May 07 2012

Is Aura Reading Synaesthesia? Probably Not.

I am often asked, and wonder myself, if there are significant hard-wired and genetically determined brain differences between skeptics and new agers or conspiracy theorists (or name your favorite flavor of true believer). It can certainly feel this way when you are knee deep in a cyber-debate with someone with a radically different world-view than yourself. Obviously there is no simple answer to this question. Biological brain effects are filtered through culture, education, and personal experience, which in turn have an effect on the wiring of the brain (the brain has memory and learns from experience). Further, genetically determined hard-wiring, to the extent that this exists, is extremely complex, with many factors affecting each other.

While it may be difficult to tease out the contribution of genetic hard-wiring to things like belief in fairies, I think it remains an open question and it is not implausible that there is a significant contribution in some cases. Perhaps to some extent the conflict between skeptics and true believers is really a competition between different  versions of human brain wiring. Perhaps we will need to just accept this neurodiversity (its existence, if not its effect on our culture).

While this is a fascinating question, at the same time I feel there is a tendency in popular culture, especially among journalists and (ironically) some purveyors of dubious products and services, to reframe many phenomena with specific reference to the brain. Old fashioned learning is now “training your brain,” for example. While this is technically true, it makes it seem like a new, targeted, reductionist technology when in fact it’s just practice and learning.

A recent study explored one small aspect of the question of brain function and spirituality – researchers asked themselves if those healers and gurus who claim to be able to see a human aura are really synaesthetes, people with a hyperrobust connection among different brain regions that make them smell color, taste sound, feel numbers, or otherwise experience one sensation or experience with an overlay of another sensation. There is a form of synaethesia in which people experience the faces of those familiar to them as having a specific color.

This is a reasonable and interesting hypothesis. I generally try to avoid speculating about people’s motivations, but it I do often wonder what is going on in the minds of someone who claims to see something (like an aura) that is simply not there. I tend to chalk it up to the power of suggestion and self-deception, but perhaps in some cases the person really is seeing something. If true, the face-color synaesthesias hypothesis would bring aura reading in line with many other similar phenomena in which people are sincere, they are just misinterpreting a brain phenomenon as if it were an external phenomenon.

My favorite example of this is hypnagogia, or waking dreams. People have a real experience in which upon awakening they are paralyzed and feel a threatening presence. It is a real and scary experience, and is often interpreted as a demonic visit, alien abduction, or whatever is culturally appropriate. However it is really a well known neurological phenomenon, a parasomnia or abnormal sleep phenomenon. In other words – it is an internal brain experience, but can seem like a real external experience to the person having it.

It would be nice to have a similar explanation of something like seeing auras. It’s a tidy little explanation, and it is a bit easier to explain to people that they are experiencing a real brain phenomenon rather than that they are likely just self-deluded.

Unfortunately, the hypothesis seems to be wrong. The researchers analyzed the subjective reports of four people with face-color synaesthesia. They then compared this to reports and descriptions of people seeing alleged auras. They concluded:

“The discrepancies found suggest that both phenomena are phenomenologically and behaviourally dissimilar.”

That means they are probably not the same thing. For example, synaesthetes see color superimposed over a person, while aura reader see it as a halo. Synaesthetes see one color, while aura readers often discuss layers of color. Synaesthetes generally experience their phenomenon from childhood, while aura reading can apparently be learned.

Of course this is a small study, and is therefore not the final word on this notion. However, there is no evidence for the synaesthesia-aura hypothesis. It is simply a new hypothesis without any evidence. The authors did a preliminary test of this hypothesis and found it to be lacking, so it is probably not worth pursuing further. Other researchers may decide to revisit the question, now that it has been raised, but until then all we have is a hypothesis that failed to get out of the gate.

Amazingly, the media has universally (as far as I have seen so far) misreported this item and have come to the opposite conclusion. Science Daily writes:”Synesthesia May Explain Healers Claims of Seeing People’s ‘Aura’”. Other outlets remove the “may”, and some even substitute the word “prove.”

This is an example of terrible science news reporting, and a major weakness of the current internet-based news infrastructure. It seems that the many news outlets reporting this story are mostly just reprinting one original source – a news report from the University of Granada. Somehow they got the story exactly wrong (erring on the side of sensationalism), and this error has been propagated throughout countless science news outlets and paranormal websites throughout the web. No one, apparently, clicked through to the original article. The article is behind a paywall, but the freely available abstract plainly states the phenomena are not the same.

Now a hypothesis that may be interesting but is without a shred of evidence, and in fact the one test of the hypothesis is negative, is being reported as if it were proven, and this meme-genie is out of the bottle.

Interestingly, this is also not the first time this hypothesis has been raised. In an article in the Skeptical Inquirer in 2011, Bridgette M. Perez and Terence Hines write about auras and bring up the synaesthesia hypothesis. They refer to prior case reports of color synaesthesia, such as the case of GW reported on in 2004. In this case GW sees color associated with people he has an emotional connection to, and even words or concepts that are emotional, such as love. This is one of those features that do not, however, fit well with seeing aura, which are not limited to people with a personal or emotional connection. While GW does not believe in mysticism, Perez and Hines report:

“It is especially interesting that in two separate samples, Zingrone, Alvarado, and Agee (2009) found that individuals who reported seeing auras were significantly more likely to report synesthetic events.”

Interesting, but circumstantial. Given the weight of the evidence it seems that the connection between auras and synaesthesia is speculative and based on superficial similarities that are likely coincidental. The new study, if anything, is a deeper look at the question, finding the hypothesis lacking.

You will learn none of this, unfortunately, reading the lay press, but instead will be led toward the exact opposite (but more headline worthy) conclusion.

Share

133 responses so far

133 Responses to “Is Aura Reading Synaesthesia? Probably Not.”

  1. Dirk Steeleon 07 May 2012 at 9:03 am

    @Steven Novella

    ‘I feel there is a tendency in popular culture, especially among journalists and (ironically) some purveyors of dubious products and services, to reframe many phenomena with specific reference to the brain.’

    Wise words.

    ‘Perhaps to some extent the conflict between skeptics and true believers is really a competition between different versions of human brain wiring. Perhaps we will need to just accept this neurodiversity’

    Or prescribe the meds?

  2. tyler the new ageron 07 May 2012 at 9:26 am

    Hi Dr. Steven Novella, I just came across your blog. I have been looking for scientific evidence for auras and other spiritual phenomena. I completely agree with you, reading aura is not a brain based phenomena. Synaesthesia and other biological/psychological findings cannot be used to explain away human spirituality. It’s great to see an open minded Doctor like yourself. Most doctors and scientists in my experience are very dismissive of spirituality.

    I must make it clear that I am not an evolution denier or an anti Science New Ager. I strongly support Science. It is amazing that since the earliest of times human beings have reported seeing auras around other human’s, animals and even plants. We now have strong Scientific evidence to back this up. It is heartwarming that we now have evidence for the human soul, the AWARE study results that will be released this year will confirm what we have known intuitively all along.

    Anyway coming back to Auras, have you heard of physicist Fritz Albert Popp?

    ”A preeminent German physicist, Fritz-Albert Popp has conducted research that confirms the existence of biophotons. These particles of light, with no mass, transmit information within and between cells. His work shows that DNA in a living cell stores and releases photons creating “biophotonic emissions” that may hold the key to illness and health.

    Popp’s biophoton research led to international projects with scientists such as Walter Nagl, Ilya Prigogine and David Bohm. He became an Invited Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and an Invited Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS). He worked at Princeton University and serves as president of Worms Academy of Reformative Medicine and executive board member of Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University in Philadelphia.

    In 1996, Popp founded the International Institute of Biophysics in Neuss, Germany. It is a worldwide network of biologists, chemists, medical researchers, physicists and other scientists at 14 universities and governmental research institutes. As vice president of the IIB, Popp facilitates research among the groups, focusing on coherence in biology, biophotonics and biocommunication.

    He holds a degree in experimental physics from University of Würzburg, where he received the Röntgen-Prize. Popp earned his PhD in theoretical physics at the University of Mainz, and later became a professor at Marburg University. Popp’s eight books and more than 150 scientific journal articles and studies address basic questions of theoretical physics, biology, complementary medicine and biophotons. ”

    ”In biology, a new discovery promises to change the way we view the human body. It’s called the biophoton field, and it is made of small currents of light that emanate from all living systems. This should not be confused with bioluminescence, a process where some organisms emit visible bursts of biochemical light; this is a phenomenon where the cells themselves produce extremely low-intensity photon fields, and all living things exhibit it.

    First proposed in the 1920s by Alex Gurswitch, it was called “mitogenic radiation”, to explain what Gurswitch was able to observe indirectly—that onion roots were emitting a weak radiation field. It never gained ground however until Fritz Albert Popp, a professor of biophysics at Marburg University in Germany, stumbled across it while investigating the effects of light on cancer cells. His research delving into the phenomenon of photo-regeneration led him to believe that the only way it can occur is if the body is somehow emitting its own light radiation. When his results were presented before the National Cancer Society, they were strongly applauded, except for the one obvious fact that he could not prove that the body was emitting light, and that he had no proposed mechanism to account for that.

