Religions > Atheism > Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Son of man" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2004 12:32:03 PM |
| Object: |
Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because I'm
applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted results.
Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will try at some
time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to think
of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum containing
the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled out (e.g.
five), and embedded within some other text, with even other numbers spelled
out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it down to
at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically? Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
--
"The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent." Brad Rogers
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/TheWordOfGod_1.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 02:44:02 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm
applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted results.
What do the future motions of pingpong balls have to
do with memory?
Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will try at
some
time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think
of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum containing
the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled out (e.g.
five), and embedded within some other text, with even other numbers
spelled
out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it down
to
at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically?
How could you say that your divination was specifically based
on the person's memory when the information was
also stored in a file?
Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
Yes, this would be an interesting and easy test too
(later after the Florida CA$H 3 test).
One could easily create a sentence like:
"The number is not seven not two it is three it is not nine."
Giving an MD5 checksum like:
f62fd9eeb340d2bfc19bc0538a3e038a
Here is a checksum for a similar sentence (kept secret):
c8675a2bd2819e3ad47483d53bc52a77
--
RB
aa#2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 03:35:43 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <jose@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:6wsVc.12770$Qa4.1269@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm
applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted results.
What do the future motions of pingpong balls have to
do with memory?
You're right and that's why I decided not to prove that there is a spiritual
realm by going the way of memories, but rather knowledge of the future.
Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will try at
some
time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think
of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum containing
the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled out (e.g.
five), and embedded within some other text, with even other numbers
spelled
out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either
the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it down
to
at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically?
How could you say that your divination was specifically based
on the person's memory when the information was
also stored in a file?
Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
Yes, this would be an interesting and easy test too
(later after the Florida CA$H 3 test).
One could easily create a sentence like:
"The number is not seven not two it is three it is not nine."
Giving an MD5 checksum like:
f62fd9eeb340d2bfc19bc0538a3e038a
Here is a checksum for a similar sentence (kept secret):
c8675a2bd2819e3ad47483d53bc52a77
Yeah, but ya got me to admit already that I'm not reading anyone's memories
actually, but rather it still depended upon a future-based perception of
knowing if I chose his digit right or wrong, same as the outcome of the
"random" future event of the Florida Cash 3 drawings.
--
RB
aa#2187
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 12:44:59 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted
results. Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will
try at some time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum
containing the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled
out (e.g. five), and embedded within some other text, with even other
numbers spelled out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number
you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it down
to at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically? Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
In other words, you claimed there was some method of probablity that could
be applied to random events. Now we've taken the random probability theory
out of the way. If someone can tell you what's in your head, how do account
for them being able to consistently be correct in revealing something about
that knowledge only you had physical access to? I just want to know ahead of
time what your explanation would be?
--
"The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent." Brad Rogers
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/TheWordOfGod_1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 12:46:23 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dMqVc.1246$%n4.334@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted
results. Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will
try at some time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum
containing the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled
out (e.g. five), and embedded within some other text, with even other
numbers spelled out, but in the text you make it clear which is the
number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either
the exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it
down to at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically? Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
In other words, you claimed there was some method of probablity that could
be applied to random events. Now we've taken the random probability theory
out of the way. If someone can tell you what's in your head,
mind you, EVEN though we're still limiting your possible choice to a known
finite set,
how do you account for them being able to consistently be correct in
revealing something about that knowledge only you had physical access to?
I just want to know ahead of time what your explanation would be?
--
"The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent." Brad Rogers
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/TheWordOfGod_1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 01:57:38 PM |
|
|
In article <xNqVc.1310$%n4.739@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dMqVc.1246$%n4.334@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted
results. Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will
try at some time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum
containing the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled
out (e.g. five), and embedded within some other text, with even other
numbers spelled out, but in the text you make it clear which is the
number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either
the exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it
down to at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically? Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
In other words, you claimed there was some method of probablity that could
be applied to random events. Now we've taken the random probability theory
out of the way. If someone can tell you what's in your head,
mind you, EVEN though we're still limiting your possible choice to a known
finite set,
See, that's the spoiler. *Real* clairvoyance would not need to impose
such arbitrary conditions--if it's really there, and you can really
"see" it, then you don't need to require that we only ask for such
tightly constrained selections of detail. You wouldn't insist that life
after death is restricted only to an awareness of possible choices from
a small, finite set of numbers, would you?
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 02:13:26 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-088C5A.14573820082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <xNqVc.1310$%n4.739@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:dMqVc.1246$%n4.334@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently
make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings,
that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically
because
I'm applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted
results. Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we
will
try at some time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum
containing the number you're thinking of which you post publicly,
spelled
out (e.g. five), and embedded within some other text, with even other
numbers spelled out, but in the text you make it clear which is the
number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either
the exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows
it
down to at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically? Since I had no possible access to your physical
brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other
digits
spelled out as well?
