The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena

Rodney · 29th March 2006, 12:54 PM

I just ordered this book from Amazon, and I'm sure thousands of open-minded skeptics here will order it also

But if not, I'll give you a report on it at some point. In the meantime, you can read this article: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069

Quote: "For genuine skeptics, meaning those who doubt but are open-minded, there is a substantial scientific literature that can be studied. Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more. For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.”

Arkan_Wolfshade · 29th March 2006, 01:21 PM

Here's the Amazon infohttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...Fencoding=UTF8

case sensitive · 29th March 2006, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Rodney

I just ordered this book from Amazon, and I'm sure thousands of open-minded skeptics here will order it also

But if not, I'll give you a report on it at some point. In the meantime, you can read this article: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069

Quote: "For genuine skeptics, meaning those who doubt but are open-minded, there is a substantial scientific literature that can be studied. Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more. For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.”

Who are you quoteing? If this is from the dude who wrote the book I can see his point. If it has nothing to do with the book it seem out of context. Why would one be "intrigued and motivated to learn more" about nothing? Are you willing to learn how to fly a unicorn? I sell unicorn-flyingclasses for only 5990 dollars and "Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more."

PM me for info about the classes!

Bikewer · 29th March 2006, 05:52 PM

Hehe- "Step one, obtain a unicorn."

petre · 29th March 2006, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Hehe- "Step one, obtain a unicorn."

Can I write the chapter(s) on determining if it is suitable for flight?

case sensitive · 29th March 2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by petre

Can I write the chapter(s) on determining if it is suitable for flight?

You mean the book? Or maybe books...

Now join my class! No skeptics... They scare the unicorns. Negative energy, plasma stuff, nano-reasons and so on. Technical stuff... unicorns.

Intrested? Order my book "What THEY don't want YOU to know about unicorns" or why not come over to my place for a weekend course. All participants will be able to foundle the unicorns horn in a dark room. It is suprisingly soft.

Soapy Sam · 29th March 2006, 06:33 PM

ALL PARTICIPANTS?

My mate's Doberman wants to know about Unicorns, you see...

Rodney · 29th March 2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by case sensitive

Who are you quoteing? If this is from the dude who wrote the book I can see his point.

Good, because it is from that "dude," as you would have found out if you had bothered to look at my link. (By the way, there's no "e" in "quoting." I imagine this is one of the few things that you have not yet figured out.)

Originally Posted by case sensitive

If it has nothing to do with the book it seem out of context. Why would one be "intrigued and motivated to learn more" about nothing?

Gee, I dunno, but a quote does come to mind: "For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.”

Complexity · 29th March 2006, 08:08 PM

You know, Rodney, I can't think of a reason to read that book or any book like it.

There are a lot of books that I'd like to read, ones that I know have something to offer. I'm 49.6 and am likely to kick off before most other men of my cohort. I will only read so many more books in my life.

Why should the book you've suggested be one of them?

I won't read tens of thousands of books that are really worth reading. Why should I forego one of those to read The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena?

Unless and until some psychic accepts and prevails in JREF's challenge, why should I waste one moment of my life reading anything about psychics?

I have much better things to do.

I think I'll read more Nero Wolfe tonight. The first text that I'll read on immunology should arrive tomorrow. It is also time to start rereading Fagles' translation of the Iliad - I've got to wash 2000 years of christian nonsense out of my head once more.

Somehow, your book just doesn't compare.

Ersby · 30th March 2006, 01:50 AM

The Conscious Universe is seven years old. Radin has a new book out this month. According to the index of the book on amazon, he gives the ganzfeld ten pages. I'll be interested to see if he's corrected the mistakes he made in TCU.

Nancarrow · 30th March 2006, 01:56 AM

Funnily enough I was just googling around on psi phenomena last night (what a colourful character Brian Josephson is), and that book kept cropping up. Let us know how it pans out for you.

ETA: now I remember the whole point of bothering to post was to make some waggish comment on the spookiness of both of us becoming aware of this book at the same time, and relating it to the global consciousness field, yada yada. Well make your own. I'm too busy controlling my hordes of zombie mutants with my own psi. (the glasses intensify it don't you know)

Dragon · 30th March 2006, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by case sensitive

You mean the book? Or maybe books...

