c4countdown

Alec Rivers wrote:But I am open-minded enough to accept the possibility that there are connections between physical entities that are yet to be fully understood.

Great, it's good to be open-minded. However, by far the most parsimonious explanation is that there is no such link, and that any connection between something you once dreamt and something that happened is coincidental. If you can design a reliable experiment to show otherwise then I'd be happy to participate in it. You'd certainly be in line for a Nobel if it worked.

Alec Rivers wrote: I think there is an overlap with religion and with 'action at a distance' in quantum physics.

Dude, you should really know something about quantum physics before making pseudoscientific claims like that.

Sue Sanders wrote:Give Alec a break. Charlie's comment in isolation isn't the 'infantile ridicule' - it's the combination of that, Jon deciding to make a 'your mum' joke and Matt choosing to reveal he was in tears of laughter. And then there was Mike Lear. An acquired taste, I guess.

So you agree that my comment was entirely reasonable? Nice of you to say.

Jon Corby wrote:I think it's very dishonest to claim that science is moving towards saying "all this religious/spiritual/psionics stuff - it's real!"

That is not what I said. I only implied there were possible overlaps due to science's current inability to fully explain phenomena such as gravity and the observer effect, amongst others.

Jon Corby wrote:you just don't have all the information

Indeed I don't. Nobody does. And, until we do, there is no harm in hypothesising a bit and enjoying the discussion. Sadly, despite my well-intentioned contributions, I have been denied that enjoyment. And that, I feel, is unjust.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Yet you chose to ignore his real point

'Chose'? You really think that of me? I genuinely thought he had misquoted me. I now know what he meant, but I didn't read between the lines at the time.

Sue Sanders wrote:Give Alec a break. Charlie's comment in isolation isn't the 'infantile ridicule' - it's the combination of that, Jon deciding to make a 'your mum' joke and Matt choosing to reveal he was in tears of laughter. And then there was Mike Lear. An acquired taste, I guess.

I've chosen specifically to remain silent on numerous occasions where I have been forced into tears of laughter by a post which was quite obviously offensive. As much as I might enjoy the post, I certainly don't want to look like I'm ganging up on someone when I have no interest in offending the person the joke was made about. In those cases, I'll laugh, enjoy it, and keep silent.

But in this case, I'm quite happy expressing how much I enjoyed Jon's "yo momma" joke because it quite clearly was a joke and so obviously not meant to be offensive. I'm pretty sure people don't actually genuinely still use "yo momma" jokes to try and offend people do they? Certainly not people as intelligent as Jon, and certainly not a bunch of white boys on a Countdown forum - it's all laughs.

I actually like Alec. Whether or not I agree with what someone says, or even if I haven't even bothered to think seriously about it for long enough to come down on either side, I certainly appreciate reasoned, detailed, intelligent debate on this forum. And he mentioned depression too a few posts back, I can certainly identify with him on those levels too, and that would be even more reason not to make a comment if I thought that comment would come across as offensive. Jon has been making jokes like this since forever as far as I'm concerned, and maybe Alec should know his audience better before being offended by something that so clearly was not meant to be offensive. In fact, until all this arguing kicked off, when Alec said

Alec wrote:Fuck the lot of you.

I thought he was mucking around too, I never thought for a moment he was being serious. C4C is not the place to be if you get offended easily, methinks. Some people should take a leaf out of George Jenkins book. He's been shot down a ton of times by Charlie et al, and never once truly been offended. George is 80-something (I think?) and if a man of his years can adapt to a biting Internet forum so easily without taking things over-seriously, I don't think anyone else has an excuse to not be able to hack the pace. Jenkins is a legend.

And after writing all that, I still can't believe anyone takes "yo momma" jokes seriously.

Charlie Reams wrote:, you should really know something about quantum physics before making pseudoscientific claims like that.

Ah. And thus endeth any encouragement for people to enter the discussion.

