Breakthrough

From [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1140)]

I just realized that if Martin Taylor is correct and accurate about his concepts of “signals” than he has successfully crossed over into the psychic world.

There is no longer any reason to believe that ESP does not exist or that people cannot speak to the dead, or God.

Some of us are simply more sensitive to certain signals than others are.

How do you determine what signals exist and what they mean? Maybe that voice I heard in my sleep is actually someone trying to reach out to me.

I am NOT being “silly” here Martin. Exactly where are the limits and who places them there?

Yes, I can see why you might believe what you do, just as I do not rule out the possibility of ESP, life after death or any other psychic phenomenon. But its a whole different ball game to actually believe this stuff exists without any substantial proof.

Marc

(From Bryan Thalhammer [2006.05.17.1110 LT])

Marc,

Signals are psychic? You mean that Microsoft, Google, and the whole Internet works over a psychic channel? Wow. Seriously, I think you are carrying this attack a bit far. You are getting more than silly. What is your goal after you have twice said goodbye for now?

You know what the signals are we are talking about. There should be no confusion, unless you are communicating with aliens...

Sillyness has already been passed. Please be civil here.

--Bryan

Marc Abrams wrote:

···

From [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1140)]
I just realized that if Martin Taylor is correct and accurate about his concepts of "signals" than he has successfully crossed over into the psychic world.
There is no longer any reason to believe that ESP does not exist or that people cannot speak to the dead, or God.
Some of us are simply more sensitive to certain signals than others are.
How do you determine what signals exist and what they mean? Maybe that voice I heard in my sleep is actually someone trying to reach out to me.
I am _NOT_ being "silly" here Martin. Exactly where are the limits and who places them there?
Yes, I can see why you might believe what you do, just as I do not rule out the possibility of ESP, life after death or any other psychic phenomenon. But its a whole different ball game to actually believe this stuff exists without any substantial proof.
Marc

From [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1243)]

Its encouraging Bryan not to get a post focusing on my 'manners" though I see you got to sneak a line in at the end of the post.

Let me say, I am being dead serious here.

There is no question that “something” is “allowing” us to perceive the environment and things in it. The question than becomes How is this possible?

Martins assertion that people and other entities emit “signals” that we somehow pick up I find very difficult to swallow.

If you know anything about our visual field you know we see things not because of “captured” emitted “signals” but because of reflections and the density of light waves that are picked up by sensory receptors off of various entities.

The “signals” or sensations that ultimately become our perceptions all originate from within our bodies. The “signals” that may exist outside our bodies are not the same as the ones that travel through our bodies.

Our sensory inputs provide only a very small portion of what we come to know as our “perceptions”. There are some very big differences and some ambiguity involved between sensory sensations and perceptions and although PCT makes no distinction between the two they do in fact exist.

Martin is inferring that these “signals” somehow have some meaning outside the receiver and I say that is nonsense. We cannot measure them because how do you tell the difference between “signals”? Geez, how do you even identify one?

If I play a tape recording or someone actually voices the words, is there a difference?

In a message dated 5/17/2006 12:11:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

(From Bryan Thalhammer [2006.05.17.1110 LT])

Marc,

Signals are psychic? You mean that Microsoft, Google, and the whole
Internet works over a psychic channel?
My friend, is your computer hooked up by cable to a modem or receiver to get those “signals”?

Radio wavelengths and the spectrum are well understood.

Where on the spectrum are our “emotional” wave forms? How about our “taste” signals, where are they located?

Am I being “silly” again?

Wow. Seriously, I think you are carrying this attack a bit far.
Attack? Not quite my politically correct friend. I have many questions about an assertion that was made, and that I find, quite frankly unbelievable. So I am trying to understand why Martin chooses to believe this.

He is an intelligent individual and I don’t take what he says lightly.

What is more interesting is why you see this as an “attack”?

If you think I’m trying to make him look bad your mistaken. I’m trying to understand how he came to this type of thinking.

Why do you feel he needs any defending?

There is an interesting progression that seems to take place here on CSGnet.

First Rick gets into a conversation and gets in over his head and starts with the personal attacks.

Than Martin Taylor comes riding in on his white horse to the rescue backing Rick up while also puffing out his own chest.

Than Bryan Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalhammer comes riding along on his sacred cow demanding civility not from Rick but from the party who had the audacity to tell Rick where to take his rude remarks.

So to you Mr. Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalhammer, go jump in the lake :wink:

And, I’ll leave when I’m damn good and ready to go, understand pin head?

Now, you would not have heard that last sentence from me if you would have had the good manners not to try an tell me how to act and what to do according to your standards.