    Frustrated by this, Popp decided to make an offer to his top student, who was an excellent engineer as well as a physicist, and who looking for a project for his graduate thesis. Popp challenged him to produce a machine that would be capable of detecting light in the body—an offer he eventually amended, stating that if the student could prove that there is no light in the body, he would have his project.

    The result was a powerful photo-multiplier capable of sensing a candle at a distance of more than 20 miles away. When it was used on a group of cucumber seedlings, the results were astounding; each cell of the plant was producing its own light. However, concerned that this might have something to do with the chlorophyll in the leaves, Popp and his student tested potato roots that had been grown in the dark, and they too produced photon emissions.

    As Popp began to conduct more experiments, he found that every living thing he put in the machine radiated this light, which he termed “biophotonic” to account for its biological origin. In fact, organisms not only produce their own light, but when showered with excess light from external sources, they re-emit it back into the environment in the form of biophotons. But how? And what function do biophotons serve?

    Answers to this began to appear over long periods of research, in which Popp was able to show that DNA was the origin of the emissions, and that when the double-helix was unwound, large amounts of biophoton radiation could be observed. He also showed that the biophoton fields of each cell were of such low intensity that individual photons could be counted, not only indicating that the field was quantum in nature, but also that the photons possessed the optimal qualities for information transfer. They were extraordinarily coherent, meaning that the emissions were structured and orderly (like a laser) unlike normal light, which is disordered and incoherent.

    One place that biophotons could prove crucial is cell communication. If cell communication is accomplished through biophoton emissions, it would solve all kinds of problems that biology has run into investigating the human body today; for example, why the impulses in the nervous system seem to be too slow to account for rapid, coordinated body movement, or how our body synchronizes the 6 x 10^17 chemical reactions that occur within it every second. Popp’s response to this problem is that photons provide the ultimate mechanism for accomplishing this task; they can travel with far greater speed than any nerve impulse, and a single photon can set off many thousand chemical reactions per second.

    Regarding the role of biophotons in trans-individual communication, Popp found that water flea Daphnia Magna is capable of emitting photons that are be absorbed by other fleas, possibly providing an explanation for how they can form coordinated swarms, like flocks of birds or schools of fish. Recall that these are photons; they have a strong propensity to be entangled.

    At this critical point in his career however, the university Popp worked at decided his research was damaging its reputation, so they attempted to seize all of his equipment. Luckily for Popp, he had been tipped off about the raid, and managed to store his photomultiplier with a friend. Adding insult to injury, the university then withheld the 40,000 marks Popp was due in compensation for his years of teaching, and he had to sue them to get his money back. The result is that Popp was left stranded, a married man trying to provide for three young children, in a world where no science institution was prepared to touch him for his heretical discoveries. After being expelled from a second university for the same reason, Popp finally found work in the Technology Center in Kaiserslautern, which was largely sponsored by government grants for application research. Eventually, he founded the International Institute of Biophysics in Neuss Germany.

    His work led him to build bigger and better photomultipliers, until he was able to create one large enough to capture the biophoton field of a human being:

    In hundreds of follow-up investigations Popp discovered that the intensity of biophoton emissions in a living organism is correlated with disease, injury, emotional state, and even the waxing and waning of the moon, among many other things. At the International Institute of Biophysics, researchers working with Popp found that Multiple Sclerosis is characterized by an over-abundance of biophotons, and that cancerous tumors emit far more biophotons than surrounding healthy tissue (an average of 300 [ or -] 90 photons/cm per minute compared with normal tissue that emits an average of 22 [ or -] 6 photons/cm per minute.) He also found that, with regular application of a popular folk mistletoe remedy, the tumor’s photons eventually returned to a coherent state”.

  3. locutusbrgon 07 May 2012 at 10:07 am

    Really? Steele
    I guess when you have a hammer as your only tool everything looks like a nail.

  4. passionlessDroneon 07 May 2012 at 10:13 am

    @Stephen Novella –

    Though not exactly a skeptical area, I’d love to see you write a post on synaesthesia proper. During my college days, we experimented with, psychadelic agents for a time. A few times I experienced transient, but very real (to me), ‘seeing of sounds’ style synaesthesia. It only lasted a few hours, but it left a big impression on me for pretty much forever, literally seeing how your filters on reality can be tweaked is a lot different than reading about it. Anyway, I’ve often thought that the molecular aspects of that experience would be interesting to know more about.

    Nice article.

    - pD

  5. Kawarthajonon 07 May 2012 at 11:13 am

    That was quite the mental feat, tyler the new ager – making the leap that because Steve was criticizing the media’s reporting of a study on auras and synaesthesia, he was therefore supporting spirituality and a non-scientific explanation for auras.

    Furthermore, Steve wrote that he typically was of the impression that people who claim to see auras are either self-deceiving or are influenced by the power of suggestions, although he was also of the opinion that there could be some scientific basis that had not been proven. Nowhere does he express a belief in the spiritual origin of auras.

    I am also confused as to how you can make the leap from spirituality to this biophoton nonsense.

    I would suggest you re-read the post.

  6. tyler the new ageron 07 May 2012 at 11:23 am

    Kawarthajon, I find your tone bigoted and rude. You seem to dismiss spirituality and equate it with non-scientific religious stuff. I urge you to do your research before dismissing the spiritual aspects of humanity. It is interesting to note that the founders of the Society for Psychical research and other Parapsychological organizations were Atheistic Materialists just like you, but they had an open mind and were not debunkers unlike you.
    I have been recently reading alot about parapsychology and the theories behind it, one must do such a thing to have an open mind on this subject. I will be happy to debate you and point out how materialism is a false and deeply misguided philosophy.

  7. Kawarthajonon 07 May 2012 at 11:24 am

    Check out this awesome pseudo-scientific nonsense in this video trailer, which is associated with Dr. Popp. http://www.thelivingmatrixmovie.com/en/trailer

    Here’s a great quote:

    “Informational medicine, medicine that takes information and changes disturbed information, is going to be the future of medicine”

    Really, any quote from the video is a classic version of pseudo-science nonsense.

  8. Dirk Steeleon 07 May 2012 at 11:40 am

    @locutusbrg

    ‘I guess when you have a hammer as your only tool everything looks like a nail.’

    Why bother getting out the tool case when the hammer does the job just nicely? ;-)

  9. tyler the new ageron 07 May 2012 at 11:43 am

    By the way, all of you should be aware that scientists have identified biophoton emissions in the brain:http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26151/

    This is not Kirlian photography. I urge you all to watch this interview with the amazing physicist Fritz Albert Popp

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1174042578185698230
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STCpAJtSRw

    Dr.Novella, instead of constantly bringing James Randi on the SGU podcast, why not interview Fritz Albert Popp? His list of credentials is amazing.

    I refuse to remain silent while people like Kawarthajon deny all the Scientific evidence for the human aura. I came here to have an informed discussion based on the evidence, I will not entertain bigoted debunking that is all too common in the modern skeptical movement.

  10. Steven Novellaon 07 May 2012 at 12:13 pm

    tyler – thanks for your thoughtful comments. However, biophotons are not an established scientific phenomenon. This is not “debunking” – it takes a certain amount of evidence and reproduciblity to establish a new phenomenon, and the case for biophotons is simply not compelling. Citing Popp credentials is just an argument from authority. The totality of the evidence also does not support the case for a human aura. But this is not a topic I am going to do justice in the comments of this post. I will have to dedicate a future post to this.

  11. LivingWithMormonson 07 May 2012 at 12:18 pm

    ” You seem to dismiss spirituality and equate it with non-scientific religious stuff”

    “Spirituality” is, by definition, non-scientific stuff since, not only there’s zero evidence for any of it, there are no models for testing any of it.

    However, I’m more impressed at anyone who actually read the entire drivel you wrote above.

    “It is heartwarming that we now have evidence for the human soul”
    LOL!

  12. Kawarthajonon 07 May 2012 at 1:18 pm

    tyler the new ager – spirituality, and whether there is scientific evidence for it, is obviously a touchy subject for you. To call me bigoted is a bit of a stretch, when I was merely commenting on your leaps of logic that were inconsistent with what Steve had written in his post. I mentioned nothing of my own spiritual beliefs or criticisms about spiritualism in general.

    You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth – talking about auras and their spiritual source, but also advocating that it is scientifically proven that auras exist. I said nothing about whether auras exist or not – I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies between your comments and the article posted above. I don’t know whether they exist, although I know people who claim they can see them.

