To whom it may concern,

I am trying to build a home web site and forum, please check it out and help me with it.

http://www.freewebs.com/tim4848/

Thank you,
Tim

Sure, how about some words of encouragement…

“Come on, Tim!”

(Apologies to everyone who doesn’t get this.)

David B. - 16 July 2007 09:48 AM

Sure, how about some words of encouragement…

“Come on, Tim!”

(Apologies to everyone who doesn’t get this.)

Dear David B,

Thank you for those kind words and thank you for the math at the end of your reply as well, because that is what I am thinking is going to change my idea into a reality.

I am going to prove my idea based on other people mistakes with inductive reasoning in the weeks to come. My goal is to give each one I find a number, then we can add them up and see what we come up with.

I really don’t think these things up, they just come to me naturally.

Inductive reasoning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Induction (philosophy))
Jump to: navigation, search
Inductive reasoning is the complement of deductive reasoning. For other article subjects named induction, see Induction.
Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.
All billiard balls struck with a cue move.

Thank you,
Tim

Inductive reasoning is a dangerous method of creating a theory due to its very nature.

Inductive reasoning is notoriously unrelaible at coming to conclusions and lacks any logical structure. David Hume noted in his treatise of induction that the generalisations it throws up are only practical if the induction is constant. The future MUST resemble the past for the whole thing to work. Inductive reasoning is different from deductive reasoning, which is scientifically favoured because of its logic. Inductive reasoning does not allow for deviations or anything which can prove the theory wrong.

And as Karl Popper said, in research, anything that supports the theory is useless. You should seek to find data to disagree with it- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.

Induction does not allow this.

Ugh.
I just read through this entire thread start to finish. I skipped very little content (a few things posted that weren’t really relevant to the topic at hand) the end result is:
Head dizzy, feeling parched, cohesive thought elusive…

*gets a drink (non-alcoholic… so far…), does a few things, comes back to write his piece*

Dear Tim,

    As someone who has just read through this thread from start to finish in one sitting, I must say that at many points I was quite confused. I believe that I have understood the core of your beliefs at this point, and would like to first offer a synopsis to test my understanding and second offer some advice that may prove useful.

My understanding of your theory thus far:

- You have had an SOBE.
- You want to prove that the possibility of having an SOBE means that human thought can exist outside the human body.
- This includes that human consciousness or thought can exist post-death.
- You believe that the BrainGate machine offers a new potential way to test this.
- You have also developed a simpler method to test this which relies on a touch sensor, and a light.
- Based on your personal experience, you have come up with needed additional equipment to bypass what you see as obstacles (not being able to hear, not being able to read things which aren’t large and easy to read).
- You have posted your theory in the same manner as you have here in multiple forums.
- You believe that for someone to successfully communicate with the physical world we all know when they are not in their body, they need to believe in the possibility, and train to do t during their physical life.
- You are not easily deterred from your goal, truly believe in your theory, and believe that if it can be proven, the results will benefit all of mankind.

There is more, but I am going to stop there for simplicity’s sake. Please let me know if this seems accurate to you. I must admit that it took quite a bit to get all of this into a coherent mental image. It literally hurt my head to read through this information in the manner you presented it. I think your biggest challenge is one that many people face. Your communication skills are good in the sense that you can write coherently and eloquently, however you seem to be having problems putting your thoughts into a format that others can understand.

First let us look at your communication:

This is something that I deal with every day working in the training field. Preparing training materials is essentially finding a way to tell someone how to do something, however the key to doing it successfully is to do it in a way that yout target audience can understand and identify with. I have worked with many extremely intelligent and knowledgeable professionals who exhibit the same issue that I see with you, you understand your theory and what you are trying to prove, but fail to translate it into terms and concepts that can be clearly understood by all. You tend to over-elaborate details and advanced concepts related to your theory, when the basic concepts remain to be understood by the audience.

Many of the replies I saw in the thread were simply people trying to get the point of what you were saying. You would give a piece, but then go onto a completely different topic, or simply repeat the same thing you said previously without stopping to consider why you were not being understood. You also failed at several points to correct people when they had misunderstood what you were saying, thus leading people to get even more confused as the thread progressed. 

In simple terms, you are failing to “dumb down” the information you are presenting, so that people can understand your basic concepts and ideas before you go onto discussing the advanced, or still uncertain parts of your theory. If my synopsis above is a good basic definition of what you have been trying to communicate all along, please feel free to use it moving forward. You should also consider how your explanations and posts compare to the synopsis I have provided and see if you can envision a way to “translate” you thoughts into similar statements moving forward. Had you started off this thread with information formatted in a similar manner, I think you would have found a much different response from all. Since your goal in communicating your theory is to enlist other to help you test your theory and concepts, I suggest this should be as much a focus as the theory itself.

*to be continued*

*continued*

Here are some simple steps you can take when communicating your ideas moving forward, many of them are simply elaborations of what is taught in High School English classes when you learn to write an essay, but it is easy to forget them when the context is different:

1) Present your overall hypothesis. Keep it simple and easy to understand. Present it in terms familiar to those who you want to inform.
Example: Your title for the thread has a “fantastic” feel to it and leads to disbelief from the start. “Proving that human consciousness can exist outside the body” would be much simpler and to the point, and people would understand what you want to get across right from the start. This sets the tone for you to then explain in detail what you believe and how you wish to prove it. I understand that for you, this started with an SOBE, but your theory goes beyond that and the SOBE was simply a “eye opening experience”.
2) Present your goal. Right from the start, let people know what exactly you want to prove.
3) Present the “tools” you will use to test your theory. Explain what each tool will do, and why clearly and concisely.
4) Explain what led you to come up with your hypothesis. A personal experience is a fine way of coming up with a theory or idea (think Newton and the apple, even if it didn

*continued*

What I thought:

I used to work with a brilliant man. He held a Masters in Physics and could rattle off theories and concepts like no-one else I have ever known. He could ramble deep-space theory and quantum mechanics that I didn

*continued*

If you were to say

Jesus man I’ve seen masters’ thesis shorter than that 😜

Renquist - 26 July 2007 12:46 AM

Inductive reasoning is a dangerous method of creating a theory due to its very nature.

Inductive reasoning is notoriously unrelaible at coming to conclusions and lacks any logical structure. David Hume noted in his treatise of induction that the generalisations it throws up are only practical if the induction is constant. The future MUST resemble the past for the whole thing to work. Inductive reasoning is different from deductive reasoning, which is scientifically favoured because of its logic. Inductive reasoning does not allow for deviations or anything which can prove the theory wrong.

And as Karl Popper said, in research, anything that supports the theory is useless. You should seek to find data to disagree with it- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.

Induction does not allow this.

Thank you Renquist,

Before I respond to Transfrmr, Let me ask you a question.

I seek to find data from science that can’t disagree with my idea- if you can’t do it your theory must be correct.

It can’t be this easy, can it? We already know that science can’t disagree with it.

I want to add more, like how some fields of science actually help my possibility.

Now what type of reasoning am I really looking for?

Thank you,

Tim

Dear Transfrmr,

Thank you for taking the time to read the whole topic and explaining some of the problems I face everyday with it.

Would you be interested if your schedule permits, to explain what I am trying to say better?

Thank you,
Tim