]

>On page 336, the picture of the swimming pool complex drawn by S1 looks nothing like the city map.

It's not the swimming pool complex. One problem of such experiments is that the target is not fully defined.
The 'viewer' was looking at the correct *location* but at the wrong *time*. The site was a water treatment plant before it was rebuilt as a park.

>there’s never any sense of action...

Often true. A viewer is typically not 'viewing' as the remote person is. The 'viewer' is merely using the person as a 'locator'. Time then is often static, and unless defined may be in error. It's almost as if the viewer is given a film of all time at that location. The viewer might look at the same frame as the remote person, but will not see the movie, only a specific frame. Thus movement is not readily identified unless movement is specifically targeted.
Also, the viewer can view all time. It's possible to see a field before the water treatment plant is built. Maybe a deer grazing or something.
One key, often overlooked because of a lack of understanding is to not fully define the target in space and time.


I'm sure more research will eventually be done.
Some already has, but it's been concealed by the government.
It's kindof a touchy thing when governments discover that it's impossible to keep secrets!

Also, many presuppositions will have to be discarded before more meaningful application data can be obtained.

[skip]

Russel Targ wrote an excellent book on how to remote view.

Soon as I get home Ill check on the title.

Or why dont I do it from here?

"Limitless Mind: A Guide to Remote Viewing and Transformation of Consciousness" Russel Targ

Also check out, using google 'The Monroe Institute' not specifically remote viewing anymore but were ( if I recall correctly) very involved with the same govt experiments Targ and the others did.

cheers,

skip

[melvin higgins]

Remote viewing with correct time has been a problem for some, but there is technology to solve this.

The past, is composed of materialized thoughts. They are easier to detect. The present is the process of materializing thoughts. The future is composed of thoughts that have been conceived but have not yet been materialized. That's because the future has not yet been impressed on physics. In fact, since we have not yet lived the future, it can change... if we change our mind.
Army units were taught the use of a Time Mechanism Device, to over come the time problem that MERLIN refers to.

To use it, hold your left hand up, palm facing towards your right hand, and point the index finger of your right had at the palm of your left hand. Bring your right index finger close to the palm of your left hand, and move it in a circular motion, as though you were moving the hands of a clock forward.

Each full revolution of the "hands" of the clock represents one unit of time; you can determine what unit of time to use -- each revolution can represent one minute, one hour, one day, one week, one month, one year, one decade, one century... it is your choice. Just decide how much time each revolution represents, and take it for granted that this is so.

In order to determine when a fracture occurred, for instance, rotate the "hands" of your time mechanism device (represented by the palm of your left hand) clockwise -- with each rotation representing one unit of time -- until the perceived fracture disappears.

For example, you might let each revolution represent one decade, so if you go back four revolutions and the line (representing the fracture) disappears, then you know that the fracture occurred between 30 and 40 years ago.
At that time, you can adjust your unit of measure to one year and rotate the "hands" of the "time mechanism device" counter-clockwise until the fracture appears again. If you rotate counter-clockwise four times, then you will know that the fracture occurred 36 years ago.

Then you could reset the unit of measure to one month, and rotate forward again until the perceived fracture (the line) reappears, and thus you can determine that the fracture occurred 36 years and so many months ago.

Melvin

[Terry (existing)]

"Am I wandering through a field of intellectual pygmies here or will someone start looking things up before they put fingers to keyboard?"

As a mental pygmie, I have refrained from joining this thread, because I was under the impression that our board existed for discussions of hypnosis and like techniques..... I know little about many subjects, since I spent valuable time on becoming the best in that one field I enjoyed......However, that field has been of value in recognising frauds, and I smell a rat in this one (G) Metaphorically of course.......
Someone who is well versed and knowledgable in one area, comes to this board, and immediately attempts to put everyone down, and show his own superiority, or a facsimile of same........What that tells me, is that he is feeling very insecure, and wishes to convince us that we are smaller than he, because in fact he feels inferior? Can we agree on that? If so, perhaps we can move to the real issue, and that is, why did he come here, and what is his real need? Many of us could lay claim to other skills which exceed those of another member, magic being one of course, yet I have yet to see one of those members calling the rest such names because we know nothing of that subject. Sorry, but you expose your true state to all who practise hypnosis, and unless you state your real need, it is likely we will ignore you, since non of us wish to discuss YOUR field, but rather discuss the mind and how it functions..........