Now join my class! No skeptics... They scare the unicorns. Negative energy, plasma stuff, nano-reasons and so on. Technical stuff... unicorns.

Intrested? Order my book "What THEY don't want YOU to know about unicorns" or why not come over to my place for a weekend course. All participants will be able to foundle the unicorns horn in a dark room. It is suprisingly soft.

...and small?

case sensitive · 30th March 2006, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Good, because it is from that "dude," as you would have found out if you had bothered to look at my link. (By the way, there's no "e" in "quoting." I imagine this is one of the few things that you have not yet figured out.)

Gee, I dunno, but a quote does come to mind: "For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.”

So I guess you are signing up for my class. Cause you are not a pseudoskeptic are you?

I looked a bit at your link and went to the Amazon and read the review. Dianelos Georgoudis review was wellwritten and with a lot of good points. Read it and tell me if he is wrong.

Thanks for the quoting... I thought it looked strange.

case sensitive · 30th March 2006, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dragon

...and small?

At first. But once you start playing with it...

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

ALL PARTICIPANTS?

My mate's Doberman wants to know about Unicorns, you see...

Is he a biter or a licker?

Zep · 30th March 2006, 04:10 AM

Here's another positive critic.

CFLarsen · 30th March 2006, 05:16 AM

Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe"

Rodney, let me know what you think.

c4ts · 30th March 2006, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Complexity

It is also time to start rereading Fagles' translation of the Iliad - I've got to wash 2000 years of christian nonsense out of my head once more.

Fagles? Lattimore is better.

arthwollipot · 30th March 2006, 04:26 PM

I tried to read Rupert Sheldrake's book once (The Sense of Being Stared At) because I thought I needed to be open minded about it.

I tried, really I did. I tried very hard to force myself to get all the way through. But I just couldn't. I'm sorry.

Complexity · 30th March 2006, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by c4ts

Fagles? Lattimore is better.

A matter of opinion.

I can't evaluate the accuracy of the translation, but I love the way Fagles' translation reads - it is glorious.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 30th March 2006, 06:16 PM

Radin's book is horsedung. It's unbearable. I'd read something Complexity suggested instead.

~~ Paul

Rodney · 30th March 2006, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe"

Rodney, let me know what you think.

Difficult to evaluate the review without having read the book, but I will say that the reviewer seems to be a more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here.

chance · 30th March 2006, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Complexity

There are a lot of books that I'd like to read, ones that I know have something to offer. I'm 49.6 and am likely to kick off before most other men of my cohort. I will only read so many more books in my life.

<snip>
I have much better things to do.

<snip>

Somehow, your book just doesn't compare.

I have to agree with Complexity regarding reading worthwhile books (subjective statement of course).

I remember watching Carl Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’ (the library scene), where he states (paraphrasing from memory) “If one were to do nothing else but read books during ones life time, you would perhaps be able to read the contents of this wall” (he might have given a quantity also). Carl then points to one wall of the library, camera pans back to show full library.

Of course the implied suggestion is that there is just way to much data for any one man to assimilate, and one has to juggle the desire to read with available time.

Correa Neto · 31st March 2006, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Difficult to evaluate the review without having read the book, but I will say that the reviewer seems to be a more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here.

Pretty predictable...
"more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here" = fellow who believes in the same stuff I do
some variants:
"open minded person" = person who believes in the same stuff I do
"person whose mind is not closed to possibilities" = person who believes in the same stuff I do

CFLarsen · 31st March 2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Difficult to evaluate the review without having read the book, but I will say that the reviewer seems to be a more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here.

Get back when you have read it.

Rodney · 31st March 2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Pretty predictable...
"more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here" = fellow who believes in the same stuff I do
some variants:
"open minded person" = person who believes in the same stuff I do
"person whose mind is not closed to possibilities" = person who believes in the same stuff I do

You're proving my point. You obviously didn't bother to read the review.

