HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@cse.fau.edu (Steve Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: reality (was Re: NEXT)
Summary: it's all in your head unless you can prove it
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:42:10 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <1992Dec31.154851.3227@shearson.com> jjozwiak@shearson.com writes:

[much drivel about psi phenomena deleted for brevity]

> Why are supposed intelligent people so resistant to anything they can't
> touch or measure or quantify....

They are not.  One cannot touch, measure or quantify ideas yet most
intelligent people are not resistant to them.  However, I don't think
this is what you are trying to say.

If you mean to say, "Why are experimentally non-reproducable/observable
phenomena not accepted as valid by supposedly intelligent people?", then
the answer is rather obvious.

If some phenomena is not experimentally reproducable and observable than
we have no proof that it's not all in your (and anybody else's) head.

> dont you know there is MUCH more to learn out there....

If what you have "learned" does not fit the criteria above, it may or
may not apply in your own peculiar reality but it certainly says nothing
about reality as it exists outside your head.

> the mind can travel where our feet cannot.

True, true.  The mind is a big place and feet will get you nowhere
in there but don't fool yourself:  it's all in your head.  :-)
-- 
      ___________________________________________________________
     (_____    |   (______    Internet: steve@cse.fau.edu
___________)___|__________)   Bitnet:   S_SMITH@FAUVAX
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: We Ain't Special
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:53:43 -0600
Followup-To: alt.consciousness
Distribution: world
Organization: MSUS

In article <lkgtsiINNgaf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
(Eric Marsh) wrote:
> 
> In article <Stafford-040193092417@stafford.winona.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan3.022320.2013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
> >wrote:
> 
> >>[...]
> >> Any attempt to make us more than we are is an excersise in
> >> egotism and must be rejected totally.
> 
> >	This is a good example of the philosophy of despair or simply
> >	depressed thinking, an unfortunate but real illness.
> 
> IMHO, that sounds a bit extreme. From what I can see, JM takes an
> extremely rational approach to the quesion of consciousness. While I
> may not agree with him completely, I don't think it is fair to label
> him as "dispairing" or "ill."

IMHO JM's perception is remarkably unimaginative and disparaging.
IMHO it is an illness which leads one to see things in such terms.
An illness of the imagination, an attitude typical of persons who
have been harassed and abused by reductionist 'scholars.'
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: NEXT
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:45:45 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1993Jan6.055526.367@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> steve@cse.fau.edu (Steve Smith) writes:
>In article <lk6k41INN5kp@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>Just a thought...

>>If "mind" were to have a real impact on reality, it would follow
>>that the type of impact would be influenced by the beliefs held
>>by the mind in question. Were this to be true, then what would
>>be the result of putting someone with PSI talents into a carefully
>>controlled environment, amidst a group of skeptics? 

>>Seems to me that the beliefs of the skeptics might well cancel
>>out the abilities of the "talent." Further, it is not unlikely that
>>the confidence of the talent would be negatively affected by
>>his/her surroundings, which could well have an impact on the
>>performance of that individual.

>C'mon man!  If we put the "talent" in a roomfull of believers, how
>do we know it's not a shared hallucination!  To "prove" anything
>(if anything can be proved) you must convince skeptics, not believers.

This raises speculation about the topic of "shared hullucinations",
but that is another subject all together. 

Obviously if one would need a reasonable set of controls. Video tape
would be a good candidate. Then the skeptics could examine the
evidence without affecting the experiment.

Of course there are those who would claim that the universe is not
as solid as we think it is, and so even video tape could be affected
by the disbelief of the skeptics (see parallel/holographic universes).
While the possibility exists that reality does have such bizarre 
characteristics, it kinda throws the whole scientific method out the
window, doesn't it?

Eric

>-- 
>      ___________________________________________________________
>     (_____    |   (______    Internet: steve@cse.fau.edu
>___________)___|__________)   Bitnet:   S_SMITH@FAUVAX


Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Subject: Re: Next?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:30:51 GMT

| Actually, we have *less* possibilities than protozoa.
| We are frimly trapped in our own patterns of thought.

				-Jim Mason

I certainly believe that Jim is trapped in *his* own
patterns of thought!

| PROVE that we are less than haphazard evolutionary products...
| We have had 5000 years of civilization to prove that we are 
| somehow special - and still nothing. 

I'd rather believe that we are *more* than the product of haphazard
evolution. And I pity anyone who can dismiss the artistic and
philosophical peaks of five thousand years of civilization!

| Your position is obviously that of an anti-intellectual.