Sue Sanders wrote:Give Alec a break. Charlie's comment in isolation isn't the 'infantile ridicule' - it's the combination of that, Jon deciding to make a 'your mum' joke and Matt choosing to reveal he was in tears of laughter. And then there was Mike Lear. An acquired taste, I guess.

Charlie Reams wrote: So you agree that my comment was entirely reasonable? Nice of you to say.

Actually, yeah, in isolation your comment was reasonable enough. Not of quite the inflated importance of 'question that puts an end to the argument' status you assigned it, maybe.... ??

Thanks, Matt. I appreciate your comments.

Alec Rivers wrote:This being a forum whose members largely appear to be well-educated, I was hoping for healthy debate and the exchange of some interesting ideas and knowledge.

Matt Morrison wrote:maybe Alec should know his audience better

haha brilliant quotery

Just to make you feel even better Alec, you said somewhere you were 30-something. In the CoLei photos and on your previous avatar you look much younger, so there. [/jealous]

Matt Morrison wrote:haha brilliant quotery

Just to make you feel even better Alec, you said somewhere you were 30-something. In the CoLei photos and on your previous avatar you look much younger, so there. [/jealous]

I think I'm in love.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:, you should really know something about quantum physics before making pseudoscientific claims like that.

Ah. And thus endeth any encouragement for people to enter the discussion.

I know this idea is alien to you, but some people actually don't talk about stuff they don't know about.

When Newton first proposed his theory of gravity, someone suggested this as evidence for a social theory with the king as the sun, aristocrats as planets in orbit around him, plebs around them and so on. Laughable right? That's exactly the same drawing a connection between action at a distance (a quantum mechanical effect with a very specific mathematical definition) and psychic powers. It's just meaningless, nebulous BS.

No doubt you'll now have to accuse me of being rude or something, because that's much easier than talking about the facts.

I think Sue just got served.

Jon Corby wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:Sue Sanders and Charlie are reminiscent of Clare Sudbery and Corby

You should take that as a very severe insult Sue.

Nice try Jon, but I was talking about the clash in personalities, not the personalities themselves.

So, that goes for you and Charlie too, which will either be a further insult or of great relief to you both.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:, you should really know something about quantum physics before making pseudoscientific claims like that.

Ah. And thus endeth any encouragement for people to enter the discussion.

I know this idea is alien to you, but some people actually don't talk about stuff they don't know about.

When Newton first proposed his theory of gravity, someone suggested this as evidence for a social theory with the king as the sun, aristocrats as planets in orbit around him, plebs around them and so on. Laughable right? That's exactly the same drawing a connection between action at a distance (a quantum mechanical effect with a very specific mathematical definition) and psychic powers. It's just meaningless, nebulous BS.

No doubt you'll now have to accuse me of being rude or something, because that's much easier than talking about the facts.

It's a forum. And the subject is philosophy. So all the philosophy students step forward, all the physics/maths students step forward - the rest of you, cock off. Good one. By the way, your earlier assumption that I make my mind up before I've started is entirely wrong and suggests you are a very poor judge of people. I'm nothing like as intelligent or well-read as you - but I'm not so stupid as to not be allowed to talk. And when it comes to social aptitude, I think I might have the edge on you.

Sue Sanders wrote:By the way, your earlier assumption that I make my mind up before I've started is entirely wrong and suggests you are a very poor judge of people.

Excellent, I eagerly await your support in future discussions.

And when it comes to social aptitude, I think I might have the edge on you.

On which point I merely refer you to this post.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:But I am open-minded enough to accept the possibility that there are connections between physical entities that are yet to be fully understood.

Great, it's good to be open-minded. However, by far the most parsimonious explanation is that there is no such link, and that any connection between something you once dreamt and something that happened is a coincidence. If you can design a reliable experiment to show otherwise then I'd be happy to participate in it. You'd certainly be in line for a Nobel if it worked.