Rodney · 31st March 2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Get back when you have read it.

Will do.

CFLarsen · 31st March 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Will do.

When is that?

Rodney · 31st March 2006, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

When is that?

I don't even have the book yet, but perhaps by mid-late April.

Correa Neto · 31st March 2006, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Rodney

You're proving my point. You obviously didn't bother to read the review.

Your claim that I have not read it is based exactly in what sort of evidence?

Who is proving whose point?

Rodney · 31st March 2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Your claim that I have not read it is based exactly in what sort of evidence?

The reviewer is critical of the book and is more sympathetic to the views expressed by the majority on this forum than he is to my views. If you had read the review, I don't see how you could have come to the conclusion that the reviewer "believes in the same stuff" that I do.

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Who is proving whose point?

The point is that you and most others here prejudge paranormal claims. You're so convinced that they're bogus that you don't examine the evidence. The book reviewer, on the other hand, at least allows that "in my opinion 'The Conscious Universe' is an interesting book, whose subject area deserves closer inspection."

Correa Neto · 31st March 2006, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Rodney

The reviewer is critical of the book and is more sympathetic to the views expressed by the majority on this forum than he is to my views. If you had read the review, I don't see how you could have come to the conclusion that the reviewer "believes in the same stuff" that I do.

I will ask again where are the evidence you use to back the claim I had not read the review. The sentences above are nothing but assumptions based on your own preconceived ideas on how skeptical behave. Read the rest of this post and then please feel free to remove your claim.

I think the quote below:

Quote:

Both parapsychology and general science are constantly evolving, however, and may one day fully come together.

http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069
Is not exactly matching your claim that

Quote:

The reviewer is critical of the book and is more sympathetic to the views expressed by the majority on this forum than he is to my views.

, since it seems to indicate that the writer actually thinks parapsychological phenomena are real.

BTW, have you actually bothered to read my original post? Have you noticed the context? Are you sure I was talking about the revier?

Originally Posted by Rodney

The point is that you and most others here prejudge paranormal claims. You're so convinced that they're bogus that you don't examine the evidence.

Prove I have prejudices regarding paranormal claims.
Prove I don't examine the evidence.

Or at least provide non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims.

Originally Posted by Rodney

The book reviewer, on the other hand, at least allows that "in my opinion 'The Conscious Universe' is an interesting book, whose subject area deserves closer inspection."

Define "non-objective skepticism".

The sentence

Quote:

in my opinion The Conscious Universe' is an interesting book, whose subject area deserves closer inspection.

is actually in the text at http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...storyId=17069? I have not found it. Your post seems to indicate its part of the text. I have not found it.

What you want are not "open minds". What you and other defenders of paranormal phenomena (as well as UFOs, cryptozoology, lost continents, etc.) actually want is to lower the standards of acceptable evidence. You want claims to be accepted without a critical look.

Rodney · 31st March 2006, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

I will ask again where are the evidence you use to back the claim I had not read the review. The sentences above are nothing but assumptions based on your own preconceived ideas on how skeptical behave. Read the rest of this post and then please feel free to remove your claim.

I think the quote below:
http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069
Is not exactly matching your claim that , since it seems to indicate that the writer actually thinks parapsychological phenomena are real.

BTW, have you actually bothered to read my original post? Have you noticed the context? Are you sure I was talking about the revier?

Prove I have prejudices regarding paranormal claims.
Prove I don't examine the evidence.

Or at least provide non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims.

Define "non-objective skepticism".

The sentence is actually in the text at http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...storyId=17069? I have not found it. Your post seems to indicate its part of the text. I have not found it.

What you want are not "open minds". What you and other defenders of paranormal phenomena (as well as UFOs, cryptozoology, lost continents, etc.) actually want is to lower the standards of acceptable evidence. You want claims to be accepted without a critical look.

Correa, I'll cut you a break here. You seem to have confused the article in the Daily Evergreen with the lengthy book review that CF Larsen posted. The latter is the "review" to which I referred. Go back and re-read the thread and I think you'll see that I'm correct.

