HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Belief in God  (Re: "Out-Of-Body")
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:29:17 GMT
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)

This statement should really be posed as a question to elicit
responses, but ...

I strongly suspect that if a survey were done, one would find a strong
correlation between those who believe/experience OOB and a belief in a
god.  

A modern metaphysics that is firmly grounded in physical principles
has no place within its framework for soul/spirit and similarly no
place for a god.  Contrarywise (is that a word?), "traditional"
metaphysics that postulate a mind/body duality are typically founded
on an underlying belief in a god that is pure mind stuff.  

If someone has a strong belief about OOB, they will probably not
change that belief because it would require a change in their entire
perspective on life.
--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Whenever we read the obscene stories, the
Field Robotics Center,          | voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and
Carnegie Mellon University      | torturous executions, the unrelenting
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | vindictiveness, with which more than half
(412) 268-3856                  | the bible is filled, it would seem more
                                | consistent that we called it the word of a
The opinions expressed are mine | demon than the Word of God.  It is a
and do not reflect the official | history of wickedness that has served to
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | corrupt and brutalize mankind...
or any other organization.      | Thomas Paine
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13000 alt.paranormal:1901
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:25:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul21.140121.26453@news.uiowa.edu>, boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes...
>In article <1992Jul21.003448.20398@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius
>(Grant Edwards) writes:
> 
>[stuff deleted]
> 
>> I've read several articles by Blackmore and have always been impressed
>> with her.  I particulary enjoyed her articles describing how she
>> started out as a believer in psi and through her research gradually
>> proved to herself that there wasn't any experimental evidence to
>> support her beliefs.  You've got to admire somebody with the guts to
>> describe that process to the whole world.
> 
>I admire her guts in baring her soul, but I don't admire her change in her
>beliefs.  I've experienced psi phenomena in my own life, since I was a child.
>I didn't ask to; in fact, growing up in a very conservative Christian setting,
>I didn't want to.  I cannot experience paranormal phenomena on demand, and I
>know I could not meet any objective tests for the existence of psi.  I know
>I cannot convince you of the reality of my experiences--all I can provide is
>anecdotal evidence.  But I am certain of the reality of my experiences.  And 
>I am not an entirely irrational person--I make my living in the cold, logical
>world of ones and zeroes.
>[rest deleted]

From what you've said above, I see no indication that you really have any
disagreement with Susan Blackmore.  She accepts the reality of "psychic
experiences" (and has herself experienced an OBE), but she rejects the
paranormal explanation of such experiences.  It is interesting that you
also bring up lucid dreams and Stephen LaBerge (deleted from the above),
because Blackmore's article "Lucid Dreaming: Awake in Your Sleep?"
(_Skeptical Inquirer_ vol. 15, no. 4, Summer 1991) is essentially a
very favorable look at LaBerge's work.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13175 alt.conspiracy:9373
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Plausible Denial
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:48:27 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

> 
> Could someone give me an example to illustrate the so-called "plausible
> denial" tactic for evading a question?

        I'm sorry, I'd love to answer that, but I was out of the loop at that 
time.

        Actually, the most recent and famous use of the phrase was during the 
Iran-Contra hearings-- the question was whether the White House could deny a 
strong connection between its own responsibilities and the actions of North, 
Poindester, and Casey. In other words, could they make a case that the White 
House was either unaware or only marginally involved with the redirection of 
arms sales profits to the Contras?

        "Plausible Denial" is, in its strictest definition, a denial that the 
listener thinks is credible. In its pragmatic use, it's basically a 
believable lie.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run." 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Troublesome JFK Posts
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 01:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.051241.21812@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>As an Australian, who doesn't really care which yank shot which bloody
>president, I thought Rev P-K's idea was a good one, so I decided to track
>down the posters of the first message on each JFK thread.
>To my horror, I found that a fellow Aussie, a certain Derek Abbott of
>Adelaide University, was responsible for them *all*! 
>Anyway, I sent off a polite note to Derek and hopefully he won't
>crosspost JFK stuff to sci.skeptic anymore.