As you probably know, I agree with you about psychic phenomena and things like that. However, I can also see how it would be very difficult for this sort of reasoning to convince someone that their dream was just a coincidence. Yes, people have many dreams over their life, but if the accurate detail is enough, then that oen dream could still be "statistically significant".

Of course, none of us can know how much detail in the dream really was accurate, so it would be crazy for any of us to start believing in psychic phenomena on the basis of Alec's report. And we look at things from a different perspective from Alec. He sees that dream as one from all of his dreams and sees it as too much of a coincidence. We see it as one dream experienced by just one of the many dreams of the many people we've encountered, secretly suspect it's exaggerated, and therefore see it as much less of a coincidence.

I'm not sure how relevant you'll find this but I think it's interesting anyway.

Matt Morrison wrote:C4C is not the place to be if you get offended easily, methinks.

Ironically, that is largely how the brand (not this specific incarnation) was founded.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:C4C is not the place to be if you get offended easily, methinks.

Ironically, that is largely how the brand (not this specific incarnation) was founded.

As I recall, it was founded because people were unhappy with the most irritating member of a forum being its administrator. Given some of the members we have now, it's unlikely that history could ever repeat itself.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:C4C is not the place to be if you get offended easily, methinks.

Ironically, that is largely how the brand (not this specific incarnation) was founded.

As I recall, it was founded because people were unhappy with the most irritating member of a forum being its administrator.

Well some people were getting pointlessly offended, including the guy responsible for setting up C4C. Also, however irritating the administrator may have been, he could never have been top because of the C4C founder himself!

Given some of the members we have now, it's unlikely that history could ever repeat itself

Is that why you're so irritating?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Given some of the members we have now, it's unlikely that history could ever repeat itself

Is that why you're so irritating?

Nice one, you made the same joke as me.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Given some of the members we have now, it's unlikely that history could ever repeat itself

Is that why you're so irritating?

Nice one, you made the same joke as me.

Yeah, and I think you just made it again.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:
Is that why you're so irritating?

Nice one, you made the same joke as me.

Yeah, and I think you just made it again.

Is this entanglement?

Edit: Or is this just someone fucking up the quotes? Sue, what have you done to me?

I've got the quoting thing (largely) sussed, Ian, so I'm moving on to social reform!!!!

And when it comes to social aptitude, I think I might have the edge on you.

On which point I merely refer you to this post.

Ooh, I thought as I clicked on that link that you had something on me there. But apparently not. Just an alternative way of saying the same....old..... thing.

Alec Rivers wrote: I very much expected others to have opinions that differ from mine and was keen to hear them. This being a forum whose members largely appear to be well-educated, I was hoping for healthy debate and the exchange of some interesting ideas and knowledge. The hard work I put into my post and the honest expression of my beliefs, however, went completely unacknowledged (except by Sue) and I was instead subjected to infantile ridicule. Not once has anyone had the courage to explain what their beliefs are, and how and why they differ.

I think this is the direction that Charlie, Corby, et al are coming from.

Jimmy Gough wrote:I think this is the direction that Charlie, Corby, et al are coming from.

Superb.

Jimmy Gough wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote: I very much expected others to have opinions that differ from mine and was keen to hear them. This being a forum whose members largely appear to be well-educated, I was hoping for healthy debate and the exchange of some interesting ideas and knowledge. The hard work I put into my post and the honest expression of my beliefs, however, went completely unacknowledged (except by Sue) and I was instead subjected to infantile ridicule. Not once has anyone had the courage to explain what their beliefs are, and how and why they differ.

I think this is the direction that Charlie, Corby, et al are coming from.

Saw this guy live the other week, funny stuff and philosophically speaking we do indeed see things similarly. So Alec, how about a bet?

All I am certain about is that there is significantly more to our existence than science currently knows. It's all just speculation at the mo, so I can't really think of a suitable bet. Soz.

