ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Is the Sun Conscious?

Discussion in 'Human Potential, Self Discovery' started by Mimsey Borogrove, Nov 28, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Squirreling Dervish

    And for anyone who rejects the validity of what Sheila is describing is either heavily insulated from all of this, lives in one of the nice areas noted or just has a hard time seeing through their rose colored glasses.
    I should add that I did live in an economically depressed area in a suburb of Cleveland Ohio as a kid and it was bad then. I tried Mpls and that became a toxic shithole of gangs as well as Billings, Montana where they just hated outsides because they took their friends jobs. That's when I was a Greyhound driver for a few years then (complete with a Ted Kaszinski (incident/accident) and we had nationwide seniority to determine where you could work. You'd get bumped out of wherever you were and would bid into somewhere you thought you could work with whatever little seniority you had. If you bid into Billings it meant one of their own got bumped out and they were hateful, vengeful bastards. One driver from Milwaukee Wisc that bid in and onto a nice "gravy run" and bumped a popular local who loves "his" run awoke to hooded gunmen who told him to bid out of town on the next bid or they'd be back to kill him! No, it wasn't me. They'd have keys made to the rooms that Greyhound rented out for a place for their drivers to stay and these bastards could get in on you in the middle of the night. Do you know that when you give someone your key they can trace out the key pattern on piece of masking tape and later cut themselves a working copy of your key using a Dremel drill kit?

    I just watched Leah Remini's Scientology and the Aftermath - "Spies like us" and it's easy to see the hellatious impact of Scientology upon the populace.
    They lay the foundation for "how to harass anyone".

    The best part is the interview with Cierra Waterman, a PI for Scientology from 2008-2011 with PI Dwayne Powell, and telling of how many ex's got real time tracking devices put of their cars tracking their every movement throughout each and every day. They are little black boxes that can be hard wired into your car's electrical harness or if they just use the battery option they have to keep coming back to change the battery. Inside is a cell phone card which makes it operate on a paid cell phone account that someone is paying (would be traceable as to who if your get your hands on it) and it transmits your location onto a Google Earth map where they can watch a little car on the map move around on each street with a MPH readout on every move you make. I've seen them operate before on a laptop. You can search for the various models on Ebay so that you know what to look for, they are only a few inches long.
    Sounds like heavy class action time...

    The world's turning to shit and we need to do something about whatever we can do something about.
    Or roll the dice on where and what shit storm you'll get reborn into as enforced participation does appear to be mandatory in this ream of existence, from what I've experienced and recollect of it, and not from Scientology auditing.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  2. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    HH & Guanoloco:

    "theory noun
    the·o·ry | \ˈthē-ə-rē,

    plural theories
    Definition of theory
    : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
    the wave theory of light
    : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
    her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
    : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
    in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
    : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b
    : an unproved assumption : conjecture
    : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
    theory of equations
    : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
    music theory
    : abstract thought : speculation
    : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another "

    HH & Guanoloco, where in this definition does it say it was proved? If I have a theory you are both idiots, and though I base this hypothesis on some of your posts, that does not mean that you are actually, idiots, any more than both your theories that I am a SJW is in fact, valid.
  3. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    The word is scientific theory. It is a specialized definition. We laypeople confuse the definition of theory as a guess (hypothesis) with scientific theory which explains established facts sans any guesswork.

    I've posted extensively on this on the Trump thread multiple times with links, etc., because feminist studies conflate these definitions where they see something like the Theory of Relativity and equate that as a guess. Hubbard did this, too.

    Not the same definition.

    My guess, as always, is you never read anything I posted.
  4. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Some help for you Mimsey:
    From the article:
  5. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Weren't you the one busting my chops for lack of links? Perhaps you got that quote from an article in my earlier post? Did you happen to read the first few paragraphs by any chance?

    "For decades, I've been only dimly aware of Rupert Sheldrake as a renegade British biologist who argues that telepathy and other paranormal phenomena (sometimes lumped under the term psi) should be taken more seriously by the scientific establishment. Since I'm one of those fuddy-duddy establishment doubters of psi, I never bothered to examine Sheldrake's work closely. But I was intrigued, and amused, by the vehemence of his critics, notably John Maddox, the long-time editor of Nature, who once called Sheldrake's views "heresy" that deserved to be "condemned."
    Sheldrake probably provokes such strong reactions in part because he is a product of the scientific establishment—more specifically, of Cambridge University. He earned his doctorate in biochemistry there in 1967 and became a fellow and director of studies in biochemistry and cell biology. He gradually became dissatisfied with current theories of biology. He presented an alternative framework—involving his theory of morphic resonance (explained below)--in his 1981 book A New Science of Life, which Maddox, in a now-famous Nature editorial, called "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years."

