Saturday, July 14, 2018

My predictions for WWE Extreme Rules

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

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

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

Saying goodbye to 2018!!!

Well, 2018 is coming to a close, 2019 is now almost here. I like to wish all of my readers of this blog a Happy New Years. Who knows, what t...