Phi for All

Such misleading vividness! Shocking! Impossible! It's such a disservice to science when authors feel compelled to embellish like this. "Jumped into the hype"? Good grief, why can't people understand why such emotional garbage attached to a scientific discovery creates unnatural skepticism (as opposed to the healthy kind)? I think this is one big reason we see so many perpetual skeptics who never get off the fence. To recap: Science good, absolute-knowledge.com bad.

! Moderator Note Jack, Jack, Jack. It's not allowed to use one unproven speculation to support another. It leads to circular reasoning, and it's extremely frustrating to discuss any of the concepts with you when you seem to be fixated on something you can't explain well to others. I have to shut this thread down. Please don't refer to your speculative cosmos in any thread other than its own.

To save it from a long, slow death by killing it instantly. Mercy fission.

! Moderator Note This is unacceptable soapboxing if you don't answer the questions people are asking you. Pointing people at a link is not the same as responding to specific requests for clarity. Please go back through the thread and answer these requests. You are wasting everyone else's time by not supporting your assertions.

Iirc, nitrogen has less problems with condensation, and it leaks less than oxygen. Helium will have problems staying inside the tires, and won't do much to decrease weight.

Not sure you need all that. The effect can be repeated in other ways. I've set my phone down on my knee while playing a game with screens that shift to the side, and my mind is so convinced the phone is falling off my knee that I'll move to compensate. Another variation is sitting in the grocery parking lot when the car in the space next to you backs out, and you jab the brakes because you think you're the one moving. They mention the vestibular sense, but I think the key ingredient here is the interaction with your peripheral vision. The scope out at the edges of your vision isn't particularly well focused, and color sense is poor, but it's designed to pick up movement, and it seems to translate instantly into a reaction from us; we duck, we step back, we turn our heads to look, we grab things that might fall or shift.

Isn't fire or lightning an emergent event brought about by interaction with other unrelated things?

Nobody is talking about things you offered as opinion. I'm talking about the assertions you've made, and the requests for clarity about them that you've ignored. See what I mean? You didn't address the call for clarity, you just plowed right over it. And that's the way you've been responding to anyone who questions your concept. Here again you fail to address the criticism, and it's even mentioned that you misinterpreted what was said. You never cleared this up, but instead went on to claim: "I highly doubt anything you could say would change my understanding of that, though I am keen to hear what you would suggest. I suppose you have said all you want to on the subject though -- I understand your position." Clearly, you don't understand the position of your critics, and have no intention of letting any of their reasoning penetrate your current understanding. You are, in essence, soapboxing your idea on a science forum.

I prefer to use my passion to bolster my critical thinking. I think it's important to use reason first, so you can trust the explanations you believe in, and then become passionate about THAT. You gotten nothing but "intellectual countering" (I don't quote to show I'm offended - I quote to show these were your words) from the thread so far, but because you're only responding passionately, it's hard to defend against the reason others are using. I think you've unnecessarily put up a fence between you and us folks. This is a science discussion site. Isn't that why you came here, to discuss your idea with people who've studied science a lot more than you have? I'm not a professional, but you've had responses from working scientists who follow scientific methods on a daily basis. I don't understand why you'd want to come here to discuss science if you think of it fundamentally differently than the rest of the people who study it. Science is one of our greatest tools because it provides consistency and predictability, so of course we're going to apply that filter when analyzing your idea. You asked for our thoughts, and the consensus was that you hadn't adequately considered specific details in supporting your argument. Now you seem to be saying it's our fault for not understanding you because you view the world in a better way. You're bemused that we're promoting science? Do you see why there is some confusion here?

Except it's not "the contrary view". I don't even have to claim natural skepticism. You obviously have a difficult time explaining what you mean, but what does come through seems to have little evidential support beyond your assertions and incredulity. I don't need "the contrary view" to see you aren't meeting the kind of criteria needed to advance a scientific idea. Assuming we're all just being naysayers doesn't help you support your position, it just makes you keep mentioning it unnecessarily. Your reasoning is what is being attacked here, and those who are have explained why and where the problems lie. That's not a contrary, kneejerk response. "We folks" aren't going to fall for you playing the "you're so hidebound" card. Please respond to the criticism, and not the critics.

! Moderator Note Instead of continuing to claim Strange is misrepresenting your words, can you PLEASE take him up on his offer to correct the specific mistakes?

Unfortunately, you're using this as a definition for "logic", and then assuming what you've done is "a logical progression", when it's really just something that only makes sense to you.

So your skepticism about genetics is an acceptable enough counter argument against selective forces wrt ESP? Incredulity vs theory, really? Even if it required genes from both parents, over time we'd still see measurable differences, if you define ESP in common terms and don't move the goalposts to claim ESP would have "no consequences for them".

! Moderator Note ... and as the chopper's occupants rip the cords on their chutes and waft safely groundward, they try to put some closure on their ideas in the short time they have defying gravity.

Example, ESP dude picks up a stone carving painting purported to be from an Old Master and gets knowledge about person carving painting it. If dude's a buyer or a curator or art critic (dude would gravitate to something like that, yes?), dude gains advantage in knowing it was painted last week in Hoboken by a person named Gopher. Very useful in daily survival imo. I want to point out again that you're claiming ESP may exist in a meaningful way, but not so meaningful that it can be observed. I think the evolution argument is a sound one, and you seem to be downplaying the power of the ability you claim exists in order to avoid addressing it. Edit to add: I think I first saw the ESP vs Evolution argument from John Cuthber, so credit due. The reasoning is very persuasive.