More Evidence For Cold Fusion

It looks like Pons and Fleishmann work has been replicated. Skeptics say that an paper by MIT showed that other researchers were unable to reproduce the results. Their has been serious questions that has been raised against the scientific integrity of that paper.

http://padrak.com/ine/WACF.html


Science magazine publishes more evidence of tabletop nuclear reactions

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/03/25/tbltpfusion.DTL

My Response To Keith Augustine's Case Against Survival

keith,

Your side has been given many chances to present your case. Examples of scientists that have presented the case that mind is produced by the brain, and in their view their is no soul. Steve Pinker, Susan Blackmore, Steven Novella among others] They have been given plenty of media talks.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/dawkins_pinker_index.ht

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html

As far as Mrs Piper goes. Their is a godo critique on Martin Gardner's debunking of her mediumship.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2007/08/how-martin-gard.html

I wonder what you think of this direct test for survival which was proven.

Houdini's code

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/ford/houdini.htm


Hi response was that Steven Pinker never presented many areas of evidence against survival. But the link of Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker titled " Is science killing the soul" Present lots of this supposed evidence.


Keith,



Anyone can point to weaknesses in particular evidence, for example; the Phineas Cage case that you mentioned before, new information suggests that the seriously maladapted Gage described by Harlow may have existed for only a limited number of years after the accident—that in later life Phineas may have been far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than has been thought.

Now the production theory would predict that his lost of functionality and social abilities would be lost forever especially with the state of his brain damage. But that ain't so.

Embellishment also appears the case in this case, with the uncertainty of Harlow's sources for the changes he describes in Phineas, combined with the fact that he waited almost twenty years (between his first and second papers) to communicate those changes, constitute one of the central puzzles of the case.

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

Another piece of evidence Keith to argue his case for extinction is the brain split experiments which are controversial. Many scientists among even Dr. Gazzaniga admitted to John Searle that he couldn't tell Searle if that showed two separate conscious selves or not.

True, Keith mainstream science often ignores parapsychological evidence because it is threatening to the precious naturalistic worldview. Their's a lot to lose.

I can go and on and on and continue to poke big holes in the cases against survival.

The Houdini's Code Broken

This is powerful evidence that Houdini did communicate with his wife. In 1926 when Houdini died, leaving a widely publicized message that if there were anything to the claim for survival he would get through to his wife, Bessie, with a code message which only she could decipher. That this curious last message would have anything to do with my future would have seemed a farfetched idea at the time.



Houdini's code

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/ford/houdini.htm

Why Materialism Is An Complete Dead End When It Comes To Consciousness

First i like to put the mind and body in three categories

1] The physical brain and body
2] The mind [mental] information
3] Consciousness[subjective] immaterial soul

Some materialists believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The problem with this is, consciousness is subjective it is the only thing we know that is "subjective". All emergent things are physical, in nature where consciousness is nonphysical. The only way we can solve the mind body problem is to take both the objective evidence we have and the subjective evidence as well.

A negative result not supportive of mediumship claims

Here is an source called ''A negative result not supportive of mediumship claims''
O'Keeffe, C. & Wiseman, R. (2005). Testing alleged mediumship: Methods and results. The British Journal of Psychology, 96(2), 165-179.

The experimental design is OK, the choice of mediums and sitters isn't...

'The five sitters (all male, age range 25–30) were either students or staff from the university. They were selected from a pool of individuals who responded to a generale-mail, circulated within the university, asking for volunteers to be involved in a scientific test of mediumship. The sitters were chosen using the following criteria; (a)they did not know one another, (b) they were the same gender, and (c) they were approximately the same age. '


Why choose such a group? Young male students or staff from a university sounds just about the most skeptical group possible for mediums to give readings to. Males are more skeptical sex, particularly younger male students (even more so if psychology students). Both O'Keefe and Wiseman will have been familiar with claims of sheep/ goat effects... this seems like adding potential bias IMHO.

(a) Young people are less likely to have close dead relatives
(b) Since this age group/sex are perhaps more likely to be cynical towards mediumship claims, any subsconsious bias against mediumship could lead to subconsciously marking statements poorly.

Solution
The sitters should have been a mix of males and females old enough to have close dead relatives. Ideally believers since then it rules out any subconscious bias to mark statements inaccurately.

And of course more care over selecting mediums rather than trusting the SNU, whose criteria over what makes a good medium isn't based upon accuracy but other criteria.