    Sheldrake, undaunted, went on to write more popular books, including Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999), The Sense of Being Stared At (2003), Seven Experiments That Could Change the World (1994) and, most recently, Science Set Free (2013). The latter calls on modern science to shed its restrictive materialism and reductionism, advancing some of the same arguments that philosopher Thomas Nagel does in his recent book Mind and Cosmos (which I reviewed here).

    The reason I'm telling you about Sheldrake is that less than two months ago, we were both speakers at a festival in Hay-on-Wye, England, and were put up in the same boarding house. (I participated in several sessions at the festival, including one about Big Data that I reported on here.) I spent lots of time talking to Sheldrake during the festival and after it, when we spent an afternoon tramping around a heath near his home. (I also met Sheldrake in 1997 at a scientific reception in London, but we only spoke briefly.)

    Sheldrake is terrific company. He is smart, articulate and funny. He does a hilarious imitation of the late psychedelic scholar Terence McKenna, his friend and co-author, whom I met in 1999 and profiled here. There is an appealing reasonableness and gentleness in Sheldrake's manner, even when he is complaining about the unfairness of his many critics.

    He possesses, moreover, a deep knowledge of science, including its history and philosophy (which he studied at Harvard in the 1960s). This knowledge—along with his ability to cite detailed experimental evidence for his claims--make Sheldrake a formidable defender of his outlook. (For more on Sheldrake's career and views, see his website,

    At one point Sheldrake, alluding to my 1996 book The End of Science, said that his science begins where mine ends. When I asked him to elaborate he said, "We both agree that science is at present limited by assumptions that restrict enquiry, and we agree that there are major unsolved problems about consciousness, cosmology and other areas of science… I am proposing testable hypotheses that could take us forward and open up new frontiers of scientific enquiry."

    I remain a psi doubter; my doubt was reinforced by psychologist Susan Blackmore, a psi believer-turned-skeptic whom I interviewed for my 2003 book Rational Mysticism. But now and then I still doubt my doubt. In a post here two years ago, I point out that many brilliant scientists—from William James and Alan Turing to Freeman Dyson—have been open-minded about psi.

    I conclude, "I’m a psi skeptic, because I think if psi was real, someone would surely have provided irrefutable proof of it by now. But how I wish that someone would find such proof!... The discovery of telepathy or telekinesis would blow centuries of accumulated scientific dogma sky high. What could be more thrilling!"

    By John Horgan on July 14, 2014

    Full interview at link.

  6. Maria Cuervo

    Maria Cuervo Gold Meritorious Patron

    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  7. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    If you want to infer he used a more specific definition of theory, feel free. Mimsey
  8. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

    The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable.

    It has to be falsifiable and has stood against that.

    Hubbard's theories as well as feminist theories are just the opposite where they are stated, not allowed to be tested and data is cherry picked to prove them correct. Scientific theory is continually tested to prove it false by any and all comers.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  9. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    You didn't read what I wrote. You used the word theory and it's not a theory. In fact, Sheldrake has properly labelled it a hypothesis.

    You stated how the expiremental evidence has held up. It hasn't.

    I guess that may be pedantic but you have a tendency to cherry pick data and make sweeping conclusions. I have elevated my position to that of the lofty "observational disciplinarian" and, if I must, will invoke Sneakster to investigate you if you refuse to quit referring to morphic resonance as a theory.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  10. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Thanks, DG. Good post.

    That's shocking what they did to that bus driver! :wtf:

    I think some of this may not be limited to the US and may have to do with a combination of the baby boomers getting older and a lot of people with poor management skills running companies. There is a general negative attitude toward any in their 50s or older and an awfully lot of poorly educated people (despite their degrees) who have no hands-on experience or practical education put in positions of authority either by inheritance, connections or money. Special interests and favors always existed, they just weren't so commonplace before. Many people are desperate for jobs as the population exploded all over the world in the last ten years and extreme Liberals demand we keep taking on more foreigners than either our societies or economies can handle. Our concepts of personal dignity and social decency are being thrown in the toilet as individuals competing with each other will stop at almost nothing to destroy another person over even passably "good" jobs. Respect for elders seems to be limited to relatives. Societal standards of decent behavior and fair treatment of others is also being thrown to the side.

    Western civilization is reverting once again to a dog-eat-dog world. That's not hard to do. Building a decent society takes centuries. Getting everyone to revert to animalistic behavior takes very little effort, though.

    So around us, all we can do is try our best to treat others with respect and dignity while maintaining our own. Everyone has their own little sphere of influence where we can do this and I agree with you, that this is really all we can do.

    Things will probably get a whole lot worse before they get better, but historically, mankind has a way of re-discovering his spiritual potential through writing and the arts afterward and then we have a Renaissance period and things go good again. That's the long view and I believe it will all come good again, though I'm not sure I'll be alive to see that happen by the time it does.