Actually, I'd say it's that of an anti-Jim Mason!

Happy trails.

Alan
From: aquilanm@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano )
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:09:42 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


Somewhere along this endless thread, Jim Mason said, "Emotion is nothing but
a cheap firing of the nerves."  Hmm, I'd better sell my symphony tickets!

Mark Aquilano
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: We Ain't Special
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
Date: 4 Jan 93 09:36:23 -0600
Followup-To: alt.consciousness
Distribution: world
Organization: MSUS

In article <1993Jan3.022320.2013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
wrote:
> 
>[...]
> Any attempt to make us more than we are is an excersise in
> egotism and must be rejected totally.

	This is a good example of the philosophy of despair or simply
	depressed thinking, an unfortunate but real illness.
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Time and Will
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:44:47 GMT

In article <C0o66E.97K.1@cs.cmu.edu>, drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes in part:
|> malcolm@geog.leeds.ac.uk writes:
|> >     Under certain circumstances, when the brain is exceptionally focused 
|> >and still it may be possible to extend the will further forward in time, 
|> >possibly to select the outcome of the action rather than just the brain's 
|> >prediction. I offer this as possible explanation of what I know of the Zen 
|> >approach to, for example, archery.
|> 
|> Also certain forms of magic or psychic powers, which take this ability
|> and focus it to a greater ability.  Have you read any works of the
|> russian Gurdjieff?  Some of your theory reminds me vaguely of certain
|> things which he and his pupl, P.D.Ouspensky, wrote.

What in the world does "the brain is exceptionally focused" mean?  Sure
this is a metaphor, but does it make sense?  For that matter, what in
the world is "the will"?  The "will" is in fact a fact inferred from
observing behavior, but I know of no evidence that such a thing
actually exists.

As to supposed "selection" of the future and theory of magic:  you are 
taking two purely hypothetical concepts and connecting them.  This may 
seem like an accomplishment, but is in fact not much use.  The actual
evidence for these contentions is no more than suggestive.  Your 
imagination is constructing the rest of the story to fit the suggestion.

Beware of falling in love with your own words.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Date: 9 Jan 1993 19:28:53 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <28=602Ix31tU01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> mwk20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Michael W Knowles) writes:
>In article <C0K05M.5zA@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>...stuff deleted...

>>And upon examination, there is, in actual fact, much LESS to PK, psi, 
>>etc. than is claimed.

>Agree.  I have yet to see ANY real scientific studies done in these
>areas.  You  might argue that the Uncertainty Principle affects
>such experiments, but who can really prove that?

In "Margins of Reality, The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World"
the authors describe in some detail the Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research (PEAR) program. This program was established in 1979 and I think
it went on for something like a decade. 

From what I have read of the program, it provided some pretty solid
statistical evidence of PKI.

The book is interesting reading, and I'd suggest it to anyone interested
in follow up on this topic.

>Michael

Eric
Xref: sparky alt.consciousness:855 talk.origins:16061
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:13:03 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

Engineer schools produce people
>> that are not very creative and Art schools produce people who
>> can not think analytically.  By focusing on just one aspect
>> of intelligence, the other areas may atrophy.

| The scary thing is SEEING people who are completely analytical 
| with almost ABSOLUTELY no imagination, or creativity. Or vice-versa.

						-Nightsong

So far, this discussion makes the assumption that analytical and
creative skills are strictly the product of education. The influence
of talent (or inclination) is ignored. In reality, people differ
greatly in their abilities and interests; and generally speaking,
such diversity is very useful to society. The artists and engineers
would *both* be up a creek if there weren't people willing to spend
their days toiling in factories or harvesting crops. 

And then there's the question of *opportunity*. You don't have to
be poor to be deprived of the opportunity to develop your own
essential interests.
			-Alan
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:12:40 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

| Penrose is a dweeb that tries to use quantum uncertianty
| as a defense for human uniqueness. 
			
		    -Jim Mason

Now that's what I like: a tolerant, thoughtful response!

| We are not 'linked' to the quantum universe in any noticible 
| way and even if we were, so are all the animals from protozoa 
| on up. 

I love it when people make authoritative pronouncements on
subjects they know less than nothing about! Glad to hear that
we have the same possibilities as protozoa!

| Rule #1 ... when someone tries to make you or your motives 
| 'divine' ... question them ten times over because you can be 
| assured there are egomaniacal motives in there.

Did this guy get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning,
or what?

| Beware of any references that make us seem more than the product 
| of haphazard evolution. They usually rely on egomanical assumptions 
| rather than logic.