The O'Keefe/Wiseman's protocol is very much based on Dr D J Pratt's protocol. Pratt had significant results in favour of mediumship being real, he was careful to choose a good medium, Eileen Garrett, one of the most impressive and most lab tested mediums of the 1940s.

Strong Experimental Evidence Of Paranormal Origin In Physical Medium's Franek Kluski Seances

Go here to check this out

http://www.metapsychique.org/The-Kluski-Hands-Moulds.html

Kluski is also important to Spiritualist belief as he brought an death-blow to Christian anthropocentrism (that, illogically, teaches only human beings survive death), as his seances enjoyed the presence of animals returning. Sylvia Barbanell cited Pawlowski's testimony that sitters experienced the materialization of various types of animals; he recorded an instance of a dog materializing and jumping upon the laps of the sitters, and in a seance with a red lamp, a hawk-like bird flew around, with its wings beating against the walls: this occasion was photographed. Validating a further feature of Spiritualist belief, i.e. that bonds of affection are not broken by death, when certain persons materialized in the Kluski seances, they would be accompanied by an animal that left as soon as their human companion departed. The significant feature, as Mrs Barbanell observed, is that the Kluski seances demonstrated that all, rather than some animals survive death.(5)

One materialization brought an animal that resembled a lion that would lick the sitters: this 'would stalk around, lashing its tail against the furniture and leaving behind it a strong acrid smell'.(6) Another visitor, referred to as the Pithecanthropus, was clearly intent on making his presence known to the sitters: an ape-type being, it moved the furniture and behaved 'rather roughly with regard to the sitters, trying to lick their hands or faces'; often the seance had to be prematurely ended when it became over- enthusiastic. Pawlowski related how it grabbed one woman's hand to rub this against its face, and 'this frightened her considerably and caused her to shriek'.(7) Those who came to the seances from 'the other side' would comply with requests to move furniture; despite being in darkness, they would do this without any obvious difficulty; one such instance was the moving of a heavy bronze statue. Kluski's seances may have been many things, but they were hardly uneventful.

Greg Taylor Creator Of Popular Website The Daily Grail On Skeptiko

Greg Taylor, of The Daily Grail on the New Skeptics

Guest: Greg Taylor, creator of the popular paranormal website The Daily Grail.

Go here to check out this excellent interview.

http://www.skeptiko.com/index.php?id=78

Wrestler Andrew Martin Known As Test In Wrestling Dies At The Age Of 33

I am in shock that another young wrestler has died. This is becoming a very long list of young wrestlers that have died before the age of 65. I remember watching him wrestle in the wwe where he face Triple H among others. In 2007 Andrew failed a drug test, in 2007 which then he was released. He has been most recently been wrestling in Japan and Europe. According to published reports, police were called to check on Martin when a neighbor noticed that he had been sitting, but not moving, close to a window for some time. Andrew was just days from his 34th birthday. Test's most famous storyline turned babyface to romance McMahon's daughter Stephanie, who then turned heel on him to marry the wrestler Triple H (a storyline which also ended up playing out in real life).




Recent girlfriend Barbara Blank (who wrestles in WWE as Kelly Kelly) posted the following words about her friend Andrew Martin on her MySpace page:

"You were my world my best friend the one i always ran to u were always there for me..what happened to our plan...Why did god take u away from me...my heart is always with u and u only..I know your in heaven watching over me now my angel..."

Test surely will be missed by a lot of people including me. Even though he was no where near my favorite wrestler, it is an human being who died and his family and friends are mourning him.

Infinite Regression Argument Against Substance Dualism Refuted

I like to make it clear that i think the soul is not a little man in the brain but is similar to the physical body. Nonetheless materialists argue that if there is an observer in the body that observer would require other observers and so on. The major problem with this is if the soul is immortal their wouldn't be no need for an infinite amount of observers [souls]. In the arena of neuroscience the common held view is that consciousness and the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Then their are some scientists who disagree and postulate that consciousness is an illusion created by the brain.

I think in order for us to solve the mind body problem we much embrace substance dualism. Obviously substance dualism has been tied to religion however their are some dualists such as me that don't go to church or read an bible. Also aren't associated with any other religions.

