HellVictorinho4:



Hello,

Should I still be expecting a reply to my emails?

triplechoice:


You're unwilling to see things from my own position . If you have done so ,by now you would have understood what I have been trying to establish; that there are truths about the world we live in, which others know so well, but which those in the main body of science are ignorant of, and even if they know it, or it is reveal to them, they won't acknowledge it immediately because of the way they are trained to think

I will give you an instance in history . When the Wright brothers were experimenting with their Craft, the aeroplane, and succeeded in test running it for the first time, scientists in the main body of science immediately came out to discredit it.They said it happened by chance due to strong wind .

On what grounds were they dismissing it? It was based on the scientific theory as at that time , that "nothing heavier than air can float
on it" This was accepted as "fact" in physics during that peroid. But the wright brothers knew more than the scientists as they later proved it.

Added to this , was the arrogant attitude of scientists, especially those in the main body of science ,that no one else , apart from them can understand and apply the scientific method to discover and establish truths in our world. This attitude has not changed .It's even worse now with the cancel culture thats common everywhere..

And it will surprise you that further successes by the Wright brothers still did not convince scientists, with eminent scientists granting interviews on national TV and elsewhere, to debunk the invention as not scientifically possible, thereby ending up "hypnotising" the general American public scientifically .


So by the time the wright brothers stablised their invention, and were flying everywhere, the "hypnotized" Americans did not take notice and see the evidence, with some of them concluding that what they saw flying over them ,was a balloon that was painted to look like metal.

One can only imagine what would have happened if it was now that, according to TenQ, scientists in the main body of sciences are operating like cultist. They certainly would have raised an uproar to get them arrested for trying to endanger public safety with the "nonsense" that is not scientifically possible. Some persons have argued that the cult like behavior of scientists in the main body of sciences, is why we have had not much progressed beyond, cars, airplanes phones, computers and the rest ,which were inventions from Long time ago.

So my point is this, dont think that non scientists can't know better than trained scientists. They certainly can ,but may not come up with scientific explanation for what they know. Sometimes ,when the come up with evidence, it is often ignored as such evidence would have threatened other theories scientists are currently working with. That's is it.

The best they can come up with is logical explanation which doesn't require scientific backing all the time. You should judge what such person have to say based on the correctness of their logic and not ask for scientific evidence

That's is why it doesn't make sense to demand from religious people evidence for their belief, which is faith based, that only requires common sense and logic to debunk

Yes ,because of this, I can confidently state what I know as fact ,especially if I have had a direct experience of what I am talking about, while you , on the other hand,, might just be stating what you know based on what you have read from conclusions made by neuroscientist, without any experience of your own to confirm it.

That is why I going to ask you to do this, use your own self as demonstration that what you have accepted from neuroscience is true and not because they are experts nd you think they can't go wrong.

I believe I have in a way answered this. I am not a trained scientists, so I am not in a position to give you scientific evidence, but logical evidence which you should accept from me. I don't expect you not to know what is acceptable as evidence in the sciences ,and also ,those qualified to give it. Even scientists themselves have had their evidence ignored or rejected not minding the strength of such evidence.

You should have looked at the sense of it and not whether it is appropriate or not. My point was this, if the body is damaged beyond repair, consciousness can no longer express itself through it, and then vacates it . But for you , you cant observe consciousness to know what has happened to it after the body is damaged , hence you have concluded it expired with the body. You're unwilling to for once see it from my position, and that's exactly the problem.. You want me to consider it from your viewpoint at all times, which I have done severally, while you on your part is religiously sticking to your own.

Providing such example can't convince you since you already made you mind on what to accept. However, there's something close I can present. Some persons have had severe brain damage and went into coma. During that state it was observed that their brains was disconnected from their bodies which made it impossible for them act on any instructions passed through the device their care givers using to communicate with them; They received the message ,but were unable to make their bodies move using their brains .

What this has proven, even though scientists have interpreted it differently, is that the brain is a device consciousness uses to control the body to manifest its intentions objectively, and not that brains is what has emerged consciousness.( You have argued before that the wetness of water can't be separated from the water it emerged from) If the brain and body is completely damaged ,then, consciousness detaches itself from it as we have seen in those who went into coma. Except you can scientifically explain how consciousness has emerge from matter, then you can't dispute my position that consciousness detaches from the body when the body system which keeps it on collapses.

please define the kind of evidence or modify the ,word, evidence.