In other words, you claimed there was some method of probablity that
could
be applied to random events. Now we've taken the random probability
theory
out of the way. If someone can tell you what's in your head,
mind you, EVEN though we're still limiting your possible choice to a
known
finite set,
See, that's the spoiler. *Real* clairvoyance would not need to impose
such arbitrary conditions--if it's really there, and you can really
I never claimed it was clairvoyance Mark. Just the ability to know something
which you know of a finite set of possibilities. See my response to someone
else's question in this same conversation for more details on my limitations
and why I have them.
"see" it, then you don't need to require that we only ask for such
tightly constrained selections of detail. You wouldn't insist that life
after death is restricted only to an awareness of possible choices from
a small, finite set of numbers, would you?
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 03:19:22 PM |
|
|
In article <93sVc.1783$%n4.771@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
mind you, EVEN though we're still limiting your possible choice to a
known
finite set,
See, that's the spoiler. *Real* clairvoyance would not need to impose
such arbitrary conditions--if it's really there, and you can really
I never claimed it was clairvoyance Mark.
Not by name, but that's the phenomenon you are describing: the ability
to perceive something via extra-sensory perception.
Just the ability to know something
which you know of a finite set of possibilities. See my response to someone
else's question in this same conversation for more details on my limitations
and why I have them.
The thing is, it's not knowledge until after you perceive it. Once you
perceive it, even if you perceive it via ESP, then you can know what you
have perceived. But with such a tightly-constrained demo as you have
devised, it needn't necessarily even be ESP. If you know a trick I
don't, then you can amaze me the way stage magicians do, and I will be
equally unable to explain how you did it, but that doesn't mean that no
natural explanation exists.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 01:54:48 PM |
|
|
In article <dMqVc.1246$%n4.334@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted
results. Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will
try at some time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum
containing the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled
out (e.g. five), and embedded within some other text, with even other
numbers spelled out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number
you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it down
to at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically? Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
In other words, you claimed there was some method of probablity that could
be applied to random events. Now we've taken the random probability theory
out of the way. If someone can tell you what's in your head, how do account
for them being able to consistently be correct in revealing something about
that knowledge only you had physical access to? I just want to know ahead of
time what your explanation would be?
I can't even explain what Penn and Teller do on stage, but that doesn't
mean they really do magic. Mind reading tricks have been a staple of
stage magic for centuries. Like I said, if you can do the trick, that
might convince the superstitious, but really, the most you could hope
for would be to prove that you have some kind of extra-sensory
perception, not that knowledge and memory are stored non-physically.
The ability to *perceive* non-physically, even if such could be done,
does not prove anything about how your perceptions are *stored* after
you perceive them.
Mark
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 02:14:27 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-E7E1E2.14544820082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <dMqVc.1246$%n4.334@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently
make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted
results. Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we
will
try at some time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum
containing the number you're thinking of which you post publicly,
spelled
out (e.g. five), and embedded within some other text, with even other
numbers spelled out, but in the text you make it clear which is the
number
you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either
the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it
down
to at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically? Since I had no possible access to your physical
brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
In other words, you claimed there was some method of probablity that
could
be applied to random events. Now we've taken the random probability
theory
out of the way. If someone can tell you what's in your head, how do
account
for them being able to consistently be correct in revealing something
about
that knowledge only you had physical access to? I just want to know ahead
of
time what your explanation would be?
I can't even explain what Penn and Teller do on stage, but that doesn't
mean they really do magic. Mind reading tricks have been a staple of
stage magic for centuries. Like I said, if you can do the trick, that
might convince the superstitious, but really, the most you could hope
for would be to prove that you have some kind of extra-sensory
perception, not that knowledge and memory are stored non-physically.
The ability to *perceive* non-physically,
Then how are they percieved? That's what I want you to explain, forget how
they are stored after they are perceived for now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 03:23:16 PM |
|
|
In article <54sVc.1789$%n4.461@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I can't even explain what Penn and Teller do on stage, but that doesn't
mean they really do magic. Mind reading tricks have been a staple of
stage magic for centuries. Like I said, if you can do the trick, that
might convince the superstitious, but really, the most you could hope
for would be to prove that you have some kind of extra-sensory
perception, not that knowledge and memory are stored non-physically.
The ability to *perceive* non-physically,
Then how are they percieved? That's what I want you to explain, forget how
they are stored after they are perceived for now.
I can't even explain what Penn and Teller do. My ability or inability
to explain every trick is not a measure of whether the trick is an
actual supernatural phenomenon or not. But the demonstration you
propose has all the marks of being a carefully contrived trick--the
narrow and apparently arbitrary preconditions, the limited range of
possible outcomes, the "setup", etc. Entertaining perhaps, and possibly
convincing to the superstitious, but not really consistent with the
characteristics that genuine ESP might be expected to exhibit.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 01:50:09 PM |
|
|
In article <5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because I'm
applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted results.
Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will try at some
time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to think
of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum containing
the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled out (e.g.
five), and embedded within some other text, with even other numbers spelled
out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it down to
at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically?
Simple: clairvoyance is a form of extra-sensory perception, not
knowledge or memory. Demonstrating clairvoyance has nothing to do with
demonstrating anything about how knowledge/memories are stored once they
are obtained. At most, you'd only be showing a "mystical" (i.e.
non-obvious) means of obtaining it.
Since I had no possible access to your physical brain,
and we agree that it is impossible to break the HD5 secure checksum in
coming up with your chosen digit within text that has many other digits
spelled out as well?
Hey, if you want to give that a shot, I'll be glad to play. Could be
fun. But it's still irrelevant to the fact that knowledge and memory
are functions of the physical brain, and are clearly directly impacted
by physical factors such as disease, drugs, and damage to the tissues.
The right physical conditions (healthy human brain uninjured and
unmedicated) are both necessary and sufficient in order for memory and
knowledge to occur. As the physical condition of the brain diminishes,
as in Alzheimer's, the functions of knowledge and memory diminish in
proportion, with no sign of any support from a "spiritual" knowledge and
memory.
Number-guessing tricks are entertaining, and might even be convincing to
the superstitious, but even if you pull off your tricks, you're still
miles away from demonstrating that there's anything remotely resembling
the kind of persistence of conscious, memory, and thought that you claim
survives death. Even assuming that when you die, you continue to exist
as some kind of awareness of single digit numbers, that ain't heaven by
a long shot.
You want to demonstrate a "spiritual" consciousness that can perceive
the real world without being bound to your physical nature? Then tell
us all where Osama is hiding. Peek into the future to see what new
attacks are being planned against innocent people, and warn us about
them in time to prevent them--you did say the future can be changed.
Give us a *real* demonstration of supernatural powers, and keep
repeating it consistently, and maybe you will provide us with some
actual evidence that there might be a supernatural realm, or at least a
previously unsuspected aspect of reality that science thus far has not
explored. Stage magic and mind-reading tricks aren't really going to
prove anything, except to the superstitious.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God everyone
sees, and about Alethian faith and practice.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 02:16:31 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-462908.14500920082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm
applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted results.
Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will try at
some
time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think
of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum containing
the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled out (e.g.
five), and embedded within some other text, with even other numbers
spelled
out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either
the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it down
to
at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically?
Simple: clairvoyance is a form of extra-sensory perception,
And is if it is not a physical perception, then what is it? Because we don't
know HOW the knowledge is physcially stored in your brain, right? So even if
I had physical access to your brain, I still wouldn't know what you knew,
right?
So if it's not a physical perception, what type of perception is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 02:37:09 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:26sVc.1800$%n4.1481@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-462908.14500920082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <5AqVc.849$%n4.752@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
You claimed that even if I was able to successfully and consistently
make
predictions of a random event such as the Florida Cash 3 drawings, that
still wouldn't be proof that memories are not stored physically because
I'm
applying some method, even if mystical, to derive the predicted results.
Even though I don't agree with you, how about this which we will try at
some
time *afterwards* :
Instead of predicting a future random event, how about if I ask you to
think
of a number between 1 and 10. And you generate an MD5 checksum
containing
the number you're thinking of which you post publicly, spelled out (e.g.
five), and embedded within some other text, with even other numbers
spelled
out, but in the text you make it clear which is the number you chose.
I will then take a week, after which I will be able to tell you either
the
exactnumber you were thinking of, or give you a set which narrows it
down to
at most 2 digits outofthe possible 10.
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically?
Simple: clairvoyance is a form of extra-sensory perception,
And is if it is not a physical perception, then what is it? Because we
don't know HOW the knowledge is physcially stored in your brain, right? So
even if I had physical access to your brain, I still wouldn't know what
you knew, right?
So if it's not a physical perception, what type of perception is it?
And let me just clarify once and for all, it is a future-based perception.
In other words, Mark, the reason I can tell you the digit you created the
secure MD5 checksum for, is not because I can actually read your mind, but
rather it's based on my ability to know when I reveal to you a particluar
"digit" in the future, if you will say yes that's it, or no, that's not it.
So although I could lie and tell you I am directly reading your mind, that's
not the case at all. It is still a future-based perception.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 03:31:28 PM |
|
|
In article <26sVc.1800$%n4.1481@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically?
Simple: clairvoyance is a form of extra-sensory perception,
And is if it is not a physical perception, then what is it?
That's a different question. I was answering the question you posted:
if you can consistently perceive things non-physically, then how can
knowledge/memory be stored physically. Simple: perception is not
memory. If you use ESP to predict the future, and write down your
predictions on a piece of paper, the non-physical nature of your
perceptions would not mean that the paper on which you recorded them was
non-physical. Perceiving, and recording the perceptions, are two
different things.