Life Afterlife Videos On Youtube

Here is part 4 of the series of videos. Watch as the 5 test mediums perform brilliantly with a subject whom they cannot see and who only answers yes and no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVBIOXqsPmA

Naturalism

I mentioned before how the universe is finely tuned. But not just the laws but it also seems that the cosmological constant is very finely tuned. Anthropic scientists had no other alternative but to consider an intelligent designer. That was the very last thing they wanted to do. So after awhile came the many world's interpretation that their are an infinite number of parallel universes. However again the need for a intelligent deisigner came about because some of those universes are likely to be very complex. So now their is speculation that we are living in an computer stimulation, this offers a natural mechanism. So as you see nothing can knock of naturalism. Naturalism is held as a position, and it more tightly defended when contrary evidence comes along like mentioned above. Of course, other contrary evidence is survival of bodily which their is vasts amounts of evidence supporting it. Also psi phenomena and other type of phenomena such as stigmata etc.

Here's is an interesting pdf lecture by Alan Gauld on memory traces.

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~thegroundoffaith/Lecture_3.pdf

At the end of the lecture Alan Gauld conclusion is follows

An viable theory of memory will accommodate:

1. Top down rather than bottom up. Laws characterizing the system as a whole, rather than the whole being derived from the parts.

2. Memories cannot be tied to particular anatomical loci. Memories can be transferred to different parts of the brain.

3. It will regard nerve tracts that transmit nerve impulses to one part of the brain to another not as conduits for the transmission of 'information' in the loose sense commonly adopted by psychologists, but as means by which spatiotemporal patterns of activity in different regions may be fined tuned to create overarching patterns.

4. We cannot regard the matter as decided and clear....work in progress

100 Truths

001. Real name → Leo Dennis Michael MacDonald
002. Nickname(s)→ Midget the fidget
003. Zodiac sign → Virgo
004. Male or female → Male
005. Elementary → A.G Baillie
006. Middle School → New Glasgow
007. High School → New Glasgow
008. Hair color → Black
009. Long or short → medium
010. Loud or Quiet → Quiet
011. Sweats or Jeans → Jeans
012. Phone or Camera → phone
013. Health freak → try to be
014. Drink or Smoke? → drink
015. Do you have a crush on someone? → yea
016. Eat or Drink → Both
017. Piercings → none
018. Tattoos → none

HAVE YOU EVER?
019. Been in an airplane→ no
020. Been in a relationship → no
021. Been in a car accident → bit of whip lash yea
022. Been in a fist fight → no

FIRSTS:
023. First piercing → none
024. First best friend → Zackery
025. First award → grade 6
026. First crush → yes elizabeth
027. First relationship → don't know
028. First big vacation → moncton

LASTS:
029. Last person you talked to → mom
030. Last person you texted → none
031. Last person you watched a movie with → none
032. Last food you ate → chicken
033. Last movie you watched → jason
034. Last song you listened to → heaven by warrant
035. Last thing you bought → lotto ticket
036. Last person you hugged → mom

FAVES:
037. Food → pizza
038. Drinks → pop
039. Clothing → pants, muscle shirts
040. Flower → daisys
041. Book → crossing over
042. Colors → blue/red
043. Movies → house of a thousand corpses, michael myers, etc
044. Subjects → paranormal, science, parapsychology, psychical research

IN 2008... I
045. [x] kissed someone- no
046. []Celebrated Halloween- yes
047. [] had your heart broken- no
048. [ ] went over the minutes on your cell phone- no
049. [ ] questioned someone sexual orientation- no
050. [ ] came out of the closet- yes
051. [ ] gotten pregnant- no
052. [ ] had an abortion- no
053. [x]done something you've regretted- yes
054. [x] broke a promise- no
055. [x] hid a secret- no
056. [x] pretended to be happy- yes
057. [x] met someone who changed your life- no
058. [] pretended to be sick- no
059. [] left the country- no
060. [x] tried something you normally wouldn't try and liked it
061. [x] cried over the silliest thing
062. [] ran a mile- no
063. [x] went to the beach with your friend(s)- no
064. [x] got into an argument with your friends- no
065. [x] hated someone,- yes
066. [x] lived on the edge- yes

CURRENTLY:
067. Eating → nothing
068. Drinking → water
069. I'm about to → go to bed
071. Plans for today → no sure
072. Waiting for → nothing

YOUR FUTURE:
073. Want kids? yes
074. Want to get married? → yes
075. Careers in mind → cleaning, lifting work.