Suggests, meaning evidence is subjected to interpretation. Scientists have in the past interpreted evidence wrongly and they still do.

You not being generous Reed, . let me tease you now . You may have been scientifically hypnotized and don't even know it, and now speaking from that state.

I have not dwell on spirits or soul. Those terms and what they reference may be something religious people have misinterpreted. I said we are a product of pure energy, and this is not far from the truth. The argument is ,if this energy has emerged separately. So focus on me and not what others are saying.

Read your article again.

triplechoice:


His argument is that brain scanners can't show thoughts ,and not that they can't read any other thing. I agree with him. If brain scanners Can't show thoughts, how then do you conclude that they have emerged from brain, matter, and not elsewhere.

The wetness of water which you have used before as comparison can be scientifically explained . We can see how the molecules of water has combined to emerged it. This you can't do for mind

But the article on scientists being able to predict anything is misleading. It is just confirming ideology after the fact.

Where has thoughts that form mind come from ?

What is brain? Please define it.

It is one thing to mention their conclusions from how I understand it and another thing to talk confidently as if I am a neuroscientist.

triplechoice:
Pressure may not be the proper word. Thoughts triggers brain response if not hypnotism won't work Another person can send thoughts to your brain to control your body to act on such thoughts. I have demonstrated this myself. But I have avoided doing it again since it is not respecting another person individual space. I have a childhood friend who was very good at that ,but we have lost contact so dont know where he is now to
confirm if he is still doing it. Even you ,yourself can do it once you learn how it's done.

You don't have all the information. There are individuals with brain defects without behavior impairment and vice versa. There's an index case of an American whose brain scan result is published on the net. You can search for that.

It's more of a warning. People act on what they think of themselves. So if you're not sure ,don't make people to accept a sense of self that is not true which may distort how they should normally view themselves.
Here is it


Recently, a leading neuroscientist noted in Nature:

“The general public might think that this goal has already been achieved; when they read that a behavior is associated with some part of the brain, they take that statement as an explanation. But most neuroscientists would agree that, with a few notable exceptions, the relationship between neural circuits and behavior has yet to be established.“

I sent one already on reincarnation, but obviously didn't read it ,since you have not commented on the article but to refer me to a skeptical website which doesn't directly address anything. I want to read your own thoughts and not the thoughts of others who are trying to come up with conjecture to explain away what the have not directly experienced themselves.

And are you aware that neuroscience is also hammered with the same problem of small sample sizes?

Because some reincarnation stories are unrealible,, then the realible ones should be discounted? There's enough documentation, but you're just echoing the thoughts of the skeptical website, obviously controlled by atheists who are trying to explain away something which threatens their world view.

Dr Tucker's mentor , Ian stevenson,had garnered enough documentation before he died . Tucker has worked on that and has also provided his on own documentation on the cases he has worked on . All of these were revealed in the link I shared with you.

Your skeptical website deliberately avoided mentioning Dr Tucker an the work of his mentor for obvious reason. They don't want you to see the information which renders their explanation invalid, but instead were filling your mind with other reincarnation stories which were obviously fraud from the word go to discredit the documentated one that has been verified. The behavior of the writer on that skeptical website is not different from certain religious leaders who try to keep the faithful in line once an information comes out that threatens the lies they have
been feeding their ignorant members. I expect you not to fall for that kind of thing.

So ,please go back, read the article and also search for Dr Tucker, and Jan Stevenson works on the net and do your own independent assessment.

I am not a dualist . The word is a negative reference for those believed to hold views about the self that are not logical or scientifically explained. If scientists were to discover that consciousness has not emerged from matter would they accept to be called dualist? Not of course. I know what I know

Yes we aren't. But at least I have tried to come with with an explanation and not inundating you with quotes from religious books.

I have tried to do that. I already mentioned that I have logical evidence not scientific. The re are truths that are self evident which doesn't need scientific evidence.

They won't ever respond for some because of the limitations of the scientific method. For instance, scientists can't process reincarnation data .The scientific method is not suited for that at the moment.

Current mind theories makes us understand that consciousness can't exist independent of the physical body, so how, for instance, do they start considering reincarnation? That is the problem.

Everything shouldn't be strawman. Explain how this form of consciousness would operate different from that of humans, if not , you're still guilty

Scientists are unable to investigate paranormal claims. That's it.

