The Avoid-L Letters...
This is a big file showing some of the most important messages from me in the avoid-L web list (Victor Senger's forum).
|
This page has been
updated in some aspects - urls mostly - in January 2013. My present email
is:
juliocbsiqueira2012@gmail.com |
Contents:
01- Usage guidelines for AVOID-L
02- The Demon Comes... To discuss some "weaknesses" in "God, The Failed Hypothesis."
03- Did Stenger Cite Wrongly the US Declaration of Independence?
04- Vic's Mistake # 2 in GTFH... - Larson & Whitham, Nature 1998.
05- GTFH's Mistake # 3: Vic weaker at philosophy of the mind than the Pope...
06- The Remaining of the minor mistakes in GTFH
07- Curiosities and Strange Things in GTFH..
08- Wiping Out the Very Core of Vic's GTFH
09- GTFH: The Signs of God
10- On Ghosts and Afterlife Survival...
11- GTFH: For Whom the Bells Toll, or the crimes of atheists.
12- Dawkins Up Uranus...
13- Quantum Mechanics AND Consciousness - time for mature attitude, from all sides
14- Unpoliteness: Avoid-Lers', Dawkins', Siqueira's, ... ... ...
15- The Avoid-L forum and the Paranormal: a brief summary
16- Carl Sagan disagrees with Vic on the Supernatural...
17- Now it is Brent Meeker vs Victor Stenger...
18- The Secular Society and Its Main Enemies: Dawkins et al, and similar "racists"
19- Atheism for Dummies
20- Where is the Stench from the Avoid-L forum
21- Re: The Secular Society and Its Main Enemies: Dawkins et al, and similar "racists"
22- Re: The Secular Society and Its Main Enemies: Dawkins et al, and similar "racists"
23- Lawrence Crowell's Racism; and et al's...
24- Leaving Avoid L, first attempt...
25- Coming Back to Dispell the Libels about me in Avoid-L
26- Leaving Avoid-L, for good this time.
Message 1: this is the welcoming automatic message from Victor Stenger. I included below only some key points of it, with additional highlinghts made by me.
Usage guidelines for AVOID-L
Thursday,
March 15, 2007 7:20 PM
AVOID-L
is a discussion list I have set up for comments and suggestions
on my various articles, essays, and books.
"Avoid"
refers to "Atoms and the Void," the ontological model
of
reality in which only matter exists and, furthermore, is localized and
discrete.
Read
over your message before sending. Remember that all
messages to the list are public.
Message 2: this is my
first message.
The Demon Comes... To discuss some "weaknesses"
in "God, The Failed Hypothesis."
Saturday,
March 17, 2007 6:54 PM
-
Hi Everybody,
I am Julio Siqueira, and I have written some
reviews
and analyses of Professor Stenger's two books "Has
Science Found God?" (2003) and "God, the Failed
Hypothesis" (GTFH - 2007). (I haven't read his other
books).
More specifically about this newest book "GTFH", I
have now both a review on www.amazon.com,
with a copy
at the link below,
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/amazon_reviews.htm#stenger_went_bananas
and a full review on my site, at the link below:
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/victor_stenger_went_bananas.htm
Note added on Jan 7, 2013: the
above urls have received the links below:
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/amazon_reviews.htm#stenger_went_bananas
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/victor_stenger_went_bananas.htm
Now, why am I here then?
My intention on the AVOID-L forum is to present some
of the items that I consider "weaknesses" in Vic
Stenger's newest book, especially in light of the aim
itself of this book. Probably I will be here
for some
weeks or so. I was here also for a few days in 2005,
when I presented some issues that I considered
"problematic" in Vic's 2003 book (Has Science
Found
God?).
I am still a believer both in GOD and in the
Afterlife... (also in ESP/PK/Precog...). And since I
believe that one of the most important aims of GTFH is
to weaken the bad aspects of religion, I think it is
highly important that feedbacks from "believers" (like
me...) be known and discussed.
If anyone happens to want some further info
about me,
I think the best place to start might be my
"antipseudoskepticism" site, at the link below:
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/criticizingskepticism.htm
Note added on Jan 7, 2013
the link above is now in the url below:
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/criticizingskepticism.htm
So, basically my expositions will consist of: 1-
Showing a specific item from GTFH that is either wrong
or counterproductive, etc. 2- Discussing some possible
reactions (i.e. feelings, thoughts, etc) of the
believers to this "wrong item". 3- Reflecting upon the
possible consequences of this "flawed item" in a
broader sense, and how it could have been otherwise.
Despite being a critic, I am not a foe. I
am highly
critic even towards "those that I support", as you may
realize from my reviews of the books "Immortal
Remains" (2003) and "Entangled Minds" (2006).
Therefore, I can only finish this first message of
mine saying that my aims here
will be solely
constructive (even though not necessarily
"enjoyable"...).
So, for now, My Best Regards to You All and to
Professor Victor Stenger!
Julio Siqueira
_______________________
Below, my first comment kind of "correcting"
previous ones from me.
Re: The Demon Comes... To discuss
some "weaknesses" in "God, The Failed Hypothesis."
Monday,
March 19, 2007 9:13 PM Hi Everybody,
especially Bill Benson and Bill Julio Siqueira ______________ |
Below, my second comment kind of "correcting" previous ones from me.
Re: The Demon Comes... To discuss
some "weaknesses" in "God, The Failed Hypothesis.
Tuesday,
March 20, 2007 7:51 AM I took now a full look at the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and a full look at the Wikipedia entry on deism. My impression now is that I will have to revise my view on these topics. It seems that Vic Stenger is not the only one who commits mistakes now and then... :-) (that is: it seems that I am also fallible. Can it really be?). Anyway, I will be reading Avoid-L messages today, and probably only tomorrow will I reply. Julio Siqueira ________________ --- Bill Benson <Bill@MBBENSON.NET> wrote |
Message 3: this below is actually my second message criticizing the book God the Failed Hypothesis.
Did Stenger Cite Wrongly the US Declaration
of Independence?
Sunday,
March 25, 2007 4:53 PM
Former
Title of this Thread: The Demon Comes, to Haunt
Avoid L. (or something similar to it…).
Hi Everybody,
I will
use this new thread-title to present my conclusions, based on the feedbacks
provided mostly by Bill Benson and Bill Jeffreys.
Yes, I
still think that there was a problem (a big one) in
the way Vic cited the US Declaration of Independence on page 247 of GTFH
(even after my taking into account Bill Benson’s reasonings and info).
In fact
I really had a wong view of what deism was (or
is). If the description on Wikipedia is correct, deism is much more supportive
of an idea of a God that cares for his youngs
than I had imagined. So I thank Bill for showing me this.
However,
this actually makes things worse for Vic. He says on page 247: “Although
American Christians have been led to believe that the ‘Creator’ mentioned
here is their God, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote these words, was not a Christian
but a deist.”
I had to
read this passage again (and some paragraphs before and after it too) in
light of what Bill indicated on theWikipedia. The two problems remain. First,
the God cited here is indeed (i.e. can be) the Christian God. The attributes
of the Christian God and of the deist God overlap enough to make it legitimate
for Christians to claim that this is indeed their God. At least as long
as what they say is: “This is our God too!” It is true that they cannot
say that “This is not the God of deism.” It is the God of them both (Chistians,
deists, and most likely of some other religions too). That is exactly what
is expected from a document that must represent a consensus of several different
religious and phylosophical views. The second problem is the idea that Vic
has that it was “Thomas Jefferson” that “wrote these words.” That is simply
not how things happen in politics. Not now, and not then. It is (IMO) naïve
of Vic to put things this way.
A second
point closely related to it is my comment regarding the US Constitution.
Could it be that the “Blessings of Liberty” is a religious concept being
kind of “smuggled” into the letter of the law? I said before that “The word
‘blessings’ may be used figuratively, but hardly so if on a document co-signed
by highly religious States.” The capital letter (in “Blessings”) seems really
(as Bill Jeffreys informatively and convincingly explained) unimportant here.
And the most strinking element in the US Constitution (IMHO) is indeed its
absence of reference to religious concepts. Again I re-read the paragraph
where Vic’s comment appears (page 200), to re-assess
it in light of the feedbacks I got here. I now think that, in this issue,
Vic was correct. That is, he presented things in an acceptable way, especially
in the context (paragraph) where his phrase appears.
Best Regards,
Julio
_____________
Vic's Mistake # 2 in GTFH... - Larson & Whitham, Nature 1998.
Monday,
March 26, 2007 7:55 AM
That is
a tough one...
Hi Everybody.
Hi Vic,
Continuing
with my presentation and discussion of the minor flaws in Vic's GTFH (the
bigger flaws will be left for later), I now turn to his wrong citation
of the highly flawed article by Larson & Witham, Nature 1998
(correspondence section...). So, please, note that issue is actually this:
the article is highly flawed + Vic cited this highly flawed article wrongly.
Vic's wrong
citation: "Indeed,
as we saw in the preface, the overwhelming majority of prominent American
scientists has concluded that God does not exist."
(GTFH, pages 21-22).
Larson
& Witham's actual findings: about
12% of prominent American scientists do not believe in a God in intellectual
and affective communication with humanity.
Now, how
can a Tarzan of the Pacific Islands make a leap from this meager 12% to
this "Overwhelming Majority" talk?
[by the way: in the one single table that this "article"
has, we find six columns; and of these six columns, three of them sum up
more than 100%...]
Best Regards,
Julio
P.S.: I
strongly advise everybody here not to ever cite this article by Larson
& Witham (at least not before checking with the authors for the mistakes
in it). Dawkins himself has cited it before (shame on him). In 2002, I
made a highly meticulous analysis of this article for the president of a
Brazilian skeptic organization (STR). It is indeed a masterpiece of writing
(Machiavelli would have envied it bitterly!). The flaws just cannot be
accidental... Nevertheless, the central thesis in it is probably right (so
I guess).
_________________
GTFH's Mistake # 3: Vic weaker at philosophy
of the mind than the Pope...
Saturday,
March 31, 2007 7:13 AM
Hi Everybody,
Hi Vic again...,
Bill Jeffereys
raised the interesting issue of misuse of crucial terms by famous “scientists”.
He cited Radin’s wrong usage of the term “odds.” (still
in need of my checking it out). Now I will show Vic’s misuse of the term
“epiphenomenalism” in GTFH.
Vic says
(page 84 of GTFH), commenting on the Pope, that "a wealth of empirical data now strongly suggests that
mind is in fact a 'mere epiphenomenon of this matter'." And I replied
in my Amazon review that either Stenger did not understand what the Pope
said or he (i.e. Vic Stenger) does not know what an epiphenomenon is. What
the Pope said was (page 84): "Theories of evolution
which, in accord with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit
as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon
of this matter, are imcompatible with the truth about man." Note
that the Pope is using two terms: "emerging" and "epiphenomenon".
