Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc Subject: Re: Mind and Brain Message-ID: <633@opus.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Jul-84 03:01:39 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.633 Posted: Sat Jul 21 03:01:39 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jul-84 01:36:08 EDT References: <1556@sun.uucp> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 55 > How presumptuous, to think that "modern" physics has all the answers, >or has the best definition of "energy". Oh, yes, indeed, the "physicists" >definition is the one to use when talking of "physical" phenomena... Thank you deeply for allowing physicists to talk... >...there are yet phenomena which "physics" fails to explain,... ...which is really nice. I'm glad (as are all physicists) that we haven't solved all the problems of how the entire universe works, down to the last detail. >...and which, in fact, >appear to contradict some of the "laws" of "physics"... This is quite a different statement. It's a bold one when presented without any support or examples. >... >Ok, so you CAN measure the PSI energy required for a telekinetic to move >an object with their mind, based on the existing "physics" definition of >energy. Well, you can calculate what it would take to move a given object; so what? >Now, tell me it takes no work (energy) for a telepath to send a PSI >message, or to receive one... OK, I'll tell you that. Since there is no such thing as a PSI message (outside of certain imaginations), it can't take MUCH energy. >Our "physics" once explained how the sun orbited >the earth. It doesn't yet explain everything... Look, this gets tedious. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. It has models of how things seem to work. The models get revised as we learn more. Look, my beliefs once explained how my Christmas presents were brought by Santa Claus. I've learned better since then, and I don't feel that I was a fool when I was much younger. But I can learn. >...PSI phenomena do exist,... No, they don't. Yes, I know that my statement is nothing but a "Nyah, Nyah" to the original, so I'll rephrase it: I have never observed an event which I can associate with a PSI phenomenon. Neither has anyone that I know whose observational abilities I respect. No report of a verified PSI phenomenon has been documented, insofar as I am aware. (I intend "verified" in a somewhat rigorous sense, not just "I saw it too, George.") >PSI is definitely "intellectual work", as Webster's would define it. Yes, it's the work of trying to convince yourself that something is happening, against all physical evidence to the contrary. >Go back to your physics lab. There is no life outside of it. Physicists >have ALL the answers. And the only useful definitions of words. Dream on... Go (back?) to net.flame. You haven't contributed anything to net.sci except tendentiousness. Physicists (and scientists in general) never claimed to have all the answers; if you think they've claimed that, that's your own personal problem. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.