User talk:Martinphi/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ESP

I'm headed out of town tomorrow and I really wanted to investigate this latest edit in the ESP article: [1], but I can't do it justice until I get back in a week. Here are some investigative and possibly rebuttal sources from the authors of the study: [2] and [3]. If you have the time... :) I'll be checking in from Seattle when I get there. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the source, I couldn't find it to verify (been packing for the trip). In the quick review I did of the information at [4], by R.A. McConnell - one of the authors of the study - he seems to have a lot of information that actually backs the existence of ESP. Maybe I was reading it wrong. Just thought you might get some good stuff out of it. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WOW! You have been busy!! Great, incredible edits to ESP. Your parapsychology work is impressive. It's going to take me a while to digest all this new material! Dreadlocke ☥ 09:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of Criticism and response in parapsychology

Hello, Martinphi. I was trying to be clear on the Talk:Criticism and response in parapsychology page, but I'll try to explain a bit more clearly if I can. According to the criteria under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, the article seems to be inappropriate to Wikipedia, since it essentially presents points of view; these statements may be accurately cited, but I do not believe that Wikipedia is the proper place to air disagreements. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to use the article's talk page. Thank you for participating. -- Noclevername 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a long comment on the talk page of the above mentioned article. basically, I said it was a good topic but badly formatted. Please take a look and let me know if my comments were helpful to you.Lisapollison 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I voted. Thanks for the reminder.Lisapollison 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Added my response. I don't think it should be deleted, but instead re-written to be more article-like. I think the calls for deletion are actually calls for re-writes and are mistakenly posted as delete. If it does get deleted, I say try again in a more article-like style under the title Criticisms of parapsychology. What might be a good article-like format? Not sure exactly, but off the top of my head maybe a lead in paragraph stating that parapsychology has long been criticized. Then a section on the history of the criticisms detailing the main players. Then maybe a few sections on the predominant ideas, you know like "total quackery", "small but meaningful results", "a new paradigm in science", and so on. Each idea gets its own section written objectively and then the reader can choose which one they want to subscribe to. The article as is definitely has a lot of great information and can even be stylized to be more article-like with it's current content. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think renaming it to Controversy in parapsychology is both appropriate and a good title that better explains the topic. Then it doesn't really have to be a criticism and response, it can be a fluid article where the skeptic argument is given and the parapsychologist argument is given, without it being like the parapsychologists are trying to get the last word in, like "they said this but its really that". Instead it's like: "Here's the controversy from both angles". Yeah, I like that better. I wouldn't change the title until after the deletion process, however. Let it stand on its own merits for now. It might not be deleted and then could just be rewritten to make it less controversial. If it does get deleted, you have the other option of starting fresh with a new title. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've created a "sandbox" -kinda new to these things- on the advice of Dreadlocke, here, and your contribution is very welcome (: I don't have huge amounts of time to edit myself right now, and I really don't think I ought to in the beginning, till a new format is achieved.

If I've done it wrong in some way, tell me soon so I don't post this on other pages OK? Thanks Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never made a sandbox before, but it looks right to me. I'll jump in and see what I can contribute when I clear some other projects off my plate. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clairsentience

clairsentience

I reverted, and he reverted back. He just has no idea. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Naw, I've abandoned that article. I don't have any time to deal with people who won't play right. To be honest, I don't know why that article doesn't get absorbed into clairvoyance or another article like that. It doesn't seem to have enough notable sources to stand on its own. If I were to edit it right now, it would be to redirect it to clairvoyance, which might be what it needs. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with continually reverting. It's just a pain in the butt because it's unlikely that you'll get much help for the obscure article. It probably won't be locked or anything. You'll just have to revert until someone gets tired. Probably the proper way is to try and explain the rules. I'll give it a whirl. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 00:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The following left by new user in the wrong place...

if any of you are adult enough to discuss the following issues then i will be more than happy to do so . otherwise i am moving to bring about abritration from the administrator .

The following piece of reasearch was done by Tim Crosby who was both the subject , with the condition known as clairsentience , and also the researcher who , much like research chemists in former times , on the edge of new discoveries , used themselves as white mice in white coats to test a new as yet untried compound.

He developed a philosophical aproach over 15 years of research which he found indispensable given the nature of the study area he was exploring. unlike empirical science which hopes to measure the matereal world and then to gradually reach understandings of its workings through repeated testing , the mind and its contents apears to be a somewhat more slippery fish . Descartes after many years of dedicated reasoning came to the conclusion that no one could prove beyond a doubt that anything coming into the self via the senses could be proved to be objectively existant including measurments , graphs ; other people`s research etc ; the whole external world , and as ethnobotanist terence mckenna put it , " you are at the centre of the only universe you will ever know ".

This pre amble is necessary when coming at the word clairsentience in a way which does justice to the nature of the self/reality which is implicit in its existence as a concept but also its very meaning which is embedded in human culture at large . The word itself pre supposes both a self ; a supra higher dimesional sense world and implicitly , a group of senses and sense organs of a new more highly developed nature.