    I'm glad I was in my 20s in the 80s, though, instead of now. I'm thankful my young relatives had enough foresight to make sure they're doing alright in their jobs and careers now, too.
  11. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    1. What person became "more facile at telepathy"? This is a wildly broad and assumptive leap of faith on your part. You state it as though it were a well established fact, when there is NO SCIENCE that supports it. In other words, it's your superstitious belief.

    2. "...more facile at telepathy (or whatever)...." What is "whatever"? Valley Girl talk? LOL Is someone supposed to assume that you have other facts not in evidence that people can improve their paranormal powers? That's cult belief. Stick with the facts or it's just more foolishness.
  12. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    I will try to be as respectful as I can be. . .


    Yeah, just like I thought---I can't be respectful when Scientologists and others who likewise don't know WTF they are talking about try to do fucking word clearing on me. LOL
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2018
  13. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    That's exactly what I said on my 15th time through Dr Hubbard's IQ test that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that auditing raised my IQ!
  14. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    shhhhhhhhhh....go back to whatever you were doing. we are not doing word clearing here. lol
  15. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I understand your point about the different definitions of theory, and thanks for pointing them out.

    However, in the examples you posted of the tests being debunked, I don't have any faith in Wiseman. While he has an interesting career, and "he moved to Edinburgh where he obtained his PhD in Psychology from the University of Edinburgh for research supervised by Robert L. Morris.[1] He went from there to the University of Hertfordshire, becoming Britain's first professor in the Public Understanding of Psychology.[6]" (Wiki)

    His focus is on debunking, he has had TV shows, he has done some research, and published many books, and I wonder if his basis of debunking many subjects is based on some bias or prejudice against the paranormal?

    "Wiseman is known for his critical examination and frequent debunking of unusual phenomena, including reports of paranormal phenomena. He is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).[8] His research has been published in numerous academic journals, reported at various conferences,[9] and featured on television.[10]

    Wiseman has studied the principles of good and bad luck, publishing the results in the self-help book The Luck Factor. He showed that both good and bad luck result from measurable habits; for example, lucky people, by expecting good luck, might expend more effort in their endeavours, resulting in more success, reinforcing their belief in good luck. Lucky people are outgoing and observant and therefore have many more chance encounters than unlucky people, each of which could bring a lucky opportunity. Moreover, lucky people are more likely to look on the bright side of 'bad' encounters. In a mental exercise describing being shot during a bank robbery, lucky people considered themselves lucky not to have been killed while unlucky people considered themselves unlucky to have been shot.[11]" Wiki)

    Truthfully, I have not read his works, however, it seems he has a financial motive in his debunking, and it would seem to me, finding something to be valid would be counter productive to that end.

    My disagreement with "Third, in 2000 John Colwell of Middlesex University in London conducted a formal test using Sheldrake's experimental protocol. Twelve volunteers participated in 12 sequences of 20 stare or no-stare trials each and received accuracy feedback for the final nine sessions. Results: subjects could detect being stared at only when accuracy feedback was provided, which Colwell attributed to the subjects learning what was, in fact, a nonrandom presentation of the trials. When University of Hertfordshire psychologist Richard Wiseman also attempted to replicate Sheldrake's research, he found that subjects detected stares at rates no better than chance." is that it is very small sampling of only 12 people. In the example I posted some 18,000 tests were run and got an apx. 40% positive result.

    What I further don't understand, is the comment that they only got results by providing feedback. Why wasn't that examined further?

    "The starees may have been learning something useful about the sequences as a result of the feedback. If the sequences used to generate the trials were not perfectly random then they could have a predictable patterning in their structure. It is sometimes the case that experimenters use pseudo-random sequences rather than truly random ones (Brugger, Landis, and Regard 1990). This enables the experimenter to equalize the number of trials in two different experimental conditions (e.g., stare versus non-stare) and means that the starees may have been able to learn the sequence structure from the feedback. Such learning will increase with exposure, and to test for this possibility the twelve sessions were divided into four blocks of three sessions each (table 2) and accuracy scores were compared across the four blocks of sessions. "

    It would seem to me, that if psychic staring can be improved via feedback, why then wasn't that studied further? Why was it taken as a negative? What is the underlying intention? To merely debunk, or to look at the claim in an unbiased frame of mind? Why is there a lack curiosity behind understanding why you are getting this learnable result -is it because the researcher is biased? That is a monumental result, yet it was brushed off as a negative.

    That's my problem with Randi and many debunkers - their intention for debunking seems to be monetary. I don't mind them making a living, but their intention and reputation is based on finding things wrong, not right. GL - wouldn't you call that confirmation bias as well?