Now this is a really idiotic statement. Belief in "haphazard 
evolution" as the guiding principle of the Universe is only one 
of many possible world views, and not the most inspired view
by a long shot.

| Logic is not superior to emotion. It is 'just another state of mind'.

I'd go farther than that. I'd say that emotional seeing (or emotional
knowing) is a vastly superior perceptual tool to mere logic. And yet 
the writer has clearly implied in his previous statement (above) that 
*logic* is the foundation for his belief in "haphazard evolution".

| I submit that we are nothing but slightly improved monkeys. 

Speak for yourself, James!

		-Alan
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:10:34 GMT

In article <9en=02lt30=p01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, mwk20@ccc.amdahl.com (Michael W Knowles) writes in part:
|> >Maybe there is more to PKI, PSI, homeopathy, astrology, etc, etc than the
|>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
|> Probably not a good choice...homeopathy is scientifcally accepted in other
|> countries.  We're just a bit slow here in the U.S.

Oh yes?  Where is homeopathy "scientifically accepted"?  And by whom?
There's like zero probability that anyone who knows anything about 
chemistry or biology is going to believe the preposterous claims
of homeopathy for a second.

And upon examination, there is, in actual fact, much LESS to PK, psi, 
etc. than is claimed.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: aragorn@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Steven J.)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: NEXT
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:34:28 GMT
Organization: The Other Side of the CPU
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30

nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong) writes:

: Was it kind of like they do it on television (echoey)?  
:  
: Explanation for asking:
:  For me it was, but I had not been exposed to much television.

No, not quite.  The things that have been 'sent' to me come more in the form
of an idea or feeling.  Thus, it's necessary for me to become more in tune
with my feelings, as it were; trust my instincts more strongly than what is
seen as natural or proper.  This is akin to 'going with one's gut feeling'.

:  For anyone who has experienced ANY form of telepathy -- is it more 
: common or if it only happened a couple times WAS it in a very natural-ish 
: place (i.e. mountains, meadow, forest, etc.)?

It's happened everywhere for me.  Just yesterday I was running around the net.  
I was running on a workstation and logged onto two different mainframes here 
on campus.  I was 'jacked-into' IRC at the time on one machine and reading 
news on the other.  Quite suddenly I 'felt' that someone had entered my 
channel in IRC.  Upon toggling to the machine running IRC, I found I was 
correct. Someone had just entered my channel.  I know this comes off as 
complete coincidence but things like this happen to me all the time along with 
many incidents of heavy synchronicity.  I've had ideas of collective
consciousness for quite a long time and I think as Intenet grows by leaps
and bounds, maybe it has or can become part of this consciousness...  or
maybe not.


Steve J. White
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed herein are		   aragorn@convex.csd.uwm.edu
sometimes those of others.			     aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Date: 10 Jan 93 19:22:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <aquilanm.726635000@argon>, aquilanm@argon.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Mark T Aquilano ) writes:
"
"I'm responding to Malcom Shute's article about skepicism and PKI/PSI.
"I agree with him that skepticism is a virtue.  But he goes on to say that 
""the system works fine."  1 billion people live on our planet in absolute
"poverty, meaning they don't have the basics needed for a marginal existence.
"We're ending this century of great technological progress with no more peace
"on Earth than we began it.  Is the system working fine - has it ever worked
"fine for that matter?  If the "rational", scientific conciousness is all there
"is, and maybe this is the case, isn't this actually a sad state of affairs?
"

I agree the present way of going about things doesn't work. But I
wouldn't call it rational. But for that matter, claiming that PKI and
PSI doesn't exist is hardly rational either. 

I think a rational person would take into consideration the effects of
having a prior opinion on observations, and would keep an open mind.
Accept provisionally what the believers say, then test your own
experience, and carefully examine your own experience, and then come
to a provisional decision on the validity of what they say.

In this manner, I have had experiences which cannot be explained
through any physical means. Being a experimental physicist, I think I
understand by now how to account for all possible sources for an
effect.

With regards to the effect of scientific materialist thinking on the
world, it doesn't matter what -ism it is. Until people figure out how
to treat each other decently and act responsibly (which I might add is
about as rational as you can get!) the world will have a lot of
nastiness. Who knows, even if we ever get to that point, maybe things
will be too far gone anyway.

				Yours in zeteticism,
					Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: We Ain't Special
Date: 4 Jan 1993 17:44:50 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <Stafford-040193092417@stafford.winona.msus.edu> Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.022320.2013@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>wrote:

>>[...]
>> Any attempt to make us more than we are is an excersise in
>> egotism and must be rejected totally.