    I encourage other posters to view this trailer, which was taken from the Living Matrix about healing technology:

    http://www.thelivingmatrixmovie.com/en/trailer

    The trailer has a lot about light and miraculous healing. Very clever. Could be a Poe, it is so full of nonsense. This living matrix stuff is supported by Dr. Popp, the guy tyler the new ager is lauding as a scientist…

  13. cwfongon 07 May 2012 at 1:39 pm

    From the ScienceDaily article:
    “Some healers “have abilities and attitudes that make them believe in their ability to heal other people, but it is actually a case of self-deception, as synesthesia is not an extrasensory power, but a subjective and ‘adorned’ perception of reality,” the researchers state.”

    With that sort of conclusion, why should we think the article in general is wrong? Because some other healers are outright frauds? Irrelevant.

    “Synesthesia is not an extrasensory power, but a subjective and ‘adorned’ perception of reality.” Relevant.

  14. cwfongon 07 May 2012 at 1:54 pm

    tyler, you are right about the “bigoted debunking” here “that is all too common in the modern skeptical movement.” You are wrong however to take the findings of parapsychology all that seriously. If they would stick to examining alternate methods of communication in the present world, that would be great. But to examine communications that they believe must come from the future is bizarre. Sequence, my boy, sequence. It’s the fifth dimension.

  15. Steven Novellaon 07 May 2012 at 1:59 pm

    cwfong – not sure what your point is. The sciencdaily article is wrong in that the new research did not demonstrate that aura perception is synaesthesia, but rather concluded that it probably wasn’t. They clearly didn’t check the published study but went by a secondary source that got it wrong.

    I’m not sure what you think is relevant to what.

  16. cwfongon 07 May 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Steven, you state that “The sciencdaily article is wrong in that the new research did not demonstrate that aura perception is synaesthesia, but rather concluded that it probably wasn’t.”
    But the article stated that “Synesthesia is not an extrasensory power, but a subjective and ‘adorned’ perception of reality.”
    How does this argue that aura perception is synesthesia? They are saying that synesthesia is not the same as aura perception, which is entirely consistent with concluding that aura perception is not the same as synesthesia.

  17. gr8googlymooglyon 07 May 2012 at 2:56 pm

    I think someone here needs to remember that before one takes on trying to describe ‘how’ a thing works, one must first prove ‘that’ it works. ‘Biophotons’ as the cause of ‘auras’ is quite premature since no one has proven that auras actually exist.

  18. cwfongon 07 May 2012 at 4:09 pm

    tyler, those cited videos that assume that biophoton emissions are evidence of their spiritual sources are hard to swallow whole. The only things they evidence are that they serve a variety of purposes that seem to be pervasive in our biologically strategic systems, and that these same or similar strategic systems may be pervasive in the universe. In other words the universe may well be made up of systems that, as we are seeing in biology, intelligently evolve themselves.

    Perhaps you are confusing the anticipatory nature of these processes as being agent driven for the agent’s future purposes. Not necessarily so at all. Everything that we know to exist does so with anticipation of its future status. But just as a something cannot come from a nothing, it also cannot come from an anticipated something that does not yet sequentially exist.

  19. Kawarthajonon 07 May 2012 at 4:18 pm

    tyler the new ager – I’m not clear what was bigoted about my post. I was merely pointing out inconsistencies between your statements and what Steve wrote. This is obviously a passion of yours and you are quick to denounce people who are rightfully sceptical of your beliefs about auras and biophotons.

    As for Dr. Fritz Popp, the things I have seen about him or from him on the internet suggest to me that he is a promoter of pseudo science, regardless of his previous accolades and bona fides. A preview video I saw on one of his website is so absurdly pseudoscientific that it could be a Poe.

  20. tyler the new ageron 07 May 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Hi Dr.Novella, thank you for your kind response.
    cwfong, thank you, but I am worried you are unaware about much of the work done by Parapsychologists. With the exception of Charles Tart, almost all Parapsychologists are Atheists and have no interest in spirituality. Their main interest is understanding how the universe really works. Unfortunately Parapsychologists face extreme bigotry from the vast majority of the scientific community. Skeptics like Richard Weisman have obtained positive results for PSI, I was deeply disappointed when Wiseman implied on an interview on the SGU podcast that those that believe in PSI are silly :(
    By the way here is a list of skeptics that have obtained positive results in PSI experiements:

    (1) Harris Friedman – A mainstream clinical psychologist and Professor of Psychology at University of Florida, he describes himself in the book Debating Psychic Experience as “staunchly agnostic toward psi”. Yet, he has also found statistically significant results:

    I will share one limited experience in parapsychological research in which I found strong evidence for telepathy in a study of U.S. preteens (Friedman, 2010). If I had found a similarly strong result within a mainstream research area, I would have unhesitatingly published it. However, because of various factors (e.g., my then mentor warning me that publishing this investigation could be a career ender for me as a budding academic), this study was relegated to the file drawer.

    Friedman, H. (2010). Parapsychology studies. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 6(3), 129–130.

    (2) Richard Wiseman – As Adrian Parker notes in his review of Debating Psychic Experience, Even Wiseman, who is famous (some might say infamous) for his categorical statements of never having encountered any evidence of the paranormal, was one of the joint authors of the security set-up for the successful ganzfeld experiment with Kathy Dalton (Dalton, Morris, Delanoy, Radin, Taylor, & Wiseman, 1996) and succeeded with Marilyn Schlitz (Schlitz, Wiseman, Watt, & Radin, 2006) in replicating their experimenter effect findings in two of three studies. He has also been able to follow the occasional successes of his partner, Caroline Watt (Watt & Ramakers, 2003).

    Dalton, K. S., Morris, R. L., Delanoy, D. L., Radin, D. I., Taylor, R. & Wiseman, R. (1996). Security measures in an automated ganzfeld system. Journal of Parapsychology, 60, 129–148.

    Schlitz, M., Wiseman, R., Watt, C., & Radin, D. (2006). Of two minds. Sceptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 313–322.

    Watt, C., & Ramakers, P. (2003). Experimenter effects with a remote facilitation of attention focusing task: A study with multiple believer and disbeliever experimenters. Journal of Parapsychology, 67, 99–116

  21. Steven Novellaon 07 May 2012 at 5:18 pm

    cwfong – your logic is not valid. First, read the news article. Throughout they are talking about how the research showed that when people see auras they may be experiencing synaesthesia, when the research actually showed they weren’t.

    The quote you keep going to, rather, has nothing to do with that point, and is not incompatible with the headline claim. It is simply stating that, if reading auras is synaesthesia, then that does not mean that reading auras is spiritual or supernatural, because synaesthesia is just a brain phenomenon.

    The sciencedaily article writes: “New research suggests that many healers claiming to see the aura of people might have this condition.”

    Wrong. The new research they are referring to suggests that those who claim to see auras do NOT have this condition (synaesthesia).

    What are you missing?

  22. BillyJoe7on 07 May 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Fringe/Pseudo Science alert:

    “The only things [biophoton emissions] evidence are that they serve a variety of purposes that seem to be pervasive in our biologically strategic systems, and that these same or similar strategic systems may be pervasive in the universe. In other words the universe may well be made up of systems that, as we are seeing in biology, intelligently evolve themselves.”

    “Perhaps you are confusing the anticipatory nature of these processes as being agent driven for the agent’s future purposes. Not necessarily so at all. Everything that we know to exist does so with anticipation of its future status. But just as a something cannot come from a nothing, it also cannot come from an anticipated something that does not yet sequentially exist.”

    Please keep moving, nothing to see here…

  23. BillyJoe7on 07 May 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Steve: “What are you missing?”

    Comprehension skills.
    He misunderstands everything he reads as is clearly on display here.
    So, unless you want to keep banging your head up against a brick wall….

  24. cwfongon 07 May 2012 at 6:10 pm

    I see the resident idiot has projected all his problems on his opponents again. The quintessential example of the bigoted debunking that is all too common in the modern skeptical movement. And a proven liar to boot.
    Excuse me while I try to finish my response to Steven, which may involve an admission that I was wrong – something this idiot has never done, even when this same Steven says he clearly is.

  25. cwfongon 07 May 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Steven, all I could read at this tme was the abstract from the study here:
    “In a variety of synaesthesia, photisms result from affect-laden stimuli as emotional words, or faces of familiar people. For R, who participated in this study, the sight of a familiar person triggers a mental image of “a human silhouette filled with colour”. Subjective descriptions of synaesthetic experiences induced by the visual perception of people’s figures and faces show similarities with the reports of those who claim to possess the ability to see the aura. It has been proposed that the purported auric perception may be easily explained by the presence of a specific subtype of cross-modal perception. We analyse the subjective reports of four synaesthetes who experience colours in response to human faces and figures. These reports are compared with descriptions of alleged auric phenomena found in the literature and with claims made by experts in esoteric spheres. The discrepancies found suggest that both phenomena are phenomenologically and behaviourally dissimilar.”