These two terms indeed summarize what materialist neuroscientists and philosophers
think about the relationship between "mind" and matter (or "mind" and body).
The other options in this area are not really materialist, so to speak.
They are: 1- Mind (or better: consciousness) as a fundamental property of
the universe. 2- Mind (consciousness) as a separate reality (Dualism of Substance),
but in interaction with the physical world. Vic only used the term epiphenomenon., which is very problematic because
if the mind is an epiphenomenon then it plays no role whatsoever in the
physical-biological world (that is the very definition of an epiphenomenon).
So, surprisingly
enough, the Pope's words were more philosophically and scientifically robust
(and stringent) than Stenger's...
Ironically,
the very beginning of Brent Meeker’s five stars book review of Vic’s GTFH
starts as follows: “Vic Stenger is a professor of philosophy now,”...
I just wonder what he is teaching in philosophy (Are you teaching philosophy
of the mind, Vic? And what about this mistake that I point out? Was it
like Radin’s mistake in “The Conscious Universe”, that is, accidentally
using “odds of 1 in a trillion billion” instead of “odds of 1 in a zillion
zillion”? Or did you really think that emergence and epiphenomenalism were
the same things?).
Best,
Julio
_____________
Message 6:
The Remaining of the minor mistakes in
GTFH
Tuesday,
April 3, 2007 12:16 PM
So far,
all that I have presented have been the *minor* mistakes in GTFH.
My plan is to follow this list:
1- Present
the minor mistakes. (almost done).
2- Present
some curious peculiarities in GTFH that might have passed unnoticed by
many (in it, we will see how Vic is - surprisingly enough - an emergentist,
instead of being a reductionist. Also, he is much more into New Age romanticism
than most people have realized!).
3- Present
the fatal flaws in the core reasonings of GTFH.
4- Present
suggestions for future works (or... how to treat us poor believers :-) ).
For now,
I will finish presenting the minor flaws (we've seen three already).
Flaw (or
mistake) # 4: Vic presents
a very naive description of the scientific enterprise. He says on page
28: "However, any type of dogmatism is the
very antithesis of science. The history of science, from Copernicus and
Galileo to the present, is replete with examples that belie the carge of
dogmatism in science. What history shows is that science is very demanding
and does not blindly accept any new idea that someone can come up with.
New claims must be thoroughly supported by the data, especially when they
may conflict with well-established knowledge." And a little further
on, he says (pages 28-29): "Besides, why would
any scientist object to the notion of intelligent design or other supernatural
phenomena, should the data warrant that they deserve attention? Most scientists
would be delighted at the opening up of an exciting new field of study that
would undoubtedly receive generous funding." Victor presents a worldview
in which science is a bold and candid (even though stringent) quest for
truth. I greatly doubt that he really believes that... After all, being
a CSICOP fellow (now renamed to mere CSI...), he knows very well how much
science is tightly connected to political interests (i.e. power at all levels,
and of all shades), to social interests, and to the day-to-day interests
of those who work for it. Of course science is not as dogmatic as the average
religion (even though I have no trustworthy yardstick to define "average
religion"). Also, the kind of dogmatism that we see in science is different
from the dogmatism that we see in religion (most of the times, IMHO). Scientific
dogmatism, to me, looks more like an attenuated form of bureaucratic dogmatism
(or bureaucratic conservatism). Whenever a "new truth" becomes more fashionable
in science, the allocation of funds shift ($$$), severely affecting the lives
and careers (and the prestige...) of many (of most?) of those who work for
the opposing scientific view. If "Intelligent Design" blooms, "Blind Evolution"
withers. (By they way, I do not agree with Behe's Intelligent Design).
Flaw (or
mistake) # 5: Vic claims
that modern science, especially neuroscience, shows that there is no need
for a "ghost in the machine." Actually this is an interesting and respectable
viewpoint. However, it is important, IMO, to present the competing viewpoints
(the respectable ones). For example, Roger Penrose (and Stuart Hameroff)
kind of believe in some sort of dualism of substance or "dualism-of-don't-know-what"
(Penrose's notion of a platonic higher universe or so), or perhaps a panpsychism
(proto), as once Hameroff put it. Late Erwin Schroedinger was (or ended
up becoming) a panpsychist Brahamanist (just like me), and philosopher David
Chalmers goes along similar lines. Benjamin Libet has proposed a "dualism-of-don't-know-what"
in which the mind (or consciousness...) would emerge from the brain but
would not be material (yes, he did say that, in 1991, in the Journal of Consciousness
Studies). Mathematician and computer scientist Stan Franklin declared that
he was beginning to agree with Chalmers in that consciousness was a fundamental
property of the universe (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2003 - Machine
Consciousness). Francis Crick, in the concluding chapter of his "The Astonishing
Hypothesis" (1995) presents some of these views in an informative and critical
way. Also so does Susan Blackmore, interviewing even Stuart Hameroff (I believe)
in one of her recent books on this subject. So, why won't you do the same,
Vic?
Flaw (or
mistake) # 6: Vic claims
that parapsychology has an unbroken history of negative results. It is
ok that you think so, Victor. And it is ok that you view the data this
way (just as it is ok that Bill Jefferys thinks so too and views the data
this way too). But a presentation of this topic in such a "simple" manner
gives the impression that important and respectable controversy is being
sidetracked.
My initial
plan was to be in the Avoid-L for some weeks. Now I realize that I will
have to stay here at least until next Christmas. Perhaps I will find here
reason to believe that esp has not been proved,
and that Dean Radin is indeed sloppy and God-Knows-What-Else...
Let's See,
Julio
___________
Message 7:
Curiosities and Strange Things in GTFH...
Friday,
April 6, 2007 9:58 AM
Hi Everybody,
Hi Vic,
Before
exposing the fatal flaws at the very core of GTFH (and while I wait for Michael
Corner's essay, so that I can break it down to pieces!), I'd like to present
some interesting stuff that is not necessarily "wrong things" or "flawed
items." I will be very straight forward and concise. Also, I will append
to each item my rating of it:
1- Vic,
the Emergentist... [rating: puzzlement at the phenomenon described by Vic
and at his interpretation of it]: on page 63 of GTFH, Vic says: "Several computer simulations have reproduced this result.
However, I decided to try one myself"... ..."The result is shown in figure 2.2 We see that the double spiral pattern is reproduced.
Please note that this pattern was not built into the algorithm used,"...
My Comment: if the
pattern wasn't built into the algorithm, where the hell did it come from?
(the word "hell" fits nicely in this phrase...
the phenomenon looks like a quite diabolical one). My guess is that the
pattern is indeed in the algorithm (and the same for all "emergent behaviours"
found in computer algorithms, ubiquitous in the relevant literature). The
reason for my pointing this out is that algorithms are the most determinist
entities that there can be. I derive this from Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's
New Mind" (1989). And also from Stan Franklin's "Artificial
Minds" (1995).
2- Vic,
the "Blind" (like
all of us...) [rating: a questioning and a word of cautious]: on page 121
of GTFH, we read that "The universe preserves
no record of what went on before the big bang. The Creator, if he existed,
left no imprint."
My Comment: Did "Little
Boy" leave any imprint on Hiroshima? (please,
no historical criticism implied). I ask this question because both events
were "atomic" (i.e. random in their basic nature). Maybe I am wrong. If
I happen not to be fully wrong, maybe it is not that there is no imprint,
but that we cannot as yet decipher it.
3- Vic's
Incoherence? [rating: just a doubt]: we read on page 145 that "Many of the examples of fine-tuning found in theological
literature suffer from simple misunderstandings of physics." (...)
"Only 'dimensionless' numbers that do not depend
on units, such as the ratio of strengths of gravity and electromagnetism,
are meaningful." However..., on page 119, we see a graph that shows
that the ratio of actual entropy of the
universe/maximum entropy the universe can have is
decreasing... It used to be 1/1. Now, it seems to be less than 1/10...
My Comment: Mama always
told me that entropy can only increase. Is entropy actually decreasing
(according to what is really "meaningful")?
4- Vic's
Incoherence # 2? [rating:
double-standards exposed...]: Vic says, brilliantly, on page 138 that "In his 1995 book, The Creator and The Cosmos,
physicist Hugh Ross"... ..."estimated
that such a combination be found in the universe as 'much less than one
in a million trillion.1" (Radin's pupil? ;-) ). "He concluded that only divine design could account
for human life. However, Ross presented no estimate for the probability of
divine design." (...) "When using probabilities
to decide between two or more possibilities, you must have a number of
each possibility in order to compare." Again I must say: Brilliant!
But... we read on page 250 that ..."would reasonably
be expected to lead to a better world when God is widely worshiped. Well,
God is widely worshiped and we do not have a better world because of it.
On the contrary, the world seems worse off as the result of faith."
My Comment: where
has the "number of each possibility" gone now?
5- Victor
Stenger Welcomes Us to the New Age Bandwagon... [rating: perplexity plus doubt]: we read, on page 116,
that "Remarkably, the total energy in the universe
appears to be zero." On page 120, we read that ..."the entropy of the universe was maximal when the universe
began,"... . And on page 121, we see
that ..."the universe began with no structure."
Futher, we hear too, on page 163, that "Physicist
Max Tegmark has argued that the universe contains almost no information,
that is, it has on the whole no structure.47" (...) "According to quantum mechanics, the universe is perfectly
random, a superposition of all possible realities."
My Comment: any believer
would fall into an unrecoverable state of deep epiphany when reading
these pieces above... :-) . Much of the above
is supposed to be settled by the "hocus pocus" spontaneous symmetry
breaking talk. Obviously, "spontaneous" means "It may be that someone
did it, but we just do not know who as yet..."
Best Regards
and Happy Easter!
Julio Siqueira
__________________
Message 8:
Wiping Out the Very Core of Vic's GTFH
Wednesday,
April 11, 2007 3:24 PM
Hi Everybody,
Hi Vic,
Time for
"Coup de Grace"... :-)
(My vodoo-inflicted
flu will prevent my using of FX this time...)
What is
the core of Vic's argument? Stenger started with a simple and robust strategy.
It is as follows:
1- Define
very well what God is.
2- Show
how this God conflicts with our established knowledge about the Universe,
or how this God is a "self defeating concept."
Simple. Robust. Elegant.
But... Victor
strayed far and away from what he had set out to do... Vic actually used
the two strategies below:
*A*-
Vic resorted to the weirdest logic that anyone could possibly have come
up with. It is surprising, and disappointing, that no one here has brought
it up. I think that this is what true friends (or colleagues/fellows) are
for: to show weaknesses in the work of a fellow too. Victor defined God
as something that is simply impossible to exist (or to be detected); however,
*impossible to exist* not due to any inner flaw of the concept of
God itself, but rather, due to Vic's incoherent reasoning. Surprisingly
enough, the basis for this reasoning of his is supposed to be physics!