[Merlin]

Yes, there are methods to help resolve time.
What you describe is one method.
The biggest problem is not moving through time, but simply specifying the time when targeting. (people often don't).

Another problem is that when 'viewing' there usually isn't a calendar available.

Say you 'view' the next nuclear bomb explosion on Earth (as opposed to the Moon).
When is that?
Where is that?

Yes, there are solutions to that too. But the solutions were not found during the experiments written about. They weren't looking for those answers yet.

Much has changed, even since Targ wrote his book on RVing.
The RV project continued after Puthoff & Targ left the project.

[Merlin]

> I was under the impression that our board existed for discussions of hypnosis and like techniques....

Terry, Isn't this what 'other discussions/questions is for'?

If not,
-Hypnosis / Hypnotism / Hypnotherapy
-Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP)
-Seeking Advice, Assistance and/or Help
-Time Line Therapy(TM)
-Esoterics / Huna / Energy Work

What would you prefer under: Other Discussion / Questions ?

[Unregistered]

"Am I wandering through a field of intellectual pygmies here or will someone start looking things up before they put fingers to keyboard?"

As a mental pygmie, I have refrained from joining this thread, because I was under the impression that our board existed for discussions of hypnosis and like techniques..... I know little about many subjects, since I spent valuable time on becoming the best in that one field I enjoyed......However, that field has been of value in recognising frauds, and I smell a rat in this one (G) Metaphorically of course.......
Someone who is well versed and knowledgable in one area, comes to this board, and immediately attempts to put everyone down, and show his own superiority, or a facsimile of same........What that tells me, is that he is feeling very insecure, and wishes to convince us that we are smaller than he, because in fact he feels inferior? Can we agree on that? If so, perhaps we can move to the real issue, and that is, why did he come here, and what is his real need? Many of us could lay claim to other skills which exceed those of another member, magic being one of course, yet I have yet to see one of those members calling the rest such names because we know nothing of that subject. Sorry, but you expose your true state to all who practise hypnosis, and unless you state your real need, it is likely we will ignore you, since non of us wish to discuss YOUR field, but rather discuss the mind and how it functions..........
My dear Terry (existing), if this is a sideways dig at superior intellect it suffers from a paucity of thought that amply demonstrates my point.

When someone tries to entrench a fondly held belief but cannot be bothered to verify even simple facts when they have, via the Internet, everything they need to synthesize a cogent reply, one realises that yanking yours and the keys of other members of this board is both easy and sustainable. Why on Earth would one ignore such vast external resources at a cost of being shot down in public? It creates in my mind a very poor and easily manipulable mental model of others contributing to this thread.

To use a machine such as a computer with more processing power than a private individual will ever need to put forth the view that one should eschew the very science that conceived of it in the first place merely because of a misconceived notion that as it can admit mistakes and develop it must be no good is, to my mind, deluded at best, laden with irony and ultimately to be laughed at.

I hope I made you think. Looking at the viewing figures for this thread it looks as if it provided some entertainment. Thank you for playing, but please look things up. As Blackadder once said to Baldrick, "Thinking is so important."

[Unregistered]

Consider the following (if you can): If you can resolve time to see into the future to the extent of actually witnessing events yet to come during remote viewing exercises, then if you act to avoid that future you create a paradox, vis: you have seen a future that now will not exist, and therefore have not seen the future at all. To retain temporal integrity, you will have to have seen yourself change the future and see the future that you have changed, not the original future that will now not exist by your own hand. This is a well known temporal paradox but one those claiming remote viewing skills extending into the future seem not to have heard. To avoid such a paradox, one must do nothing, but doesn't that mean possibly putting loved ones in unneccessary danger?

What you're actually doing when attempting remove viewing is extrapolation. You can allude to mysterious "other ways" but at the end of the day, it's just extrapolation. That's no bad thing, mind - we'd never have lived to escape the Great Rift Valley without the ability to extrapolate because it enables us to organise, plan ahead and work together on projects as small as the transistor and as big as Stonehenge.