    So then I read the cited article in Science Daily, concluding that:
    “In the light of the results obtained, the researchers remarked on the significant “placebo effect” that healers have on people, “though some healers really have the ability to see people’s ‘auras’ and feel the pain in others due to synesthesia.” Some healers “have abilities and attitudes that make them believe in their ability to heal other people, but it is actually a case of self-deception, as synesthesia is not an extrasensory power, but a subjective and ‘adorned’ perception of reality,” the researchers state.”

    And then you cited the news report from Universidad de Granda, which concludes:

    In the light of the results obtained, the researchers remark the significant “placebo effect” that healers have on people, “though some healers really have the ability to see people’s auras and feel the pain in others due to synesthesia”. Some healers “have abilities and attitudes that make them believe in their ability to heal other people, but it is actually a case of self-deception, as synesthesia is not an extrasensory power, but a subjective and ‘adorned’ perception of reality”, the researchers state.
    This was the story you said they got exactly wrong, yet it seems to agree with the Science Daily story and not disagree with anything in the study abstract, except to say that both phenomena are phenomenologically and behaviourally dissimilar.

    Based on all of the above, I see writers coming at the study from different angles, but not where any of them were exactly wrong. Perhaps I’m drawing inferences where I shouldn’t, since I don’t have easy access to the full article, but I don’t see from your post where these inferences are incorrect either.

    You say: “The new research they are referring to suggests that those who claim to see auras do NOT have this condition (synesthesia). I didn’t see that claim anywhere in the items cited, but again I haven’t read the full report.

    However, I do find it hard to believe that such a conclusion could be accurate, and that no-one who has synesthesia has claimed to see auras.
    So I may be wrong about what the study actually says and I’ll accept that. I just have a hard time at this point believing such a study is correct. Am I right? I don’t know. I do science.

  26. jaredon 07 May 2012 at 7:37 pm

    @tyler the new ager

    By definition, I don’t believe that bigotry can apply to skeptics.

  27. Steven Novellaon 07 May 2012 at 7:59 pm

    cwfong – the abstract is a bit misleading because it spends so much time setting up the hypothesis, and then only the last line betrays the actual outcome of the study. I was shocked by that too – but then I read the news report first. So I pulled the study and it is quite clear. It talks about the hypothesis and why previous researchers raised it. Then it goes into a few different studies involving the Stroop effect, and finally they interviewed face-color synaesthetes and compared the features of their experience to the descriptions of aura reading, showing that they are dissimilar in almost every key feature, concluding that they are not the same thing. This is not the same as concluding that no synaesthete has ever thought they were seeing auras (although the subjects in the study dd not).

    Bottom line – face/color synaesthesia is not an explanation for aura reading.

    The news articles are odd. They bear almost no relationship to the actual study. I suspect the original reporter misunderstood the study and went off on a tangent based upon a false premise. The researchers probably thought they were getting hypothetical questions, or they didn’t manage the interview well, but I suspect the reporter just went off.

    When I said the news reports was completely wrong, I meant about the bottom line conclusion of the study. A lot of the other points about placebo effect, etc. are correct – just entirely irrelevant. They are not even about the study, so the reporting is still entirely incorrect about the study.

  28. cwfongon 07 May 2012 at 8:28 pm

    Ok, I appreciate the feedback. I should try harder to get past the paywall in the future. (My son is a faculty member at his university, and I’m going to have to bother him a bit more for access.)

  29. BillyJoe7on 08 May 2012 at 12:45 am

    “I try to finish my response to Steven, which may involve an admission that I was wrong – something this idiot has never done, even when this same Steven says he clearly is.”

    I have admitted several errors. When you last made this accusation, I pointed one out to you (regarding something sonic had said about yin and yang – remember now?). I even quoted it for you. And I added that I am happy to be wrong because that means I have learnt something. I have actually learnt many things on this blog, but I have never learnt anything from you. You are a complete waste of time.

    And Steven was wrong regarding Krauss – because, like you, he had not read the book. My guess is that he thought we were discussing the video, not the book. You do not have that excuse.

  30. cwfongon 08 May 2012 at 1:13 am

    Yet you refuse to tell us what’s supposed to be in the book and instead lie about what was supposed to be in an interview that reflected what was in the book. Steven knew quite well what was being discussed, and you have no excuse for lying to win your un-winnable argument. And yet here you are still lying.

    I have no memory of any yin and yang admission of wrongness and the last thing I’d do is take your word for it. You’ve never learned anything from me? Good. You’d have it wrong if you thought you did.

  31. BillyJoe7on 08 May 2012 at 6:35 am

    Regarding the book:
    I have repeated what’s in the book ad nauseam through several threads.
    But, without reading it, you have presumed to tell me what was not in the book.
    (And Steve can speak for himself if he so chooses, so I will not respond to what you think he knew!)

    Regarding the interview:
    I linked to the interview and I summarised it for your beenfit in case you weren’t prepared to read the whole interview.
    In my opinion, the summary accurately reflected the interview.
    The point is, I provided the link to the whole interview as well.
    There’s no pleasing some people.

    Regarding yin and yang:
    Convenient of you to lose your memory.
    Sonic over several exchanges convinced me that his understanding was correct and mine was wrong.
    I made a very pointed and clear admission about this.

  32. Rikki-Tikki-Tavion 08 May 2012 at 8:06 am

    Steven,
    you talked briefly about the possibility of different brain wireings in skeptics and believers. Do you know of any evidence that could lead in that direction?
    I’m asking because that would have implications for an essay I am writing right now about the history of the heliocentric world view.

  33. cwfongon 08 May 2012 at 12:02 pm

    @BillyJoe7,
    “Regarding the interview:
    I linked to the interview and I summarised it for your beenfit in case you weren’t prepared to read the whole interview.
    In my opinion, the summary accurately reflected the interview.
    The point is, I provided the link to the whole interview as well.
    There’s no pleasing some people.”

    You linked to one Krauss interview, and then you cut and pasted from a different interview. Your so called “summary” left out the conclusion which stated the opposite to what you claim was in the book.
    Unfortunately for your plan, I WAS prepared to both find and read the full interview and caught you.

    You went to great lengths to lie about was actually in Krauss’ book. And you have continued to lie, over and over.

  34. BillyJoe7on 08 May 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Perhaps I posted the wrong link.
    If so, you could have simply pointed that out and, if you politely asked for the correct link, I would have happily posted it.

    “Your so called “summary” left out the conclusion which stated the opposite to what you claim was in the book.”

    That’s just bullocks.
    And it’s about time you read the book on which you presume to continually comment.

  35. cwfongon 08 May 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Your summary left out the conclusion where Krauss said in his interview that something did not actually come from nothing, and the book had not said that it did. Keep pushing this and I’ll go back and repost the whole series where you were caught with your lying pants off.
    You are a damned liar to claim that was bullocks. The book does not say what you claim it does, and you are absolutely unable to cite the chapter, page, or line where it does. You will remain a damned liar as it’s far too late now to admit you were wrong. You can’t undo the fact that you’ve repeatedly lied. Keep reposting these lame excuses, why don’t you. People tend to forget who lied or didn’t. but you can’t let them, can you. Anyone who goes to the lengths you did to manipulate and falsify the actual records that are still intact on google can’t be trusted from then on to post the truth about anything. And that means you.

  36. Jobinon 08 May 2012 at 9:21 pm

    I myself am a synaesthete. Among my various oddities comes with how people appear to me and how I see them in my mind’s eye. I’ve likened the description to auras and if I wasn’t aware of my condition and lived in the distant past I’d probably be thought to see auras. When I see people, each person basically has a collage of colored tiles, almost like stained glass, mostly of the same color varied subtly (closer studying of someone’s picture will bring out different colors from the picture based on the variations in the original picture), and the shape can change over time as I get to know the person. Certain features of people’s collage tell me different things about the person (most common is how I know them, what their sense of humor is like, what we did last time we met, etc.). If I don’t know the person/it’s my first time meeting them obviously they get a rougher picture with first impressions on it.

    All this, however, and I don’t see a reason your particular synaesthetic experience should be anything like mine, and indeed yours may be very much like the pop-notion of how auras look. Who’s to say if a person is convinced they see auras when really it’s synaesthesia? Given that all reports of seeing auras are subjective, we deal with a bit of bias here. It could be that these gurus, in light of the synaesthesia, being wrapped in the culture of aura mythology, has simply refined his senses and molded them to fit his world as he sees it?

  37. BillyJoe7on 09 May 2012 at 12:14 am

    …and who hasn’t read the book and continually misunderstands what he reads?
    You can’t even get the argument right anymore.
    (Hint: not what you said above)

    You are a complete waste of time and effort.