Look at
what he said on page 14 of GTFH: "God can only
show up by proving to be necessary, with science equally proven to be incapable
of providing a plausible account of the phenomenon based on natural or
material processes alone. This may strike the reader as an impossible requirement.
How can we ever know that science will never be able to provide a 'natural'
account for some currently mysterious phenomenon? I claim this is within
the realm of possibility, if not with 100 percent certainty, within a reasonable
doubt. Using the historical association of natural with material,
I will provide hypothetical examples of phenomena that, if observed, cannot
be of material origin beyond a reasonable doubt. Since by all accounts
God is nonmaterial, his presence would be signaled, beyond a reasonable
doubt, by the empirical verification of such phenomena." (...) "I have stated how I will use the words natural
and supernatural, as synonymous with material and nonmaterial."
Then he
continues...
"I define matter as anything that kicks back when you
kick it. It is the stuff of physics. By 'kick' I refer to the universal
observation process in which particles, such
as the photons that compose light, are bounced off objects. Measurements
on the particles that bounce back into our eyes and other sensors give us
properties of the observed objects called mass, momentum, and energy that
we identify with matter. Those measurements are described with models that
contain purely material processes - the dynamical principles of physics -
all subject to empirical testing and falsification."
So, what
is the definition of matter, according to Victor? Simple: it is something
that CAN be detected. And what is the definition of God, of God's substance,
of spirits, and of etc (perhaps even Santa Claus' reindeers...)? Simple
too: it is something that CANNOT be detected.
So, Vic
defines God as something that CANNOT be detected. And then he complains
that God is never detected...
[Vic even
distorted, IMO, Steven Weinberg's views, and declared, on pages 15-16 of
GTFH, that "Despite philosophical and historical
literature in the past century that described the history of science as
a series of revolutions and 'paradigm shifts,' " (Victor is referring
to the works of Thomas Kuhn) "the fundamental
notion of matter and material processes has not been changed since the time
of Newton - only embellished."; *Only Embellished!* Come on...
(looks like we were to start having Playboy's
Centerfolds for Nobel Prize nominees...) physicists here agree with Stenger
on this? I read Weinberg's text on the link below]
http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~willerd/weinberg.html
So, Vic
is indeed almost a hundred percent right when he says that "God is nonmaterial
by all accounts." But God is "nonmaterial" by non-physics definitions of
matter. Definetely, according to average believers and to theologians alike,
God will kick you back when He is kicked by you (that is precisely the
basis for the prayer-mechanism).
*B*-
Vic complains that (despite the fact that God cannot kick back, according
to him) God has never been seen to kick back. He says ("he" meaning Vic,
not God) that if God exists, then he must kick back (though he - again meaning
Vic - also claims that God, by sheer definition, cannot kick back). Some
signs of kicking back could be the examples below:
- Design
in Nature.
- Existance
of souls, spirits, Santa Claus, etc.
- Existance
of telepathy, pk, precognition.
- Answer
to prayers, etc.
Ok Vic,
Ok. But... the only problem is that, IMO, none of these four items above
has been demonstrated, beyond a "reasonable doubt" (your words...) to be
false. (though prayers and Santa Claus are close
to it; seriously: Santa Claus has been proved to be false, and prayers have
been shown, IMHO, to most likely not be effective). And what is worse: it
seems that they can actually be true...
But each
one of them (Design, Spirits, and Psi) is a separate issue per se.
As I have
already said today, I have already started to dig into the psi issue here.
First, I will check out on Radin's astronomical p-value in The Conscious
Universe (that is more to check his... integrity as a writer for laymen).
Second, with (so I hope) the help of Bill Jefferys, we will apply a Hubble's
Eye on three (at least) of Radin's scientific papers, to see if they are
indeed so flawed as Jefferys says. I have already
asked him to specify three such articles and, preferrably, to point out the
problems. I am sure we are going to draw important solid conclusions from
it. (similar feedbacks will also be used, like
the paper Meeker sent regarding Ganzfeld and Bayesian statistics; if we come
to the point of summoning Jessica Utts here, the next step will be channeling
the Holy Ghost Himself ;-) ).
Concerning
"design", I have a lot to say. However, I have no conclusion... Yes, I do
have the conclusion that Dawkins is a crackpot (and... I might be wrong
even in that). But besides that, very few conclusions.
As to ghosts,
lots have to be said too. It seems that those with some understanding of
neurology have been doing a poor job in instructing Stenger on this (Crowel-Corner,
or simply CC). With friends like these...
So, let's
proceed on our way, amid the acid "yellings" and "silences"...
Best Wishes,
Julio Siqueira
P.S.: Gosh
I am beginning to like this forum. Perhaps I will stay here for some years.
The 72 virgins can wait...
________________
Message 9:
GTFH: The Signs of God
Sunday,
April 29, 2007 8:04 AM
Usually
when I talk about God, or god, or gods, what I say is: no evidence of it
(or better: of IT :-) ) can be found.
But the
question is: is this absence of evidence evidence of absence? Believe it
or not, I think the answer is, to a great extent: Yes...
The fact
that we have looked so hard and yet have never found anything (or Anything) makes it more and more legitimate for us
to claim that God (or god, or gods) does not exist. Nevertheless, we must
look at things with the non-believer's eyes (i.e. without the eyes of those
believers that state: I believe that God does not exist). We must transcend
this blinding bias that atheism/materialism often burdens us with. (and, by the way, the blinding bias of the ordinary
believers - those who state that they believe in God; those like me ! - won't
help us either...).
At the
root of God's issue is one of the most mysterious issue
that man has faced in all his history on this planet: causality. Unfortunately,
Vic dealt with this issue only very superficially. He stated, only once,
that science is not in the business of *explaining* things, but, instead,
it is in the business of *describing* things. "To Explain" is a concept
that is tightly linked to the word pair "why-because" and to *causality*.
Despite this initial word of wisdom from Vic, he went on all the way in
his book engaged in the "explaining business", and capitalizing in the "commonplace
causality worldview."
Physics
has some weird notions. Sometimes, these notions encroach, sloppily IMO,
on the realm of philosophy. Physicists have, perhaps almost always, equated
"determinist events" to "causal events," and "random events" to "acausal
events." I think these notions are highly misleading. We have no basis to
believe that determinist events are causal (i.e. that they have a cause)
or that random events are acausal (that they have no cause).
In fact,
most of the science enterprise is built upon the tricky notion that causality
exists, and that mechanics and logic can be understood on this basis.
As a consequence,
we think, nowadays, that a Universe that is basically quantum-mechanic
cannot have a cause. Vic, wisely, has stated more than once in his book
that, actually, what happens is that God left no trace of his actions,
if he did act.
So, to
state that "God *created* the Universe" (or to prove that he did not...)
is to follow the rules of the "causality worldview." It is a good worldview;
but it is narrow minded. And that is the view
that Vic followed in his book, GTFH. And more: the association of "random"
to "acausal" is misleading (though, IMO, Vic did not commit this kind of
mistake; supposing, of course, that it is indeed a mistake).
However,
in my opinion, Vic did fail to see the relevance of issues deeply connected
to this debate. Especially the notion of "probabilistic
causality." He comments on it, and kind of downplays the importance
of it, or of one of its proponents, William Lane Craig (see page 124 of
GTFH). I looked it up on the web and found that "probabilistic causality"
is much more than Craig... Take a look at the link below, from Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/
The introduction
of this entry states:
" 'Probabilistic Causation'
designates a group of philosophical theories that aim to characterize the
relationship between cause and effect using the tools of probability theory.
The central idea behind these theories is that causes raise the probabilities
of their effects, all else being equal. A great deal of the work that has
been done in this area has been concerned with making the ceteris paribus
clause" (i.e. the "all else being equal") "more precise. This article
traces these developments, as well as recent, related developments in causal
modeling. Issues within, and objections to, probabilistic theories of causation
will also be discussed."
This probabilistic
causality talk is closed linked to what people investigated at PEAR lab
(micro PK on REG). Therefore it is highly deplorable that the scientific
establishment never paid much attention to PEAR-Like research, and much more
deplorable that CSICOP et al Guys (prominent Avoid-Lers included...) decided
to ridicule it so much. Shame on you all.
Obviously
I am not claiming that PEAR is right.
But, back
to the probabilistic causality talk, if we can indeed alter the probability
of random events, then we can perform some sort of causality through the
blinding foam of randomness. That is very relevant to the God talk. And
that might enable God to act from behind randomness. Perhaps even in ways
very close to what He really wants.
So, an
increase in our knowledge about probabilistic causality (if it exists) might
enable us to either find God, or to add to our knowledge of His absence...
(therefore strengthening atheists materialists
stand).
Also linked
to it all is the notion, that Vic seems to embrace,
that actions at a distance (superluminal) are spooky, and that actions
at close range are not spooky. To me, all actions and all sorts of causality
are spooky, and they utterly defy our understanding.
One last
"word of caution" that I would like to advance is regarding the "intelligent
design" issue. People sometimes claim that the Universe does not seem to
have been designed intelligently. I think this is a risky assertion (depending,
of couse, how far we take it). A rock in the middle of our way may have
been the result of intelligent design (that is, it may have been placed there
by someone with a purpose in mind). And complex structures may not be the
result of intelligent design. Actually, depending on how we see this issue,
even highly complex structures (for example, PhD theses) may not be the result
of intelligent design.
This talk
about intelligent design has been severly mauled by religious biases from
both sides: on the one hand, the foxy believers like Behe, Dembisky, and
the Wedge Movement associates; and on the other hand, the jihad religious
atheists materialists like Dawkins and friends.
Deplorable.
To think
about this issue responsibly, and scientifically (and rationally...), we
have to delve deeply in the definition and meaning of "intelligence", of
"design", and to probe deep in the issues of determinism vs randomness and
the relation of these last two to causation (and to correlation, to coincidence,
and to co-ocurrence). Almost no one is engaged in this debate in the right
way. So, everybody is losing (especially society).
Just to
cite four commonplace examples from biology: 1- the Kreb's cycle IS the
result of intelligent design. 2- the glucose
molecule IS the result of intelligent design. 3- the
metabolism of lactose (in the E. Coli's lac operon's context) IS an example
of intelligent design. 4- and the somatic hypermutation
of human b-lymphocytes IS an example of intelligent design.
That is
basic biology. No hocus pocus.
Best Wishes,
Julio
___________
Message 10:
On Ghosts and Afterlife Survival...
Sunday,
April 29, 2007 8:20 AM
Just to
highlight some issues of great relevance to this debate:
1- The
existance and nature of spirits.