Because we don't
know HOW the knowledge is physcially stored in your brain, right? So even if
I had physical access to your brain, I still wouldn't know what you knew,
right?
So if it's not a physical perception, what type of perception is it?
It might not be a perception at all--it might be just a trick. It might
not even happen--so far we're only talking about the *possibility* of it
happening. There is no flawless string of accurate predictions to
explain as yet.
Even assuming that you can demonstrate a flawless string of accurate
predictions, it would be superstitious to jump to the conclusion that
supernatural forces must be involved. It would certainly be an
interesting phenomenon to study scientifically, even though it falls far
short of the characteristics genuine Extra-Sensory Perception ought to
have. You're not the first person to claim to have it, but so far no
controlled studies have been able to confirm that there's any more to it
than the power of suggestion and the subject's ability to misdirect and
control the perceptions of his audience.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 03:37:16 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-9826E2.16312820082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <26sVc.1800$%n4.1481@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
If I can consistently do this, how then could knowledge or memories be
stored physically?
Simple: clairvoyance is a form of extra-sensory perception,
And is if it is not a physical perception, then what is it?
That's a different question. I was answering the question you posted:
if you can consistently perceive things non-physically, then how can
knowledge/memory be stored physically. Simple: perception is not
memory. If you use ESP to predict the future, and write down your
predictions on a piece of paper, the non-physical nature of your
perceptions would not mean that the paper on which you recorded them was
non-physical. Perceiving, and recording the perceptions, are two
different things.
Because we don't
know HOW the knowledge is physcially stored in your brain, right? So even
if
I had physical access to your brain, I still wouldn't know what you knew,
right?
So if it's not a physical perception, what type of perception is it?
It might not be a perception at all--it might be just a trick. It might
not even happen--so far we're only talking about the *possibility* of it
happening. There is no flawless string of accurate predictions to
explain as yet.
Even assuming that you can demonstrate a flawless string of accurate
predictions, it would be superstitious to jump to the conclusion that
supernatural forces must be involved. It would certainly be an
interesting phenomenon to study scientifically, even though it falls far
short of the characteristics genuine Extra-Sensory Perception ought to
have. You're not the first person to claim to have it, but so far no
controlled studies have been able to confirm that there's any more to it
than the power of suggestion and the subject's ability to misdirect and
control the perceptions of his audience.
Defitinitely not the case here. Since I have absolutely no control over them
lotto balls!
:)
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 04:35:46 PM |
|
|
In article <LhtVc.2289$%n4.260@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Even assuming that you can demonstrate a flawless string of accurate
predictions, it would be superstitious to jump to the conclusion that
supernatural forces must be involved. It would certainly be an
interesting phenomenon to study scientifically, even though it falls far
short of the characteristics genuine Extra-Sensory Perception ought to
have. You're not the first person to claim to have it, but so far no
controlled studies have been able to confirm that there's any more to it
than the power of suggestion and the subject's ability to misdirect and
control the perceptions of his audience.
Defitinitely not the case here. Since I have absolutely no control over them
lotto balls!
Well, let's see how this plays out, and see if there are any other
variables besides the pingpongs.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 04:39:23 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-1683F9.17354620082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <LhtVc.2289$%n4.260@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Even assuming that you can demonstrate a flawless string of accurate
predictions, it would be superstitious to jump to the conclusion that
supernatural forces must be involved. It would certainly be an
interesting phenomenon to study scientifically, even though it falls
far
short of the characteristics genuine Extra-Sensory Perception ought to
have. You're not the first person to claim to have it, but so far no
controlled studies have been able to confirm that there's any more to
it
than the power of suggestion and the subject's ability to misdirect and
control the perceptions of his audience.
Defitinitely not the case here. Since I have absolutely no control over
them
lotto balls!
Well, let's see how this plays out, and see if there are any other
variables besides the pingpongs.
Which is why, after the pingpongs, it will be you who decides the digit. Are
you claiming now, that if I successfuly and consistently predict the digit
you chose that I some how suggested to you the digits to choose?
Heck, that would be an ever greater power than merely telling you what digit
you chose, as now you're saying I have the power to impose my will upon
yours! And that indeed would be the more impressive :)
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 05:29:23 PM |
|
|
In article <ZbuVc.2705$%n4.1978@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Which is why, after the pingpongs, it will be you who decides the digit. Are
you claiming now, that if I successfuly and consistently predict the digit
you chose that I some how suggested to you the digits to choose?
Heck, that would be an ever greater power than merely telling you what digit
you chose, as now you're saying I have the power to impose my will upon
yours! And that indeed would be the more impressive :)
We'll see.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 05:34:46 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-4AC179.18292320082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <ZbuVc.2705$%n4.1978@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Which is why, after the pingpongs, it will be you who decides the digit.