Now, in terms of non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims, start with the discussion of Edgar Cayce that I have participated in on this forum or see -- http://edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcay...edgarcayce.asp.

chipmunk stew · 31st March 2006, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Quote: "For genuine skeptics, meaning those who doubt but are open-minded, there is a substantial scientific literature that can be studied. Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more. For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.”

Eerie. This could be a direct quote from one of the 9/11 Inside Job guys over at the Loose Change forum. It seems to be a common theme among people whose claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

Kochanski · 31st March 2006, 08:22 PM

Rodney, Edgar Cayce is just as bogus as all the other psychics out there. His only claim to fame is that he did it in his sleep, yawn.

Well, the Surrealist artists did the same sort of thing, only better, they actually created art, poetry and other things people could actually enjoy, not quite during sleep but were enamored with the same notions.

Cayce's "work" is laughable at best.

Correa Neto · 1st April 2006, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

...snip...
Now, in terms of non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims, start with the discussion of Edgar Cayce that I have participated in on this forum or see -- http://edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcay...edgarcayce.asp.

Rodney, I am far from being a n00bie when it comes to paranormal claims and I have checked that as well as other discussions on Cayce.

So, if Cayce was not bogus, would you care to explain why no sign of Atlantis can be found at sattelite imagery?

Are Cayce's flawed prophecies the best non-bogus evidence for the paranormal you can provide?

Rodney · 2nd April 2006, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Kochanski

Rodney, Edgar Cayce is just as bogus as all the other psychics out there. His only claim to fame is that he did it in his sleep, yawn.

Well, the Surrealist artists did the same sort of thing, only better, they actually created art, poetry and other things people could actually enjoy, not quite during sleep but were enamored with the same notions.

Cayce's "work" is laughable at best.

Unsupported assertions are not a hallmark of skepticism. By the way, if you check out the recent Cayce thread here, you will find assertions that what Cayce said about the health benefits of almonds were well-known in his era. So far, no evidence has been submitted to support those assertions.

Rodney · 2nd April 2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Correa Neto

Rodney, I am far from being a n00bie when it comes to paranormal claims and I have checked that as well as other discussions on Cayce.

So, if Cayce was not bogus, would you care to explain why no sign of Atlantis can be found at sattelite imagery?

Are Cayce's flawed prophecies the best non-bogus evidence for the paranormal you can provide?

Not his prophecies, but his health readings, as I've explained on the recent Cayce thread here. Disprove his health readings, and you'll have done something that Gardner, Shermer, Randi et. al have failed to do.

Bronze Dog · 2nd April 2006, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Unsupported assertions are not a hallmark of skepticism. By the way, if you check out the recent Cayce thread here, you will find assertions that what Cayce said about the health benefits of almonds were well-known in his era. So far, no evidence has been submitted to support those assertions.

That's a pretty trivial objection: Cayce was plain wrong either way. It doesn't matter if he made the whole thing up, or if he based it on the knowledge of the time.

Rodney · 2nd April 2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

That's a pretty trivial objection: Cayce was plain wrong either way. It doesn't matter if he made the whole thing up, or if he based it on the knowledge of the time.

Wrong about what? Are almonds good or bad for you?

Arkan_Wolfshade · 3rd April 2006, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Rodney

Unsupported assertions are not a hallmark of skepticism. By the way, if you check out the recent Cayce thread here, you will find assertions that what Cayce said about the health benefits of almonds were well-known in his era. So far, no evidence has been submitted to support those assertions.

You mean this evidence http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...89#post1522889 that you appear to have dismissed out of hand?