2- Their
capability to survive bodily death (either being immortal, or only being
alive for sometime after bodily death: decades, centuries, etc).
3- The
nature of "survival." What is it to "survive bodily death"? What survives?
How? If survival is based on the continuity of something, what is this something
that "continues"? And can we claim that we have survival BEFORE bodily
death? How do we survive (i.e. "continue") BEFORE bodily death, and what
is it that survive BEFORE bodily death?
4- What
is consciousness? (that is, subjective experience,
qualia, David Chalmers' "Hard Question", Stan Franklin's "Phenomenal Consciousness").
How does it survive (that is, "continue") BEFORE death (if it "continues").
And if materialism is indeed wrong, as philosopher David Chalmers claims,
and if the best options are solipsism and brahmanism,
what happens after bodily death?
Best Wishes,
Julio
___________
Message 11:
GTFH: For Whom the Bells Toll, or the
crimes of atheists.
Saturday,
May 5, 2007 7:06 AM
This is
my last message analyzing Vic's GTFH.
Background: millions
and millions and millions of people died, and much much more suffered miserably
due to the driving force of atheism/materialism behind Stalinism, Maoism,
Khmer Rouge, and comunism in Germany (1919-1933) and in Spain (Spanish
Civil War). Atheism/materialism: so brief a lifetime thus far (after emerging
from the ashes of corrupt Christianism, in the Nineteenth Century), and
so huge a social debt already...
Vic's assertion: "Many
people are good. But they are not good because of religion. They are good
despite religion." (page 248).
Correction: Good
and bad exist in everyone. And, many many people indeed became worse because
of religion (I know countless examples). And, also, some people became better
because of religion.
Vic's assertion: "Well,
God is widely worshipped, and we do not have a better world because of
it." (page 250).
Correction: How can
we tell if the world is not better because of this worshipping since we
do not have another world to compare? Maybe without the worshipping the
world would be better. Maybe worse. Maybe it
would be just the same. Who knows? What we can responsibly do is to try
to correct the defects of all religions, atheism/materialism included.
Vic's assertion: "The
Muslim suicide bomber has been led to believe that he is guaranteed paradise
for his murderous action. On the other hand, the atheist has the confort
of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up."
(page 257).
Correction: Islamic
terrorism is a complex social phenomenon. It is deplorable that a scientist,
in a book about science and religion, deals with it so immaturely. And
the "compulsion to blow himself up" may come
in many different forms, even in half-disguise. Argueably, the basis of
Islamic suicide attacks is altruism, which is one of the three driving forces
behind human suicide. Examples of suicidal behaviour due to altruism abound
among atheism/materialism-derived social practices. Only Vic won't see it.
Vic's assertion: "Nineteen
Muslims would not have wreaked the havoc of September 11, 2001, destroying
themselves along with three thousand others, had they not been believers."
(page 248).
Correction: And they
would also not have wreaked this "havoc" if the arab
world was not treated like shit by the US and Europe. So, it is more convenient
for cowards to blame religion than to fight the unfair political system
of their own country... (USA, in this case).
Why is it that the Germans came out of the post World War I so aggressive
and beligerant, and after the post World War II they became so amenable to
the rest of the ruling nations of the world? Why is it that the fierce Japanese
wreaked real havoc in almost half of the globe (especially in China) and,
after the post World War II, they became so amenable to the rest of the
ruling nations of the world? What is the difference - in strength and stubbornness
- between Germans, Japanese, and Arabs (Muslims) ?
So, the roots for the difference in overt behaviour between these three
"peoples" must not be sought in religion, but rather (argueably) in the
way they have been treated by other peoples. The amount of people that
die in countries of the Third World due to the economical and political
dominance of the US is unimaginable. Far, far, far more than 3,000 people
each year. And... who
cares? By the way, this is not to demonize the US. This very same vice
can be found and condemned in my own country, Brazil. We have devasted
Paraguai more than a hundred years ago, and have exploited it ever since.
Also, our relationship with Bolivia is far from "harmless." So, actually,
I am not this time that much concerned about finding the "true causes"
of the problem. I am, rather, very much concerned of taking the blame out
of the shoulders of those whom this blame does not belong to...
Be it due
to political cowardice or social ignorance, blaming Islam for things like
September 11 is, too, a murderous action. Most likely, countless innocent
Afghan Muslims are dying in Guantanamo right now, many committing suicide
to flee from the sufferings they have been enduring. No virgins or paradise
for these. Islamic teachings forbid suicide under these conditions. So
the humble, innocent, father-of-a-family will die with no hope of going
to Heaven. Also, one Brazilian died in London about two years ago just
because he looked like an arab. The police officers
who murdered him, most likely readers of Dawkins, thought like this: "Looks
like an arab, so he is an arab. Arabs are Muslims.
Muslims are suicidal terrorists, so says Dawkins. So, let's kill him right
now and enjoy our Heaven here on Earth and our 72 virgins right now before
death!" (that is: society praises those who kill
for a "good cause" - prestige and virgins just pour in!).
Final Note: unfortunately
it has been a disappointing experience to try to talk to the people of
this forum. Last time I came here, in 2005, I had a better impression.
But I was here just too briefly. You all do not seem to be bad guys. But
I must say that most of you seem to be - in
regards to these issues of religion, parapsychology, and society, etc -
much too emotionally immature (I know that some actually lack integrity,
in regards to these issues. They may be, howeve,
wonderful human beings in their family lives, citizenship, and academic
careers). I can only depore that, for the bad effects of these handicaps
will not fall upon me, but upon you yourselves rather. All I can do is to
keep fighting against the stupid and harmful notion that "God has already
been proved by science," and that "Spirits have already been proved by science,"
which is the role of my own skeptic site. It is deplorable and saddening
to realize that much - perhaps most - of these unhealing sould-wounds, that
you all carry so evidently, have been inflicted by either religion itself
or by religious people. As I have said before, atheism/materialism is a bold
and beautiful world view, and also it is a theory about the world that is
very likely to be true. It is unacceptable that people with such immense
value are so much offended by society.
Let's all
hope that one day people will come to realize the obvious: that good and
bad exist in everyone.
I finish
this message with an extract from my review of GTFH on www.amazon.com:
"The virtues
of materialism and of materialists are so remarkable that they were even
recognized by the "Guiding Spirit" (Emmanuel) of Brazil's most prominent
Medium (Chico Xavier), when he once said that 'These last years, the only
souls to come to Heavenly Spheres are those of materialists, who do good things
with no intentions of being rewarded afterwards.' "
Very Best
Wishes,
Julio Siqueira
_________________
Message 12:
Dawkins Up Uranus...
Tuesday,
May 15, 2007 2:52 PM
(this is to highlight a specific point of my last message)
Now, let
me present some of the most enlightened gems from Dawkins...
Article:
What is Wrong with the Paranormal?
- The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to
us are fakes and charlatans, and some of them have grown rich and fat by
taking us for a ride.
Article:
Religion's Misguided Missiles.
- Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with
the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. "Mindless" may be a suitable word
for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding
what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they
were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective
minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand
where that courage came from. It came from religion. Religion is also,
of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East
which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that
is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon
itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind,
is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they
are used.
And now...
my favourite one. This is
what he said when receiving the title "Humanist of Ur anus," that is, "Humanist
of the Year."
Article:
Is Science a Religion?
- Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come
down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none
of its vices.
- Incidentally, there was a shocking program on the BBC
radio around Christmas 1995 featuring an astronomer, a bishop, and a journalist
who were sent off on an assignment to retrace the steps of the three wise
men. Well, you could understand the participation of the bishop and the
journalist (who happened to be a religious writer), but the astronomer was
a supposedly respectable astronomy writer, and yet she went along with this!
All along the route, she talked about the portents of when Saturn and Jupiter
were in the ascendant up Uranus or whatever it was.
Up Uranus? Up Uranus? What the hell does he mean with "up Uranus"?
Does he mean something like "up your anus" (meaning, the woman was bullshitting)
or something like "up her..." (meaning, the
woman had better stick this talk into such and such places...)? Is it really
appropriate talk for such an occasion? (when
receiving the title The Humanist of the Year of 1996, American Humanist
Association). Is it cute talk? Is it crude? What is it? What would HE think
and feel if I said this of his... mother? Time for some cultural guidance
from you guys to me in this matter...
Best Wishes,
Julio
____________
Message 13:
Quantum Mechanics AND Consciousness -
time for mature attitude, from all sides
Tuesday,
July 17, 2007 3:49 PM
"Working
these problems out realistically requires hard work. Anchoring
physics on consciousness is the easy way out."
As a layman in
physics, I systematically avoid such topics here. One exception was the
physics issues raised by Vic in his "God, the Failed Hypothesis" (2007 -debunked), including his talk about information (to
which I expessed basically puzzlement); also, I discussed some of the information
stuff with you (Lawrence) precisely because of the very same reason that
I discussed the physics contents of GTFH: the debate, on both occasions,
left the strictly physics area and entred the public concerns domain.
Many times,
what experts (like many of you here) say sounds very hard to understand
by the laymen. And worse, often we understand things wrongly. Since a considerable
amount of the Avoid-L efforts and goals seems to be directed to public
concerns (attempting to fight pseudoscientific views, and the like), I
suggest that you guys pay careful attention to how your message gets across
to the public.
The quantum-consciousness
issue is an important point. The impression that I get, in light of what
I am reading these last days here (things like
this experiment with decoherence of buckyballs, etc), is that, as it seems,
quantum experiments are starting to do away with the "need for consciousness
as a necessary component of the explanation." And I must add that this is
good in many, many ways! But comments (and attitudes) like yours (Lawrence)
- and many other people here have shown similar attitude (Zanelli and others)
- seem to me rather counterproductive.
First of
all, it looks like a strawman to depict the interpretation "consciousness
is THE explanation" as an easy way out or as a credulity-based idea. It seems to me that the experiments of the past
were less precise and less resourceful, and this might have in great part
been responsible for this idea that the collapse
of the wave function was something that consciousness, and only consciousness,
could do (though, maybe, the more recent experiments of delayed choice
and dc quantum eraser may have added to the mystery substantially...).
Further, one big problem for human thinking has been to find where the
hell consciousness fits in the physical description of the Universe. Thus,
if consciousness had (or has) anything indeed
to do with quantum mechanics, this might bring about a new revolution in
science. Perhaps the greatest ever. And most likely it would be anything
but "easy."
What, IMHO,
is really *easy* is this habit (addiction...?) of throwing stones to our opponents without trying to understand
each other clearly. This is religious zealot attitude. And as I have insistently
pointed out, we have plenty of it around here...
Nevertheless,
facts are facts, and will be facts. As far as
I can see, Ross Rhodes description is simply incorrect, even in principle.