It's interesting that Alec is discussing a belief system and Charlie resorts to scientific narrative to legitimate truth claims. Alec's pseudo-scientific response immediately makes him a victim in the dialogue and allows Charlie's assumptions to continue uncontested.

Scientific narrative is indeed powerful at determining whether a truth claim is legitimate or not but its position of master narrative is not unimpeachable. It coexists with other narratives each of which have their own modes of phrase linkages and subsequently different emphases. Now if we assume scientific narrative has the power to mitigate disputes among the archipelago of different micro narratives do we not also begin to speak with that narrative's own particular accents?

Is this always appropriate? How does a scientist see the colour red? Red corresponds to wavelengths in the spectrum from 650-750 millimicrons of the radiation emitted by the object.

If we restrict ourselves to these sorts of emphases then what are we missing out on?

David O'Donnell wrote:It's interesting that Alec is discussing a belief system and Charlie resorts to scientific narrative to legitimate truth claims. Alec's pseudo-scientific response immediately makes him a victim in the dialogue and allows Charlie's assumptions to continue uncontested.

Scientific narrative is indeed powerful at determining whether a truth claim is legitimate or not but its position of master narrative is not unimpeachable. It coexists with other narratives each of which have their own modes of phrase linkages and subsequently different emphases. Now if we assume scientific narrative has the power to mitigate disputes among the archipelago of different micro narratives do we not also begin to speak with that narrative's own particular accents?

Is this always appropriate? How does a scientist see the colour red? Red corresponds to wavelengths in the spectrum from 650-750 millimicrons of the radiation emitted by the object.

If we restrict ourselves to these sorts of emphases then what are we missing out on?

I have no fucking idea what this means. Sorry.

LOL, best response ever - I don't have a comeback.

David O'Donnell wrote:It's interesting that Alec is discussing a belief system and Charlie resorts to scientific narrative to legitimate truth claims. Alec's pseudo-scientific response immediately makes him a victim in the dialogue and allows Charlie's assumptions to continue uncontested.

Scientific narrative is indeed powerful at determining whether a truth claim is legitimate or not but its position of master narrative is not unimpeachable. It coexists with other narratives each of which have their own modes of phrase linkages and subsequently different emphases. Now if we assume scientific narrative has the power to mitigate disputes among the archipelago of different micro narratives do we not also begin to speak with that narrative's own particular accents?

Is this always appropriate? How does a scientist see the colour red? Red corresponds to wavelengths in the spectrum from 650-750 millimicrons of the radiation emitted by the object.

If we restrict ourselves to these sorts of emphases then what are we missing out on?

You do that. I'll stick with science. Father Time will tell which of us concedes.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:

You do that. I'll stick with science. Father Time will tell which of us concedes.

Interesting, what am I doing exactly? I am not anti-science - what sort of idiot would be? I am not disputing scientific narrative's claims to legitimacy just concerned about the displacements which ensue when we afford it primacy. Interesting that you mention time though, hasn't the passage of time shown that scientific narrative is characterised by major paradigm shifts?

Also, in terms of time I am not sure how adequately scientific narrative can cope with time. It's searching for truths and the presupposition is that once something is true it's always true hence atemporal. If a narrative cannot adequately incorporate a time element then other narratives need to exist alongside it and need to be afforded their due.

David, you made an excellent point; that was one of the most intelligent posts I've read on the internet in some time. However, you should not let your faith waver; do not pander to the hidden machine.

Alec Rivers wrote:All I am certain about is that there is significantly more to our existence than science currently knows. It's all just speculation at the mo, so I can't really think of a suitable bet. Soz.

Alec, All that you need to know about the significance of your existence is that nature took it's course, and as a result of that act of nature, you arrived to join us as part of the human race. there are absolutely no other reasons as to why you exist. So now you can stop worrying. You were meant to be, and nature made it so.