29th March 2006, 12:54 PM	#1
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena I just ordered this book from Amazon, and I'm sure thousands of open-minded skeptics here will order it also But if not, I'll give you a report on it at some point. In the meantime, you can read this article: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069 Quote: "For genuine skeptics, meaning those who doubt but are open-minded, there is a substantial scientific literature that can be studied. Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more. For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.”
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

29th March 2006, 01:21 PM	#2
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	Here's the Amazon infohttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...Fencoding=UTF8
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

29th March 2006, 05:04 PM	#3
case sensitive Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 395	Originally Posted by Rodney I just ordered this book from Amazon, and I'm sure thousands of open-minded skeptics here will order it also But if not, I'll give you a report on it at some point. In the meantime, you can read this article: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069 Quote: "For genuine skeptics, meaning those who doubt but are open-minded, there is a substantial scientific literature that can be studied. Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more. For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.” Who are you quoteing? If this is from the dude who wrote the book I can see his point. If it has nothing to do with the book it seem out of context. Why would one be "intrigued and motivated to learn more" about nothing? Are you willing to learn how to fly a unicorn? I sell unicorn-flyingclasses for only 5990 dollars and "Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more." PM me for info about the classes!
	__________________ "They actually became the Reptoid God's lunch." "I determined this from "lack of evidence." Antigray Have YOU found God yet? the priest asked. I didn't know he was hiding... Born 1976 in Sweden Died in medieval Europe

29th March 2006, 05:54 PM	#5
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 879	Originally Posted by Bikewer Hehe- "Step one, obtain a unicorn." Can I write the chapter(s) on determining if it is suitable for flight?
petre Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 879

29th March 2006, 06:21 PM	#6
case sensitive Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 395	Originally Posted by petre Can I write the chapter(s) on determining if it is suitable for flight? You mean the book? Or maybe books... Now join my class! No skeptics... They scare the unicorns. Negative energy, plasma stuff, nano-reasons and so on. Technical stuff... unicorns. Intrested? Order my book "What THEY don't want YOU to know about unicorns" or why not come over to my place for a weekend course. All participants will be able to foundle the unicorns horn in a dark room. It is suprisingly soft.
	__________________ "They actually became the Reptoid God's lunch." "I determined this from "lack of evidence." Antigray Have YOU found God yet? the priest asked. I didn't know he was hiding... Born 1976 in Sweden Died in medieval Europe

29th March 2006, 05:52 PM	#4
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 5,249	Hehe- "Step one, obtain a unicorn."

29th March 2006, 06:33 PM	#7
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 18,092	ALL PARTICIPANTS? My mate's Doberman wants to know about Unicorns, you see...
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 18,092

29th March 2006, 07:16 PM	#8
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by case sensitive Who are you quoteing? If this is from the dude who wrote the book I can see his point. Good, because it is from that "dude," as you would have found out if you had bothered to look at my link. (By the way, there's no "e" in "quoting." I imagine this is one of the few things that you have not yet figured out.) Originally Posted by case sensitive If it has nothing to do with the book it seem out of context. Why would one be "intrigued and motivated to learn more" about nothing? Gee, I dunno, but a quote does come to mind: "For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.”
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

29th March 2006, 08:08 PM	#9
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA (a suburb of Minneapolis) Posts: 3,691	You know, Rodney, I can't think of a reason to read that book or any book like it. There are a lot of books that I'd like to read, ones that I know have something to offer. I'm 49.6 and am likely to kick off before most other men of my cohort. I will only read so many more books in my life. Why should the book you've suggested be one of them? I won't read tens of thousands of books that are really worth reading. Why should I forego one of those to read The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena? Unless and until some psychic accepts and prevails in JREF's challenge, why should I waste one moment of my life reading anything about psychics? I have much better things to do. I think I'll read more Nero Wolfe tonight. The first text that I'll read on immunology should arrive tomorrow. It is also time to start rereading Fagles' translation of the Iliad - I've got to wash 2000 years of christian nonsense out of my head once more. Somehow, your book just doesn't compare.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

30th March 2006, 01:50 AM	#10
Ersby Fortean Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 1,695	The Conscious Universe is seven years old. Radin has a new book out this month. According to the index of the book on amazon, he gives the ganzfeld ten pages. I'll be interested to see if he's corrected the mistakes he made in TCU.
	__________________ "Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con" http://ersby.blogspot.com

30th March 2006, 01:56 AM	#11
Nancarrow Chelonian Overlord Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 462	Funnily enough I was just googling around on psi phenomena last night (what a colourful character Brian Josephson is), and that book kept cropping up. Let us know how it pans out for you. ETA: now I remember the whole point of bothering to post was to make some waggish comment on the spookiness of both of us becoming aware of this book at the same time, and relating it to the global consciousness field, yada yada. Well make your own. I'm too busy controlling my hordes of zombie mutants with my own psi. (the glasses intensify it don't you know)
	Last edited by Nancarrow; 30th March 2006 at 02:01 AM.