Are
you claiming now, that if I successfuly and consistently predict the
digit
you chose that I some how suggested to you the digits to choose?
Heck, that would be an ever greater power than merely telling you what
digit
you chose, as now you're saying I have the power to impose my will upon
yours! And that indeed would be the more impressive :)
We'll see.
Mark! Did you see my other message asking you to create a post to
alt.atheism,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy with subject "Prediction for 8/23/2004
MD5 checksum request" and in the body you will supply the first line which
I am to use in combination with my prediction line to produce the checksum?
I'm just trying to make it more scam proof having you provide the first
line, instead of me.
Do you agree, or do I need to get someone else? I also want it done this way
so it would be in the google archives.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 06:34:21 PM |
|
|
In article <V%uVc.3173$%n4.1112@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Did you see my other message asking you to create a post to
alt.atheism,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy with subject "Prediction for 8/23/2004
MD5 checksum request" and in the body you will supply the first line which
I am to use in combination with my prediction line to produce the checksum?
I'm just trying to make it more scam proof having you provide the first
line, instead of me.
That's not necessary. As long as you publish the first line before
drawing, the MD5 algorithm is robust enough that it adds nothing to have
me supply the first line. If you really want something of mine, take
any line from any of the material I've already posted, or my .sig if you
prefer.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God everyone
sees, and about Alethian faith and practice.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 06:45:46 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-9DBD57.19342120082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <V%uVc.3173$%n4.1112@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Did you see my other message asking you to create a post to
alt.atheism,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy with subject "Prediction for
8/23/2004
MD5 checksum request" and in the body you will supply the first line
which
I am to use in combination with my prediction line to produce the
checksum?
I'm just trying to make it more scam proof having you provide the first
line, instead of me.
That's not necessary.
Of course not, but it just makes it look all cool and *****.
Will you do it? If not I'll ask someone else. Why wouldn't you want to do
it? It'll make me feel better about it.
Let me know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 07:02:18 PM |
|
|
In article <t2wVc.3789$%n4.244@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-9DBD57.19342120082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <V%uVc.3173$%n4.1112@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Did you see my other message asking you to create a post to
alt.atheism,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy with subject "Prediction for
8/23/2004
MD5 checksum request" and in the body you will supply the first line
which
I am to use in combination with my prediction line to produce the
checksum?
I'm just trying to make it more scam proof having you provide the first
line, instead of me.
That's not necessary.
Of course not, but it just makes it look all cool and *****.
Will you do it? If not I'll ask someone else. Why wouldn't you want to do
it? It'll make me feel better about it.
Let me know.
Because it's a classic charlatan's trick--get the "mark" (no pun
intended) to take some action that appears to reduce the possibility of
a trick, but without actually doing anything to keep the actual trick
from working. Theatrics for theatrics' sake tends to underwhelm me.
Plus I'm getting bored--every time it seems like you should be ready to
make your prediction, there's some other additional preliminary you want
someone else to go through. Are we ever going to get to the part where
you actually make your prediction?
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 07:10:03 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-97E606.20021820082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <t2wVc.3789$%n4.244@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-9DBD57.19342120082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <V%uVc.3173$%n4.1112@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Did you see my other message asking you to create a post to
alt.atheism,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy with subject "Prediction for
8/23/2004
MD5 checksum request" and in the body you will supply the first line
which
I am to use in combination with my prediction line to produce the
checksum?
I'm just trying to make it more scam proof having you provide the
first
line, instead of me.
That's not necessary.
Of course not, but it just makes it look all cool and *****.
Will you do it? If not I'll ask someone else. Why wouldn't you want to do
it? It'll make me feel better about it.
Let me know.
Because it's a classic charlatan's trick--get the "mark" (no pun
intended) to take some action that appears to reduce the possibility of
a trick, but without actually doing anything to keep the actual trick
Trick, huh?
You know this is hypcorisy in action here. I asked you to do something
because I just wanted it to look cool. Now you're saying that my asking you
to produce the firstline is somehow making my task EASIER?
Listen, the hypocrisy is this. When a theist tells you something and you ask
him to prove it and he doesn't you say he's full of *****, right?
Now I'm asking you to prove this is some form of trickery. If you can't
prove it, then you agree that you are either full of *****, or that there are
some things which cannot be proven but which you're taking on mere faith,
i.e. despite the event KNOWN to be random and the MD5 checksum generated
KNOWN to be impossible to spoof predictions, you are still acting on some
IMPOSSIBLE faith that I am up to some trickery! What possible trick is there
left?
from working. Theatrics for theatrics' sake tends to underwhelm me.
Plus I'm getting bored--every time it seems like you should be ready to
make your prediction, there's some other additional preliminary you want
someone else to go through. Are we ever going to get to the part where
you actually make your prediction?
