Kickoff show matches
The New Day v.s Sanity (Tables Match)
Winners - Sanity
Sin Cara v.s Andrade "Cien" Almas
Winner: Andrade "Cien" Almas
WWE Extreme Rules Matches
Finn Balor v.s Constable Baron Corbin
Winner- Finn Balor
Smackdown Women's Championship Match- Carmella (c) v.s Asuka (with James Ellsworth suspended above the ring in a Shark cage)
Winner: New Women's Champion Asuka
Intercontinental Championship 30-Minute WWE Iron Man Match
Dolph Ziggler (c) v.s Seth Rollins
Winner: New Intercontinental Champion Seth Rollins
Raw Tag Team Championship Match
"Woken" Matt Hardy & Bray Wyatt (c) v.s The B-Team
Winners: Matt Hardy and Bray Wyatt
United States Championship Match
Jeff Hardy (c) v.s Shinsuke Nakamura
Winner: New United States Champion Shinsuke Nakamura
Smackdown Tag Team Championship Match
The Bludgeon Brothers (c_ v.s Team Hell No
Winners: The Bludgeon Brothers
Raw Women's Championship Extreme Rules Match
Alexa Bliss (c) v.s Nia Jaz
Winner: Alexa Bliss
Roman Reigns v.s Bobby Lashley
Winner: Bobby Lashley
Braun Strowman v.s Kevin Owens (Steel Cage Match)
Winner: Braun Strowman
WWE Championship Match
AJ Styles (c) v.s Rusev
Winner: AJ Styles
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Monday, July 9, 2018
Materialist's attack the Scientific Evidence for Psi
Just recently I have come across several attacks from Materialist's on Psi. One such attack states that Quantum Field Theory shows that Psi Phenomenon doesn't exist because physicist's have discovered all particles and forces in nature. That isn't true, that is why we have the Large Hardon Collider as we are still discovering new particles and forces. For example this particle.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lhc-physicists-unveil-a-charming-new-particle/
The standard model is incomplete, that of course doesn't lend any credence for Psi Phenomenon, however, it does refute the claim made by Physicist Sean Carroll that physicist's understand all the particles and forces in nature. On top of that, it is said that psi phenomenon should be reproducible on demand. No it doesn't, meteorites are not reproducible but we know they exist, it just goes to show something can exist without it always being reproducible. Another attacks comes from Neurologist Steven Novella who says that a good scientist always is looking to show that their theory is wrong. True and it's not like Parapsychologist's were out to prove that Psi is real, instead they actually looked at the opposing explanations first but soon found out they couldn't explain the data that they were getting. Of course, skeptics are also very upset by the fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Science strongly endorses the Parapsychological Association. The Parapsychological Association has been affiliated with the AAAS since 1969.
A devastating rebuttal to Physicist Sean Carroll's claim that the physics of underlying the "world of everyday experience" is completely understood. This is from another materialist who respects him.
https://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/why-sean-carroll-is-wrong/
Recently, in the Skeptical Inquirer a magazine where numerous materialist scientists right their own opinion on numerous topics such as the paranormal, alternative medicine etc. Psychologist Stuart Vyse accuses Psychologist and Parapsychologist Daryl Bem of P-Hacking.
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/p-hacker_confessions_daryl_bem_and_me
Here is the definition of what P-Hacking is from Wikipedia
Data dredging (also data fishing, data snooping, and p-hacking) is the use of data mining to uncover patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant, without first devising a specific hypothesis as to the underlying causality.
- I am not sure if Daryl Bem was P-hacking or not however to accuse him of doing so is taking it too far. Unless, Stuart actually has evidence to confirm this or Daryl Bem comes out and says so we would have to apparently believe Stuart's word on this. I don't think we have too. Is this the best the materialist's can do?. They obviously were not happy when Jessica Utts refuted the Wagermaker's who argued that psychologist's should replace their familiar “frequentist” statistical analyses of their data with Bayesian analyses.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21254-001
Psychologist Susan Blackmore had to get involved in this matter as well as she apart of the skeptic community too.
Here is an interesting piece on her where you can find here
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-16035-001
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lhc-physicists-unveil-a-charming-new-particle/
The standard model is incomplete, that of course doesn't lend any credence for Psi Phenomenon, however, it does refute the claim made by Physicist Sean Carroll that physicist's understand all the particles and forces in nature. On top of that, it is said that psi phenomenon should be reproducible on demand. No it doesn't, meteorites are not reproducible but we know they exist, it just goes to show something can exist without it always being reproducible. Another attacks comes from Neurologist Steven Novella who says that a good scientist always is looking to show that their theory is wrong. True and it's not like Parapsychologist's were out to prove that Psi is real, instead they actually looked at the opposing explanations first but soon found out they couldn't explain the data that they were getting. Of course, skeptics are also very upset by the fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Science strongly endorses the Parapsychological Association. The Parapsychological Association has been affiliated with the AAAS since 1969.
A devastating rebuttal to Physicist Sean Carroll's claim that the physics of underlying the "world of everyday experience" is completely understood. This is from another materialist who respects him.
https://quantummoxie.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/why-sean-carroll-is-wrong/
Recently, in the Skeptical Inquirer a magazine where numerous materialist scientists right their own opinion on numerous topics such as the paranormal, alternative medicine etc. Psychologist Stuart Vyse accuses Psychologist and Parapsychologist Daryl Bem of P-Hacking.
https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/p-hacker_confessions_daryl_bem_and_me
Here is the definition of what P-Hacking is from Wikipedia
Data dredging (also data fishing, data snooping, and p-hacking) is the use of data mining to uncover patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant, without first devising a specific hypothesis as to the underlying causality.
- I am not sure if Daryl Bem was P-hacking or not however to accuse him of doing so is taking it too far. Unless, Stuart actually has evidence to confirm this or Daryl Bem comes out and says so we would have to apparently believe Stuart's word on this. I don't think we have too. Is this the best the materialist's can do?. They obviously were not happy when Jessica Utts refuted the Wagermaker's who argued that psychologist's should replace their familiar “frequentist” statistical analyses of their data with Bayesian analyses.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21254-001
Psychologist Susan Blackmore had to get involved in this matter as well as she apart of the skeptic community too.
Here is an interesting piece on her where you can find here
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-16035-001
Monday, July 2, 2018
Why it's unreasonable to assume that the brain somehow produces consciousness
First we have no idea what consciousness in fact philosophers and mystics have a much closer colloquial understanding of consciousness than anything proposed by neuroscientists. We know that the brain can influence the consciousness and also that consciousness can influence the brain. This evidence fits perfectly into interactionism substance dualism. Where materialist's run into a big problem how can the mind have a great influence on our brain/body if the universe is a closed system?. Materialist's often come back by saying we don't deny the science evidence that the mind can influence the brain/body. Really? when they keep saying that it points in only one casual direction mind is caused by the brain or mind is what the brain does. Instead of saying the casualty is equally balanced. Which fits into a interactionism substance dualist view. However, it's often point out how can something immaterial like the mind affect something material. Well, it's rather easy if you let go of the assumption of seeing the universe as a closed system. Also, the evidence for survival of bodily death which has I have mentioned numerous times on here as well as the evidence for psi shows how untenable the assumption is that the brain somehow creates consciousness.
https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/08/the-mind-matters.html
https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/08/the-mind-matters.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)