WHICH IS BETTER WITH GIRL/BOY?
076. Lips or eyes → both
077. Shorter or taller? → doesn't matter
078. Romantic or spontaneous → both
079. Nice stomach or nice arms → doesn't amtter
080. Sensitive or loud → in between
081. Hook-up or relationship → relationship
082. Trouble-maker or hesitant → in between

HAVE YOU EVER:
083. Lost glasses/contacts → no
084. Ran away from home → no
085. Hold a gun/knife for self defense → no
086. Killed somebody → no
087. Broken someone's heart → yes and felt really bad about it
088. Lost a friend → yea too many to count
089. Cried when someone died → yea

DO YOU BELIEVE IN:
090. Yourself → yup!
091. Miracles → yes
092. Love at first sight → yes
093. Heaven → yes
094. Santa Claus → no
095. Sex on the first date → no
096. Kiss on the first date → depends

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY:
097. Is there one person you want to be with right now? → yes
098. Are you seriously happy with where you are in life? → room for improvement
099. Do you believe in God → yes
100. Favorite season: Winter and Fall

Rebuttal of youtube video called ''ghost in the machine', soul and free will.

First i think that the analogy of an ghost in the machine is off somewhat first because it's says their is a little guy in the brain. I don't think that is how it works, i think there is a soul yes but that soul is similar to our physical body. In the video Steven Pinker mentions that William James and Alfred Russel Wallace were duped by Leonora Piper. Possible yes, but their seems no reason to think so, she was a very investigated medium. Of course Steven Pinker is getting this information that they were duped by word of mouth of other mainstream scientists. He mentions that if a person has a stroke certain parts of their brain is damaged. Which means they can't make a moral choice or to recognize a face etc. The way to explain that is by saying the brain limits and constrains the soul.


Here is the youtube video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A_r6_GGv3U

Physical Medium Franek Kluski

This an amazing medium has produced what appears to be good evidence for survival. What he did was very impressive and some of the phenomena is still trying to be explained by the skeptical community. The evidence includes paraffin casts of materialized limbs made in these seances. The paraffin casts still exists today and as late as in the previous episode of Skeptical Inquirer an article made a non-convincing attempt to debunk this phenomena.

More about Franek Kluski can be read here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/franek-kluski

New Skeptiko Podcast

It's called 13 things that don't make sense, Michael Brooks.

Guest: Michael Brooks, science journalist and author of 13 Things That Don’t Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time.

Micheal’s blog post on his dialog with Rupert Sheldrake

http://www.michaelbrooks.org/blog/post/2009/01/27/I-never-knew-I-was-a-skeptic-till.aspx

Go here to check out this podcast

http://www.skeptiko.com/index.php?id=77

Random Number Generators

Some skeptics claim that an simplistic experiment should be done in parapsychology to demonstrate psi instead of an complicated one. The problem is that was already done with ESP cards they produced persuasive evidence for ESP, but the results were ignored.


Random number generators have many advantages over earlier research such as using tossed coins or dice. In the RNG experiment, great flexibility is combined with careful scientific control and a high rate of data acquisition.

Here is an good link refuted common criticism thrown at parapsychological experiments. It also discusses the hundreds of experiments that support psi, and also gives detail information on the experiments being repeated.

http://www.deanradin.com/para2.html

Incredible Shrinking Psi?

According to some skeptics their is no evidence for psi. Here is what one skeptic says:

If the psi advocates continue to test for psi, I am afraid that they may soon reach the same conclusion that thinking people reached quite a while ago and they will have to move back to organized religion to have something to believe in.


Really?, what psi advocates have have found it overwhelming evidence for psi phenomena.

Another skeptic says:

Psi advocates would likely make more progress if they would learn and adopt a phrase that has helped science immensely. That phrase is "I dunno". It works a lot better in trying to understand something than assuming an answer then rejecting any data that tends to show the assumption is wrong. But then this approach wouldn't sell as many books and get the advocates packed houses for their lecture tours. People that want to believe and are willing to pay someone to tell them what they want to hear wouldn't be attracted that approach.

My response: The idea that scientists have no personal interest in how their experiments turn out is laughable. They will defend a pet theory to the death. This is why physicist Max Planck remarked that science advances "one funeral at a time"; obsolete ideas give way only when their proponents are no longer among the living. Human nature, with all its stubbornness, bias, and vanity, is not eradicated simply because one assumes the mantle of "scientist." Particular objections to psi such as sensory leakage has been carefully look at. With very tight controls the results still look positive. It could turn out that psi is entirely brain based, if so then we need to find out. Why all the resistence to a discovery that has enormous implications, i just don't get it. Mainstream science should be embracing this evidence for psi, an new phenomena. I see it as an fear that science will have to accept something out of the ordinary.