Nearly all ,if not ,all of those who have come out to display anything are frauds. Those who can do such display would never ever engage in such open display as it is against the ethics which guides their practice.

triplechoice:


What kind of evidence ? Specify it. I already mentioned the kind of evidence I would be providing.

triplechoice:


This is not the reason I brought that in. It was to show that ones environment shapens their personality. The reality of your bodily environment you entered at birth, is why you have grown up to believe you're the same as the body. Your body is not the real you. It is an illusion, and we know that illusion can influence what we think of ourselves..

The only thing you think is evolving is what you can see; the external part. If theres anything evovling separately with it which you cant see , you won't know. You can't know what others know that you don't know.

You have now turned to strawman me? Where did I say dreams are not the brains functioning normally? Without brains how do you know you have had a dream. I never mentioned that dreams are external to brains. How can that be?
The reason I brought dreams was to answer the question I raised in my first presentation, that there are alternative sources that one can use to peer further into reality to see things as they are when scientific instrumentation fails.. In the link I shared were inventions gotten through dreams.

You can also employ the dreamn method if you know how to go about it, but it must be something you're familiar with and working on. That's what leads to quicker results

triplechoice:
@Lordreed,
I will reply all of responses later, but in the main time here below is Link to the Wright brothers story
https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Aviations_Attic/They_Wouldnt_Believe/They_Wouldnt_Believe_the_Wrights_Had_Flown.htm

triplechoice:

That is what has happened to the people you're referring to who come up with crap in their heads and call it creativity. They lack the proper guidance or training to know what is real from what is a figment of their imagination.

LordReed:


Again logic is not evidence.

budaatum:


And neither is I read it in a book or them say, please inform him.

triplechoice:


I never said logic is evidence. I said there are logical truths which can be taken as evidence, not scientific evidence.

You and Lordreed seem not to know the difference between scientific evidence and just evidence. They are not the same.

Evidence can be a body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, while scientific evidence is evidence that serves to support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.


Have I been proposing a scientific theory? No

What I have been doing is to provide a body of information which I am exposed to, to support what I have come to accept as truth.

I have not been proposing a scientific theory or hypothesis since I am not a scientist.

But your subjective understanding of science seems to blind you to this fact

Please educate yourself very well before trying to educate others.

budaatum:


And neither is I read it in a book or them say, please inform him.

LordReed:


You are one who has been harping on scientific evidence. I have not for once told you to give me scientific evidence.

LordReed:


You hear triplechoice, I read it in a book or them say is not evidence. LoLz.

LordReed:


You are one who has been harping on scientific evidence. I have not for once told you to give me scientific evidence.

LordReed:


A quick response before a fuller one:

On the impossibility of a flying machine
Newcomb is famously quoted as having believed it impossible to build a "flying machine". He begins an article titled "Is the Airship Possible?" with the remark, "That depends, first of all, on whether we are to make the requisite scientific discoveries." He ends with the remark "the construction of an aerial vehicle ... which could carry even a single man from place-to-place at pleasure requires the discovery of some new metal or some new force."[18]

In the October 22, 1903, issue of The Independent, Newcomb made the well-known remark that "May not our mechanicians ... be ultimately forced to admit that aerial flight is one of the great class of problems with which man can never cope, and give up all attempts to grapple with it?",[19][20] He suggested that even if a man flew, he could not stop. "Once he slackens his speed, down he begins to fall. Once he stops, he falls as a dead mass." Newcomb had no concept of an airfoil. His "aeroplane" was an inclined "thin flat board". He therefore concluded that it could never carry the weight of a man.

Newcomb was particularly critical of the work of Samuel Pierpont Langley, who claimed that he could build a flying machine powered by a steam engine, but whose initial efforts at flight were public failures.[21] In 1903, however, Newcomb was also saying,

"Quite likely the 20th century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of a bird. But when we inquire whether aerial flight is possible in the present state of our knowledge; whether, with such materials as we possess, a combination of steel, cloth and wire can be made which, moved by the power of electricity or steam, shall form a successful flying machine, the outlook may be altogether different."[22]

Newcomb was not aware of the Wright Brothers' efforts, whose work was done in relative obscurity (Santos-Dumont flew his 14-bis in Paris only in 1906) and apparently unaware of the internal combustion engine's better power-to-weight ratio. When Newcomb heard about the Wrights' flight in 1908, he was quick to accept it.[23]

Newcomb favored the development of rotating wing (helicopters) and airships that would float in the air (blimps). Within a few decades, Zeppelins regularly transported passengers between Europe and the United States, and the Graf Zeppelin circumnavigated the Earth.[24]

budaatum:


You mean they have not rigourously trained their senses to distinguish between the two? I guess I need not mention science and it's methods then, should I.