Yup.  When Derek found out that his rather bizarre theories of physics,
causality, freewill, etc. didn't hold up too well in this newsgroup, he
apparently decided to pick a subject that is, at this time, inherently
undecidable.  At least that way he can't lose the debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:45:35 GMT

In article <1863@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>The Frequently Questioned Answers
>=================================

>3.4: How can we test a channeler?
>---------------------------------
>
>[I have read lists of questions which advanced beings should be able to
>answer (e.g. Proof or counterexample of Fermat's Last Theorem).  Can
>someone suggest more?]

Fermat's Last Theorem has the risk that the AB (advanced being) will 'answer'
it by saying "Well, just integrate over the semi-hyperbolictransrealpartially-
dynamic numbers and it is obvious".  A better solution, which I saw here
(but I don't remember who suggested it) is to ask for the factorization of 
some *huge* number that is known to be composite but whose factors are
not known.  Computing the factors of, say a 10000 digit number, is way beyond 
us right now but for an alien dude it should be cake.  Checking
the answer is, of course, trivial.

You might want to include, in your section on Scientific Creationism,
a pointer to the (many) FAQs in talk.origins.  They specialize in that
stuff there. 

C Frog
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13464 sci.physics:12104
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:16:59 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <1869@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:

>A simpler version is this: A star goes nova.  Two civilisations, each
>one light year from the nova but on opposite sides, see this
>simultaniously.  But they have not communicated anything, so this is
>not a faster than light signal.

I agree.  There is also the "classical Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox"
(my term for it).  Two sisters fly off in rocket ships to distant stars
in opposite directions.  Their mother intend to give Jill a tuna fish
sandwich for lunch and Jane a peanut-butter sandwich.  Due to time
dilation effects they are many light-years apart by lunchtime.  Jill
opens her lunchbox and to her surprise finds a peanut-butter sandwich.
She immediately realizes that Jane, far away, has just opened her lunch
box and found a tuna-fish-sandwich.  Is this faster than light
communication?  No.  For purposes of physics it is crucial to come up
with a mathematically precise defintion of "transmission of information"
-- which I have gone on about occaisionally.
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Jul24.151943.26927@news.uiowa.edu>, boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken) writes in part:
|> To me, the simplest explanation is that I and
|> others do know what we experience, that we do know what we're talking about.
I won't argue with you about this (although it shows a definite lack
of insight into your own ability to know things about yourself).
Call it paranormal if you want, I don't care how you label your
own experiences.

What I really wnat to know is:  What happens while you are (or feel
you are) out of your body?  What is the "you" that is outside?
How can it "see" light (photons) without any of the ususal retina
and neural apparatus?

And most of all, "What, if anything, leaves the body during your OBE?"

YOU are the expert.  Please tell me the answers to these questions.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:45:19 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Distribution: world,local
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul24.233717.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> jtulli@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
|
|may i interject at this juncture?  (woody allen, broadway danny rose)
|i think that the "you" is just that--you, in another vehicle--one of finer,
|higher vibrations than the physical and therefore invisible to most people.  it
|can see without our standard equipment because our eyes are the cheap
|imitation of its more refined visual apparatus.

Define terms here.  What is meant by 'finer, higher vibration'?  What is
the 'vibration' of 'normal' physical material, for that matter.  How does
one test for the presence of these 'higher' vibrations?  What are the
rules for the interaction between 'higher' and 'lower' vibrations?  How
do 'higher' vibrations extract information without interception?

Of course this is all assuming there is something meaningful in the above
description.  It really sounds alot like pseudo-scientific jargon based
on Platonic archetypes.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13410 sci.physics:12057
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Date: 30 Jul 92 09:54:40 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Jul28.235824.18389@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com> chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:

>Suppose there is this gigantic rod floating out in space.  Just for
>fun, says its, oh, 1,000,000 miles long.  Further this rod is made
>out of some super-duper-futuristic-space-age-pleiadian-uri-geller-
>don't-even-think-about-it type material and is thus perfectly rigid.  Now 
>suppose you have some mechanism on one end whose purpose is to push and 
>pull (longways) on the rod.  Is this not a FTL communications device 
>since when you push on one end it is going to instantly move at 
>the other end, thus sending a signal to the other end in 0 seconds
>wheras it would have taken 5 or 6 seconds if you were using radio or
>light?