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 07:22:25 PM |
|
|
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:epwVc.3996$%n4.3747@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-97E606.20021820082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <t2wVc.3789$%n4.244@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-9DBD57.19342120082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <V%uVc.3173$%n4.1112@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Did you see my other message asking you to create a post to
alt.atheism,alt.buddha.short.fat.guy with subject "Prediction for
8/23/2004
MD5 checksum request" and in the body you will supply the first line
which
I am to use in combination with my prediction line to produce the
checksum?
I'm just trying to make it more scam proof having you provide the
first
line, instead of me.
That's not necessary.
Of course not, but it just makes it look all cool and *****.
Will you do it? If not I'll ask someone else. Why wouldn't you want to
do
it? It'll make me feel better about it.
Let me know.
Because it's a classic charlatan's trick--get the "mark" (no pun
intended) to take some action that appears to reduce the possibility of
a trick, but without actually doing anything to keep the actual trick
Trick, huh?
You know this is hypcorisy in action here. I asked you to do something
because I just wanted it to look cool. Now you're saying that my asking
you to produce the firstline is somehow making my task EASIER?
Listen, the hypocrisy is this. When a theist tells you something and you
ask him to prove it and he doesn't you say he's full of *****, right?
Now I'm asking you to prove this is some form of trickery. If you can't
prove it, then you agree that you are either full of *****, or that there
are some things which cannot be proven but which you're taking on mere
faith, i.e. despite the event KNOWN to be random and the MD5 checksum
generated KNOWN to be impossible to spoof predictions, you are still
acting on some IMPOSSIBLE faith that I am up to some trickery! What
possible trick is there left?
from working. Theatrics for theatrics' sake tends to underwhelm me.
Plus I'm getting bored--every time it seems like you should be ready to
make your prediction, there's some other additional preliminary you want
someone else to go through.
Untrue, I have already posted the prediction in a cryptmage file on my
website which I will also be supporting in addition to the MD5 checksum. See
how you're beginning to stray from the truth now?
Are we ever going to get to the part where
you actually make your prediction?
I'll take that as a 'no' because of your unfounded paranoia.
So I'll just do it myself, tomorrow. I'm thinking I will provide another
part of the prediction using the MD5 checksum tomorrow. Meaning when you
combine both the cryptmage and the MD5 predictions, it would be an even
greater return, e.g. one digit in each.
So I'll post the 1st sentence and the MD5 checksum tomorrow in a new thread.
The cryptmage file containing the minor predition for the date is also still
here :
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/08232004.txt.mag
And the program used to decrypt the file after I supply the password :
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/h/Christ-Son-of-Buddha/cryptmage5.zip
So let this be a lesson to you in having a reason to believe in something
UNREASONABLE, because there is absolutely no possible "trick" or "scam" to
what I am doing given the fact I have no control over the lotto balls
whatsoever and that I cannot contrive new checksums that would keep the same
1st sentence intact while producing the correct prediction. Nothing I do,
with the execption of revealing the outcome beforehand which could interfere
with the chain of events, is going to change the outcome. Period.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 08:26:35 PM |
|
|
In article <QAwVc.4101$%n4.2226@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Plus I'm getting bored--every time it seems like you should be ready to
make your prediction, there's some other additional preliminary you want
someone else to go through.
Untrue, I have already posted the prediction in a cryptmage file on my
website which I will also be supporting in addition to the MD5 checksum. See
how you're beginning to stray from the truth now?
Ah, I wasn't aware of that--must of missed that announcement. Is that
in this thread?
Are we ever going to get to the part where
you actually make your prediction?
I'll take that as a 'no' because of your unfounded paranoia.
On the contrary, I'll be delighted to see your predictions. Exactly
which drawing is this for again?
So let this be a lesson to you in having a reason to believe in something
UNREASONABLE, because there is absolutely no possible "trick" or "scam" to
what I am doing given the fact I have no control over the lotto balls
whatsoever and that I cannot contrive new checksums that would keep the same
1st sentence intact while producing the correct prediction. Nothing I do,
with the execption of revealing the outcome beforehand which could interfere
with the chain of events, is going to change the outcome. Period.
Well, we'll see how this actually plays out in real life. Cheers.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 09:49:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-07037A.21263520082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <QAwVc.4101$%n4.2226@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Plus I'm getting bored--every time it seems like you should be ready
to
make your prediction, there's some other additional preliminary you
want
someone else to go through.
Untrue, I have already posted the prediction in a cryptmage file on my
website which I will also be supporting in addition to the MD5 checksum.
See
how you're beginning to stray from the truth now?
Ah, I wasn't aware of that--must of missed that announcement. Is that
in this thread?
Are we ever going to get to the part where
you actually make your prediction?
I'll take that as a 'no' because of your unfounded paranoia.
On the contrary, I'll be delighted to see your predictions. Exactly
which drawing is this for again?