Some folks just never learn, so you keep on treating me that way and I will continue to return the favor.

Capesh?

Marc

(From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.06.17.1255)]

Marc, you are creating a straw man. Anyone knows that by signals is meant outputs. Now, the problem is that in the environment signals are mixed in the relatively random environment of disturbances. But humans as living control systems can pick out the sound, visual and tactile patterns we all make to reconstruct what they think is the message (standard explanation of a perceptual input) and will try to control with that input in mind. I guess it is an open loop out there in the word space, the environment, and while there are not necessarily signals, but aresent and interpreted as such. Not necessarily getting technical here.... :slight_smile:

But your rebuttals to Martin and to Rick are "bordering" on breaking the "charter" that is assumed on CSGnet. You yourself walk in to the forum after a period of absence and then you seem to act like you are demanding attention, and when people answer with very standard explanations, you set up a straw man, attack the messengers and it all goes downhill from there. Sad, sad, sad...

Then you tell me to jump in the lake. Tsk tsk. How nice of you to say that whilst mushing my name and calling me pin head. Owie. Uh huh, ad hominem, I would say.

Io capisco, but I object to your behavior, which is simply my "signal" to you. :slight_smile:

--B.

From [Marc Abrams (2006.05.17.1646)]

In a message dated 5/17/2006 2:12:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanth@SOLTEC.NET writes:

(From Bryan Thalhammer (2006.06.17.1255)]

Marc, you are creating a straw man. Anyone knows that by signals is
meant outputs.
Thank you Bryan, a metaphor for outputs, right? What are the inputs? Some other metaphors?

Your actions are signals? what does this "signal mean; uyfiffdutdyt. Can you pronounce it? Yes it is absurd, but is it any more absurd than talking nonsense

No, I did not create a straw man. What I did was ask a bunch of questions trying to figure out why Martin feels the way he does, but apparently he wants to keep that a family secret so there is little I can do.

Now, the problem is that in the environment signals are
mixed in the relatively random environment of disturbances.
That is one, but not the only problem

But humans
as living control systems can pick out the sound, visual and tactile
patterns we all make to reconstruct what they think is the message
(standard explanation of a perceptual input) and will try to control
with that input in mind.
I’m afraid that if you are trying to describe PCT you are not doing a very good job. We don’t control with an input “in mind”. We control an input, period. We control that input with regard to a “goal” we have. That is, we want to “see” that perception at a certain level and in a certain state, and when our current perception of the environment does not line up with what we want we act to reduce and eliminate the discrepancy.

But what does any of this have to do with “signals” between individuals. I’m afraid, you are the one bringing up straw men

I guess it is an open loop out there in the
word space, the environment, and while there are not necessarily
signals,
But that is what we are talking about, 'signals". What is “necessarily” out there?

but aresent and interpreted as such. Not necessarily getting
technical here… :slight_smile:
Yes Bryan, we call this a metaphor. When we liken something to something else that is what we generally call it.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with dealing in metaphors. We could not get along without them. They are just not conducive to understanding causation which puts a cap on “doing” “science”.

But your rebuttals to Martin and to Rick are “bordering” on breaking the
“charter”
And what about Rick’s “rebuttal” to me? When I see you address the transgressions of all EQUALLY, I will give you some credence. But until than you can stuff it.

Besides, who placed you in the seat of judgement? Who are you and what have you done to merit this “authority”.

I have not heard anyone say that you are in fact speaking for them or voicing their concerns. I hear you and your opinions which are no better or worse than anyone else’s.

BTW, what did you get in your methods course? How much engineering have you had?

I’m not sure you are even qualified to be on this list, let alone “moderate” it.

I read Rick’s method book, so that should make me an expert there, after all it made Rick one and I just sent away for my mail-order electrical engineering course.

that is assumed on CSGnet. You yourself walk in to the forum
after a period of absence and then you seem to act like you are
demanding attention, and when people answer with very standard
explanations, you set up a straw man, attack the messengers and it all
goes downhill from there. Sad, sad, sad…
What is “sad” is your imagination. Do you really believe this drival?

If so, you’re about as delusional as Rick, so you guys should make a great team

Then you tell me to jump in the lake. Tsk tsk. How nice of you to say
that whilst mushing my name and calling me pin head. Owie. Uh huh, ad
hominem, I would say.
Of course you would say so. Mainly because you have no idea what an ad homonym attack is, so why not go to your wikipedia and find out and when you do come back and show me where I made it.

And if I don’t respond, start without me.

···

Ibo capisco, but I object to your behavior, which is simply my “signal”
to you. :slight_smile:

–B.