And, as a final parting shot, it's odd that Google has no record of a "Time Mechanism Device" (the quite superbly named Melvin Higgins' own capital initials retained to indicate its status as a personal pronoun) in its database of 8,058,044,651 (that's 8 billion for the inumerate) pages of information. One wonders how Melvin became aware of such a device and yet no one else seems to have stumbled upon it...

[Unregistered]

> I was under the impression that our board existed for discussions of hypnosis and like techniques....

Terry, Isn't this what 'other discussions/questions is for'?

On this, Merlin, we agree completely, (if that's not an insult!).

[Unregistered]

The Time mechnism device was developed by Jose Silva and is taught in the Silva UltraMind program, the last program developed by Jose Silva before his passing.

He developed his own method of mental viewing case working) and developed the Time device and gave his researc to the US goverment.
For even more detailed info on the time mech device, attend an IRVA conference( International Association of Remote Viewers), or Contact Ed Bernd,Jr at UltraMind.com, or see the book Silva Ultamind by Jose Silva and Ed Bernd, Jr.

I attended an IRVA conference ith the ex military membersof stargate from Ft. Mede, and they all used th time mech,

[Unregistered]

The Time mechnism device was developed by Jose Silva and is taught in the Silva UltraMind program, the last program developed by Jose Silva before his passing.

He developed his own method of mental viewing case working) and developed the Time device and gave his researc to the US goverment.
For even more detailed info on the time mech device, attend an IRVA conference( International Association of Remote Viewers), or Contact Ed Bernd,Jr at UltraMind.com, or see the book Silva Ultamind by Jose Silva and Ed Bernd, Jr.

I attended an IRVA conference ith the ex military membersof stargate from Ft. Mede, and they all used th time mech,

Do you mean "Jose Silva's Ultramind ESP System: Think Your Way to Success" by Ed Bernd?

What is still incongruous is that while this device is clearly public knowledge as you've been to a conference, yet there is no reference to it on the Web. Even searching the IRVA web site throws up no matches. this sounds like something you have to buy to know about, and that raises all sorts of bad questions.

And the Stargate people. Are you aware of the three-part documantary by Jon Ronson broadcast on channel 4 in the UK in November this year (http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/C/crazy_rulers/)? Could these be the same people who thought that by staring at a goat you could kill it, but never managed to actually do it (by their own admission), or the ex desk warrior who admitted to trying to walk through his office walls because, he reasoned, the atoms in the walls are mostly space and he's made of atoms too.

Please, if you're going to allude to ecclecticism, make sure it's real.

[Unregistered]

Do you mean "Jose Silva's Ultramind ESP System: Think Your Way to Success" by Ed Bernd?

What is still incongruous is that while this device is clearly public knowledge as you've been to a conference, yet there is no reference to it on the Web. Even searching the IRVA web site throws up no matches. this sounds like something you have to buy to know about, and that raises all sorts of bad questions.

And the Stargate people. Are you aware of the three-part documantary by Jon Ronson broadcast on channel 4 in the UK in November this year (http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/C/crazy_rulers/)? Could these be the same people who thought that by staring at a goat you could kill it, but never managed to actually do it (by their own admission), or the ex desk warrior who admitted to trying to walk through his office walls because, he reasoned, the atoms in the walls are mostly space and he's made of atoms too.

Please, if you're going to allude to ecclecticism, make sure it's real.


People have to buy books or libarys have to buy books so people can read the info in those books. According to your logic, this means books are bad.
Taking your logic even further, anything that's not on the web for free is either not real or bad.

In life, you always find what you look for. And you just look for negative things or make every thing into something negative. Having to pay for knowledge is not a bad thing as you suggest. Books, collages, universitys are not free. You have to pay. So using your logic, they must be bad.

[Merlin]

>yet there is no reference to it on the Web...

Bad presupposition. All knowledge is not published on the web. And there is nothing inherent to force validity of published information.

>And the Stargate people. Are you aware...

Are you aware that 'Stargate' was a mess?
The project was 'mutilated' by the CIA.
They (the CIA) were bringing in channelors, Tarot card readers and just about anything else (people staring at goats, etc.)

If you want to research RV, at least avoid 'Stargate'

[My comments are not meant to endorse Jose Silva stuff]

[Merlin]

Consider your presupposition of causality.
You have assumed causality here.
That might be valid, it might not.

You presuppose a paradox based on changing the future based on knowledge of the future. You don't know that is possible.