We have all the right in the world to look for (in quantum mechanics) links
with consciousness, ghosts, Santa Claus, The Big Foot, and whatever (even
for the absence of dualism, of God, of Spirits, etc). But we must do so
with faithful descriptions of what really go
on. Metaphors need not destroy the actual things that they purport to represent.
I have before
criticized Vic for his many pseudoscientific assertions. The same must be
done towards anyone (Ross Rhodes included)
Best,
Julio
_____________
Message 14:
Unpoliteness: Avoid-Lers', Dawkins', Siqueira's, ... ... ...
Monday,
September 24, 2007 6:00 AM
Former thread-title:
Re: Can Science Study the Supernatural?
Hi
Brent,
Your
comments in red, mine in green.
He
didn't direct it at her; it was mocking astrology.
So
he was directing it ("up Uranus") to
her ideas (he couldn't be really mocking *astrology*, but rather *her comments*
about astrology). I must say that I feel that as unnecessarily rude and
impolite.
But
whether it was polite or not, who cares?
I
cannot answer exactly, but sure I do care. As for who
does not care, *you* seems to be a good answer, sadly enough...
You
are often rude in your posts,
So
instead of healing me from my rudeness, we are now supposed to use that
as justification for Dawkins'. Humanity down the drain...
labeling
people as cowards because they see no point in answering your rambling
assertions,
Well,
Sir, that is not true at all. I never did that. If
I ever labelled someone as a coward (and it is pretty weird that *you*
bring this up now, since you seemed to back up Vic Stenger's rude usage
of this very same labelling against the author of the BottomLayer site; at
least you did not criticize Stenger in any way that I can recall - If my
memory serves me well, it was only *after* Stenger's use of this label that
I started using it), it was in a drastically different situation. Quoting
me out of context to try to make a strawman of me is a disservice to yourself.
Go ahead if you so wish...
equating
them with muslim terrorists because they haven't been sufficiently respectful
of your views,
Again
a strawman.
and
in general criticising people instead of arguing ideas.
Well,
you yourself know it is not true. I go deep
indeed in the analysis of people's ideas.
I'm
getting sick of your whining.
Biologically,
sickness is the alert due to a threat. It is up to your guts to ring the
alert. It is up to your wits to decypher what the threat really is. The
threat may be outside you or... inside. Look
closer.
If
you don't like it you're welcome to go elsewhere.
And
allow you guys to spoil this little World of ours? No, thank you sir. I
will stay :-) .
Now,
a few words about unpoliteness, in the context of the subject of these
messages: if I am here, and still, you (Brent)
must be sure that it is for a very precise reason. And a fruitful one too.
(and above all, one that is non personal/non self-centered). The reply from
Yon was a hundred percent "satisfactory." That is, he
sees that Dawkins sometimes may exaggerate a little (that is how I read Yon).
That is all that is needed for improving "skepticism" and for improving activist
atheism-materialism. In light of that (Yon's attitude), it is me who says: who cares? (whether Dawkins was offending
the woman astronomer or ridiculing astrology). Mistakes and excesses are
part of all human endeavours. If they are being
watched, criticized, and healed, then it is perfectly ok. That is what I
call for. That is Yon's attitude (the way I read it). But if they are not being watched, if they are not being
analyzed, critized, and healed, we are *all* going down the drain (it is
a small world, and getting smaller). And I must say that we do deserve to
be... elsewhere. That is what *your* attitude,
Brent, is NOT preventing us from. And that is the sole reason for my criticizing
you *now*.
Best
Wishes,
Julio
Siqueira.
P.S.:
many weeks ago I did contact the author of the BottomLayer
site (after your exchange of messages with him). I made some criticism to
him, and he replied to me honestly and straightforwardly.
No signs of cowardice that I could detect. In fact, similar to what we had
already seen from him. So, why did the "excesses" from Stenger (offending
him) went uncritized by you then...? Please. Think about it.
__________________________
The Avoid-L forum and the Paranormal:
a brief summary
Tuesday,
September 25, 2007 9:39 AM
[Please
note that by "ESP" I mean Extrasensory Perception, and not Error
Some Place :-)
]
Main objections
of avoid-L members to parapsychology, and relevant comments to them:
1- p value
for statistic significance is not defined before the experiment is run.
Comment: incorrect.
This issue was brought up by Bill Jefferys. Contrary to what he says, psi research, like any other, when using statistics,
has the p value for statistic significance defined beforehand.
2- Psi researchers
do not try to increase the "signal/noise" ratio, i.e.
they do not try to improve their experiments so
that they could fish true data (meaning: a true new phenomenon) out of the
garbage backgound (meaning random processes mostly).
Comment: incorrect.
Despite serious experimental problems in many areas of psi research, some
areas have made significant moves to address this issue raised (again)
by Bill Jefferys. Topmost example is the Ganzfeld Protocol for ESP testing,
devised in its present form by a joint mind-venture of psi researcher Charles
Honorton and CSICOP skeptic Ray Hyman. The fruit one gathers from an improved
signal/noise ratio is: replicability. Is ESP in the Ganzfeld replicable?
Yes.
3- Psi researchers
and "psi phenomena" do not stand up to the challenge of Bayesian statistics.
Comment: incorret
too, but indeed problematic. To my knowledge, only one area of psi research
faces up the challenge of Bayesian statistics properly: Ganzfeld.
This became clear at the end of my debate here with Bill Jefferys/Brent
Meeker, as I pointed out that the article that Meeker brought actually
indicated the strength of this research program (Ganzfeld) in light of Bayesian
analysis; and it also became clear as I brought statistician Jessica Utts'
comments on the matter (which prompted Bill Jefferys to flee the debate,
with "calling names" as an unexpected and dramatic extra).
4- All psi
is fraud.
Comment: hardly
so... Dean Radin has gone to great lengths to try to show that psi research is
not more fraudulent than any other area of science. Actually, it seems
to be less fraudulent. Obviously I am not talking
about Uri Geller or John Edwards in natura (as opposed to in
the lab). I am talking about psi researchers
in the psi academic community. For example, I was told some years ago that
Gary Schwartz was once heavily criticized by his own peers in a meeting of members of the Parapsychological Association.
Similarly, Harrold and Puthoff's paper on ESP (using Uri Geller as subject,
among others) received a lot of criticism from the psi research community
(please refer to the editorial of Nature of the very same edition).
5- Psi experiments
do not get published in respectable scientific journals.
Comment: incorrect.
Journal of Consciousness Studies, The Lancet, British Medical Journal,
Jama, Nature, all of them have published material on that.
So, concluding:
What Attitude Must any Responsible Scientist Have Towards ESP-PK and
Towards Psi Research?
The answer
can only be: first,
psi research does have areas that deserve high respectability. Second, some psi researchers, likewise, are highly deserving
of respect and support. Third, it seems that there is something
going on at least in the best areas of psi, that
is, it seems that something interesting and real has been found. Namely,
ESP in the Ganzfeld. Paradoxically, even I myself think that the
scientific community should not (and need not...) declare ESP as already
proved to exist (though I consider an acceptable scientific assertion if scientists in isolation declare that, for them,
ESP has been satisfactorily demonstrated to exist). Actually, it is pointless
now (IMO) to declare that ESP exists since we need to know much better
what is it that happens in Ganzfeld. Even if
it is truly a new mode of perception, it needs to be better understood,
I think.
Skeptics'
attitude and actions towards psi research should thus be:
1- Respect.
2- Informed/high
quality criticism.
3- Fight
to impede that putative psi findings be misused by believers of all persuasions.
Best Regards
and Wishes,
Julio Siqueira
______________
Carl Sagan disagrees with Vic on the Supernatural...
Saturday,
October 13, 2007 3:21 AM
-
Carl Sagan
disagrees with Vic on the Supernatural... Ok, and so what? What conclusions
can we draw from it? Here is the quote, and after it the inescapable conclusion.
Carl Sagan,
The Demon Haunted World, 1995, pg 304: Consider this claim: (...) Here's a third: Once in
a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick
wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They
(the three claims Sagan presented) are
all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the
other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and
barrier tunneling, they are called). Like it or not, that's the way the
world is.
Conclusion: the examples
Vic cites as violations of the energy conservation law (ESP, PK, intercessory
prayer, etc - those he flawedly presented in his new draft article now)
are not truly violations, but only *possibly* violations. According
to quantum physics (Sagan says), it is not impossible that a car will cross
walls (in the healthy sense... :-) ), and I guess that would
be just instantaneously (superluminously). Photons can do it, electrons
can do it, buckyballs too, and cars and whole planets too. Or they cannot?
Is it really impossible or merely improbable?
Like it
or not, this is the way the world is, Vic. Or is it not?
Best Wishes,
Julio Siqueira
_______________
Message 17: another teaser title. And this kind of "disagreement" is not to be seen, by us laymen, as a weakness from any of the parties involved.
Now it is Brent Meeker vs Victor Stenger...
Tuesday,
October 16, 2007 3:49 AM
I am still trying to read and digest the physics data
preseted by you guys. So, sorry if I missed
something. But, as far as I could get, Meeker was kind of supportive of
the non-discreet Universe view, whereas others thought it differently.
I found this little passage in Vic's welcome message in March this year:
"Avoid"
refers to "Atoms and the Void," the ontological model
of
reality in which only matter exists and, furthermore, is
localized
and discrete.
See
attached file.
Best,
Julio
Siqueira
__________________
Message 18:
The Secular Society and Its Main Enemies:
Dawkins et al, and similar "racists"
Wednesday,
October 24, 2007 9:46 AM
Though most
people here are rather addicted to (bogged down in) physics, the fact is
that biology does teach us trueblue lessons about our daily experiences and
possibilities. And, arguebly, one of the strongest lessons from biology is
that our main enemies are, often, not outside us, but, rather, inside us. Often,
organisms will perish not because of their foes'
strengths, but because of their own feeble inner spots.
If this so
called "secular society" does not prove to be better than the more ancient
alternatives, most likely it will be part of the "evolutionary drift" that
has ruled the comings and goings of one religion after the other (secularism
being, then, merely one more religion). Carl Sagan wisely warned us that
some religions thrived for millenia, before Christianity, just to die out, the very same way Christianity will
most likely die out too. The key to longevity may be, imo, not so much the
decreeing of who are to be our foes, but, instead,
who and what is to be our friends (relatives).