George Jenkins wrote:... there are absolutely no other reasons as to why you exist.

lol. With respect, such an assertion can only be made once we know absolutely everything there is to know. And I believe we humans are too limited ever to reach that point. Having said that, if humankind had never looked beyond what was already known, we'd still be chasing small animals and eating foliage. No spears, no fire, no agriculture, etc., etc.

Alec Rivers wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:... there are absolutely no other reasons as to why you exist.

lol. With respect, such an assertion can only be made once we know absolutely everything there is to know. And I believe we humans are too limited ever to reach that point. Having said that, if humankind had never looked beyond what was already known, we'd still be chasing small animals and eating foliage. No spears, no fire, no agriculture, etc., etc.

Alec, you are making the simple act of survival of humans depend on some sort of super knowledge of the future, that is the impression I get from your posts. I've got several stone age flint cutting tools that I've dug from my own garden. Some of them are works of art and at the time of their creation, were the height of technology. At that time it was necessary to find a way to skin animals and cut meat, so flint material available was used. That might have been the first example of that old adage, necessity is the mother of invention, and that process of invention has been going on till the present time.
So I'll repeat that we are merely the product of nature, and there is no such thing as some mystic reason for living. I live for today, and I'm always happy when I wake in the morning.

George Jenkins wrote:and I'm always happy when I wake in the morning.

TMI

Jon Corby wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:and I'm always happy when I wake in the morning.

TMI

Jon, You have to make allowances for my slow dim old brain. What does TMI mean. I am in a very good mood today, so I won't be offended

Too much information

Marc Meakin wrote:Too much information

Information is knowledge, which I suppose can be boring to some people. I can't wait to find out what FUNEX? means.

George Jenkins wrote:I can't wait to find out what FUNEX? means.

"FUNEX?"
"Only the ones in my ovaries"
"TMI"

I think The TMI was a reference to your "Morning Glory" double entendre

George Jenkins wrote:I can't wait to find out what FUNEX? means.

I'll put you out of your misery: Say the letters out loud and it sounds like "have you any eggs". And in return, you can afford me the right to continue pondering the unknown.

Alec Rivers wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:I can't wait to find out what FUNEX? means.

I'll put you out of your misery: Say the letters out loud and it sounds like "have you any eggs". And in return, you can afford me the right to continue pondering the unknown.

Damn, I was hoping he'd get it from my "humourous cryptic clue".

George Jenkins wrote:I can't wait to find out what FUNEX? means.

Can't believe you don't remember the Two Ronnies' "Swedish Made Simple" sketch, George. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkWMcRlE1mQ

Alec Rivers wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:I can't wait to find out what FUNEX? means.

I'll put you out of your misery: Say the letters out loud and it sounds like "have you any eggs". And in return, you can afford me the right to continue pondering the unknown.

It's a deal Alec, and in future I'll try to keep my well intentioned advice to myself. It will be very hard though, to reverse a lifetime of lecturing to unwilling ears. If I forget my promise, I plead oncoming senile dementia.
Thank you for explaining the meaning of the initials, I suppose it is modern newspeak, which unfortunately goes right over my head. The posts I received about this subject had me laughing out loud, or should I describe it-LOL. I only hope that it doesn't mean -lots of love.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

George Jenkins wrote:I can't wait to find out what FUNEX? means.

Can't believe you don't remember the Two Ronnies' "Swedish Made Simple" sketch, George. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkWMcRlE1mQ

Pure magic Phil, and a reminder of wonderful comedy we had in the old days. I had not seen that sketch, and I missed a lot due to shift work.

George Jenkins wrote:It's a deal Alec, and in future I'll try to keep my well intentioned advice to myself.

I apologise. I was aware and, indeed, appreciative of the fact that it was well-intentioned, which is why I didn't stoop to sarcasm or some other feeble attempt at wit. Please do keep the advice coming – only a fool would completely disregard the wisdom of his elders – so long as you can tolerate (and maybe forgive) my occasional obstinance.