>This is a well known temporal paradox but one those claiming remote viewing skills extending into the future seem not to have heard.

This is a 'paradox' only based on your assumptions which may not be true.

Perhaps you can point us (on the web of course) to the research proving and documenting in the appropriate peer reviewed journals that:
"What you're actually doing when attempting remove viewing is extrapolation."

[Unregistered]

People have to buy books or libarys have to buy books so people can read the info in those books. According to your logic, this means books are bad.
Taking your logic even further, anything that's not on the web for free is either not real or bad.

In life, you always find what you look for. And you just look for negative things or make every thing into something negative. Having to pay for knowledge is not a bad thing as you suggest. Books, collages, universitys are not free. You have to pay. So using your logic, they must be bad.
That is no one's 'logic' (logical progression) but your own.

[Unregistered]

[My comments are not meant to endorse Jose Silva stuff]
Oh? What have you got against Silva?

[Unregistered]

Consider your presupposition of causality.
You have assumed causality here.
That might be valid, it might not.

You presuppose a paradox based on changing the future based on knowledge of the future. You don't know that is possible.

You claim to see the future. Are you saying what you do is notknown

>This is a well known temporal paradox but one those claiming remote viewing skills extending into the future seem not to have heard.

This is a 'paradox' only based on your assumptions which may not be true.

Perhaps you can point us (on the web of course) to the research proving and documenting in the appropriate peer reviewed journals that:
"What you're actually doing when attempting remove viewing is extrapolation."
Excusing my typo, it seems I've managed to suggest to you a new behaviour. Like love, practice it well and often.

[skip]

Nothing against the material Jose taught and how he taught it.

But the stuff they call 'Silva' today ...

Not but one or two who are worth going to.

[Merlin]

>Oh? What have you got against Silva?

That's your presupposition.
(That I have something against 'Silva')

I'm not currently commenting one way or another.
I'm not commenting on the man.
I'm not commenting on the product(s) idea(s) he developed.
I'm not commenting on the products as they are today.

[Unregistered]

Remote viewing is not somethng new. Pantangili's yoga sutras( thousands of years old) refers to it as "distant viewing".

Most all Shamans from all countries remote viewed for the protection of the tribe and for hunting. They also Journed for information and knowledge.(check out Michael Harner, Sandra Ingerman, Alberto Vililodo)

Nataive American Scouts also remote viewed to help them track and find better quarters.( Check out "The way of the Scout", bytom Brown, Jr.)

Jose Silva was a master hypnotist. Much of his formula techniuqes re based in hypnosis. Silva was also very good friends with Max Freedom Long, and there are many aspects of applied huna in Jose's work. There are many practical applications of Remote Viewing and Remote Influencing.

There will be times when someone is making an important decision … perhaps a life-and-death decision … and you won't be there to help. At that moment, the only influence you will have with that loved one or customer or associate, when he or she is making a decision that will affect the rest of his or her life — and your life — is Remote Viewing and Remote Influencing.

With Remote Viewing you can detect health problems and threats to your health, and then take action both physically and mentally — with Remote Influencing — to protect your health or restore and maintain optimum health for yourself and your loved ones.
While your doctor works from the outside-in with physical medicine, you help by working from the inside-out.

One can use Remote Viewing to detect problem areas, then use Remote Influencing to convince others that you have the solution.
Use Remote Viewing to detect the information that will help you do a better job … whatever your job is … and wherever the information is.
Once you determine the things that need to be done, use Remote Influencing to help you implement your decisions.

[Merlin]

>Remote viewing is not somethng new.

Remote viewing is simply a new name to distinguish current work from past occurances.

Shamans/Native americans may have become aware of things but Remote viewing is recent. It is the term that is new.

Remote influence & Silva stuff are 2 additional topics (though they are both Psi occurances (earlier topic here)

[Unregistered]

Nothing against the material Jose taught and how he taught it.

But the stuff they call 'Silva' today ...

Not but one or two who are worth going to.
What's wrong with it now?

[Unregistered]

>Oh? What have you got against Silva?

That's your presupposition.
(That I have something against 'Silva')

I'm not currently commenting one way or another.
I'm not commenting on the man.
I'm not commenting on the product(s) idea(s) he developed.
I'm not commenting on the products as they are today.
My model of you tells me something's not right here. Why are you suddeny being very precise in this post, I wonder?

