I was saying that his theory is val;id to him, it is your choice to dispute it or not.

What is porphyria?

Nice observation of what was implicitly stated, but I didnt go that far, good work. Self-definition in my view is a set of rules to follow to increase your knowledge of self and others. The self is not something to be maintained or glorified as any interpreation you conclude defend and adhere to becomes a point of non growth or learning. As the self contains far more infromation than conciousness is capable of or that can be attained in ideas, it is something that can only be experienced without any label or specific paradigm because ultimatley that paradigm is your limitation to self growth.

Aldous Huxley, he was keenly aware of the questions and nature of the human condition and creatively expressed them in fictional works as his philosophy was best suited to this style. One of the most important writers for modern day readers.

He's sci-fi, this is philosophy.

This idea is only true with external verification, you have an idea that is pleasing but constantly is in contradiction with your experience, shouldnt you reevaluate your idea/beliefs?

Descarte was famous for another thought experiment, called descarte's demon, with this being unprovable you may not exist. So I think the definition is a little simplistic.

I would agree with the contingencys, however can you show me a free society?

Aliens don't exist.

The structure of reality is a three dimension construct inside a four dimensional one.
The higgs boson is a theretical particle predicted by and named after the theorist. I believe its associated gravity? I forget
The holy grail is a story, a fable fiction.

Crop circles are made by people with strings and boards. If you google crop circle makers you'll probably find a few, saw some on tv once. Names and addresses your on your own but who wants that, to actually see the boards and strings they used?

It never ceases to fail me. It is one aspect of experience. Reason implie the conotation of being sound or worthy of building other ideas, however it is relative and sometimes when encountered with something new reason fails us. Reason is a set of rules for operating in a particular environment, this changes with considersation of socail factors, personal interpretaion and a host of other influences. Reason also mediates emotional responces but can also cause them. I guess im using my defintion if you want to provide a clearer defintion maybe i can better awnser the question.

The question of conciousness is relevant when we consider whether or not and how the unconcious effects the concious, for instance the processes of our brains give rise to conciousness, that we are unaware of, called the subconcious. The concious sends feed back(sends back what we experience) back to the subconcious level where upon a new form of conciousness is created; is it a fair assumption that the conciouness we experience can not be verified if this is true? Are we aware of the feedback of our concious mind and its effect on the subconcious? That would be a contradiction in terms. Therefore conciousness from an introspective position can never be understood and as we are all different any interpretation would be governed by the experience of another in the same predicamint who may not exactly, who does not at all share your particular experiences. I suppose descartes' demon lives in all of us.

Interesting, however a more concret discription would nice as the title psychic vampire has many connotations that would be quickly regarded as metaphore or give rise to other perculair ideas about what it is you are saying you are. You need to drink blood to feel ok? I think thast actually unhealthy. Bizarre at best. I like to eat fries but i dont think im a psychic fryeater. Nor would I go arpund asserting this.

I would disagree with the idea of teaching intelligent design because knowledge is built on what is measurable and demonstraighted. Where as intelligent design isnt eaxctly going to lead to the cure of diseases, the foundation supports nothing more than beliefs. Now that is backwards.

Respected quantuam physists have even more exotic explantations for their theories, I dont think its the job of the scientist to refute his own theories, thats anyones job who takes an interest. Qauntum physists would at least admit its possible. I dont know the experiment, but their could be possible explanations for any posistive results, if their were any, the experiemnet was poorly concieved.

I suppose the general premise that smart people believe wierd things is a very ambigiously stated hypothesis. I agree that the social influences in that person environment will give rise to beliefs, called self-fulfilling phophecys in cognitive psychology. This happens on a regular basis with the "bad" kid at school. Studies have shown that unachieving students under the instruction of a teacher who is decieved into the belief that these children are in fact gifted influences the performance of the stundents learning and ability to be taught. By the end of the semester the children in the study far exceeded their former classmates. Reason being? The teachers belief changed their way of thinking about the situation when confronted with a student who didnt grasp what was being taught as well as the subconcious attitute that these children where special. Instead of labeling anyone a trouble maker and coming back to that paradigm whenever extra effort was required, instaed the teaher thought, well it must be something I'm doing wrong. The idea of wierd itself is implied by, not being the norm, so you can defend the history of science and "wierd ideas" by looking at the long journey and oppisition by peoples beliefs, religious beliefs often when opposed recieved harsh punishments. Its no mystery why that might be the current view, that people who believe in something like religion may be less reliant on logic and reason. Howevr einstien believed in god which is something that science cant quantify, to say it cant be quantified therefore it doesnt exist discounts a lot of theries with in the realm of science. Evolutionists are more likely to discount the idea of extra terrestrial life because of their intimate knowledge of the conditions and reactions pertaining to life, as well as why some believe in a god. Where as Astronomers confronted with sheer number of other galaxies and suns likely believe that other life is an inevitability, also less likely to believe in god for other reasons. There are many factors involved in ones beliefs and to say they are correlated with IQ or a measure of school aptitude seems trivial to the subject and premise.

Thread ender. Muhahaha

This must be the E-meter ROFL

Math is more absolute? how so? See Godels therom. Math isnt about experiment, check out string therory, those big particle accelerators they use, nah no math the no therorys. Math is an intimate part of science as well as abundant with theroy.

You know they actually have found there to be a time differance is several experiments where differnt clocks give different results based on einstiens equations. Gravity also distorts time, so as to its existance if it can be measured have differnet properties under different cirrcumstances, this is proof enough for me.

I nevr said it was and your referring to the idea of absolutes which really cant be proven, as i said its a subjective expeience. Also the universe has a certain amount of predictabilty and a certain amount of non predictability. Some aspects appear random but you cant say there is no cause and effect, both these aspects exist, at least subjectively and neither can be proven as absolutes. I gave you a defintion which stated it is defined as a subjective experience. If your trying to argue freewill is dependent on predetermanism or materialism as it is refferred to, think of quantum pysics in responce, if youre suggesting randomess drop an object maybe it will fall up, though i doubt it.