  38. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 12:31 am

    Keep posting senseless crap like that, you damned liar. Get yourself back on the comment page. Show us what you read in Krauss’ book that you understand to demonstrate that something has actually come from absolutely nothing. If you actually read that and understood it, you’d have no trouble quoting it from the book. But you can’t do so because you’ve realized it isn’t in the book and never was.
    You could have admitted that long ago, but you couldn’t let anyone know how wrong you were. So you lied as usual to cover your sorry ass, But you got caught in the most incompetent lying effort yet seen here. Now you’re screwed. You think about it all the time. You make these pitiful little comments, as if catching liars was somehow unfair to the liar.
    Psychopaths invariably react that way and blame the victim for having caught them. But psychopaths are usually smarter, so aside from lying pathologically, you apparently are just incurably dumb.

  39. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 1:35 am

    I can’t even get the argument right any more? Let’s see. Here’s the part of the Krauss interview again that BillyJoe7 cut out when he posted it for me to read:

    “But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That it’s possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable—that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The fact that “nothing,” namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I’ll be the first to say that empty space as I’m describing it isn’t necessarily nothing, although I will add that it was plenty good enough for Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For them an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain’t nothing anymore ”

    Let’s repeat these sentences:
    “But I’ll be the first to say that empty space as I’m describing it isn’t necessarily nothing”
    “That kind of nothing ain’t nothing anymore.” Why did BillyJoe7 cut that whole part out? Is it in his Krauss book after all and BJ7 has realized from what Krauss said in interviews about the book that he got the meaning wrong? Of course, so he cuts and pastes the interview to try to fool me, and gives me the wrong address for the entire interview to boot.

    I think they call that lying. And I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone has done something like that on this blog before. Unless it was BillyJoe7 and we never caught him.

  40. Mlemaon 09 May 2012 at 2:15 am

    Dr. N: “…biophotons are not an established scientific phenomenon.”

    You might be interested in this:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3371

    Emission of Mitochondrial Biophotons and their Effect on Electrical Activity of Membrane via Microtubules
    M. Rahnama, I. Bokkon, J. Tuszynski, M. Cifra, P. Sardar, V. Salari
    (Submitted on 13 Dec 2010 (v1), last revised 30 Mar 2011 (this version, v3))

    In this paper we argue that, in addition to electrical and chemical signals propagating in the neurons of the brain, signal propagation takes place in the form of biophoton production. This statement is supported by recent experimental confirmation of photon guiding properties of a single neuron. We have investigated the interaction of mitochondrial biophotons with microtubules from a quantum mechanical point of view. Our theoretical analysis indicates that the interaction of biophotons and microtubules causes transitions/fluctuations of microtubules between coherent and incoherent states. A significant relationship between the fluctuation function of microtubules and alpha-EEG diagrams is elaborated on in this paper. We argue that the role of biophotons in the brain merits special attention.

  41. Mlemaon 09 May 2012 at 2:22 am

    I especially love this research because it makes me think of the animations that artists do where they try to show a nerve cell transmitting a signal – they show a little spark, with a glow traveling down the axon. :)

  42. SteveAon 09 May 2012 at 5:13 am

    cwfong: Let’s repeat these sentences:
    “But I’ll be the first to say that empty space as I’m describing it isn’t necessarily nothing”
    “That kind of nothing ain’t nothing anymore.”

    I’m not going to get caught up in this (I’ll limit myself to this comment) but you seem to be missing the nuance. It seems clear that Krauss is happy to use the word ‘nothing’ in the accepted sense of the word. The fact that this void, this ‘absence’ , is unstable does not give it substance. We might say the nothing has the potential to be something, but that this potential is nothing till it’s realised.

    Perhaps the language does not do the concept justice.

  43. BillyJoe7on 09 May 2012 at 5:58 am

    cwfong,

    You have simply misunderstood the extent of what he is saying.
    You need to read the whole interview! And the whole book!
    Get back to me when you have.

    Then go back to the several threads where I have responded to all your questions repeatedly before you come back here and demand that I go through it all again.
    I have shown great patience in explaining it all for you.

    NOW….READ THE BOOK!

    And stop making an ass of yourself.

  44. BillyJoe7on 09 May 2012 at 6:06 am

    PS:

    I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that the very next paragraph of that interview from which cwfong quotes extends Krauss’ concept of nothing further (this was the argument, by the way, not what he posted above. We all agree that empty space is not really nothing!).
    But, since he has chosen not to provide the link….

  45. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 12:51 pm

    @Jobin

    Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing.

    @cwfong, @BJ7

    Please please can you take your discussions elsewhere. You are beginning to ruin every thread here for everyone else. I call your behaviour ‘plain rudeness.’

  46. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 1:06 pm

    BillyJoe7, the liar, now wants to say he didn’t really mean that something came from absolute nothing, but that the concept of nothing was the absence of particles, and empty space is not, as Krauss says in the interview, absolutely nothing, but the absence of particles.
    “Empty space isn’t necessarily nothing.” I get the nuance and Steven Novella got the nuance. Yet BillyJoe7 tells both of us that what Krauss said in the interview and directly to Steven was NOT IN THE BOOK, and that the book says something DID come from absolutely nothing.
    Now BillyJoe7 wants to weasel out of being caught as a liar by saying the interview is the SAME as in the book. If so, why do I (but not Steven?) need to read the book, and WHY did he remove that part of the interview?
    I’ve dealt professionally with sociopaths for years and especially with how they successfully lie. The lying here is absolutely clear.
    Again, if what Krauss said in the interview was the same as in his book, why did either Steven or I need to read the book? And why did BillyJoe7 remove that part of the interview if the same information was what he wanted us to read in the book? He can’t answer those two questions without admitting he has lied all along, and that the book says the SAME THING as the interview does.

    He’s now saying that “we all agree that empty space is not really nothing.” He says “this was the argument, by the way.” Oh, was it? Then why for the third time do Steven Novella and I need to read the book, and why did BillyJoe7 tell both of us that this was NOT the argument when we both tried to tell him it was?
    He can say, as usual, that those who disagree with his lying ways are making an ass of themselves, but then in this case he’s saying that Steven has also made an ass of himself. Yet how, if we are both right about Krauss meaning and BillyJoe7 was wrong all along?
    Except when he suddenly has become right when he made that post above, where he now agrees with all of us, and that “empty space is not really nothing.”
    Explain again, you lying piece of crap, why you took that part of the interview out of your quotation, and why we should still read the book, if that’s what the book actually says?
    See, once you clearly lie, there’s no way out except to weasel around and complain that you didn’t really lie, but everyone mistook your meaning. If so, WHY did you take the part out of the interview that told the truth, and why say we then need to read the book, which has that same part in it anyway?

    This is not about a nuance that Steve and I didn’t get, it’s about BillyJoe7 having read the book and NOT understanding what it said, and arguing until the cows won’t come home that he was right – until he was caught in a lie and now changes his story to get out of it.
    But as I said above, it’s too late now to admit you were wrong, liar, even in as weaselly a way as you’ve just done. You have still been caught in a flat out and completely dishonorable lie. There’s no excuse for that, and you can’t make one up.
    But I’m sure you’ll try.

  47. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 1:56 pm

    @cwfong

    Ok I change my mind. I am no longer a Szaszian. You have proven to me that severe mental illness exists.

  48. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 2:33 pm

    So you’re another sociopath. Who cares.

  49. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 2:38 pm

    @cwfongon

    ‘So you’re another sociopath. Who cares.’

    As I have told you before… I am the expert! You are only the student. I see through you like a magnifying glass.

  50. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 2:48 pm

    @cwfong

    You are the epitome, if I may use a metaphor metaphorically here, of self mastication. Just go away and google your wiki. Just do it in private this time.

  51. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 2:49 pm

    You’re a self admitted liar. You lie on command. Nobody feels sorry for you. Nobody cares.

  52. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 3:00 pm

    @cwfong

    You must have studied very hard the art of humiliating yourself in public. You are the expert! But unfortunately for you nobody feels sorry for you. Nobody cares. ;-)

  53. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Lies on command. Nobody cares.

  54. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 3:15 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘Lies on command. Nobody cares.’

    Lost for words now? Lost your mind? We all think so.

  55. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 3:50 pm

    Nobody cares what you think.

  56. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 4:05 pm

    I take that back, as I am happy that you found this comment about BillyJoe7 offensive:
    “This is not about a nuance that Steve and I didn’t get, it’s about BillyJoe7 having read the book and NOT understanding what it said, and arguing until the cows won’t come home that he was right – until he was caught in a lie and now changes his story to get out of it.
    But as I said above, it’s too late now to admit you were wrong, liar, even in as weaselly a way as you’ve just done. You have still been caught in a flat out and completely dishonorable lie. There’s no excuse for that, and you can’t make one up.”
    Both of you being founders of this blog’s sociopathic liars club is progress.

  57. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 4:11 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘Nobody cares what you think.’

    Probably. But they care even less about what you think.

    ‘You have still been caught in a flat out and completely dishonorable lie.’

    You can only repeat yourself a few times before someone will diagnose you with OCD. Or a stutter.

    Give it a rest mate please.

  58. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Nobody cares if sociopathic liars are irritated.