Yup.  And hence relativity is a good reductio ad absurdum proof of the
non-existence of such a material.

The rigidity and compressibility of a material is a result of the
repulsive and attractive forces between atoms.  These are electric
forces and hence travel at c.

The speed of sound in a material (which is what you are talking about)
is less than the speed of light because these forces must then move
the atoms in order to pass the force along to the next atoms in line.

>Now this is a *thought* problem so I would think that such arguments
>as, "Well, it would be impossible to have a rod that was that rigid" or
>"It would be impossible to have a mechanism that could push it", would
>be invalid.

Sorry, thats cheating.  Thought experiments can ignore realities such
as the current level of technology (so we can run thought experiments
about near-light-speed rockets for example) but they are not allowed
to ignore the laws of physics.

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Organization: European Space Research Institute (ESRIN)
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 16:51:36 SET
From: Mike M. Skala <MSKALA@ESRIN.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
 <srutt.711951273@beagle> <24JUL199211195153@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
 <1992Jul27.144139.18261@teleride.on.ca>
 <1992Jul28.010159.21288@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <1992Jul28.010159.21288@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) says:
>
>In article <1992Jul27.144139.18261@teleride.on.ca>
>stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>
>> It's simply an inaccurate definition of atheism.  An atheist is not one
>> who believes that a god does not exist.  An atheist is one who does not
>> believe a god exists.  There is an important semantic difference.
>
>Indeed it is.  But has been pointed out here ad naseum, both
>definitions are widely used.  To say that one is wrong and the other
>right is misleading.  Respectable sources can be found for either.  I
>suggest you follow the advice of the alt.atheism FAQ, and simply
>indicate which variety of atheism you mean when discussing the term,
 
>and refrain from attempting to define one of the two definitions as the
>"correct" one.  It's both an error, and counterproductive.

Thou shalt not use Foreign Words, if there are problems defining
their meaning.

I for example use simply "Unbeliever".
And you can get me talking for hours, *why* I don't believe in *anything* :)

mike

--
Mike M. Skala
mskala@esrin.bitnet

"Seegnatur'? I don't got to show you no stinkin' seegnatur!"
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Autistic children and Prime Time live
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:25:55 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Jul28.171405.13204@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com+ mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes:
+
+I caught the tail end of a segment on Prime Time (ABC) last week
+on communicating with autistic children.  The researchers would
+hold the hands of the children while they would hunt & peck at
+a keyboard.  It occured to me that they may be acting as human
+quija (sp?) boards and was even more convinced when I saw one
+story being written by a five year old girl.  It seemed way beyond
+anything a healthy five years old could do, let alone one who
+was cut off from normal means of communication all of her life.
+
+
+Has anyone else heard of this?  How do they know the parents weren't
+pushing the children's hands to where they want them to go?
+
+
+--
+McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
+Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
+"By this time my lungs were aching for air..."               Joseph Campbell

I saw this. It looked like a case of wishful thinking. Like the what
the relatives of MIA's are doing.


-- 
 __________________________________________________________________________   
|wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.com|    "Another Case of too many scientists and     |
|Bruce Watson            |     not enough hunchbacks." -- Gary Larson      |
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Bold Prediction
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:40:28 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:

> Ex-president Richard Nixon will die before August 1, 1992.