  16. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    The below is about medical testing, but will suffice to satisfy my confirmation bias that my above post is correct in every way. :bleh:

    Why is Sample Size important?
    by Ronan Fitzpatrick, on November 1, 2015
    Why Calculate Sample Size?
    A good statistical study is one that is well designed and leads to valid conclusions. This however, is not always the case, even in published studies. In Cohen’s (1962) seminal power analysis of the journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology he concluded that over half of the published studies were insufficiently powered to result in statistical significance for the main hypothesis.

    What is Sample Size?
    The power of a statistical test is the probability that a test will reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is false. That is, power reflects the probability of not committing a type II error. The two major factors affecting the power of a study are the sample size and the effect size.
    The larger the sample size is the smaller the effect size that can be detected. The reverse is also true; small sample sizes can detect large effect sizes. While researchers generally have a strong idea of the effect size in their planned study it is in determining an appropriate sample size that often leads to an underpowered study. This poses both scientific and ethical issues for researchers.

    A study that has a sample size which is too small may produce inconclusive results and could also be considered unethical, because exposing human subjects or lab animals to the possible risks associated with research is only justifiable if there is a realistic chance that the study will yield useful information.

    Similarly, a study that has a sample size which is too large will waste scarce resources and could expose more participants than necessary to any related risk. Thus an appropriate determination of the sample size used in a study is a crucial step in the design of a study.

    More at link
  17. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Squirreling Dervish

    Why are you running an auditing session on us?

    "Is the sun conscious?
    Thank you.
    I'll repeat the auditing question, is the sun conscious?
    Thank you.
    I'll repeat the auditing question, is the sun conscious?"
    etc., etc., etc

    No one wants any auditing here.
    No one wants any group processing here.
    No one wants any word clearing here.

    Plus you wouldn't know if we answered the auditing question correctly any more than we would know if we had.
    Your answer is: no one knows, neither do you and we don't really care.

    Go study ancient 3500 year old Egyptian Horus The Sun God references and answer it for yourself.
    See if it takes you up the pole...
  18. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Oy vey - well your post is funny if off the mark of why I posted mine. However, now that you have invoked Hubbard, I will tell you his sample sizing was worse than Coleman etc. mentioned above - I was doing a FES at AOLA, and was avidly reading some LRH c/sing in the folder, and found, based on one (1) sample he proved you can rehab drugs.

    That is why were here at all with our tales of woe about Scientology.

  19. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    Your problem is that you cannot differentiate between facts and feelings.

    Assuredly, you now "feel" that the above sentence is incorrect. LOL.

    You are frequently called a SJW because you THINK, SAY & POST all of the things that SJWs THINK, SAY & POST.

    You have the full package of SJW disinformation, generalities, propaganda, slogans, erroneous conclusions, illogical inferences, "Big Lies" and feelings masquerading as facts.

    It is not the least surprising that you cannot see that you have bought into the entire cult mindset of an SJW.

    Sorry to bring you this entheta r-factor, but you are welcome to attend future briefings where all attendees will be given free complementary clay. lol

    COMMENT: Ask any member of the Nation of Islam if Louis Farrakhan is a racist hate monger. Ask any Scientologist if Scientology is a cruel avaricious hoax. Ask any Jihadi plotting to blow up a school bus filled with small children if they are a terrorist. They will all laugh and swear that you are crazy, then carefully explain to you how they are most certainly NOT what they are. They will, instead, use glowing terms to describe themselves such as "humanitarian", "peace loving" and "most ethical people on the planet". It's expected that they cannot see what they have become, because that is essentially the mechanism by which peoples' thoughts, emotions and actions are consumed and melded into meticulously synchronized cult conformity. Of course you do not think you are an SJW, because despite having the identical thoughts/feelings/slogans as every other SJW, you think of yourself as a champion of free thought & personal freedom---exactly like Scientology cult members think of themselves as champions of "total freedom".
    strativarius likes this.
  20. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    Hardly! LOL.

    I am averse to your voluminous links because you don't know how to research.

    You think cutting and pasting is "research".

    If I cut and paste excerpts from Ron Hubbard's wholetrack research, that doesn't mean I am researching.

    Parrots don't research. They repeat.

    Parrots don't know WTF they are saying.

    I've told you innumerable times that the first step on your journey to learn how to research (and think) is to FIRST TRY AND DEBUNK YOUR OWN BELIEFS, FEELINGS & "FACTS".

    You never try to debunk your sources. Worse yet, you never try to debunk yourself and your own superstitions, hunches & feelings. That's precisely how a "Useful Idiot" becomes one.

    The only people you assiduously attempt to debunk are people who disagree with you. That's what L. Ron Hubbard did.

    Debunking of only those who disagree with you is a common trait of the SJW cult. And all cults for that matter.

    You reach wrong conclusions so often because you think that finding links (that you agree with) is the same as finding facts.

    Okay, now it's time for you to explain how fixed my ideas are and how I refuse to research. LOL. Cue SJW triggering: 10....9....8.....7......6......5.......4......3.......2.........