Long men pai nei gong and mo pai

[blue eyed snake]

O yeah, it's clear that we disagree. For many pages now.

But being a scientist myself  I don't class that video as objective evidence, but this probably has been explained to you before.

 

i'm sort of sorry for people who let themselves be trapped in, indeed, a cultish sort of thing.

 

but then, hey its your life

 

 

 

[Ilovecoffee]

3 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

O yeah, it's clear that we disagree. For many pages now.

But being a scientist myself  I don't class that video as objective evidence, but this probably has been explained to you before.

 

i'm sort of sorry for people who let themselves be trapped in, indeed, a cultish sort of thing.

 

but then, hey its your life

 

 

 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

1:

 

b :  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers :  having reality independent of the mind objective reality

 

d :  involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena

 

 

 

Argue with Webster, not I.    

 

Also what is your PhD. in again?

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2017 by Ilovecoffee

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

at the same time you seem to ask of people here to believe you just because you say so... with a video as only ' proof'

 

 

oh well

 

 

This seems to be a fascinating and significant detail.

 

One the one hand, they only seek likeminded people who accept as "objective evidence" an entertainment video in which no data was collected and no actual "science" was applied (but during which "scientists and medical doctors present in that evidence to rule out fraud" -- a carefully crafted and meaningless phrase (replacing the earlier claims that it was "scientific evidence" intended to impart an air of validation but actually skirting the fact that no scientific research was conducted because John Chang refused to continue, hence my repeated references to wanting to see the data) and they categorically reject and spurn anyone who questions the validity of that video in the context of "objective evidence."

 

On the other hand, they insist that no one should seek to join their group out of belief in the testimony of others (which is precisely what that video is) and instead should practice according to their instructions and see for themselves.

 

On the other other hand, they insist that no other system has similar "objective evidence" (despite actual "objective evidence" to the contrary) and that the personal experiences of others who don't practice their instructions as part of their group are merely self-delusional.

 

On the other other other hand, the "objective" demonstrations in the video (making an LED glow, driving a chopstick into a tabletop, etc.) are impressive but there seems to be a link missing between how these abilities translate to their stated goal of liberation during this lifetime from the wheel of life.

 

Quite a curious logical tangle.  This observation in no way disparages John Chang or MoPai itself, mind you, and is only an outsider's commentary on the mental gymnastics of this particular group.

[Ilovecoffee]

10 minutes ago, Brian said:

This seems to be a fascinating and significant detail.

 

One the one hand, they only seek likeminded people who accept as "objective evidence" an entertainment video in which no data was collected and no actual "science" was applied (but during which "scientists and medical doctors present in that evidence to rule out fraud" -- a carefully crafted and meaningless phrase (replacing the earlier claims that it was "scientific evidence" intended to impart an air of validation but actually skirting the fact that no scientific research was conducted because John Chang refused to continue, hence my repeated references to wanting to see the data) and they categorically reject and spurn anyone who questions the validity of that video in the context of "objective evidence."

 

On the other hand, they insist that no one should seek to join their group out of belief in the testimony of others (which is precisely what that video is) and instead should practice according to their instructions and see for themselves.

 

On the other other hand, they insist that no other system has similar "objective evidence" (despite actual "objective evidence" to the contrary) and that the personal experiences of others who don't practice their instructions as part of their group are merely self-delusional.

 

On the other other other hand, the "objective" demonstrations in the video (making an LED glow, driving a chopstick into a tabletop, etc.) are impressive but there seems to be a link missing between how these abilities translate to their stated goal of liberation during this lifetime from the wheel of life.

 

Quite a curious logical tangle.  This observation in no way disparages John Chang or MoPai itself, mind you, and is only an outsider's commentary on the mental gymnastics of this particular group.

 

 

We present the best objective video evidence we have, with scientists and medical doctors to rule out fraud. 

 

We invite people who would accept this as valid to come see for themselves and base their beliefs on their own observations, and not on faith or personal testimony.

 

To us this is not a meaningless phrase, nor is it a logical tangle. 

 

It is very simple, clear, and concise.

 

It is reasonable and rational.

 

If you feel otherwise we can agree to disagree.