[Unregistered]

for those who don't want to believe that it's true.. which is of course perfectly fine with me..
what is a floppy disc ? how does it function ? what are the similarities to our planet earth ? could it possibly be that we don't know everything about how the universe really is ? ;)

[Unregistered]

for those who don't want to believe that it's true.. which is of course perfectly fine with me..
what is a floppy disc ? how does it function ? what are the similarities to our planet earth ? could it possibly be that we don't know everything about how the universe really is ? ;)
A floppy disc is a removable, random access data storage device for computers, normally storing just over a meg of data when formatted for use, though larger formats such as Zip and Jazz discs can carry far more. Earlier types of floppy disc really were floppy (as opposed to having a rigid case), and carried far less data. All work just like magnetic tape in that an electrified coil changes the magnetic qualities of the ferric material on the disc's surface to represent data. The surface itself is organised into concentric tracks containing sectors. Data is read by an unelectrified coil, due to the fact that passing a coil near magnetised material. The similarities between a magnetic floppy disc and the earth are manifold, but one stands out: Our planet has a well-understood molten iron core, which generates a magnetic field so strong it protects us from something as ferocious and deadly as the solar wind. Of course "we" don't know everything about the universe, but a vast amount is known and available for use by anyone who stops assuming that because they don't know something, no one does.

[Merlin]

I know enough to occasionally test my beliefs.
I keep *most* of my beliefs something like furniture, able to be moved around a bit.

>what is a floppy disc ?

It's a metaphoric idea so we can share and communicate in some vague fashion.

>how does it function ?

Mine are somewhat aerodynamic in that if I toss one just right, it'll go where I wish for it to go.

> what are the similarities to our planet earth ?

hmmm... Haven't tried tossing it yet.

>could it possibly be that we don't know everything about how the universe really is ?

Me?
Not know everything?
Shirley, you jest!

[Merlin]

They're not flying toys?
Oh deer!

[j0hnny#]

Hello everyone.

I would like to propose an idea for a new forum that would be masively useful to people here. How about a forum set aside for reviewing - reading, audio and /or visual materials, on hypnosis, NLP, etc. i.e. people submit reviews of the stuff they have read or listened to. If the mods think this is a good idea and go ahead with it I promise to contribute with a review of some materials.

I can imagine it would be very helpful to be able to come to one area of this forum and read peoples reviews of materials - what's good (in users opinions) and what's not. People could be critical of the reviews also - so that you are not just confined to the review. There is a lot of material out there. Plus a lot of visitors here. People would not doubt benefit massively from this kind of thing.

What YOU think of that idea? R.S.V.P.

Johnny

[Don]

Personally, I would love to see it. I have lots of videos and other materials, ranging from excellent to excruciatingly horrible.

However, as a moderator, I have to say that I don't think it's a good idea. In the U.S.'s lawsuit-crazy environment, if someone gave a bad review to a product, the creator could end up suing the owners of this forum for a variety of supposed sins.

Sure, opinions about products will show up during threads, but there is no way someone could claim that we set up a special area to attack them or their work.

[j0hnny#]

I hear you Don. Still, what about it? Review is not attack, it's feedback, comment, discussion, assessing, recommending, putting your recommendation to, putting your recommendation against. A review is one persons reflection upon a particular subject matter. It wouldn't belong to the owner of the forum - only (as his / her reflection) to the poster. The review, also, would not be closed - rather, the opportunity to react against an individual's reflection would be open to possibility. The openness of the thread format will allow for developing the feedback, so that ultimately there is no final recommendation, only rather opportunity to discuss various materials.. and this is a discussion forum - like anywhere else here.

I am as I think about it aware of the thinking that might be needed to set this kind of thing up to ensure the sites interests are protected. It could be a great thing though.... A disclaimer for the owner and some guidelines for the users might be all that is (ultimately) required. Positives and negatives. There are some for every product. Some are more valuable than others. I think this kind of thing could be extremely valuable here.

Has anyone in the States been sued for writing a review of a product they weren't impressed with, or they thought could have been better? Where is the freedom of speech in that? Surely sellers are interested in their marketplace, providing their customers with good products, getting feedback about their products, and the success in business that depends to some extent on this kind of information?? It could be something that sellers welcome? In this game, or at least at my level of understanding - if there is nothing positive I can say about a product then it shouldn't be sold under the title its sold under - fortunately, for me, that has been a fairly rare occurence.