  59. Dirk Steeleon 09 May 2012 at 5:02 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘Nobody cares if sociopathic liars are irritated.’

    Jeez! Not only have you got a mental illness but you have a brain disease as well!!! Dr. Novella must be very pleased to have his delusions vindicated.

  60. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 5:11 pm

    Nobody is interested in sociopathic liars’ opinions.

  61. BillyJoe7on 09 May 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Get this through your thick skull.

    It is not about what I beleive, it’s about what Krauss says in his book.

    I HAVE CORRECTED YOU AT LEAST TWICE ALREADY ABOUT THIS.

    Empty space is not really nothing.
    Nobody disagrees about this.
    But….
    There two other types of nothing that Krauss discusses in his book.
    Don’t believe me?

    Then….

    READ THE BOOK.
    READ THE INTERVIEWS.
    READ MY POSTS.

    And stop making a complete ass of yourself.

  62. cwfongon 09 May 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Look at this other lying psychopath, now saying that empty space is not really nothing after all. Who cares now if Krauss discusses other types of nothing in his book, since he has already said that in his interviews.
    This is of course the first time this liar has openly conceded there are other types of nothing that are not really nothing, even if he likely doesn’t understand what he’s just said.
    Of course I read all the Krauss interviews BEFORE the liar posted the one that he redacted. That’s how I caught him lying.

  63. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2012 at 12:06 am

    READ MY POSTS.
    They are mostly direct quotes from the book.

    And…may I make novel suggestion:

    READ THE BOOK. ;)

  64. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2012 at 12:08 am

    One of my early posts even lists the three types of nothing and gives a brief explanation of all three.
    Oh well…horse to water!

  65. cwfongon 10 May 2012 at 1:24 am

    Dr. Novella told you that Krauss explained that something did not actually come from nothing. You told Dr. Novella that’s not what Krauss said in the book, and he should read the book to see where he was wrong. But you would not quote from the book. Even when repeatedly asked to. Explain that!

    In addition the whole argument was based on my initial statement that something could not come from nothing, and I gave Krauss’ writings as an example; and you then said I was wrong and that something could come from absolutely nothing and ironically (as I admittedly hadn’t read it) gave Krauss’ book as an example that I was wrong.
    You claimed that what he said in the interviews was not what he said in the book, which was that something ‘could’ come from absolutely nothing, and he showed that the big bang did just that.
    You then refused to say what your own opinion was, except that my statement was still wrong.
    Dr. Novella then wrote that Krauss told him personally that something did NOT come from absolutely nothing in spite of what the title of the book indicated, or what people thought Krauss was arguing. You then told Dr. Novella that he was wrong as the book did say that. And you repeatedly said in different posts that Dr. Novella should read the book, and he would see that Krauss did not say the same thing in the book as in the interview.
    Every time I said that Krauss explained in various interviews that something did not come from absolutely nothing, and specifically that referred to the big bang, you replied that I was wrong and that the book said the opposite.
    At no time did you ever state, admit, or concede, that Krauss had never said that something came or could have come from absolutely nothing. Nor did you ever say until just now that: “Empty space is not really nothing. Nobody disagrees about this.” Instead, you specifically disagreed with Dr. Novella that Krauss meant exactly that when he said it directly to Dr. Novella. So right there you were caught in the lie, and refused to admit it.
    Then in addition you faked the content of an interview with Krauss where he had actually said again that something did not come from absolutely nothing. Except you cut that part out and gave a false address for the interview.
    Only when I caught you in the lie did you try to change your story, yet STILL would not admit that Krauss never said in the book that something had come from absolutely nothing.
    Finally you tried to explain away the lie by arguing that you hadn’t lied to begin with as you always knew that something didn’t come from absolutely nothing. But if that were true, why did you falsify the interview, why did you keep telling Dr. Novella that he was wrong, and that what Krauss said to him was not what he said in his book?
    Why did you start the argument at all if you always knew that it was wrong? You can’t explain any of that without admitting that first, you were wrong from the beginning, and second, that you lied and faked the evidence so you would not have to admit being wrong.
    And apparently you think no-one will go back and look at all the posts to see what really happened. Well I did and I have a good memory of what happened as well. You don’t, because a liar always has trouble remembering his exact lies.
    Who cares what was in your early posts about three types of nothing. You were still arguing that I was wrong and that something could come from absolutely nothing and that Krauss proved that in his book.
    You now say some of your posts were direct quotes from the book. None of which said something came from absolutely nothing, did they!
    Yet you still falsified the Krauss interview which said he same thing!!
    I am going into detail again here because you are such a liar that I have to go back and point out each lie in a series. Not for you, because you know damned well where you lied and why, but for any reader that might fall for this new line of bullshit.
    Sociopaths lie exactly as you are doing here. They have no feelings of shame or guilt when they are caught. They just keep lying to deny they were lying. It’s very clear at this point that you are a dumber version of the usually smart sociopath. A low level con artist in other words. Nobody knows what you do for a living, but ‘ll bet there’s some form of scam involved. All the signs have been there for a long time, but this latest escapade leaves little doubt that’s what you are. A sociopathic liar.

  66. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2012 at 6:35 am

    The pile of rubbish you wrote above is the pedestal on which you now stand looking out at an empty pavement.
    Everyone has walked embarrassingly away.
    The self-destruction is complete.

    Despite all the vitriol you have unleashed on me I almost feel sorry for you.

  67. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2012 at 7:20 am

    Cwfong,

    “Krauss never said in the book that something had come from absolutely nothing.”

    Of course not!
    Krauss said that the universe “could have” or “might have” come from absolutely nothing, not that the universe had come from absolutely nothing.
    Physical theory has not PROVEN that the universe has come from absolutely nothing, physical theory makes it PLAUSIBLE that the universe has come from absolutely nothing.

    This is what Krauss says in his book.
    And that is exactly what I quoted him saying in the thread where all this started.

  68. cwfongon 10 May 2012 at 12:53 pm

    You are exactly a pathological psychopathic sociopathic liar. Show me where you started with that “plausible” quote from the book. You can’t. Why did you so fervently disagree with Dr. Novella when he told you that Krauss told him personally that he did NOT mean that something had come from an absolute nothing? Why?
    You can’t answer that question without admitting you were wrong from the start about what Krauss actually wrote in his book. Why did you falsify that Krauss interview summary about what he actually meant? You’ve been stumbling all over yourself trying to lie about that.
    And now you’re lying through your teeth and saying there was never an argument over all of this and I just made that whole long war of words series up? It’s all written in this blog’s archives in black and white (and also on Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.). You don’t want anyone to read it or remember it, but I’m making sure that no-one who did read it forgets. And everyone really needs to be warned that you’re a born liar.

    So keep lying. One thing stands out above all others with sociopaths; to better make others believe them, they make themselves believe their own lies. Is that what you’re trying to do now? It won’t work. Your lies are written here for any and all to see. Including you. I’ll do my best to make damned sure you all them.

  69. Dirk Steeleon 10 May 2012 at 1:16 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘You are exactly a pathological psychopathic sociopathic liar. ‘

    Listen mate. You need to take some time off. Relax. Take deep breaths. Else you are travelling a road where your destination may be detri mental to your health.

  70. cwfongon 10 May 2012 at 1:38 pm

    Was I referring to you as well? Sorry. Not.

  71. Dirk Steeleon 10 May 2012 at 2:47 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘Was I referring to you as well? Sorry. Not.’

    You were not referring to me. But I recognise your current dilemma.

  72. cwfongon 10 May 2012 at 2:56 pm

    No dilemma, I choose both of you as equal opportunity liars.

  73. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2012 at 5:10 pm

    In a nut shell.

    You said that what Krauss meant by “nothing” was EMPTY SPACE.
    This as we all agree is not really nothing.
    I told you that, in the book that you hadn’t read despite linking to it, he talked about more than just empty space, he talked about what amounted to absolutely nothing – no particles, no space, no time – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    You are still denying this in your post above and I quote:

    “Dr. Novella then wrote that Krauss told him personally that something did NOT come from absolutely nothing in spite of what the title of the book indicated, or what people thought Krauss was arguing”

    “I said that Krauss explained in various interviews that something did not come from absolutely nothing”

    “At no time did you ever state, admit, or concede, that Krauss had never said that something came or could have come from absolutely nothing. ”

    “yet STILL would not admit that Krauss never said in the book that something had come from absolutely nothing.”

    “You now say some of your posts were direct quotes from the book. None of which said something came from absolutely nothing, did they!”

    Get this through your thick skull:

    Krauss said in his book that the universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    Not just EMPTY SPACE but ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    This is the argument.
    You are wrong.
    I am right.

    GET OVER IT!

  74. BillyJoe7on 10 May 2012 at 5:17 pm

    A formal challenge to cwfong

    Link to an interview where Krauss says unequivocally that he did not mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    I am absolutely confident that you cannot do it.