 

Best wishes.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Ilovecoffee

[Brian]

Just now, Ilovecoffee said:

 

 

We can agree to disagree Brian.

 

Best wishes.

Best wishes to you as well, ilovecoffee.

[Ilovecoffee]

Just now, Brian said:

Best wishes to you as well, ilovecoffee.

 

Thank you and to you as well.

[Starjumper]

37 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

So we are masochists, losers, and are dumb, or dumbed down?  Do I understand you correctly?

 

You sure do, have you been taking smart pills again?  I don't know if you are all like that but that's how you personally are presenting yourself here.

 

Best wishes   

[Ilovecoffee]

1 minute ago, Starjumper said:

 

You sure do, have you been taking smart pills again?  I don't know if you are all like that but that's how you personally are presenting yourself here.

 

Best wishes   

 

 

So I am confused.

 

Are you saying we are masochists, losers, and are dumb/dumbed down, or not?

[Starjumper]

Just now, Ilovecoffee said:

So I am confused.

 

Are you saying we are masochists, losers, and are dumb/dumbed down, or not?

 

I guess I was wrong about your taking smart pills after all.

[Ilovecoffee]

Just now, Starjumper said:

 

I guess I was wrong about your taking smart pills after all.

 

I am just not sure what you are saying, either you think we are masochists, losers, and are dumb/dumbed down or you don't right?

 

 

[Brian]

32 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

1:

 

b :  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers :  having reality independent of the mind objective reality

 

d :  involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena

 

 

 

Argue with Webster, not I.    

 

Also what is your PhD. in again?

 

 

 

Curiously, you only posted part of that definition, which in turn was only related to part of the phrase in question.  In the interest of completeness, here is the dictionary entry:

Quote

•  

   

   

Definition of objective

1. 1a :  relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophyb :  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers :  having reality independent of the mind objective reality … our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world. — Marvin Reznikoff — compare subjective 3ac of a symptom of disease :  perceptible to persons other than the affected individual objective arthritis — compare subjective 4cd :  involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena objective awareness objective data

2. 2 :  relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs The pronoun her is in the objective case in the sentence “I saw her.”

3. 3a :  expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgmentb of a test :  limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.

 

That said, here is a succinct definition of the actual phrase in question, "objective evidence", from Black's Law Dictionary:

Quote

Quantifiable information that can verified through the use of analytical tools and other forms of research

Law Dictionary: What is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE? definition of OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

So I ask, again, where is the quantifiable information?  What data was recorded?  What actual measurements were taken?

 

I have posted example after example, for years now, of actual scientific and clinical research showing data and analysis to help clarify this simple request.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Brian

[Wells]

[Ilovecoffee]

3 minutes ago, Brian said:

Curiously, you only posted part of that definition, which in turn was only related to part of the phrase in question.  In the interest of completeness, here is the dictionary entry:

 

That said, here is a succinct definition of the actual phrase in question, "objective evidence", from Black's Law Dictionary:

 

So I ask, again, where is the quantifiable information?  What data was recorded?  What actual measurements were taken?

 

I have posted example after example, for years now, of actual scientific and clinical research showing data and analysis to help clarify this simple request.

 

 

Brian I quoted the dictionary and I stand by Webster, if you don't like Webster and want to find a dictionary you like better please feel free to do so. 

 

Otherwise I am not going to play these games with you, you will need to find someone else.

[Starjumper]

19 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

I am just not sure what you are saying, either you think we are masochists, losers, and are dumb/dumbed down or you don't right?

 

I have a question for you Mr. Coffee, one which isn't about your version of MorePai so maybe you can answer one for a change.

 

Here it comes, are you ready?    --->   How come you have so many hours available for spamming the forum, is it because you are retired, unemployed, have a rich mommy?  What?  

 

Wait, I got a psychic message,  It's because you work at a job which requires minimal attention, like watching security camera output in a safe room in a hotel.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Starjumper

[blue eyed snake]

47 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

1:

 

b :  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers :  having reality independent of the mind objective reality

 

d :  involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena

 

 

 

Argue with Webster, not I.    

 

Also what is your PhD. in again?

 

 

 

 

 

Brian has said it all really, and his English is decidedly better then mine.

