Astral Dynamics are angry with James Randi

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 02:04 AM

They have "proves", but not according to James Randi. What happened?

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/vie...r=asc&start=15

arthwollipot · 30th July 2006, 02:13 AM

The bit about people who have "passed" the challenge intrigues me. I'd like to see some evidence of that.

I wish you very well until you're banned. Because you will be banned.

skeptesthai · 30th July 2006, 02:21 AM

1. Randi doesn't design the tests the experts agreed to by both parties do. Given the nature of the different phenomena that is tested the rules have to be different. The test for a dowser can't be the same as a test for a psychic.
2. The independent experts, once again chosen by both parties, are the ones that make the determination of success or failure.
3. From what I have seen James Randi is not even directly involved in developing most of the protocol. I'm sure he has input but it still has to be agreed to by BOTH parties involved.
4. If God did exist i'm sure he would win the JREF prize. He most likely wouldn't need it but it would be good publicity.

arthwollipot · 30th July 2006, 02:23 AM

Yeah, almost every argument they made was demonstrably false. But that won't stop them.

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 02:51 AM

Quote:

I wish you very well until you're banned. Because you will be banned.

Statement without argument.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley · 30th July 2006, 03:34 AM

From one of the replies, this stuck out:

Quote:

1. Randi designs the 'tests' individually for each applicant only after he knows what they claim to be able to do

Aside from the fact that Randi doesn't design anything, Uhh... what is this guy's point here? The test should be designed before they know what the claim is? How in the world would you do that.

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 03:45 AM

It would be a hoax.

brodski · 30th July 2006, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by skeptesthai

2. The independent experts, once again chosen by both parties, are the ones that make the determination of success or failure.

I believe that this is wrong, the tests are set up in such a way that no judging is required, certainly no expert judging, the results should be self evident. Both sides agree beforehand as to what would constitute success or failure, and the tests are recorded so that afterward there can be no argument (from reasonable people). Other than that minor nitpick, excellent post, skeptesthai, welcome to the forum

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 05:03 AM

Why isn't everyone who has something to "prove" allowed to do so?
Here is one example that was rejected:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm
The Letter from James Randi (link on page above):
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

arthwollipot · 30th July 2006, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Statement without argument.

Well, that's the normal process, isn't it? They argue with you until they realise that you're making complete sense, which they can't cope with, so they ban you. I really do hope that you can convince them that they're wrong about Randi, I honestly do. But I don't think it'll happen.

Pity, really.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Why isn't everyone who has something to "prove" allowed to do so?
Here is one example that was rejected:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm
The Letter from James Randi (link on page above):
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm

Do you understand that, if tested, this guy could very well die?

And, that if he dies, there will be very serious repercussions for JREF?

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Do you understand that, if tested, this guy could very well die?

So?

Quote:

And, that if he dies, there will be very serious repercussions for JREF?

Why? He came by his own free will, no one forced him? Or are you saying some paranormal activity took over his free will?

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

So?

Why? He came by his own free will, no one forced him? Or are you saying some paranormal activity took over his free will?

Not at all. It isn't just a question of free will, JREF also has a responsibility. Do you understand this?

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 07:51 AM

Quote:

It isn't just a question of free will, JREF also has a responsibility. Do you understand this?

Responsibility suppose free will. If someone ignores the fact they can die by doing something it is their own fault. If they want to do something that can harm themselves, and no one else, it is their right to do so. No one has the right to force them to think or do otherwise.

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 08:04 AM

Astral Dynamics chickened out. Case closed.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Responsibility suppose free will. If someone ignores the fact they can die by doing something it is their own fault. If they want to do something that can harm themselves, and no one else, it is their right to do so. No one has the right to force them to think or do otherwise.

That's where you are wrong, buddy.

Do yourself a favor and read that carefully.

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 08:20 AM

What is your argument, that the world are psychopaths neglecting ones free will?

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

What is your argument, that the world are psychopaths neglecting ones free will?

No, that you can be held responsible if you are able to prevent injury in others, but don't take action to prevent it.

Did you read the link at all?

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

No, that you can be held responsible if you are able to prevent injury in others, but don't take action to prevent it.