This Monday 8pm EST.
So let this be a lesson to you in having a reason to believe in something
UNREASONABLE, because there is absolutely no possible "trick" or "scam"
to
what I am doing given the fact I have no control over the lotto balls
whatsoever and that I cannot contrive new checksums that would keep the
same
1st sentence intact while producing the correct prediction. Nothing I do,
with the execption of revealing the outcome beforehand which could
interfere
with the chain of events, is going to change the outcome. Period.
Well, we'll see how this actually plays out in real life. Cheers.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 08:23:04 PM |
|
|
In article <epwVc.3996$%n4.3747@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because it's a classic charlatan's trick--get the "mark" (no pun
intended) to take some action that appears to reduce the possibility of
a trick, but without actually doing anything to keep the actual trick
Trick, huh?
You know this is hypcorisy in action here. I asked you to do something
because I just wanted it to look cool. Now you're saying that my asking you
to produce the firstline is somehow making my task EASIER?
That's the way it works in stage magic and con games. I'm not
interested in a show, I just want to see if you can do what you said you
could. The existing mechanism is sufficient to let you give your
demonstration under the constraints you specified.
Listen, the hypocrisy is this. When a theist tells you something and you ask
him to prove it and he doesn't you say he's full of *****, right?
No, that's not what we're talking about here. You *volunteered* to
demonstrate an ability to foresee the future. You even accused me of
copping out if I wouldn't let you give your demonstration. You insisted
on it. But you wouldn't just make your predictions, you had to have
some way of letting me know without letting the general public know.
Ok, we've got a way you can record your predictions cryptically, so that
the actual predictions aren't publicized after the drawing, but we can
still know if your predictions bombed. So go for it.
Now I'm asking you to prove this is some form of trickery.
I didn't say it was. I said "getting the 'mark' to take some action" is
a classic charlatan's trick. You don't need to do it. It adds nothing
to your demonstration, and makes it resemble a classic charlatan's trick
if you insist on it. Why do it?
If you can't
prove it, then you agree that you are either full of *****, or that there are
some things which cannot be proven but which you're taking on mere faith,
i.e. despite the event KNOWN to be random and the MD5 checksum generated
KNOWN to be impossible to spoof predictions, you are still acting on some
IMPOSSIBLE faith that I am up to some trickery! What possible trick is there
left?
So far I don't even need to consider the possibility of trickery to
explain how you did it, since you haven't actually done anything but
talk about making an accurate prediction. You volunteered to make the
predictions, and accused me of copping out if I didn't let you do it, so
if you really want to so bad, now's your chance.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 08:35:33 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-70C617.21230420082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <epwVc.3996$%n4.3747@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because it's a classic charlatan's trick--get the "mark" (no pun
intended) to take some action that appears to reduce the possibility
of
a trick, but without actually doing anything to keep the actual trick
Trick, huh?
You know this is hypcorisy in action here. I asked you to do something
because I just wanted it to look cool. Now you're saying that my asking
you
to produce the firstline is somehow making my task EASIER?
That's the way it works in stage magic and con games. I'm not
interested in a show, I just want to see if you can do what you said you
could. The existing mechanism is sufficient to let you give your
demonstration under the constraints you specified.
Listen, the hypocrisy is this. When a theist tells you something and you
ask
him to prove it and he doesn't you say he's full of *****, right?
No, that's not what we're talking about here. You *volunteered* to
demonstrate an ability to foresee the future. You even accused me of
copping out if I wouldn't let you give your demonstration. You insisted
on it. But you wouldn't just make your predictions, you had to have
some way of letting me know without letting the general public know.
Ok, we've got a way you can record your predictions cryptically, so that
the actual predictions aren't publicized after the drawing, but we can
still know if your predictions bombed. So go for it.
Now I'm asking you to prove this is some form of trickery.
I didn't say it was. I said "getting the 'mark' to take some action" is
a classic charlatan's trick. You don't need to do it. It adds nothing
to your demonstration, and makes it resemble a classic charlatan's trick
if you insist on it. Why do it?
If you can't
prove it, then you agree that you are either full of *****, or that there
are
some things which cannot be proven but which you're taking on mere
faith,
i.e. despite the event KNOWN to be random and the MD5 checksum generated
KNOWN to be impossible to spoof predictions, you are still acting on
some
IMPOSSIBLE faith that I am up to some trickery! What possible trick is
there
left?
So far I don't even need to consider the possibility of trickery to
explain how you did it, since you haven't actually done anything but
talk about making an accurate prediction. You volunteered to make the
predictions, and accused me of copping out if I didn't let you do it, so
if you really want to so bad, now's your chance.
m
This thing isn't going to break down now, is it?
I don't see a problem with the monitor (Mark?)
starting the process with a request and that
first text line.
I don't see how that could compromise the
test.
I'll start it if need be.
