• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Uri Geller - Magician

Status
Not open for further replies.
#161
TOOL460002 said:
So you don't think that birds, which have evolved for tens of millions of years to fly in formation and react to avoid predation require psychic stuff? Do you think that dogs, say, that have hearing ranges well beyond humans, cannot sense an earthquake before a human?

Because those are both scientific arguments. You get to use data and logic! It's fun! Come to the other side!

Otherwise I gotta assume you're trolling or severely low IQ and you should not be allowed to post freely online. The mentally ill should be protected from themselves.
Click to expand...

Actually that sounds absurd. To say that evolution somehow discounts the psychic abilities of animals?
 
#162
The complex shape of flocks of birds is an emergent property that derives from well known physical interactions. It works the same for bands of fishes.
It doesn't require communication between birds.
You often learn to code flock of bird algorithms in early stages of programing school.

This is information available for free to anyone. All you have to do is look for knowledge instead of coming up with unlikely supernatural explanations.

Telepathy may very well exist. First demonstrate that it does, then look for an explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hot Rats, Unmostraz, mikewalker and 1 other person
#163
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

Bertrand Russell - Russell's teapot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hot Rats, mikewalker, yodedude2 and 1 other person
#164
Jazz Ad said:
The complex shape of flocks of birds is an emergent property that derives from well known physical interactions. It works the same for bands of fishes.
It doesn't require communication between birds.
You often learn to code flock of bird algorithms in early stages of programing school.

This is information available for free to anyone. All you have to do is look for knowledge instead of coming up with unlikely supernatural explanations.

Telepathy may very well exist. First demonstrate that it does, then look for an explanation.
Click to expand...


I saw a whole TV program on the work of an Hongarian team that realised a 'night flight of a swarm of drones that are driven by a strategy developed by scientists at ELTE University in Budapest and Professor of Artificial Intelligence. The researchers use nature-based algorithms and evolutionary optimization methods'.


The research is mentioned here:
World record for self-flying drones in a single swarm - [jul-sep] - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam


One of the issues that were discussed in that TV program is the fact that one can use algorithms to simulate a flock of birds. But in general that doesn't go further than a pre- programmed flight path in which the drones avoid collisions. The second video shows algorithms like that. What the Hungarians did is a step further; "The Hungarian research group has developed drones that are able to fly autonomously, communicate with each other, synchronize their flight, form large swarms, and collectively fly to their targets while avoiding obstacles and each other – just like birds.".



Then for the record, I'm not denying the possibility that telepathy exist, there's just no proof that birds use it for swarm flights.

On a different angle, the fact that there's no waterproof scientific explanation for entities, ghosts, spirits or whatever one calls them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
They're a part of folklore, so they exist in the human mind at the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jazz Ad and TOOL460002
#167
Stempelloos said:
I saw a whole TV program on the work of an Hongarian team that realised a 'night flight of a swarm of drones that are driven by a strategy developed by scientists at ELTE University in Budapest and Professor of Artificial Intelligence. The researchers use nature-based algorithms and evolutionary optimization methods'.


The research is mentioned here:
World record for self-flying drones in a single swarm - [jul-sep] - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam


One of the issues that were discussed in that TV program is the fact that one can use algorithms to simulate a flock of birds. But in general that doesn't go further than a pre- programmed flight path in which the drones avoid collisions. The second video shows algorithms like that. What the Hungarians did is a step further; "The Hungarian research group has developed drones that are able to fly autonomously, communicate with each other, synchronize their flight, form large swarms, and collectively fly to their targets while avoiding obstacles and each other – just like birds.".



Then for the record, I'm not denying the possibility that telepathy exist, there's just no proof that birds use it for swarm flights.

On a different angle, the fact that there's no waterproof scientific explanation for entities, ghosts, spirits or whatever one calls them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
They're a part of folklore, so they exist in the human mind at the least.
Click to expand...

If I was a betting man, I would bet that fractals are involved. And those can definitely be described by science. Again, this is just a guess, but it's a better guess than magic. Yay.
 