Summing
up: Dawkins, once again, proves to be a dangerous friend. And it was Bob
Zannelli who called our attention to this fact
(thank you again, Bob). James Watson made some crude, baseless remarks about
black people. Dawkins added: these comments are
not unethical. Well, arguebly, only a racist would claim that it is ethical
to say that all scientific studies show that black
people are less intelligent than non-black people (or white people). Here
is how Dawkins was quoted by one fellow secularist of yours:
"What
is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an
illiberal and intolerant 'thought police', of one
of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum,
and maybe even out of the laboratory that [he] has devoted much of his life
to building up a world-class reputation,"
So this
is the man some people here want to worship as their Moses... Go on then, guys. Just do not come back whining (as
you often do) when the Red Sea falls onto you all.
Good Luck
anyway...
Julio Siqueira
___________________
Message 19:
Atheism for Dummies
Sunday,
October 28, 2007 3:26 PM
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
For
the purposes of this list, this grouping also includes more proactive or
well-defined philosophies such as secular humanism,
atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, freethought, etc., most of which
can be classified as religions in the sociological sense, albeit secular
religions. A minority among atheists are quite fervent
in their beliefs and actively endeavor to proselytize atheism.
Any further
questions, Kerry and Meeker?
Best,
Julio
__________
Message 20:
Where is the Stench from the Avoid-L forum
Tuesday,
October 30, 2007 1:17 PM
Since I
have made statements about this forum in general, in my reply to Bill Jefferys,
I will reproduce below the parts that may be
of interest to all.
You
are a perfect example of the problem I have complained about here to Brent
Meeker recently (which promted his reply where he
listed some objections that he himself has in regards to Dawkins, and that
was a true counter example to my own objections - i.e. to my objections
against this forum). I will be a hundred percent
straightforward in this. There seems to be something stinking in this forum.
A mix of cowardice, lack of honesty, together of course with academic blinding
pride. I am just gauging the amount of it to assess
if I can and should tolerate it further. If the
average list member were so despicable as you, I would already have left.
Further
examples of a troubling stand in debates is Lawrence's absence of the expected
"I am deeply sorry for the unthinkable offenses
that I unduly directed against you, Mr. Julio Siqueira" (but he is too emotionally
imature to do that). Also, the absence of Zannelli's/Meeker's expected
reply "Yes, Julio, I understand now what you mean by Dawkins (at least indirectly)
supporting racist ideas and by Watson having done something terribly unethical"
(or instead they could say: "No, I do not agree with you, Julio, because
of this, this, and this" or perhaps even "I Just Disagree with you, Julio").
This kind of absence in these debates clearly show me the lack of seriousness
in these debaters. It doesn't matter if one of
the debaters is Julio Siqueira, Jim Jones, Sai Baba, or Donald Duck. The
*issue* is important and the debate cannot be left like that. People have
to take commitments and declare openly their stands. Or, alternatively, people
may stay aside the debate from the very beginning. But that is not what people
like you (in the Dean Radin debate) have done, or like Meeker and Zannelli
have done now (in this debate now about the lack of ethics from Watson).
This is deplorable. Lawrence is also deplorable (actually beyond redemption,
as it seems). He raised serious charges against Dean Radin and never bothered
to even look at the evidence pro and con. Now he
claims that this kind of thing that I call for and that I do (weighing the
evidence pro and con) is an example of malfunctioning of my brain, and that
he just cannot understand why someone will do this that I do. This that
you guys are doing you pretend to believe that you consider as perfect examples
of rationality. So rational as the KKK, I would say...
Unfortunately,
however, William Jefferys (you no man), I can withstand stenching atmospheres
for long long indeed. And I will stay for as long as necessary for clearly assessing
things before I leave. One day I will write
a report about this forum in my site, both in English and in Portuguese.
The main reason for my being here now is to avoid being unfair. There is
nothing special about you, about you guys, or about this forum, in this
regard. This is the very same thing that I have done before regarding three
Brazilian skeptic forums, and also regarding James Randi' Foundation Forum.
You are not the ones who I took the least time
to analyze. And you are not the ones I took the most time to analyze. You
are just a hundred percent ordinary, as far as
by now.
But
just because you are quite ordinary, that is
no reason for you also being stupid. So try and rid your fellow list members
from this further flaw... if you still have
the balls to do at least that (which I deeply doubt
;-)
).
I
Say,
Julio
Siqueira
____________________
Message 21:
Re: The
Secular Society and Its Main Enemies: Dawkins etal,andsimilar"rac...
Wednesday,
October 31, 2007 3:43 PM
Brent,
my reply to this irresponsible post of yours is this:
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_0_100.doc
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_0_100.pdf
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_101_200.doc
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_101_200.pdf
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_201_300.doc
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_201_300.pdf
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_301_400.doc
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_301_400.pdf
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_401_466.doc
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/rhine_1940_pg_401_466.pdf
Note added on January 31, 2013: all the files above can
downloaded now from this new link.
Just one more thing. This insistance of yours, always ready to mock and
to play, and never ready to do what you should have done long ago (if need be to pressure that traitor that joined you
in offending Dean Radin) completes my diagnosis of this forum. I have little
to do here now (though I may remain here for months still ;-) ). But you do have a lot
to do. At least now you got another guy to help
you, if you can get sloth Lawrence to get his ass down to his duty.
Best Wishes,
Julio
________________
In the table below, the juvenile message from
Meeker that prompted my reply above
| Brent
Meeker <meekerdb@DSLEXTREME.COM> wrote: L. B. Crowell
wrote: |
Message 22: below is another reply to Meeker. My reply is in blue, and the previous message from Meeker is in black.
Re: The Secular Society and Its Main Enemies:
Dawkins etal,andsimilar"rac...
Saturday,
November 3, 2007 8:39 AM
Brent,
this is the last drop. I will add some replies
to your problematic reasoning below.
You are
delusional.
Or...
alternatively, *you* decided to become dishonest
in this issue. Let's see the sum up of these combined messages.
I have
no duty to you or your theories.
Only
a delusional person would ever think that I have ever considered you to
have any duty to my theories, or even to *me*. The problem has never been
this. The problem has always been that you seem to have no duty to *yourself*
and to *your own theories*! ... ; and this is so in matters where the repute
and honesty of others are at stake...
I have
looked at my past posts (I keep them all)
I
keep them too.
. Here's
the post in which I
suggested you just buy the book, from 3/31/07:
This
will show who is "delusional"...
============================================================
Julio Siqueira wrote:
...
> *My Comment:* this above is what, as far as I could understand,
almost shocked me, in light of what Bill Jefferys said (or was it Brent
Meeker?). As it turns out, the source for this number used by Radin
is just
one book! Can I conclude that it is easier for avoid-l skeptics to
call someone a liar than to check this one book for the accuracy of
what
Radin claims? This book by Pratt and Rhine has (I think) less than
500
pages! (/Extra-Sensory Perception after Sixty Years. By J. B. Rhine,
J.
G. Pratt, C. E. Stuart, B. M. Smith, and J. A. Greenwood, New York,
Henry Holt & Co., 1940. Pp. xiv, 463./).
I replied:
Interesting
that data in a sixty year old book which is supposedly at
the foundation of a whole field of research
is not available in the
public domain.
Time
to pay attention, Brent:
Why
don't you just buy the book and tell the list
exactly
what these results are that Radin says imply odds of 1021 or 102000?
Who
is delusional now? You are just acknowledging
and reposting the very same thing that you said (obviously...), but trying
(in the beginning of this new message now) to twist the interpretation
of what you said in the past (as if it were possible). You told me to buy
the book. I repeat: *you told me to buy the book*. Further, you
told me to *present the data*. Do I have to repeat this last sentence
again too? Hope not. What did *I* do? I bought the book (following your
recommendation) and presented the data. What did *you* do? Then, nothing.
Now, meaning-twisting. So telling, isn't it?
You should
also remember that the question is not simply one of doing
the statistics correctly. There were many procedural problems with
Rhine's experiments and as he responded
to criticisms and tightened
controls the effect steadily declined. One wonders how Radin factored
this
into his odds.
===============================================================
Whether
the data implied odds of 10^21 or 10^200
It
is 10^2000
is really
beside the
point
I
myself have said that a million times. You are
just violating my copyrights in that ©.
since either
value is extremely significant in the statistical
sense.
The question
is whether there is a file drawer effect and whether there
are procedural problems.
Another
copyrights violation ©. We'd better go to Court...
(i.e. you are just echoing my words from elsewhere).
Radin deflected
the file-drawer question by
ignoring the possibility that it might well be a biased selectivity.
As an example of procedural problems, I pointed out that in some
experiments the person recording the result was the same person "sending"
the
image.
Is
there any hope in commenting on this one above? What you are saying is that
*some* of the experiments in parapsychology had methodological problems.
Again, copyrights violation from you ©. I myself have said trillions and trillions of times (10^2000...)
that *most* parapsychological experiments have and had methodological problems.
Just because
you think parapsychology is significant and important
I
myself do not know if I think that, and I have
said it to you more than once (though not trillions of times). What I do
think is that even the very best results from
psi research (Ganzfeld) may actually not prove ESP to exist. But to display
psi researchers and their methodology as silly and non-improving, like moron-boy
Lawrence and chicken/piss-proud Jefferys do,
is to be either idiot or dishonest. And both are damaging.
doesn't oblige anyone else to pay any attention to
it.
Brent,
please try and listen and understand, for the last time now: the only obligation
that you have, if any, is to the things that
*you yourself* say and *you yourself* advance as theories and the like.
That is what I have always said in regards to
you.
I never
offered to
analyze data for you.
Oh
My! Why do you think we are not in Court already regarding this...? Precisely
because, exactly as you say now, *you never indeed* offered to analyze data
for me. (if you had,
and ended up not doing so, I would sue you - or at least ask for the proper
refund. I never really did). The problem has always been this, and only
this: you asked me to buy the book (expensive) and to present the data (painstaking).
I did this. Despite this, you kept and keep with your comments as if I had never done so. The data is available for you
and for Mr. Piss Proud. Now, to keep saying the things you say in regards
to Radin and to some psi research, you have the moral obligation to analyze
the data. Easy stuff. Pure and simple. For you. Not for
me. Well, actually I think that even *you* might be in trouble-zone
trying to analyze that stuff. That is why I think Jefferys is vital in that,
and as a consequence the fact that he chickened
out of the debate renders him as a traitor, betraying *you*. But, honestly,
I do not expect you to demand of him his moral duty, since you yourself
are trying to get rid of yours...
I get
paid a lot for doing that.
Yes,
*get paid* for that. However, when it comes to raise troubling (and
baseless) doubts regarding serious researchers' integrity, you seem to work
*for free*... That might be skeptic/atheist-materialist/secular-humanist
generosity (of the notorious Up-Uranus type, I guess...).
I consider
meta-analysis of parapsychology "data" not worth my time.
Me
too.
If you think
it's a fruitful research field, fine: You do the research.
Cannot.
I try to analyze the result from others instead. And to present the information
trustworthily. That is what honesty demands from us. And that is the only
thing that I recommend...