--
RB
aa#2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 08:57:05 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <jose@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:FFxVc.12823$Qa4.5317@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-70C617.21230420082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <epwVc.3996$%n4.3747@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because it's a classic charlatan's trick--get the "mark" (no pun
intended) to take some action that appears to reduce the possibility
of
a trick, but without actually doing anything to keep the actual trick
Trick, huh?
You know this is hypcorisy in action here. I asked you to do something
because I just wanted it to look cool. Now you're saying that my asking
you
to produce the firstline is somehow making my task EASIER?
That's the way it works in stage magic and con games. I'm not
interested in a show, I just want to see if you can do what you said you
could. The existing mechanism is sufficient to let you give your
demonstration under the constraints you specified.
Listen, the hypocrisy is this. When a theist tells you something and
you
ask
him to prove it and he doesn't you say he's full of *****, right?
No, that's not what we're talking about here. You *volunteered* to
demonstrate an ability to foresee the future. You even accused me of
copping out if I wouldn't let you give your demonstration. You insisted
on it. But you wouldn't just make your predictions, you had to have
some way of letting me know without letting the general public know.
Ok, we've got a way you can record your predictions cryptically, so that
the actual predictions aren't publicized after the drawing, but we can
still know if your predictions bombed. So go for it.
Now I'm asking you to prove this is some form of trickery.
I didn't say it was. I said "getting the 'mark' to take some action" is
a classic charlatan's trick. You don't need to do it. It adds nothing
to your demonstration, and makes it resemble a classic charlatan's trick
if you insist on it. Why do it?
If you can't
prove it, then you agree that you are either full of *****, or that
there
are
some things which cannot be proven but which you're taking on mere
faith,
i.e. despite the event KNOWN to be random and the MD5 checksum
generated
KNOWN to be impossible to spoof predictions, you are still acting on
some
IMPOSSIBLE faith that I am up to some trickery! What possible trick is
there
left?
So far I don't even need to consider the possibility of trickery to
explain how you did it, since you haven't actually done anything but
talk about making an accurate prediction. You volunteered to make the
predictions, and accused me of copping out if I didn't let you do it, so
if you really want to so bad, now's your chance.
m
This thing isn't going to break down now, is it?
I don't see a problem with the monitor (Mark?)
starting the process with a request and that
first text line.
I don't see how that could compromise the
test.
I'll start it if need be.
Thanks Ron, please do so asap.
I like your spirit!
:)
--
RB
aa#2187
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Son of man" |
|
| Title: Re: Mark Nutter...regarding the argument about memories not/being stored physically |
20 Aug 2004 08:31:41 PM |
|
|
"Mark Nutter" <manutter51@alethian.org> wrote in message
news:manutter51-70C617.21230420082004@corp.newsfeeds.com...
In article <epwVc.3996$%n4.3747@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Because it's a classic charlatan's trick--get the "mark" (no pun
intended) to take some action that appears to reduce the possibility of
a trick, but without actually doing anything to keep the actual trick
Trick, huh?
You know this is hypcorisy in action here. I asked you to do something
because I just wanted it to look cool. Now you're saying that my asking
you
to produce the firstline is somehow making my task EASIER?
That's the way it works in stage magic and con games. I'm not
interested in a show, I just want to see if you can do what you said you
could. The existing mechanism is sufficient to let you give your
demonstration under the constraints you specified.
Listen, the hypocrisy is this. When a theist tells you something and you
ask
him to prove it and he doesn't you say he's full of *****, right?
No, that's not what we're talking about here. You *volunteered* to
demonstrate an ability to foresee the future. You even accused me of
copping out if I wouldn't let you give your demonstration. You insisted
on it. But you wouldn't just make your predictions, you had to have
some way of letting me know without letting the general public know.
Ok, we've got a way you can record your predictions cryptically, so that
the actual predictions aren't publicized after the drawing, but we can
still know if your predictions bombed. So go for it.
Now I'm asking you to prove this is some form of trickery.
I didn't say it was. I said "getting the 'mark' to take some action" is
a classic charlatan's trick. You don't need to do it. It adds nothing
to your demonstration, and makes it resemble a classic charlatan's trick
if you insist on it. Why do it?
If you can't
prove it, then you agree that you are either full of *****, or that there
are
some things which cannot be proven but which you're taking on mere faith,
i.e. despite the event KNOWN to be random and the MD5 checksum generated
KNOWN to be impossible to spoof predictions, you are still acting on some
IMPOSSIBLE faith that I am up to some trickery! What possible trick is
there
left?
So far I don't even need to consider the possibility of trickery to
explain how you did it, since you haven't actually done anything but
talk about making an accurate prediction. You volunteered to make the
predictions, and accused me of copping out if I didn't let you do it, so
if you really want to so bad, now's your chance.
Technically you are correct, but you're just not getting into the spirit of
things.
m
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