Are you lying by saying the participant is not aware of the fact he might die during his attempt? If that is his choice by knowing the fact he can die, no one has the right to stop him from doing so. It would be psychotic using force against anyones will as long as it doesn't hurt others, it can only hurt himself and he is fully aware of it.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Are you lying by saying the participant is not aware of the fact he might die during his attempt? If that is his choice by knowing the fact he can die, no one has the right to stop him from doing so. It would be psychotic using force against anyones will as long as it doesn't hurt others, it can only hurt himself and he is fully aware of it.

The participant can be as aware as possible. That is not the point.

Have you read the link, yes or no? Can you explain, in brief, what the gist is?

RayG · 30th July 2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Do you understand that, if tested, this guy could very well die?

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

So?

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

And, that if he dies, there will be very serious repercussions for JREF?

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Why? He came by his own free will, no one forced him? Or are you saying some paranormal activity took over his free will?

You need to carefully read over the 1 Million Challenge pages, especially this.

Quote:

2.4. Why the limitation on things that might injure me?
Essentially, the JREF doesn't want to be seen as even slightly condoning self-injury or injury to others. It has partly to do with legal issues, partly to do with the image of the JREF, and partly to do with the JREF's past experiences with applicants. Most of the applications that are self-injurious involve living for extended periods of time without eating, or stopping the use of prescribed medications, and the evidence gathered over millennia is pretty strong that the human body does indeed die after a prolonged period without food. There is also ample evidence to prove that a diabetic who stops taking their insulin will most certainly die or suffer serious internal damage if they stop taking it. It should be no surprise to you that many such claims are submitted.
No test that involves potential injury to the applicant or test participants can be accepted.
In Randi's own words:

'A test of [someone who says he doesn't need to eat] would occupy much more of my time than I'm willing to invest, and it would only feed the arsenal of those who love to accuse us of investigating only the easy cases. As soon as that test would be completed, another similar one would pop up, and we'd be off again -- "You tested him, why won't you test me?"' [6]

Sounds like the same type of starvation demonstration would be rejected by the Guinness World Record people.

Quote:

"What kind of records should I NOT try to break?"

Guinness World Records receives around 60,000 record claims each year, and it's obviously impossible for us to accept everything that’s sent to us.Some record suggestions are, frankly, far too dangerous for us accept, especially if there is risk to spectators and members of the public as well as the individual participant(s). Others are simply not enough of a challenge, too specific to an individual, or unbreakable.

RayG

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 09:36 AM

You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will.

So, you believe that those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason are unjustly denied their world record?

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

legal issues,

Based on lies.

Quote:

partly to do with the image of the JREF,

JREF does not want to deal with experiments that can cause to dying.

Quote:

and partly to do with the JREF's past experiences with applicants.

I can only guess, they all went wrong, because most people can't reason and denies facts.

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 09:42 AM

Quote:

unjustly denied their world record?

They are desperates for fame and money, because no one has proven anything.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Based on lies.

What "lies"?

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

JREF does not want to deal with experiments that can cause to dying.

Would you??

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

They are desperates for fame and money, because no one has proven anything.

That is beside the point: Have those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason been unjustly denied their world record, yes or no?

Hindmost · 30th July 2006, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will.

Free will is fine in theory...but when lawyers get involved, free will can become a gray area. I agree if someone takes the JREF challenge such as living on sunlight and water and subsequently dies that the person should not have a claim against JREF...assuming all the proper legal documents are signed etc. However, lawyers will take those documents and claim they were signed under duress or the person was not mentally stable and JREF should have known. The person's relatives make a wrongful death claim as well. If someone can win a judgement saying the coffee was too hot when driving with the coffee craddled between one's legs and getting burned--free will and common sense are no longer applicable. JREF would be vulnerable. The challenge is not designed to test legal issues and free will.

glenn

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

What "lies"?

I have just written it. Read post #22.

Quote:

Would you??

Sign the contracts and do your paranormal thing.

Quote:

Have those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason been unjustly denied their world record, yes or no?

What record were they trying to set?

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

duress or the person was not mentally stable

Definition of human is to reason; thinking rational and logical.
This can only be done by free will from a consciousness being.

Insanity is non-existent.

Or are you saying some mystical (paranormal) force suddenly takes over the body?

Hindmost · 30th July 2006, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Definition of human is to reason; thinking rational and logical.
This can only be done by free will from a consciousness being.

Insanity is non-existent.

Or are you saying some mystical (paranormal) force suddenly takes over the body?