Brent Meeker
P.S. Bill Jefferys can read stuff you write in other people's replies;
he really has killfiled you.
True
scientists must try, whenever possible, to think and speak in terms of "probabilities"
(i.e. apply the proper frequency-modal words to their reasonings and statements).
Jefferys killfiling me? I'd say, sincerely: 80 percent probability... Actually,
the only reason why I think that there is a "20 percent probability" of
his not having killfiled me is because he is
so very dishonest that he could very well read my stuff (when he wishes
to) and just never care to reply. If he was honest
instead, he would just not put up with the arguments that I present, and
would show up.
But
look closer. Killfiling me or not, his questions to Lawrence were telling.
Obviously he knew Lawrence was talking about
me. Who else in this forum could have started a thread (or renamed it) calling
Dawkins a racist? And whom else could Lawrence be directing his comments
to? Definetely not to Watson, or to Dawkins, or to Bob. Jefferys wanted
*Lawrence* to present the name *Julio* so that he
(Jefferys) could advance some charges against me. Pretty obvious. Pretty
coward. Pretty dishonest.
Brent,
unfortunately, as you know very well, we just
cannot always be a hundred percent candid. The world just is not like that. And, obviously, I have often
not been a hundred percent candid here... Regarding Jefferys, I soon started
to suspect that he had serious stinking spots
in his honesty (integrity) as a critic of psi research. I first faced two
problems when dealing with him, and I had to carefully get around them:
1- I was not talking about parapsychology, so I could not dedicate, at first,
much time to arguing with him in psi matters (it was never my intention
to talk about psi research here). 2- Being him who
he is (as I soon came to know, by internet search), I felt it was worthy
to lure him to the psi debate so that I could hear what he had to say, and
I really mean to *lure*, because he seemed very unwilling to go again on
this over-trodden trail. So, if you read my posts
carefully, you will notice that I tried to keep him in a kind of "stand-by"
state. I only presented the harder stuff against skeptics' arguments later,
because I knew he might leave the debate if I
presented them too early. So I managed to learn what he has to say against psi research. I have what I
want from him. And, honestly, it is very very
weak stuff. This is not proof for psi. This is proof against Jefferys. And
actually I am not interested in Jefferys. I was
looking for good arguments against psi research. And found none (none that
I didn't know of). I myself can present far better arguments against psi
research than he did.
As
to the situation in this forum, Brent, I must say that it is deplorable.
As I said, the last drop! Zannelli is always
posting social-issues threads, and I highly support him in that. However,
when it comes to acknowledging, or at least to pondering about, Dawkins-stimulated
racism, he too (Zannelli) flees, seemingly in
fear of having to critize the Moseses of Secular Humanism (i.e. politic
corruption from him... from Bob!). That is depressing. Disappointing. Unbearable.
I see now that Kid Lawrence decided to reply to the thread in this forum,
and, as I told him already, I am not answering
him. I have not killfiled him, and will never.
But I will only answer him in my true (main) email:
juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br). There, he will be received
with all due respect. But it is there, not here, that I treat issues like
his. The truths that I had to say regarding him are not to be posted to
the public. He dared to mock and to question the soundness of my reasoning
in the worst possible place (thread), where issues regarding racism (including
Dawkins-stimulated racism; and now we can say too: Zannelli-stimulated
racism) were at stake. Obviously I will not
talk about race issues with a kid (no matter 20 years old or 40 or 60 or
80; I am talking about mind, not about body) who doen't have an inkling
regarding race reality and its implications. About 20 percent of my best friends are black, 50 percent of the women I
have deeply loved in my life are black, 80 percent of my loved-loving students
are black (highly intelligent and loving kids), and some of my ancestors
too (though my being kind of Jewish-Looking), not to mention...my Wife and
Kids (son and daughter).
So,
Mr. Kid Moron L. Crowell will has a lot of apologizing
and learning to do (juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br) before he can look up to me and dare to talk again
about my reasoning capabilities regarding race, and regarding races (black
races, which, just by the way, are not only one... but very very many instead)
that he most likely does not have any single individual of in his heart.
And, just for the records: Lawrence never came
up with a working definition for *information*. I, instead, always had one.
My intention in asking him that was to match his (if
he happened to had one, which he does not) against mine, so as to improve
mine. Mine comes mostly from the very etymology of the word, and from its meaning-function in the systems
that I understand: biological systems, social systems, and (to a certain
extent) physical systems too. Information: in-formation. i.e. anything that triggers
a formation (a change in the structure) of a system, especially if in a way
in line with the system's normal "metabolism."
Thank
you again, Brent, for the help you gave in some moments. I suggest that
you get the 1940 book and do the statistics. I myself will do that, after I learn the statistics properly
so as to perform this re-analysis. If I ever find
Radin to be in error in that, I will fight against him in that, because, as
I said, that is a very serious issue since he was answering to Nature's objections
against his book. An error in that would be a very serious fraud from his
part. Utterly unexcusable.
Be
Well,
Julio Siqueira
(juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br)
________________________________
Again, in the table below, the senile message from Meeker
that prompted my reply above
| Brent
Meeker <meekerdb@DSLEXTREME.COM> wrote: Julio Siqueira
wrote: Note added on January 31, 2013: all the files above can
downloaded now from this
new link. >
Just one more thing. This insistance of yours, always ready to mock and
|
Message 23:
Lawrence's Racism; and et al's...
Saturday,
November 3, 2007 8:40 AM
As
to the situation in this forum, Brent, I must say that it is deplorable.
As I said, the last drop! Zannelli is always
posting social-issues threads, and I highly support him in that. However,
when it comes to acknowledging, or at least to pondering about, Dawkins-stimulated
racism, he too (Zannelli) flees, seemingly in
fear of having to critize the Moseses of Secular Humanism (i.e. politic
corruption from him... from Bob!). That is depressing. Disappointing. Unbearable.
I see now that Kid Lawrence decided to reply to the thread in this forum,
and, as I told him already, I am not answering
him. I have not killfiled him, and will never.
But I will only answer him in my true (main) email:
juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br). There, he will be received
with all due respect. But it is there, not here, that I treat issues like
his. The truths that I had to say regarding him are not to be posted to
the public. He dared to mock and to question the soundness of my reasoning
in the worst possible place (thread), where issues regarding racism (including
Dawkins-stimulated racism; and now we can say too: Zannelli-stimulated
racism) were at stake. Obviously I will not
talk about race issues with a kid (no matter 20 years old or 40 or 60 or
80; I am talking about mind, not about body) who doen't have an inkling
regarding race reality and its implications. About 20 percent of my best friends are black, 50 percent of the women I
have deeply loved in my life are black, 80 percent of my loved-loving students
are black (highly intelligent and loving kids), and some of my ancestors
too (though my being kind of Jewish-Looking), not to mention...my Wife and
Kids (son and daughter).
So,
Mr. Kid Moron L. Crowell will has a lot of apologizing
and learning to do (juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br) before he can look up to me and dare to talk again
about my reasoning capabilities regarding race, and regarding races (black
races, which, just by the way, are not only one... but very very many instead)
that he most likely does not have any single individual of in his heart.
And, just for the records: Lawrence never came
up with a working definition for *information*. I, instead, always had one.
My intention in asking him that was to match his (if
he happened to had one, which he does not) against mine, so as to improve
mine. Mine comes mostly from the very etymology of the word, and from its meaning-function in the systems
that I understand: biological systems, social systems, and (to a certain
extent) physical systems too. Information: in-formation. i.e. anything that triggers
a formation (a change in the structure) of a system, especially if in a way
in line with the system's normal "metabolism."
Thank
you again, Brent, for the help you gave in some moments. I suggest that
you get the 1940 book and do the statistics. I myself will do that, after I learn the statistics properly
so as to perform this re-analysis. If I ever find
Radin to be in error in that, I will fight against him in that, because, as
I said, that is a very serious issue since he was answering to Nature's objections
against his book. An error in that would be a very serious fraud from his
part. Utterly unexcusable.
Be
Well,
Julio Siqueira
(juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br)
________________________________
Message 24:
Leaving Avoid L
Wednesday,
December 5, 2007 7:51 AM
Leaving
Avoid L
Hi Guys,
Good News
if true #2. I have been on this Holy Land of materialists since March 15.
Materialist Legend has it that those who remain here for one year, remain
for good. So it is time to avoid L (i.e. avoid this legend).
I joined
here solely to present the so very numerous flaws and mistakes in Vic's
GTFH. Easy deal. While in this socially necessary
devastating raid (Vic's book is an offense both to Science and to Religion),
I was challenged regarding a topic that actually I did not want to talk
about, parapsychology (basically I already knew that you guys don't know
much about this topic). The challenger, named William Jefferys, despite
his supposed very high credentials in the area (besides physics + statistics),
ended up fleeing the debate like a chicken, forsaking (and, thus, betraying...)
his peer Brent Meeker and rendering the latter powerless to fulfil his duty
regarding the book he asked me to buy for him. (fiasco...).
Enters Keith
Sewell. Bold and
ernest Keith Sewell (Hi Keith!). He is the one
that made me linger here for longer. He challenged some of my views and,
contrary to PP-Jefferys, did not flee. He enabled me to explain better my
position on some topics, especially the God issue. Later on, some other
issues made me stay for even longer (to the despair of our good old man,
Mr. Stenger, who does not like to be criticized). Strangely named Agki
Strom (or something like this) almost made me stay even longer, by violating
Stenger's decree (that no one must answer my posts - I myself had to beg
Agki to abide to Stenger's Decree, which he further violated once more,
but I, boldly, refrained from answering his reply so as to enable my leaving).
So now,
at long last, it is time to leave your Holy Temple
Obviously
I will make a report regarding the important issues, and flaws, about this
forum. This will be online on December 24 this year, at the link below:
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/avoid_avoidl.htm
Note added on January 31, 2013: the webpage above is not available anymore, out of courtesy for the avoid-L fellas :-)
Major problems will be exposed. Like Vic's offense (so telling...) to BottomLayer
guy (calling him a coward just because he did not want to join this forum,
when actually Vic himself keeps fleeing any constructive debate regarding
the socially destructive nature of his writings). Like Zannelli's-Meeker's-Dawkins'-Watson's
pro racism actions and attitudes (already dealt with ad nauseum by
me here). PP-Jefferys' inability to evaluate parapsychology
in a non-strongly-emotional way. And, obviously, Meeker's inability
to... read a few pages of a book that he asked someone to buy for him...
(fiasco).
Virtues
will be acknoledged. Go check it if you will.