#170
IMO, methodology of inquiry ought to be the focus in discussions like this one. Critical thinking ought to be taught in schools, perhaps starting around middle school, but maybe even earlier, and the lack thereof is certainly evident here. From reading through this thread, it seems like there are huge differences in terms of how people approach looking for answers, and what sort of ideas and evidence they are willing to entertain. For some, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that magical explanations are equally as likely as scientific ones. That shows a lack of understanding of how and why the scientific method works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unmostraz, Bob_Ross, fig and 1 other person
#171
12bass said:
IMO, methodology of inquiry ought to be the focus in discussions like this one. Critical thinking ought to be taught in schools, perhaps starting around middle school, but maybe even earlier, and the lack thereof is certainly evident here. From reading through this thread, it seems like there are huge differences in terms of how people approach looking for answers, and what sort of ideas and evidence they are willing to entertain. For some, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that magical explanations are equally as likely as scientific ones. That shows a lack of understanding of how and why the scientific method works.
Click to expand...
I don't think the OP is interested in examining his epistemology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neurotictim, Unmostraz and Jazz Ad
#173
"We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself." - Chris Mooney.

"Motivated reasoning is confirmation bias taken to the next level. Motivated reasoning leads people to confirm what they already believe, while ignoring contrary data. But it also drives people to develop elaborate rationalizations to justify holding beliefs that logic and evidence have shown to be wrong. Motivated reasoning responds defensively to contrary evidence, actively discrediting such evidence or its source without logical or evidentiary justification. Clearly, motivated reasoning is emotion driven. It seems to be assumed by social scientists that motivated reasoning is driven by a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. Self-delusion, in other words, feels good, and that's what motivates people to vehemently defend obvious falsehoods."

motivated reasoning - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Some believe, because they want to believe. And anything that you can produce as evidence against, will ever change their minds. It's a pathological thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neurotictim, Unmostraz, mikewalker and 1 other person
#174
Good post about motivated reasoning... it is very real and extremely common. One key point with regard to epistemology is that a rational epistemic agent must accept that one's desires and emotions have no truth-making ability. Rationally justified belief comes from the world to the epistemic agent. No amount of individual will has the ability to make true what is actually false. The truth doesn't care about your feelings or your intuitions. Bringing one's subjective biases to bear in one's methodological approach to knowledge is fraught with all sorts of confounds.
 
#175
mikewalker said:
But this being a BASS PLAYER forum, I am pretty sure that many of us already have considerable personal experience with telepathy.
Click to expand...

I can tell three measures in advance when our guitar player is about to make a mistake.

Of course, since he makes a mistake every three measures, that's not much of an accomplishment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unmostraz, Splash7, jugglingfreak and 2 others
#176
Lagado said:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

Bertrand Russell - Russell's teapot.
Click to expand...

No offense to Mr Russell, but that is one of the stupidest analogies I've ever heard.
 
#178
redstrand said:
I was hoping so, all this over Uri Geller. He's a proven fraud, not just by Randi. It's amazing that Uri swindled people as long as he did, it's just textbook mentalism and props. Quite a few books on how to do both.
Click to expand...

I know that he has done lost of fake tricks. But that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have some psychic powers as well.

I don't really care what Randi thought of him. He started okay in the criticism, but then went too far in his criticism and after a while just became ugly and bitter. He brought more fans to Geller as a result, I think.
 
#179
12bass said:
IMO, methodology of inquiry ought to be the focus in discussions like this one. Critical thinking ought to be taught in schools, perhaps starting around middle school, but maybe even earlier, and the lack thereof is certainly evident here. From reading through this thread, it seems like there are huge differences in terms of how people approach looking for answers, and what sort of ideas and evidence they are willing to entertain. For some, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that magical explanations are equally as likely as scientific ones. That shows a lack of understanding of how and why the scientific method works.
Click to expand...

Or maybe your conclusion is just a lack of reading all my comments. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back