You only a quoted a small portion of what I posted and what I was trying to address, however, I will try to respond. I was not implying any paranormal force taking over one's body and I did not mention insanity. There are mental conditions that can be diagnosed scientifically. People with such things as extreme depression or schizophernia would not be good candidates for the JREF challenge as their ability to make decisions is compromised.

glenn

Hypernicus · 30th July 2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

I did not mention insanity

You said: "not mentally stable", same thing.

Quote:

People with such things as extreme depression or schizophernia would not be good candidates for the JREF challenge as their ability to make decisions is compromised.

I have already posted about this in this thread.

Quote:

schizophernia

Self-inflicted.

About depression; it is a state of total hoplesness. It would mean they would not think about having paranormal talents. They see themselves as only a body without a non-physical soul. Spiritualists are living a more happier life than people who only looks at themselves as atoms or physical mass. This is something that can't create consciousness. People are lying to themselves. This cause psychoses and can end in anxiety and then depression and finally a very deep depression where everything has no meaning. If ones life didn't have any meaning then think about this: If there are no coincidence in natural laws everything happens for a reason that would mean every consciousness being are created for a purpose, the universe was in fact created for humans.

fuelair · 30th July 2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

They have "proves", but not according to James Randi. What happened?

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/vie...r=asc&start=15

I am getting a color.....reddish..bluish I see an M ... it's getting clearer....marine?...No! Maroon....no not quite it .....AHHH moron!!!

thaiboxerken · 30th July 2006, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will.

The thing is, the law doesn't agree with you, hyper. I agree with the philosophy, "If someone is stupid enough to kill themselves for a test, let them." However, current laws will prosecute all parties involved. That's something the JREF really doesn't need, they also probably don't want to be a party to suicide by delusion.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

I have just written it. Read post #22.

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will.

How is this a "lie" wrt JREF's legal issues?

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

Sign the contracts and do your paranormal thing.

That won't release you of your responsibility.

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

What record were they trying to set?

Something that would endanger their lives. Have those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason been unjustly denied their world record, yes or no?

steenkh · 30th July 2006, 12:09 PM

Apart from legalities, it would be a damning blow to JREF public relations if they let somebody kill or injure themselves in a test. Just imagine the headlines: "JREF sanctions suicide", "Skeptics leave deluded man to die".

thaiboxerken · 30th July 2006, 12:15 PM

Not only that, but if a person passed out due to starvation, was woken and fed, the woo-woos would complain that they prematurely stopped the test. There is no satisfying the bleevers.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by steenkh

Apart from legalities, it would be a damning blow to JREF public relations if they let somebody kill or injure themselves in a test. Just imagine the headlines: "JREF sanctions suicide", "Skeptics leave deluded man to die".

Perhaps that is why Hypernicus wants....?

Cyphermage · 30th July 2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Do you understand that, if tested, this guy could very well die?

And, that if he dies, there will be very serious repercussions for JREF?

So lock the guy in a room with just water. If he starts losing weight, he fails.

Doesn't sound very dangerous to me. No one ever died from dieting off 5-10 lbs. After it's over, he'll be thinner and smarter.

CFLarsen · 30th July 2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Cyphermage

So lock the guy in a room with just water. If he starts losing weight, he fails.

Doesn't sound very dangerous to me. No one ever died from dieting off 5-10 lbs. After it's over, he'll be thinner and smarter.

It could be done even easier, I agree: Just lock up the guy in a sealed room (with oxygen, of course!). If the temperature rises just a little bit, he is giving off more energy, and therefore, he will eventually starve.

You may be able to beat gravity, but to beat the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Can't be done, man.

Still, you won't get these wackos to agree to such a test, so testing them by starvation is not an option.

Hindmost · 30th July 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Hypernicus

You said: "not mentally stable", same thing.

I have already posted about this in this thread.

Self-inflicted.

About depression; it is a state of total hoplesness. It would mean they would not think about having paranormal talents. They see themselves as only a body without a non-physical soul. Spiritualists are living a more happier life than people who only looks at themselves as atoms or physical mass. This is something that can't create consciousness. People are lying to themselves. This cause psychoses and can end in anxiety and then depression and finally a very deep depression where everything has no meaning. If ones life didn't have any meaning then think about this: If there are no coincidence in natural laws everything happens for a reason that would mean every consciousness being are created for a purpose, the universe was in fact created for humans.