  75. cwfongon 10 May 2012 at 7:02 pm

    The interview with Dr. Novella, you pathological liar. Are you making ‘unequivocal’ your liar’s backup position now? Ask Dr. Novella if the statement was unequivocal, as you didn’t seem to use that as a defense at the time. The point you are desperate to avoid is that you started with ‘absolutely nothing’ as YOUR unequivocal position, and then, after having been caught lying, you were forced to abandon it.

    “Krauss said in his book that the universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    Not just EMPTY SPACE but ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.”
    If so, why not give us the chapter, page and line. Let’s see what he said about how he knew that unequivocally. You won’t give us this info. because you can’t.

    I know every trick in your sociopathic instructions book. Get used to it.

  76. Dirk Steeleon 10 May 2012 at 7:10 pm

    @BillyJoe7
    @cwfong

    ‘In a nut shell.’

    You both are nuts.

    ‘Get this through your thick skull:’

    You need the appropriate nutcracker.

    Can you find one?

  77. cwfongon 10 May 2012 at 7:43 pm

    What, dissonance in the sociopathic liars club. Is it unequivocal?

  78. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2012 at 12:35 am

    cwfong,

    You can’t find any link?
    Well, that’s a pity.
    Of course that means YOU LOSE!

    And of course I knew you couldn’t – because he has never said any such thing!
    In fact here is what Krauss does say:
    Start at 16 minutes and listen for 1 minute:

    http://richarddawkins.net/videos/645683-richard-dawkins-and-lawrence-krauss-something-from-nothing-at-anu-canberra-australia

    And that means YOU WERE DEAD WRONG!

    Lesson:
    READ THE BOOK BEFORE COMMENTING ON ITS CONTENTS!

  79. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2012 at 12:51 am

    Dirk: “You need the appropriate nutcracker. Can you find one?”

    Done.

    I found that video the last night while trying to find the interview from which fongie quoted.
    BTW, there is a good reason why he didn’t post the link to that interview, but it no longer matters.

    Nut cracked.

  80. cwfongon 11 May 2012 at 1:31 am

    BillyJoe7, the sociopathic liar, now posts some video that’s NO DIFFERENT from any of the other videos and still WON’T POST what he claims is in the book. He also seems to be trying to fabricate an issue that’s not at all about THE ISSUE that he has REPEATEDLY LIED about. Wants to get me in a different game that he might have some chance of winning. He’s also appointed himself his own referee so that every time he lies again, he tells himself he wins.
    Another trick of sociopaths is typically to make up their own rules and their own game. Sorry, but I’m not playing in your game now, psycho, you’re playing in mine.
    And this one is not about winning, it’s about telling the truth in an honest argument. That’s what you’re expected to do here on this blog.

    So, remember posting this just earlier, you pathological prevaricator:
    “Krauss said in his book that the universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    Not just EMPTY SPACE but ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.”
    If so, why not give us the chapter, page and line. Let’s see what he said about how he knew that unequivocally. You won’t give us this info. because you can’t.

    To repeat, you can’t, can’t, and can’t again. I know every trick in your sociopathic instructions book, liar.

  81. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2012 at 6:28 am

    cwfong….psst….

    :D GAME OVER :D

  82. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2012 at 7:48 am

    cwfong:

    “I said that…
    Krauss explained in various interviews that something did not come from absolutely nothing
    At no time did you ever state, admit, or concede, that…
    Krauss had never said that something came or could have come from absolutely nothing….
    yet STILL would not admit that
    Krauss never said in the book that something had come from absolutely nothing.”

    No links provided. ;)

    Lawrence Krauss:

    http://richarddawkins.net/videos/645683-richard-dawkins-and-lawrence-krauss-something-from-nothing-at-anu-canberra-australia

    “You can start with absolutely nothing –
    That means no particles…
    But not even empty space, no space whatsoever…
    And maybe even no laws governing this space…
    and we can plausibly understand how you can produce everything we see.

    :D GAME OVER :D

  83. moigarenon 11 May 2012 at 8:45 am

    @Steven Novella

    I have wrote about this in my Spanish blog too. After that, I have been in contact via twitter with the person in charge of the University of Granada news report (@UGRdivulga), and I have asked them to correct the report. According to him, the news report was revised and accepted by the authors of the article.

    If that is true, it is worst then to see how the authors can create this confusion.

  84. cwfongon 11 May 2012 at 12:38 pm

    I’m laughing my ass off that you, BillyJoe7, quote “PLAUSIBLY understand” and “MAYBE even no laws governing this space” to equate to proof for absolutely nothing. But I knew you’d be dumb enough to quote that.
    Note that he also says “no space whatsoever” and then says maybe no laws” governing ths space.” Make sense for us as to how “no space” is the same as “this space,” if you can. This kind of inconsistent rambling is what got him in trouble, but of course you took all of this literally, concrete thinker that you are.. Inconsistencies have never bothered you yet. Liar that you are, you should have left part of that quote out, but either way, you’ve shot yourself again in the foot.
    And again, you have not quoted anything from Krauss’ book, have you. because that rambling crap from the silly interview was NOT in the book. NOT IN THE BOOK!!
    You know it, I know it we all know it. What you are claiming was in the book was and is another bald faced lie.
    The point that I will stress again is that you’ve been caught in a deliberate falsification of your evidence, and are doing everything you can to make us forget that. Except the biggest lie of all is what you’ve claimed is in the book when YOU KNOW IT ISN’T.
    Laughing my ass off at the ineptness with which you play the game that you invented here. Even with your own rules and you as your own judge, you lose it.

    “Krauss said in his book that the universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    Not just EMPTY SPACE but ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.”
    No, that’s NOT in the book. If it was, you wouldn’t have had to quote from a cockamamie interview which hasn’t said that either. Pitiful, if a liar can be pitied for his lying.

  85. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2012 at 5:45 pm

    It was never about proof.

    It was about what Krauss, in his book “The Universe from Nothing”, meant by “nothing”.
    You insisted that he was merely referring to “empty space”.
    I told you that he went at least two steps beyond just “empty space”.

    By the end of his book, by “nothing” Krauss meant…

    “absolutely nothing –
    That means no particles…
    But not even empty space, no space whatsoever…
    And maybe even no laws governing this space…
    and we can plausibly understand how you can produce everything we see”

    You were wrong.
    GET OVER IT.

  86. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2012 at 5:49 pm

    And if you want to know what is in the book, I have a novel idea for you…

    READ THE BOOK.

    If you want the relevant quotes from the book, read my original posts in the original thread.
    They are all there.
    I’m not posting it all again.

  87. BillyJoe7on 11 May 2012 at 5:54 pm

    EPILOGUE:

    Not to piss on your grave but:

    cwrong:
    Krauss had never said that something came or could have come from absolutely nothing

    Krauss:
    You can start with absolutely nothing

  88. cwfongon 11 May 2012 at 6:05 pm

    You are just lying again, BillyJoe7, as your psychopathic nature compels you to. It was always about whether Krauss wrote that something could actually come from absolutely nothing. You keep saying that he wrote that in his book, but none of the videos or articles actually say that, and he told Dr. Novella that he didn’t say that in the book or mean to say that.
    And you had to falsify an interview to find something outside of the book that even seemed to say that. You keep changing the argument to try and salvage something that might make it seem that you were right about anything at all here, but nothing has worked.
    What you have claimed repeatedly that was in the book just isn’t in there. You have lied about everything else to preserve that initial lie from exposure. You lose. It isn’t in the book and you can’t show us otherwise.
    But you will come up with another lie. You can’t do otherwise. It’s fixed in your lying nature.

  89. cwfongon 11 May 2012 at 6:23 pm

    I see you have come up with a silly epilogue as I was writing the above. Not only have I already shown how that makes no sense, it has nothing to do with what you’ve said is in the book, but refuse to show us where it is. Keep on saying there’s something in the book that we should read. No doubt there’s something there that someone would find readable. But nothing where Krauss says that something came or could have come from absolutely nothing. You keep saying that it’s right there in the book, but I say with great confidence that you are lying. You don’t want to prove that you’e not? That’s fine with me. You’ve already been proved a liar several times, so proving it another time won’t stop you.
    You can’t help yourself.

  90. cwfongon 11 May 2012 at 6:28 pm

    What’s really funny is that your pal Dirk keeps posting crap to run this story off of the page, but you keep bringing it back up and won’t let him help it die. Works for me.

  91. cwfongon 11 May 2012 at 7:25 pm

    “If you want the relevant quotes from the book, read my original posts in the original thread.
    They are all there.
    I’m not posting it all again.”

    There are no ‘relevant quotes’ from the book in any of your posts. So saying you won’t post again what you have never posted yet is either grammatically incorrect or somewhat desperate lying.