Similarly,
I urge you guys not to confuse me with my ideas or with the information
that I have brought (though I know that, being so extremely emotional, as
most of you here seem to be, it is very hard to separete the message from
the messager). Whenever and wherever I have successfully spotted a flaw in
you guys, the ones to benefit are you yourselves if you boldly face what
I have presented to you. This is what Vic just won't do (therefore condemning
himself to remain stuck in a self-created pigsty - His choice, his due...).
And I am still open to accept Crowell's apologies, if sent to juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br
until December 31. The wordings should be something like: "I am very sorry,
Mr. Siqueira, for my excesses in disrespecting you and for my racist attitude.
I promise I will try to grow and to make my emotions more mature. If needed,
psychotherapy will be applied."
As a last
contribution for the honest seekers of truth (which always lurk aroung...),
I direct you to a good skeptic contribution to the NDE debate, featuring
Keith Augustine, in the link below (Vol. 25 No. 4 Summer 2007, of the Jounal
of Near Death Studies).
http://www.iands.org/pubs/jnds/jnds25.html
His contributions
will also appear in some more two further issues of this journal.
Lastly
(but not leastly...), please keep trying to prevent booze-brained Bush from
nuking our little blue marble home. (our Brazilian
president is just as bad... unfortunately).
I will
send my leaving request on December 24 this year, so you will have a double
gift for xmas (my leaving + my page exposing you
guys).
Best Wishes,
Julio Siqueira
________________
Coming Back to Dispell the Libels about me in Avoid-L
--------
Mensagem Original --------
|
Topic |
Re: Vandalism
and WikiPedia - Julio Siqueira is Back... |
|
Date |
Thu, 03
Jan 2008 12:36:46 -0300 |
|
From |
Julio
Siqueira <juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br> |
|
to |
Atoms
and the Void <AVOID-L@HAWAII.EDU> |
Julio Siqueira
said: Jefferys has supported racism and
racist ideas on the internet. He has endorsed statements like black
people are less intelligent than white people, and black people
should not, in jobs, get promoted in certain situations where white people
should.
And Julio is right...
Hi Friends,
I was forced
to come back to avoid-L (after signing off on
December 27) due to libelous statements from Bill Jefferys, that a friendly
avoid-L member let me know of. These statements led at least two avoid-L
forum members to draw wrong conclusions regarding my conduct. So, I am here to correct the factual, and ethical, mistakes
of Jefferys. I will quote the relevant passages
from the messengers (Jefferys-Kerry-Crowell), and append the appropriate
comments. This is a very important issue that demand full attention from
anyone who wants either to make any comment on
it or to draw any conclusion from it. It involves the question of racism,
that, as I said, Bill Jefferys has indeed endorsed on this list. So, let's
get down to the facts.
Jefferys
said (my comments will be preceded by ###:
Some of
you will remember Julio Siqueira.
###
Yes, everybody does remember. Julio, the guy who showed that Vic's GTFH
is almost completely wrong.
He vandalized
my WikiPedia page this morning,
###
There is no such thing as YOUR wikipedia page,
to begin with. Wikipedia is not anyone's backyard. Jefferys seem to think
otherwise. How come? (I have a feeling that he
managed to find a sysop there who agrees with him as to the backyard nature
of the entry William Jefferys... Check it out further below).
attributing all sorts
of odious racist remarks to me.
###
Not all sorts of racists remarks. And, actually, none of them attributed
to you. Unfortunately, Jefferys deviated from the truth here. What
I said at wikipedia is: Jefferys
has supported racism and racist ideas on the internet. He has endorsed statements
like black people are less intelligent than white people, and black
people should not, in jobs, get promoted in certain situations where white
people should.
I stand by my statement. Unfortunately, this applies to Brent Meeker and
to Bob Zannelli as well.
I've reverted,
and I have complained to the WikiPedia folks who will, I hope, do something
about this libelous and cowardly edit by Mr. Siqueira.
###
It was never anonymous, so it cannot be cowardly. Further, before saying
this at the Wikipedia-William-Jefferys Entry (i.e. the entry with the
identifying label William Jefferys; not the entry - even less so the
page - that belongs to William Jefferys!),
I had already said it here at avoid-L.
I would
appreciate it if others could keep an eye on my page and revert any other similar attempts by Mr. Siqueira.
###
Hiring the work of people for free... So typical of
those who like to use their political power.
Kerry said:
Sorry to
hear this.Not surprising, though, given JS's personality, alas. It might
be worthwhile alerting his ISP to his activities.
###
Kerry was led to wrong conclusions due to the misleading remarks from Jefferys.
Now with the appropriate corrections, he will surely think differently.
I informed the wikipedia guys fully regarding my ISP information.
Jefferys
said:
Dear Friends,
I think the problem is under control.
###
He thought it wrong. The problem was not "under control." I edited it again,
then.
I received
email from the WikiPedia support folks, who promised to keep an eye on
the page and take stronger measures if necessary (which could include revoking
Julio's editorial privileges or protecting the page). So thanks, everyone
who looked at the page, but I think you don't need to continue doing this,
at least for the forseeable future.
###
By "foreseeable future" he actually meant "few
hours." The cataract operation wasn't quite successful, as it seems...
The current
page is vandalism-free.
###
He himself (or peers) decided to engage in vandalism afterwards. More on
it below...
Crowell:
J. Siqueira
always struck me as being some sort of manic obsessed crank. He left this
list, or so he said he was, and wrote a rambling swan-song screed about
how he had been eggregiously wronged and demanded appologies. Now he carries
his little angry tirade onwards like an child
in a tantrum who can't stop beating the floor with their fists. There is
a word for people like this --- losers.
###
Hi Crowell, how are you doing? Missed you so much... Take a look at the
link below:
http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/avoid_avoidl.htm
Note added
on January 31, 2013: the webpage above is not available anymore, out of courtesy
for the avoid-L fellas :-)
###
You are now famous, at long last. (winner ;-)
). Lawrence, maybe I am a looser indeed. But
the fact is that racism is no subject for ridiculing and putting down others.
As I explain in the link just above, that is
precisely what both Jefferys and you did. Next time, choose better the
time and place (and topic) for ridiculing those who you do not like, and
then you will see that I can indeed be a good loser. But by unthinkably
mocking the racism-issue, you ended up dragging Jefferys to the abyss of
racism-endorsing at that time. And now you want to apple-polish
him. Too late.
Jefferys said:
Julio is back at it again, vandalizing not only my Wiki page but also
its associated talk page.
###
Could anyone please explain to Jefferys that wikipedia is not his backyard,
and that talkpages are meant for talking? What he
called "vandalism of his talkpage" was the moment when I explained my position
and even acknowledged his virtues. Why so much arrogance and emotional
irrationality?
I've requested the Wiki administrators that more effective action be
taken. I wouldn't be averse to others keeping an eye on the page until this happens.
### Again, using his prestige
to hire others for free. So typical. And so repulsive.
Jefferys
said:
All: The
WikiPedia administrator has now protected my Wiki page against further
vandalism. Bill
###
Jefferys decided, in the not-so-long-ago past, to ridicule completely the
racism issue here (I repeat: to ridicule completely). He did this
together with Lawrence Crowell. It is fully documented here. Mock Julio,
mock even Julio's family, and you WILL NEVER be exposed at wikipedia (or
at any other similar place). But mock the racism issue in a public place
(avoid-L), and the only ethical thing to do is
to get exposed. Now, we have the question of what wikipedia accepts as source
for this kind of problem. If avoid-L cannot be accepted as a source, then
I will not be able to have this on wikipedia. I am carefully reading wikipedia
guidelines for this. This is what we have for the... past. And what about for the present and future?
###
As I said a little before I left avoid-L, Brent Meeker, Bob Zannelli, Lawrence
Crowell, and William Jefferys have endorsed the views of Richard Dawkins
(protecting Watson). In doing so, they ended up endorsing racism. This doesn't
mean that they are racists. But the neat result (weighing this incident
alone) is just the same. Had Martin Luther taken the same position, he too
would have, in this instance, endorsed racism. What is the way out? To declare,
clearly, that Dawkins' remark was incorrect. To state, clearly, that Watson
was ethically wrong in what he said. (no one
need to say that Julio Siqueira was right; this will spare Jefferys pride).
Now, it seems that Jefferys kind of said something along these lines at
the talkpage of the William Jefferys entry now. Unfortunately however, an new apple polisher that he managed to recruit has
removed what Jefferys said. This guy, that happens to be a sysop at wikipedia
(administrator), vandalized the talkpage. Obviously until I can get to
see what Jefferys said (and I am not going to look it up in the wrong place,
but only at the very talkpage instead), I can come to no conclusion regarding
this.
Since
I have now decided to be a full time editor of the Wikipedia entry "William
Jefferys," (ticket for end-of-the-year barbecue on the hills of Vermont
included...), I will have to keep on and on and on and on pushing this issue
further and further. I already have plans for improving our William Jefferys
entry, including a brand new section detailing his involvement with the paranormal
(I promise to leave out the information that he said Dean Radin is a bullshitter).
I will let all know beforehand of my contributions, at least 24 hours before
posting them there, and I will use our avoid-L list and the talk page of
our entry (William Jefferys) for that. I will also let FCYTravis know beforehand.
Below I include the email that I sent to FCYTravis know, regarding this
new fiasco. I wonder why is he protecting Jefferys so much? Dean Radin wasn't even allowed to edit the Dean
Radin entry at wikipedia. Jefferys not only created the entry, but has all
sort of protection there. Well, I think to myself... What a Wonderful World!
Dear
FCYTravis,
Why did YOU censor the talk page on the entry William Jefferys? I came
to you directly in good faith trusting your unbiased stand on this issue,
and you act like a non-trustable member of the wikipedia community. I am sorry to say this, and I am utterly shocked too,
but YOU have now vandalized the talkpage on the William Jefferys entry.
And more, and much much worse, you prevented
constructive discussion that seemed to be starting on the issue. This is
my last attempt to draw any trustability from you. If
you yourself do not revert what you did at the talkpage, I will have to
start a case against you at the wikipedia board of admnistrators (or similar
"institution"). I also kindly request that you unblock the entry (William
Jefferys). There is no reason whatsoever to keep it blocked. Please ponder
these issues with the seriousness and with the responsablity that they demand.
Best Wishes,
Julio CB Siqueira
(former Julio Siqueira)
____________
Message 26: this below is the one where I left avoid-L for good.
Leaving
Avoid-L
February
26, 2009
I have decided
not to stay "forever," and to leave the avoid-L forum for good now. What
I found in this forum was a mixture of brilliance and irrelevance, courage
and cowardice, constructiveness and pettiness. All this so very typical
of people. And so very present in me too... My comments about the bizarre
events sorrounding my stay here will continue
in my website. May it be that you all manage to live up to your social and
public duties, both in the science path and in the "skeptic movement" path.
Best,
Julio Siqueira
______________