Alot for me to disagree with, but it is all off point. However, if you and I can't agree on what is and is not legally a problem for JREF, I think two lawyers on opposite sides of the challenge after an applicant didn't survive would be a quagmire.

glenn

30th July 2006, 02:04 AM	#1
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Astral Dynamics are sceptic about James Randi "judgements" They have "proves", but not according to James Randi. What happened? http://forums.astraldynamics.com/vie...r=asc&start=15
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Last edited by Hypernicus; 30th July 2006 at 04:02 AM.

30th July 2006, 02:21 AM	#3
skeptesthai New Blood Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2	1. Randi doesn't design the tests the experts agreed to by both parties do. Given the nature of the different phenomena that is tested the rules have to be different. The test for a dowser can't be the same as a test for a psychic. 2. The independent experts, once again chosen by both parties, are the ones that make the determination of success or failure. 3. From what I have seen James Randi is not even directly involved in developing most of the protocol. I'm sure he has input but it still has to be agreed to by BOTH parties involved. 4. If God did exist i'm sure he would win the JREF prize. He most likely wouldn't need it but it would be good publicity.
skeptesthai New Blood Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2

30th July 2006, 02:23 AM	#4
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 31,082	Yeah, almost every argument they made was demonstrably false. But that won't stop them.
	__________________ Help Give Our Friend Nobby A Voice The Fighting Skeptic (Arthwollipot's blog).

30th July 2006, 02:51 AM	#5
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: I wish you very well until you're banned. Because you will be banned. Statement without argument.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 03:45 AM	#7
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	It would be a hoax.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 02:13 AM	#2
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 31,082	The bit about people who have "passed" the challenge intrigues me. I'd like to see some evidence of that. I wish you very well until you're banned. Because you will be banned.
	__________________ Help Give Our Friend Nobby A Voice The Fighting Skeptic (Arthwollipot's blog).

30th July 2006, 03:34 AM	#6
ARubberChickenWithAPulley Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,024	From one of the replies, this stuck out: Quote: 1. Randi designs the 'tests' individually for each applicant only after he knows what they claim to be able to do Aside from the fact that Randi doesn't design anything, Uhh... what is this guy's point here? The test should be designed before they know what the claim is? How in the world would you do that.

30th July 2006, 03:51 AM	#8
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 12,031	Originally Posted by skeptesthai 2. The independent experts, once again chosen by both parties, are the ones that make the determination of success or failure. I believe that this is wrong, the tests are set up in such a way that no judging is required, certainly no expert judging, the results should be self evident. Both sides agree beforehand as to what would constitute success or failure, and the tests are recorded so that afterward there can be no argument (from reasonable people). Other than that minor nitpick, excellent post, skeptesthai, welcome to the forum
	__________________ This toilet is not a designated bomb shelter.

30th July 2006, 05:03 AM	#9
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Why isn't everyone who has something to "prove" allowed to do so? Here is one example that was rejected: http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm The Letter from James Randi (link on page above): http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 05:35 AM	#10
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 31,082	Originally Posted by Hypernicus Statement without argument. Well, that's the normal process, isn't it? They argue with you until they realise that you're making complete sense, which they can't cope with, so they ban you. I really do hope that you can convince them that they're wrong about Randi, I honestly do. But I don't think it'll happen. Pity, really.
	__________________ Help Give Our Friend Nobby A Voice The Fighting Skeptic (Arthwollipot's blog).