About my education, if you would read more threads then this one it would not be hard to guess,

 

best wishes again

[Brian]

16 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

 

Brian I quoted the dictionary and I stand by Webster, if you don't like Webster and want to find a dictionary you like better please feel free to do so. 

 

Otherwise I am not going to play these games with you, you will need to find someone else.

I quoted Webster, too, in its entirety (rather than just picking those portions which I though supported my claim).  I then went a step further and provided a definition of the phrase you are using rather than a single word in the phrase.  That phrase is a very specific one, you see -- it has very specific meaning and you chose it (well, MPG did, I don't know who you are) precisely because of that specific meaning.  Now you want to (and expect others to) ignore the specific meaning of that particular phrase by insisting on acceptance of a partial definition of one of the constituent words in that very significant phrase.

 

You stop claiming this is "objective evidence" and I'll stop pointing out that it is no such thing.  Conversely, you can provide evidence (see what I did there?) to support the claim that this is "objective evidence."

[Wells]

Some people would even scream "It's no objective evidence!" while JC was shocking them repeatedly with higher and higher doses of his chi (in an effort to convince them) till death...

Edited July 12, 2017 by Wells
grammar

[Ilovecoffee]

18 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

 

Brian has said it all really, and his English is decidedly better then mine.

About my education, if you would read more threads then this one it would not be hard to guess,

 

best wishes again

 

I read through your post history back to Jan 2015 but must have overlooked it, maybe you would be so kind as tell me without me having to guess.

 

Best wishes to you as well.

[Ilovecoffee]

15 minutes ago, Brian said:

I quoted Webster, too, in its entirety (rather than just picking those portions which I though supported my claim).  I then went a step further and provided a definition of the phrase you are using rather than a single word in the phrase.  That phrase is a very specific one, you see -- it has very specific meaning and you chose it (well, MPG did, I don't know who you are) precisely because of that specific meaning.  Now you want to (and expect others to) ignore the specific meaning of that particular phrase by insisting on acceptance of a partial definition of one of the constituent words in that very significant phrase.

 

You stop claiming this is "objective evidence" and I'll stop pointing out that it is no such thing.  Conversely, you can provide evidence (see what I did there?) to support the claim that this is "objective evidence."

 

Brian, I won't play these games with you.

 

Websters definition of Objective 1b, and 1d work just fine for us, if they don't work for you too bad.

 

Best wishes.

[Brian]

9 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

Brian, I won't play these games with you.

 

Websters definition of Objective 1b, and 1d work just fine for us, if they don't work for you too bad.

 

Best wishes.

As the saying goes, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you."

 

Obviously, that is your prerogative.

 

Best wishes!

 

 

Remind us again, since you brought it up...  What is your scientific or medical training?

[Brian]

24 minutes ago, Wells said:

Some people would even scream "It's no objective evidence!" while JC was shocking them repeatedly with higher and higher doses of his chi (in an effort to convince them) till death...

JC has shocked you with his chi?

 

Awesome!  Why didn't you say so sooner?

[Brian]

For the purpose of comparison, here is what "objective evidence" might look like:

https://www.qigonginstitute.org/docs/Electrodermal_Effects_of_Qi.pdf

 

Notice the description of methodology, the collection and analysis of data, etc.

[Brian]

42 minutes ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

I read through your post history back to Jan 2015 but must have overlooked it, maybe you would be so kind as tell me without me having to guess.

 

Best wishes to you as well.

In less than thirty minutes you read more than 1,300 posts?

 

Quite impressive.  Seems that perhaps your reading comprehension suffers as a result, though.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Brian

[Mudfoot]

2 hours ago, Ilovecoffee said:

 

We all believe that going as far as we can with what we have been given, will put in in a better position to make further progress.

 

I belive there are one or two on this forum that do their practices while hoping they will be allowed to learn the more advanced practices in whatever style they are practicing. 

[Mudfoot]

50 minutes ago, Wells said:

Some people would even scream "It's no objective evidence!" while JC was shocking them repeatedly with higher and higher doses of his chi (in an effort to convince them) till death...

And if a scientist measured ecg, eeg on those people there would be objective evidence.......