30th March 2006, 02:07 AM	#12
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,344	Originally Posted by case sensitive You mean the book? Or maybe books... Now join my class! No skeptics... They scare the unicorns. Negative energy, plasma stuff, nano-reasons and so on. Technical stuff... unicorns. Intrested? Order my book "What THEY don't want YOU to know about unicorns" or why not come over to my place for a weekend course. All participants will be able to foundle the unicorns horn in a dark room. It is suprisingly soft. ...and small?
	__________________ "We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth." Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason

30th March 2006, 03:51 AM	#13
case sensitive Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 395	Originally Posted by Rodney Good, because it is from that "dude," as you would have found out if you had bothered to look at my link. (By the way, there's no "e" in "quoting." I imagine this is one of the few things that you have not yet figured out.) Gee, I dunno, but a quote does come to mind: "For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.” So I guess you are signing up for my class. Cause you are not a pseudoskeptic are you? I looked a bit at your link and went to the Amazon and read the review. Dianelos Georgoudis review was wellwritten and with a lot of good points. Read it and tell me if he is wrong. Thanks for the quoting... I thought it looked strange.
	__________________ "They actually became the Reptoid God's lunch." "I determined this from "lack of evidence." Antigray Have YOU found God yet? the priest asked. I didn't know he was hiding... Born 1976 in Sweden Died in medieval Europe

30th March 2006, 03:53 AM	#14
case sensitive Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 395	Originally Posted by Dragon ...and small? At first. But once you start playing with it... Originally Posted by Soapy Sam ALL PARTICIPANTS? My mate's Doberman wants to know about Unicorns, you see... Is he a biter or a licker?
	__________________ "They actually became the Reptoid God's lunch." "I determined this from "lack of evidence." Antigray Have YOU found God yet? the priest asked. I didn't know he was hiding... Born 1976 in Sweden Died in medieval Europe

30th March 2006, 04:10 AM	#15
Zep Guest Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 24,230	Here's another positive critic.
Zep Guest Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 24,230

30th March 2006, 05:16 AM	#16
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe" Rodney, let me know what you think.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th March 2006, 04:05 PM	#17
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,428	Originally Posted by Complexity It is also time to start rereading Fagles' translation of the Iliad - I've got to wash 2000 years of christian nonsense out of my head once more. Fagles? Lattimore is better.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

30th March 2006, 04:26 PM	#18
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 28,320	I tried to read Rupert Sheldrake's book once (The Sense of Being Stared At) because I thought I needed to be open minded about it. I tried, really I did. I tried very hard to force myself to get all the way through. But I just couldn't. I'm sorry.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Episode 17: Coming Mid-February. We welcome Lexi Hameister into the world at 1830 on 29 January! What's an "arthwollipot"?

30th March 2006, 05:12 PM	#19
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota, USA (a suburb of Minneapolis) Posts: 3,691	Originally Posted by c4ts Fagles? Lattimore is better. A matter of opinion. I can't evaluate the accuracy of the translation, but I love the way Fagles' translation reads - it is glorious.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

30th March 2006, 06:16 PM	#20
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Looking for Fountain of Smart Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 17,157	Radin's book is horsedung. It's unbearable. I'd read something Complexity suggested instead. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz pi = 3.1415926...19729715941700531415926095214704122509...