30th July 2006, 06:17 AM	#11
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus Why isn't everyone who has something to "prove" allowed to do so? Here is one example that was rejected: http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm The Letter from James Randi (link on page above): http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm Do you understand that, if tested, this guy could very well die? And, that if he dies, there will be very serious repercussions for JREF?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 06:56 AM	#12
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: Do you understand that, if tested, this guy could very well die? So? Quote: And, that if he dies, there will be very serious repercussions for JREF? Why? He came by his own free will, no one forced him? Or are you saying some paranormal activity took over his free will?
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 07:28 AM	#13
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus So? Why? He came by his own free will, no one forced him? Or are you saying some paranormal activity took over his free will? Not at all. It isn't just a question of free will, JREF also has a responsibility. Do you understand this?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 07:51 AM	#14
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: It isn't just a question of free will, JREF also has a responsibility. Do you understand this? Responsibility suppose free will. If someone ignores the fact they can die by doing something it is their own fault. If they want to do something that can harm themselves, and no one else, it is their right to do so. No one has the right to force them to think or do otherwise.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 08:04 AM	#15
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Astral Dynamics chickened out. Case closed.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 08:05 AM	#16
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus Responsibility suppose free will. If someone ignores the fact they can die by doing something it is their own fault. If they want to do something that can harm themselves, and no one else, it is their right to do so. No one has the right to force them to think or do otherwise. That's where you are wrong, buddy. Do yourself a favor and read that carefully.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 08:20 AM	#17
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	What is your argument, that the world are psychopaths neglecting ones free will?
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 08:37 AM	#18
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus What is your argument, that the world are psychopaths neglecting ones free will? No, that you can be held responsible if you are able to prevent injury in others, but don't take action to prevent it. Did you read the link at all?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 08:53 AM	#19
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: No, that you can be held responsible if you are able to prevent injury in others, but don't take action to prevent it. Are you lying by saying the participant is not aware of the fact he might die during his attempt? If that is his choice by knowing the fact he can die, no one has the right to stop him from doing so. It would be psychotic using force against anyones will as long as it doesn't hurt others, it can only hurt himself and he is fully aware of it.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 08:57 AM	#20
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus Are you lying by saying the participant is not aware of the fact he might die during his attempt? If that is his choice by knowing the fact he can die, no one has the right to stop him from doing so. It would be psychotic using force against anyones will as long as it doesn't hurt others, it can only hurt himself and he is fully aware of it. The participant can be as aware as possible. That is not the point. Have you read the link, yes or no? Can you explain, in brief, what the gist is?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 09:29 AM	#21
RayG Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,945	Originally Posted by CFLarsen Do you understand that, if tested, this guy could very well die? Originally Posted by Hypernicus So? Originally Posted by CFLarsen And, that if he dies, there will be very serious repercussions for JREF? Originally Posted by Hypernicus Why? He came by his own free will, no one forced him? Or are you saying some paranormal activity took over his free will? You need to carefully read over the 1 Million Challenge pages, especially this. Quote: 2.4. Why the limitation on things that might injure me? Essentially, the JREF doesn't want to be seen as even slightly condoning self-injury or injury to others. It has partly to do with legal issues, partly to do with the image of the JREF, and partly to do with the JREF's past experiences with applicants. Most of the applications that are self-injurious involve living for extended periods of time without eating, or stopping the use of prescribed medications, and the evidence gathered over millennia is pretty strong that the human body does indeed die after a prolonged period without food. There is also ample evidence to prove that a diabetic who stops taking their insulin will most certainly die or suffer serious internal damage if they stop taking it. It should be no surprise to you that many such claims are submitted. No test that involves potential injury to the applicant or test participants can be accepted. In Randi's own words: 'A test of [someone who says he doesn't need to eat] would occupy much more of my time than I'm willing to invest, and it would only feed the arsenal of those who love to accuse us of investigating only the easy cases. As soon as that test would be completed, another similar one would pop up, and we'd be off again -- "You tested him, why won't you test me?"' [6] Sounds like the same type of starvation demonstration would be rejected by the Guinness World Record people. Quote: "What kind of records should I NOT* try to break?"* Guinness World Records receives around 60,000 record claims each year, and it's obviously impossible for us to accept everything that’s sent to us.Some record suggestions are, frankly, far too dangerous for us accept, especially if there is risk to spectators and members of the public as well as the individual participant(s). Others are simply not enough of a challenge, too specific to an individual, or unbreakable. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

30th July 2006, 09:36 AM	#22
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 09:40 AM	#23
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will. So, you believe that those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason are unjustly denied their world record?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 09:41 AM	#24
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: legal issues, Based on lies. Quote: partly to do with the image of the JREF, JREF does not want to deal with experiments that can cause to dying. Quote: and partly to do with the JREF's past experiences with applicants. I can only guess, they all went wrong, because most people can't reason and denies facts.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 09:42 AM	#25
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: unjustly denied their world record? They are desperates for fame and money, because no one has proven anything.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 10:04 AM	#26
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus Based on lies. What "lies"? Originally Posted by Hypernicus JREF does not want to deal with experiments that can cause to dying. Would you?? Originally Posted by Hypernicus They are desperates for fame and money, because no one has proven anything. That is beside the point: Have those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason been unjustly denied their world record, yes or no?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 10:43 AM	#27
Hindmost Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 2,834	Originally Posted by Hypernicus You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will. Free will is fine in theory...but when lawyers get involved, free will can become a gray area. I agree if someone takes the JREF challenge such as living on sunlight and water and subsequently dies that the person should not have a claim against JREF...assuming all the proper legal documents are signed etc. However, lawyers will take those documents and claim they were signed under duress or the person was not mentally stable and JREF should have known. The person's relatives make a wrongful death claim as well. If someone can win a judgement saying the coffee was too hot when driving with the coffee craddled between one's legs and getting burned--free will and common sense are no longer applicable. JREF would be vulnerable. The challenge is not designed to test legal issues and free will. glenn
	__________________ Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. Carl Sagan