All best
Johnny

One other possibility is a kind of positive review forum or maybe call it something else - users recommendations / materials discussion forum, something like that.

[skip]

I would love it too.

And I dont think there would be the liability issue we might imagine.

I know Andy Bradbury's site, that has such good book reviews, would be much more open to a lawsuit, when he pans a book. First of all it is his site, and his review, no option for opposing viewpoint, so he is completely responsible for the content.

Under our concept, while it is the James' site, they are in not responsible for the opinions expressed in it, unless they are those of the management. (That might leave Don, Matt, and myself out of being able to participate.)

The problems, which would be worse than threat of lawsuit, would be:

'Covert' advertisement. Where someone would register as someone else, and post their product and laud its virtues. Then register as a series of other people and pile on the complements.

Another problem which would be worse than the threat of lawsuits, is there are trainers out there who thrive on controversy. Under the theory that having their name discussed, in any context, is advertisement, they have in the past and continue to generate controversy surrounding themselves, and might see this as another opportunity for self promotion.

Also there are a few out there who have quite a following of "devotees". There are one or two, I have in mind, that have in the past, overwhelmed lists, they and their followers, to collectively destroy the viability of the list, and of some of the people on it. While moderation would help alleviate this somewhat, it would then expose us to lawsuit for preventing them from publishing their 'side', as we allowed others to publish theirs. Im not an advocate of running scared from what hasnt happened. I have seen them use this tactic successfully before, and have no reason to believe they would hesitate to use it again. These people do well on theirown private lists, where they accept no criticism or counter views, they do not generally do well where people with opposing views are given adequate protection. I suspect that our policy of no personal insults would prevent this from working.

All of these are what if's, and none of them has to occurr. If it did , we could deal with it as we deemed appropriate, and if it became too combersome, we could always abandon the project.

skip

[Hypnotician]

for everything that can't be proven as real, like religion, psychics, and all the rest of the crap that people insist on posting in the NLP and Hypnosis forums... thanks :D

This proposed new group must also contain postings on hypnosis, since it cannot be proven as real. As well, postings by all of you folks will have to be placed in the proposed new group since you all cannot be proven either. :D

-Ray.

[Don]

You're correct. A review is not an attack. Still, if it's negative, someone could sue. Sure, chances are he or she would lose, but the defense would cost thousands. It's not worth it.

When people start a suit they do so against everyone. At least one website lost a suit over defamation on their site. But even if they had one, the defense cost them money.

There's even a name for this type of suit. It's called a SLAPP suit. That's an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Usually they're started by a company in an attack on an individual or organization that is trying to organize opposition to that company, but such "nuisance suits" are done by individuals, too.

[Frog420]

Also there are a few out there who have quite a following of "devotees". There are one or two, I have in mind, that have in the past, overwhelmed lists, they and their followers, to collectively destroy the viability of the list, and of some of the people on it. While moderation would help alleviate this somewhat, it would then expose us to lawsuit for preventing them from publishing their 'side', as we allowed others to publish theirs.

skip

If your in the area for new moderators, i'll have a shot :P

pmslwroflmao

[skip]

Frog,

Thanks, but I wasnt fishing for moderator prospects.

I was just exploring out loud the potentials when you put up a discussion area that some people will feel is important to their livelyhood. They tend to become intensely more interested than in a general discussion group.

Ill give you a small example. Just a while back we had someone on here who made the transition from non professional to professional. Opened a business, put up a web site the whole nine yards. All the sudden, this persons attitude changed, everything seemed related to the business. This person became concerned for the first time that how they were percieved might affect her income. She threatened several of us with lawsuits for disputing opinions, when nothing was ever said about her products, or services. She percieved a ;ot of things as threatning to her business that werent threats before.

Without going into the accuracy of this perceptual shift, the bottom line is, when people feel that their lively hood is tied up in something their perspective changes, sometimes radically.

We are contemplating having an area where peoples livelyhood can be affected. To the extent that the reviews are kept reasonable and competently done, and considering our hits, a number of people could be very concerned. This needs to be considered, before we undertake this, if we do.

skip