For the most complete and detailed research in this area i suggest one takes a long look at the work of ex nasa scientist barbara brennan who after a research post at nasa exploring the nature of electromagnetic fields , later developed higher sense perception to a very advanced level. Her work in this area is pre eminent and gives a broader and deeper understanding on the relationships of higher sense perception including , clairaudience , clairvoiance , claircognisance and of course clairsentience ; and their relationship to higher worlds / dimensions of the universe and self.

for more information go to http://www.barbarabrennan.com/

Her aproach contextualises these newly discovered layers of reality within the framework of the holographic theory of the universe suggested by pysicist Dr. David Bohm in his book " the implicate order " in which he calls the manifest reality " the explicate enfolded order ", in which , " parts are seen to be in immediate connection , in which their dynamical relationships depend in an irreducible way on the state of the whole system......Thus, one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into seperately and independantly existent parts." and also The Morphagenic field theory ( from morph, "form " , and genesis , " coming into being. " ) of Rupert Sheldrake which is explored more fully in his book "A New Science of Life ".

The action of this field involves " action at a distance " in both space and time . Rather than form being determined by physical laws outside of time , it depends on morphic resonance across time . This means that morphic fields can propagate across space and time and that past events could influence other events everywhere else.

An example of this is shown by Lyall Watson in his book , " Lifetide: The Biology of Consciousness ", in which he describes what is now popularly called the Hundredth Monkey Principle . Watson found that after a group of monkeys learned a new behaviour , suddenly other monkeys on other islands with no possible " normal " means of communication learned that behaviour , too.

Barbara brennans exaustive work in this area gives a broad and highly detailed context for understanding unusually developed senses and perhaps a new understanding of other mechanisms in the universe whereby knowledege , feelings , thoughts and other objects in time and space , might travel across boundaries , for example between bird and tree ; between monkey and monkey or between human and human via a connectedness previously thought not to exist .

As Robert Anton Wilson so aptly put it , " any technology or science sufficiently far removed from ones own will be percieved as magic" , and much like the idea of new and emergent higher facilities which are explored to dramatic effect in the three X Men films , the idea of a new emerging higher state of consciousness is being discussed by integrated philosophers such as Ken Wilber , whereby the next stage of human evolution is not to be a physical innovation as our relative matereal comfort and sedantary lives suggest , but will be one of the mind.

Just as roaming homonids , with a culture which didn`t change one bit for millenia , were replaced by homo sapiens , with their art , religion , language etc , for whom culture now was so varied that it could be differentiated by an explosion of creativity , which is characterised by the highly individual designs of their hand axes and countless other artifacts which are found to be different from one valley to the next across the entire planet; so , the next leap of human development will perhaps be just as huge and qualatively different.Thesource42 17:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)



References


Barbara Brennan ex Nasa scientist http://www.barbarabrennan.com/ also her two text books " hands of light " , and " Light Emerging ".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Brennan

Physicist Dr. David Bohm "The Implicate Order "

Rupert Sheldrake , " A New Science Of Life ", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Lyall Watson ," Lifetide : The Biology of Consciousness ". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyall_watson

Robert Anton Wilson , " Cosmic Trigger ", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.Wilson

Terence Mckenna , " True Hallucinations " , " Invisible Landscape ", and " Food of The Gods ", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_mckenna

Rene Descartes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

David Horrobin , " The Madness Of Adam and Eve " .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horrobin

Ken Wilbur , http://www.kenwilber.com and http://wilber.shambhala.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilbur

A key idea in Wilber's philosophical approach is the holon, which came from the writings of Arthur Koestler.As a Mahayana Buddhist, he believes that reality is ultimately a nondual union of emptiness and form, with form being innately subject to development over time

The X Men , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men

Star Trek Next Generation In which Diana Troy is Ship`s Empath or Clairsentient. ( see , above the Robert Anton Wilson Quote ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Next_Generation

Emergence : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

"Perhaps the most elaborate recent definition of emergence was provided by Jeffrey Goldstein in the inaugural issue of Emergence.(Goldstein 1999) To Goldstein, emergence refers to "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems."

Holism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

[edit] Controversy in parapsychology

Just stumbled across this excellent sandbox of yours.

Was wondering what you thought of the following: http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue61/r61_Grossman.html

And, what about the idea that parapsychology is finding its way into other fields like: - consciousness studies - biology – we can’t explain how termites build their nests or schools of fish navigate through the ocean without invoking group consciousness - medicine – “therapeutic touch” is a worldwide phenomena and if you live in Australia, it’s covered by your insurance. AD 14:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic voice phenomenon

Regarding your edits made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic voice phenomenon, the Afd had been closed and therefore no further edits should have been made to it. If you wish to comment further, please start another Afd by going to WP:AFD and following the instuctions on that page. If you would like any help with that or me to start it for you ket me know RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest, the page was nominated originally to ake a point, thats why it was kept very quickly! Why don't you try and get the article up to scratch yourself? I would but im unfamiliar with the subject. As I said if you do ever want to relist it, let me know. Regarding my talk page and how long it took you to load it - I'll archive it tomorrow to reduce the size of it! I'm just too tired tonight! Cheers for your letting me know RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Wha?? They tried to delete EVP? Wha? Dreadlocke ☥ 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I just read your note to ryan. Makes sense. How strange that Wikipedia can't have a straightforward article on such a subject. Darned pseudo-frosted critics...;) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadlock = Superpup!

LOL! Thanks! The article needed expression, so I gave it life.....it's alive...! Actually, I'm much prouder of Search (TV series) and Mediumship...but they're not as...well...odd!  ;) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your many outstanding contributions to paranormal articles. - Dreadlocke ☥ 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Martinphi Pentacle.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Martinphi Pentacle.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you need help with this, let me know. Since you created it, check out Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators Dreadlocke ☥ 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you're completely covered. The original that you modified falls under GNU Free_ Documentation License, which states that it:
"..gives readers the same rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100) then the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient.".
You can even sell the thing...much less modify and use the same fair-use GNU license. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)