30th July 2006, 10:56 AM	#28
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: What "lies"? I have just written it. Read post #22. Quote: Would you?? Sign the contracts and do your paranormal thing. Quote: Have those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason been unjustly denied their world record, yes or no? What record were they trying to set?
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 10:59 AM	#29
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: duress or the person was not mentally stable Definition of human is to reason; thinking rational and logical. This can only be done by free will from a consciousness being. Insanity is non-existent. Or are you saying some mystical (paranormal) force suddenly takes over the body?
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 11:24 AM	#30
Hindmost Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Draco Tavern Posts: 2,834	Originally Posted by Hypernicus Definition of human is to reason; thinking rational and logical. This can only be done by free will from a consciousness being. Insanity is non-existent. Or are you saying some mystical (paranormal) force suddenly takes over the body? You only a quoted a small portion of what I posted and what I was trying to address, however, I will try to respond. I was not implying any paranormal force taking over one's body and I did not mention insanity. There are mental conditions that can be diagnosed scientifically. People with such things as extreme depression or schizophernia would not be good candidates for the JREF challenge as their ability to make decisions is compromised. glenn
	__________________ Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong. Carl Sagan

30th July 2006, 11:40 AM	#31
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96	Quote: I did not mention insanity You said: "not mentally stable", same thing. Quote: People with such things as extreme depression or schizophernia would not be good candidates for the JREF challenge as their ability to make decisions is compromised. I have already posted about this in this thread. Quote: schizophernia Self-inflicted. About depression; it is a state of total hoplesness. It would mean they would not think about having paranormal talents. They see themselves as only a body without a non-physical soul. Spiritualists are living a more happier life than people who only looks at themselves as atoms or physical mass. This is something that can't create consciousness. People are lying to themselves. This cause psychoses and can end in anxiety and then depression and finally a very deep depression where everything has no meaning. If ones life didn't have any meaning then think about this: If there are no coincidence in natural laws everything happens for a reason that would mean every consciousness being are created for a purpose, the universe was in fact created for humans.
Hypernicus Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 96

30th July 2006, 11:48 AM	#32
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,126	Originally Posted by Hypernicus They have "proves", but not according to James Randi. What happened? http://forums.astraldynamics.com/vie...r=asc&start=15 I am getting a color.....reddish..bluish I see an M ... it's getting clearer....marine?...No! Maroon....no not quite it .....AHHH moron!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,126

30th July 2006, 11:52 AM	#33
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 14,728	Originally Posted by Hypernicus You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will. The thing is, the law doesn't agree with you, hyper. I agree with the philosophy, "If someone is stupid enough to kill themselves for a test, let them." However, current laws will prosecute all parties involved. That's something the JREF really doesn't need, they also probably don't want to be a party to suicide by delusion.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

30th July 2006, 11:53 AM	#34
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by Hypernicus I have just written it. Read post #22. Originally Posted by Hypernicus You are of the oppinion that you have to think and make choices for others, even though they are aware of the whole scenario. A clear example of denying others excerise of free will. How is this a "lie" wrt JREF's legal issues? Originally Posted by Hypernicus Sign the contracts and do your paranormal thing. That won't release you of your responsibility. Originally Posted by Hypernicus What record were they trying to set? Something that would endanger their lives. Have those turned down by the Guinness Book of Records for this reason been unjustly denied their world record, yes or no?
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th July 2006, 12:09 PM	#35
steenkh Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 2,834	Apart from legalities, it would be a damning blow to JREF public relations if they let somebody kill or injure themselves in a test. Just imagine the headlines: "JREF sanctions suicide", "Skeptics leave deluded man to die".
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!