        I hate to say this, but it'd be nice if the old SOB could survive 
until August 9, 1994-- the twentieth anniversary of his resignation.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run."
From: raj@capri.sni-usa.com (Raj Alur)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: There are no atoms! [LONG]
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:29:52 GMT
Reply-To: raj@capri.sni-usa.com (Raj Alur)
Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf Information Systems, Inc. Cambridge, MA


|> >I thought that Einstein didn't believe in QM.  Didn't he make the
|> >remark about god not playing dice with the universe?
|> 
|> He didn't like some of the results of QM, but his Nobel prize was for work in
|> QM:  The photoelectric effect, in particular.
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

-- 
Photoelectric Effect predates QM.
---
Raj

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| S I E M E N S	   Raj Alur			Tel:	(617) 349-5058    |
| -------------	   4 Cambridge Center		FAX: 	(617) 864-3176    |
| N I X D O R F	   Cambridge, MA 02142		Email: 	raj@sni-usa.com   |
|      SNI 	   USA   		                                  |	
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: skeptic-faq V 0.1
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:29:56 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Jul30.211658.18401@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
[many useful remarks]
He omits an important aspect, namely the cause of "UFO-flaps": incidents
where many people from the same area start seeing UFO's.  Maybe this is
a case of mass hysteria.  If people are in the right mood, they might
suddenly observe ordinary phenomena as extra-ordinary. 
Examples are: windshield pitting (attributed to atom bomb tests), 
cattle mutilations (attributed first to Ufonians, later to Satanists).
Examples are known from people noticing lights in the sky from industrial
areas that had been there for many years (but because of mass hysteria 
taking them for UFO's).  And there is no lower bound to human ignorance;
the rising and setting sun have been taken for UFO's.

>
>3.7.4   What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Yes, what about the changes?  Although this is another claim that is
>widely circulated among ufologists and cerealogists, the evidence is
>simply not very good.  A few photographs of alleged changes in the
>"crystalline structure" of wheat stems were published in some
>magazines and UFO publications, but inquiries about the actual
>methodology and testing procedure by the lab that produced the results
>have not produced any satisfactory information.  It is not clear what
>devices were used, what controls were employed, which samples, etc.

The method used was spagyrical analysis.  This is a technique involving
crystallization of the residue of organic material after harsh processing,
invented three centuries ago and popularized by Sir Kenelm Digby. Digby
is known for other wonderful inventions like condensation of sunlight
and the development of sword salve (which you had to put on the weapon
rather than on the wound, in order to cure the wound). 
The fact that this technique was tried at all casts serious doubts on
the "researchers" involved. Other methods used were dowsing.

JWN

From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:53:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Garlic - the wonder herb ??
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

In sci.skeptic, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

> One double blind, randomised, placebo controlled
> study over 4 months using 261 German patients with hyperlipidaemia
> found that total serum cholesterol fell from 6.87 to 6.07 mmol/l
> and that serum triglycerides fell from 2.55 to 2.12 mmol/l.
> after taking 800 mg dried garlic power/day (Kwai, with 1.3% allicin).
> These are not impressive drops when compared to other means
> like that of a vegetarian diet or exercise.  Still, every
> bit helps.  In another equally-well controlled study some
> patients were able to achieve a drop in blood pressure from
> 171/102 to 152/89.

A 12% drop in cholesterol and a 17% drop in triglycerides is nothing to sneeze
at.  It might be interesting to see if multiple methods of lowering cholesterol
are synergistic; moderate exercise, garlic and a low fat diet might be an
excellent solution which does not require any drastic lifestyle changes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot)  "... the world could change in the blink
brian@hpfcbdr.fc.hp.com           of an eye."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Biosphere
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:35:13 GMT

What?  Is everybody just burned out on Biosphere II?  So cynical that yet
another opening of the damned thing on Tuesday doesn't even inspire
comment? :)

-- 
Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage.  -- Ryan
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Search for Noah's Ark
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:26:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Jul24.192652.2650
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <1992Jul20.230347.8366@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

code:
>Science claims to explain, not to know.  Many people loose track of
>that.  I accept (for example) the theory and description of
>evolutionary origin of species.  I just choose to believe that it
>didn't happen that way.  Yes, it COULD have, which is why I have no
>problem with the science.

cleartext: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I'm not interested."

Remember the character Winston in _1984_? By the end of the book,
he has achieved the same kind of victory over his brain that you
have achieved over yours (of course, he had the benefit of a brutal
indoctrination program - your unaided victory is so much more admirable).
He was also very proud and happy.

>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

	Max