Triple, forgive me. I'll await you telling my Lord what this method of yours is.

triplechoice:


Me or you. I mentioned in my first presentation that I have evidence, not scientific evidence. Please go back and read it. It is clearly stated.
You are the one who says that you have scientific evidence backing the theory that mind has emerged from matter which you have failed to provide.

Severally I have asked you to indicate what sort of evidence you want from me,but you have ignored

triplechoice:


Which book ? You have been the one replying on what neuroscience says about who you are and not me. Anything I referenced is to let you see that I not speaking from my position alone.
I know what science says about the human being ,but I have not completely accepted all of that because at this time there's no strong scientific backing for such conclusions.

Neuroscientist admit to this, but you seem to know more than the people whose science you subscribe to, without carrying out any research of your own.

triplechoice:


You're in denial. You never asked for scientific evidence, but when asked to indicate the evidence you're seeking.for ,you did nothing.
I already mentioned what I have has evidence; information .,logical truths Fault those one's if you think they are not good enough.

You can't pretend now because we know ourselves here for you to think I don't know the sort if evidence you wanted me to provide.



I don't have scientific evidence. I don't need scientific evidence all the time to know certain things. That would be misapplication of science..

Common sense and simple logic is what it takes most times to arrive at certain conclusion.

LordReed:

Evidence is the set of facts that point exclusively to a certain conclusion. Evidence cannot be equivocal.

triplechoice:


This story of yours has been proven to be a lie. The re several articles on this, but of course you won't see those one's.

Even if it were true, what about the scientific explanation he gave to debunked the idea that metal Can't fly.

What about the reaction of other scientists

You have ignored the main reason I brought out that story in the first place.

I can now conclude that while I take my time to read everything you sent so as to respond appropriately, you have not obliged me this in return.

It has shown in most of your replies as they do not have any bearing to what I have argued.

I had announced that I have just evidence ,not scientific evidencr, which I have tried to provide in form of information as support.

You have consistently ignored them to still ask for evidence. Haba

triplechoice:


Poof that you and Reed never read very well my first presentation. I had mentioned that in the final part I will provide demonstrations and proofs for proper understanding .
But since you think you know those already, then , I give you my full permission to explain to the public how to distinguish between the two.
I said before I don't know it all.
Thank you.

LordReed:


LoLz. You obviously either don't properly read stuff or you don't understand it. What I quoted has this clearly written:

"Is the Airship Possible?" with the remark, "That depends, first of all, on whether we are to make the requisite scientific discoveries." He ends with the remark "the construction of an aerial vehicle ... which could carry even a single man from place-to-place at pleasure requires the discovery of some new metal or some new force."

From someone who was not aware of the work of the Wright brothers it was a reasonable position.

triplechoice:


If he was not aware,why the scientific explanation then .
And when he became fully aware , what support did he give, nothing. They never wanted to have anything to do with him.

Please read the link I sent. There's further details of what actually transpired.

You can't conclude with one part of the story.

The main reason I brought the story is not being addressed.

LordReed:


Dude you are expressing frustration. Several times I wrote that I am waiting for your evidence but some how you just gloss over it and now you are showing signs of frustration and I dunno why.

LordReed:


LoLz! Are you assuming that the Wright brothers were the first to try heavier than air flight? People had been grappling with the problem centuries before the Wright brothers were born.

LordReed:

triplechoice:


I ask you again what evidence. You can't read the information I have provided and still go on to ask for evidence.

Are information not evidence? Dispute those one's and let's move ahead

I can't give you scientific evidence. I am not in a position to do so.

Anyone asking for scientific evidence for a proposition is not doing the right thing.

I am not frustrated in anyway. I am not interested in his subjectivity.

What should I do with the statement that Jesus is a scientists?

I have said I am not interested in his poetry. He should keep it himself and not force it on me. I don't want learn metaphor and similes from him.

LordReed:

Evidence is the set of facts that point exclusively to a certain conclusion. Evidence cannot be equivocal.

LordReed:


Dude can't even tell a joke from serious stuff. Why are you getting worked up man?

LordReed:


I dunno how many you want me to write what evidence is. Are you reading the responses at all?




It's a sign of frustration when all you are doing is being defensive. I haven't done any of the things you accuse me of so you clearly must have something going on with you.

triplechoice:


Evidence is the sort of information or facts........
Don't remove the word, information, it is still evidence