30th March 2006, 06:31 PM	#21
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe" Rodney, let me know what you think. Difficult to evaluate the review without having read the book, but I will say that the reviewer seems to be a more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

30th March 2006, 07:03 PM	#22
chance Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 431	Originally Posted by Complexity There are a lot of books that I'd like to read, ones that I know have something to offer. I'm 49.6 and am likely to kick off before most other men of my cohort. I will only read so many more books in my life. <snip> I have much better things to do. <snip> Somehow, your book just doesn't compare. I have to agree with Complexity regarding reading worthwhile books (subjective statement of course). I remember watching Carl Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’ (the library scene), where he states (paraphrasing from memory) “If one were to do nothing else but read books during ones life time, you would perhaps be able to read the contents of this wall” (he might have given a quantity also). Carl then points to one wall of the library, camera pans back to show full library. Of course the implied suggestion is that there is just way to much data for any one man to assimilate, and one has to juggle the desire to read with available time.
chance Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 431

31st March 2006, 09:36 AM	#23
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Digging for Au somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,094	Originally Posted by Rodney Difficult to evaluate the review without having read the book, but I will say that the reviewer seems to be a more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here. Pretty predictable... "more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here" = fellow who believes in the same stuff I do some variants: "open minded person" = person who believes in the same stuff I do "person whose mind is not closed to possibilities" = person who believes in the same stuff I do
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

31st March 2006, 09:50 AM	#24
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Originally Posted by Rodney Difficult to evaluate the review without having read the book, but I will say that the reviewer seems to be a more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here. Get back when you have read it.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

31st March 2006, 10:11 AM	#25
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by Correa Neto Pretty predictable... "more reasonable fellow than most of the folks here" = fellow who believes in the same stuff I do some variants: "open minded person" = person who believes in the same stuff I do "person whose mind is not closed to possibilities" = person who believes in the same stuff I do You're proving my point. You obviously didn't bother to read the review.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

31st March 2006, 10:14 AM	#26
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Get back when you have read it. Will do.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

31st March 2006, 10:23 AM	#27
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,805	Originally Posted by Rodney Will do. When is that?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

31st March 2006, 12:46 PM	#28
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by CFLarsen When is that? I don't even have the book yet, but perhaps by mid-late April.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

31st March 2006, 03:16 PM	#29
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Digging for Au somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,094	Originally Posted by Rodney You're proving my point. You obviously didn't bother to read the review. Your claim that I have not read it is based exactly in what sort of evidence? Who is proving whose point?
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

31st March 2006, 04:45 PM	#30
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by Correa Neto Your claim that I have not read it is based exactly in what sort of evidence? The reviewer is critical of the book and is more sympathetic to the views expressed by the majority on this forum than he is to my views. If you had read the review, I don't see how you could have come to the conclusion that the reviewer "believes in the same stuff" that I do. Originally Posted by Correa Neto Who is proving whose point? The point is that you and most others here prejudge paranormal claims. You're so convinced that they're bogus that you don't examine the evidence. The book reviewer, on the other hand, at least allows that "in my opinion 'The Conscious Universe' is an interesting book, whose subject area deserves closer inspection."
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

31st March 2006, 06:54 PM	#31
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Digging for Au somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,094	Originally Posted by Rodney The reviewer is critical of the book and is more sympathetic to the views expressed by the majority on this forum than he is to my views. If you had read the review, I don't see how you could have come to the conclusion that the reviewer "believes in the same stuff" that I do. I will ask again where are the evidence you use to back the claim I had not read the review. The sentences above are nothing but assumptions based on your own preconceived ideas on how skeptical behave. Read the rest of this post and then please feel free to remove your claim. I think the quote below: Quote: Both parapsychology and general science are constantly evolving, however, and may one day fully come together. http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069 Is not exactly matching your claim that Quote: The reviewer is critical of the book and is more sympathetic to the views expressed by the majority on this forum than he is to my views. , since it seems to indicate that the writer actually thinks parapsychological phenomena are real. BTW, have you actually bothered to read my original post? Have you noticed the context? Are you sure I was talking about the revier? Originally Posted by Rodney The point is that you and most others here prejudge paranormal claims. You're so convinced that they're bogus that you don't examine the evidence. Prove I have prejudices regarding paranormal claims. Prove I don't examine the evidence. Or at least provide non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims. Originally Posted by Rodney The book reviewer, on the other hand, at least allows that "in my opinion 'The Conscious Universe' is an interesting book, whose subject area deserves closer inspection." Define "non-objective skepticism". The sentence Quote: in my opinion The Conscious Universe' is an interesting book, whose subject area deserves closer inspection. is actually in the text at http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...storyId=17069? I have not found it. Your post seems to indicate its part of the text. I have not found it. What you want are not "open minds". What you and other defenders of paranormal phenomena (as well as UFOs, cryptozoology, lost continents, etc.) actually want is to lower the standards of acceptable evidence. You want claims to be accepted without a critical look.
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley

31st March 2006, 07:21 PM	#32
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321	Originally Posted by Correa Neto I will ask again where are the evidence you use to back the claim I had not read the review. The sentences above are nothing but assumptions based on your own preconceived ideas on how skeptical behave. Read the rest of this post and then please feel free to remove your claim. I think the quote below: http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...?storyId=17069 Is not exactly matching your claim that , since it seems to indicate that the writer actually thinks parapsychological phenomena are real. BTW, have you actually bothered to read my original post? Have you noticed the context? Are you sure I was talking about the revier? Prove I have prejudices regarding paranormal claims. Prove I don't examine the evidence. Or at least provide non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims. Define "non-objective skepticism". The sentence is actually in the text at http://www.dailyevergreen.com/disp_s...storyId=17069? I have not found it. Your post seems to indicate its part of the text. I have not found it. What you want are not "open minds". What you and other defenders of paranormal phenomena (as well as UFOs, cryptozoology, lost continents, etc.) actually want is to lower the standards of acceptable evidence. You want claims to be accepted without a critical look. Correa, I'll cut you a break here. You seem to have confused the article in the Daily Evergreen with the lengthy book review that CF Larsen posted. The latter is the "review" to which I referred. Go back and re-read the thread and I think you'll see that I'm correct. Now, in terms of non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims, start with the discussion of Edgar Cayce that I have participated in on this forum or see -- http://edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcay...edgarcayce.asp.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,321

31st March 2006, 08:15 PM	#33
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Media, PA Posts: 6,612	Originally Posted by Rodney Quote: "For genuine skeptics, meaning those who doubt but are open-minded, there is a substantial scientific literature that can be studied. Most that do their homework come away — at minimum — intrigued and motivated to learn more. For ‘pseudoskeptics,’ meaning those who take pride in disbelieving rather than doubting, nothing can be done.” Eerie. This could be a direct quote from one of the 9/11 Inside Job guys over at the Loose Change forum. It seems to be a common theme among people whose claims do not hold up to scrutiny.
	__________________

31st March 2006, 08:22 PM	#34
Kochanski Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Anonymous Unimportant Place (not a secret Scorpion training facility for Shosuro ninjas) Posts: 2,048	Rodney, Edgar Cayce is just as bogus as all the other psychics out there. His only claim to fame is that he did it in his sleep, yawn. Well, the Surrealist artists did the same sort of thing, only better, they actually created art, poetry and other things people could actually enjoy, not quite during sleep but were enamored with the same notions. Cayce's "work" is laughable at best.
	__________________ The faith of a skeptic is always in doubt Ninja weasel courtesy of http://www.cheeseweasel.net I-con 28 - April 3 - 5, 2009 - Boldly going where no I-con has gone before - Brentwood http://www.iconsf.org/ Fight Klub - for the newest ccg experience by invitation only https://www.decipher.com/

1st April 2006, 09:15 AM	#35
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Digging for Au somewhere in Brazil Posts: 5,094	Originally Posted by Rodney ...snip... Now, in terms of non-bogus evidence for paranormal claims, start with the discussion of Edgar Cayce that I have participated in on this forum or see -- http://edgarcayce.org/about_edgarcay...edgarcayce.asp. Rodney, I am far from being a n00bie when it comes to paranormal claims and I have checked that as well as other discussions on Cayce. So, if Cayce was not bogus, would you care to explain why no sign of Atlantis can be found at sattelite imagery? Are Cayce's flawed prophecies the best non-bogus evidence for the paranormal you can provide?
	__________________ Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! President Merkin Muffley