>	This is a good example of the philosophy of despair or simply
>	depressed thinking, an unfortunate but real illness.

IMHO, that sounds a bit extreme. From what I can see, JM takes an
extremely rational approach to the quesion of consciousness. While I
may not agree with him completely, I don't think it is fair to label
him as "dispairing" or "ill."

Eric
From: mwk20@ccc.amdahl.com (Michael W Knowles)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Date: 8 Jan 93 23:50:16 GMT
Reply-To: mwk20@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Michael W Knowles)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <C0K05M.5zA@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
...stuff deleted...

>Oh yes?  Where is homeopathy "scientifically accepted"?  And by whom?
>There's like zero probability that anyone who knows anything about 
>chemistry or biology is going to believe the preposterous claims
>of homeopathy for a second.

England and India, to name two countries.  If you are interested
in references, try:

  Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century, by Dana Ullman

  Homeopathy: Stimulating the Body's Natural Immune System,
    by Sara Richardson

  Homeopathy, the Modern Medicine, Journal of the Homeopathic
    Medical Association of India

>
>And upon examination, there is, in actual fact, much LESS to PK, psi, 
>etc. than is claimed.

Agree.  I have yet to see ANY real scientific studies done in these
areas.  You  might argue that the Uncertainty Principle affects
such experiments, but who can really prove that?

Besides, I cannot imagine the complete havoc someone with a bad
attitude could wreak if they had unlimited PSI or PK powers.

Michael
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Knowles                 Won't that road twist you up
mwk20@amail.amdahl.com              like a rubber band?
408-746-3305

Standard disclaimer applies.  Bye Now...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jjozwiak@shearson.com (Jenny Jozwiak)
Subject: RE: NEXT
Reply-To: jjozwiak@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:04:25 GMT

Steve Smith Wrote:
>much drivel about psi phenomena deleted for brevity

Jenny Jozwiak wrote:
> Why are supposed intelligent people so resistant to anything they can't
> touch or measure or quantify....


Steve Smith Wrote:
>They are not.  One cannot touch, measure or quantify ideas yet most
>intelligent people are not resistant to them.  However, I don't think
>this is what you are trying to say.

>If you mean to say, "Why are experimentally non-reproducable/observable
>phenomena not accepted as valid by supposedly intelligent people?", then
>the answer is rather obvious.

>If some phenomena is not experimentally reproducable and observable than
>we have no proof that it's not all in your (and anybody else's) head.
***********************************************************************************

Sceesh...  What a grouch......

"Drivel"?  "All in your Head"?  maybe all in your *mind*....or consciousness?  Whats so wrong with that?  
Look, all I know is that myself and many others I might add, have experienced strange,
unexplainable occurances.  Maybe you Steve, have never
experience them.  Or if you have, you may have just brushed it aside and called it
coincedence.   Maybe it was.  Maybe it was not.  Maybe none of us will ever step into
a laboratory to be "tested".  Physical reality is testable.  PSI reality is not...yet,
anyway.... 
"Our lives are shaped (like it or not) by the unknown".  So there.  

Oh, and by the way, I am so sorry to hear that you may feel the need for a kill file for
alt.consciousness.   What's the matter?  Are you so closed minded?  Close-
minded people make bad scientists and unimaginative people.

Jenny

: )
From: steve@cse.fau.edu (Steve Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: NEXT
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:17:50 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <Xk1qwB17w165w@anarky.tch.org> nightsng@anarky.tch.org (Nightsong) writes:
>
>Anyway, I *COMPLETELY* agree that supposedly intelligent people are so 
>resistant to anything they cannot touch or measure or quantify (to quote 
>you)  They are ALSO resistant to anything they cannot prove through 
>certain scientific methods they have had drilled into their heads all 
>their lives.  It seems that I am replying to many of these posts in the 
>same way.  It also seems necessary.
>
>-Nightsong

Ahh.... who would have thought a kill file was necessary
for Alt.conciousness?
-- 
      ___________________________________________________________
     (_____    |   (______    Internet: steve@cse.fau.edu
___________)___|__________)   Bitnet:   S_SMITH@FAUVAX
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Subject: Re: PKI and PSI (was Re: NEXT)
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:17:48 GMT

| Is the system working fine - has it ever worked fine 
| for that matter?  
			-Mark Aquilano

Big fish eat little fish. This is the system that works fine!

| If the "rational", scientific conciousness is all there
| is... isn't this actually a sad state of affairs?

Amen, brother!

	   -Alan