  92. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2012 at 1:36 am

    EPITAPH:

    Just to piss on your grave:

    cwrong:
    Krauss had never said that something came or could have come from absolutely nothing

    Krauss:
    You can start with absolutely nothing…

  93. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 2:22 am

    BillyJociopath,

    Not only is that not in the book, it’s meaningless, and to take something so foolish out of context from some interview, as you have already tried before, so you can retry posting the same old lie, is really, really stupid.

    YOU CAN’T FIND ANYTHING IN THE BOOK WHERE KRAUSS SAYS THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    “If we live in a universe whose energy is dominated by the energy of nothing, as I have described, the future is indeed bleak. The heavens will become dark and empty. But the situation is actually worse. A universe dominated by the energy of empty space is the worst of all universes for the future of life. Any civilization is guaranteed to ultimately disappear in such a universe, starved of energy to survive. After an unfathomably long time, some quantum fluctuations or some thermal agitation may produce a local region where once again life can evolve and thrive. But that too will be ephemeral. The future will be dominated a universe with nothing in it to appreciate its vast mystery.”

    I wonder who came up with “the energy of nothing,” and where they wrote it. Sounds like something someone said to Dr. Novella.

    There’s more from where I got the above, but you don’t want to see it, do you.

    You’re out there pissing on your imaginary graves.

  94. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2012 at 2:32 am

    I do believe you are sitting at your computer ready to respond.

    cwrong:
    “Krauss had never said that something came or could have come from absolutely nothing”

    Krauss:
    “You can start with absolutely nothing…“

    Just in case you haven’t realised yet….

    THE GAME IS OVER

  95. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2012 at 2:33 am

    “THE GAME IS OVER”

    I mean, NOTHING could be clearer. ;)

  96. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 3:44 am

    What game was that? Liar’s poker? We all know now you haven’t even read the book that you want everyone else to read. Pitiful.

  97. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2012 at 6:16 am

    Nail In The Coffin:

    Lawrence Krauss: “The Universe From Nothing”, chapter 10: “Nothing is unstable”.

    “The lesson is clear: quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing – meaning, in this case, I emphasise, the absence of space and time – it may require them. Nothing – in this case, no space, no time, no anything! – is unstable.”

  98. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 12:42 pm

    Not only APPEARS to allow — it MAY require – is UNSTABLE
    Doesn’t sound a lot like absolute to me.

    You didn’t even recognize the chapter from the book, page 179, which references the energy of empty space. Although even if you had read it, you would have misunderstood its meaning.

  99. BillyJoe7on 12 May 2012 at 4:37 pm

    You poor old thing.

    I have the the kindle version ;)

    I thought that would be obvious by now.
    And you have lost sight of the argument again.
    What does Krauss mean by “nothing” in his book “The Universe from Nothing”?

    cwrong:
    “empty space”.

    Krauss:
    “the absence of space and time…no space, no time, no anything!….absolutely nothing…that means no particles…but not even empty space…no space whatsoever…”

    Whether he has made his point, whether I believe it, whether you believe it, is besides the point.
    The point is that he goes beyond “empty space” as the meaning of “nothing”.

  100. Johannon 12 May 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Regarding biophotons, this paper may help give a more scientific evaluation:

    http://www.anatomyfacts.com/research/PropertiesBioph.pdf

    There are now more than 50 groups around the world conducting biophoton research, and, as Tyler the Newager rightly points out, they have been found all throughout the human body, and even in mircotubles within neurons. If these discoveries continue to pan out, we may soon have new vehicle for information transfer in the brain. Exciting times we live in.

    - Johann

  101. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 5:12 pm

    No, you’re lying again, and very poorly. Even if you had the kindle (with of course no page numbers), you haven’t read it, and if you ever did, you wouldn’t understand it. And as I predicted, couldn’t quote anything in context that came close to representing his hypothesis.
    Instead, you’re pretending that gibberish above was somehow his conclusion. But his point was exactly as I quoted from his actual book; and as he told Dr. Novella, and a myriad of interviewers after they reacted (almost) as dumbly as you have to the book (excuse me, the kindle version).
    ‘Nothing’ for Krauss is the absence of material, not the absence of the energy that retains the potential, as well as the instructions (laws of physics, quantum processes) to produce that material.
    No space whatsoever? Give us a break with that repetitious idiocy. He has never determined, or claimed to, that there was ever in actuality ‘no space whatsoever.’
    I say that for the benefit of any remaining audience. It’s obviously not simple enough for you.

  102. Dirk Steeleon 12 May 2012 at 5:21 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘No space whatsoever? Give us a break with that repetitious idiocy. He has never determined, or claimed to, that there was ever in actuality ‘no space whatsoever.’’

    I actually have to totally disagree with you here. The ‘big bang’ created time and space. Before that there was ‘nothing’. Not even empty space. This is his claim. And he states that quantum loop gravity theories, or whatever, suggest that ‘nothing’ is unstable and therefore ‘something’ can be created from ‘nothing’. But I have not read the book… so I will bow out of this discussion.

  103. Dirk Steeleon 12 May 2012 at 5:26 pm

    @cwfong
    @BillyJoe7

    I suggest you take this discussion over to the JREF forums on science where you can mix with the big physical monsters. They will sort you out…. ;-)

  104. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 5:40 pm

    That is not Krauss’ claim as to what has or had actually happened, and he specifically told Dr. Novella and several interviewers that it wasn’t. And if you haven’t read that in his book, why did you even bow into this discussion? Because I just quoted the paragraph in his actual nook, page 179, where he said what he actually believes has happened. And Krauss hasn’t even been certain about that, as good physicists never are.

    But this does give me a chance to ask BillyJoe7 what the location number was on his kindle where he obtained that ‘conclusive’ information quoted. I mean if he’s finally decided to quote from the book in his defense, why not tell us where to find the quote in full? Especially since he’s stated that his previous editing of a quote was done in all innocence, and surely he’d like such reputable innocence confirmed.

  105. Dirk Steeleon 12 May 2012 at 5:46 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘why did you even bow into this discussion’

    Just trying to get you to bloody piss off from these threads. As I said… take it to the JREF forums where you will be flim-flammed to death.. metaphorically speaking.

  106. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 5:48 pm

    As to JREF, I think they kicked BJ7 out of there. I’ve always been a fan of Randi’s but he’s not an adaptive evolutionist, and that’s a pity. But then neither are you.

  107. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 5:50 pm

    As to bloody pissing all over these threads, you’re the biggest dick involved in that activity ever.

  108. Dirk Steeleon 12 May 2012 at 5:57 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘you’re the biggest dick involved in that activity ever.’

    Wow thank you. That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about my genitalia. Including when I was a famous porn star!

  109. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Yes, your pseudonym has advertised your predilections in advance.

  110. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  111. Dirk Steeleon 12 May 2012 at 6:20 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘but he’s not an adaptive evolutionist, and that’s a pity. But then neither are you.’

    It is quite clear to me that your predilections will always preclude you from an understanding of adaptive evolution even if your anal sphincter was circumnavigated by an agressive parasite. Keep scratching the surface mate – you are never gonna be able to mix it up with the big boys.

  112. Dirk Steeleon 12 May 2012 at 6:33 pm

    @cwfong

    ‘As to JREF, I think they kicked BJ7 out of there.’

    I was banned for life, yes for life!, from JREF for calling Steven Novella an idiot. If I had known then that he was on the board of that organisation I would not have been so circumspect with my language.

  113. cwfongon 12 May 2012 at 6:44 pm

    So now you’ve become the resident anally aggressive parasite right where he lives. No wonder you find Freudian psychoanalysis so bothersome.

  114. Dirk Steeleon 12 May 2012 at 7:03 pm

    @cwfong

    Sorry but my last comment to you,which you cannot read now, is now ‘awaiting moderation’. I do believe that I used ‘banned words’ (as Frank Zappa tried to explain ‘how can a word be banned or not used?) …. in context though, which is supported by the American Constitution… But I may be censored nonetheless. Cheerio… probably. :-(

  115. BillyJoe7on 13 May 2012 at 6:18 am

    I have not been banned from the JREF.
    I can post there right now if Iike.
    I used to go there a lot in the early days, but now that there are so many threads and so many posters, it is hard to keep anyone interested in any one topic when heaps of new topics are started every day to draw them away. I therefore lost interest.

    I did learn a lot from actual physicists at the jref, and the feedback that I received from them is that I have a good layman’s knowledge of relativity and quantum physics – which is why I was able to slaughter you with that long post proving that the distances in spacetime between two events is the same in all frames of reference.

    “I mean if he’s finally decided to quote from the book in his defense”

    I posted numerous replies on the original thread and they were practically all direct quotes from the book. If I could remember the name of the thread I’d repost them or link to them. Still that would be just another shovel of dirt on your coffin already six foot under.

    “this does give me a chance to ask BillyJoe7 what the location number was on his kindle ”

    Also I have no idea what a location number is – if there is such a thing.
    My kindle gives the percentage of the book read at the bottom of every page – in the case of the quote, it is 70%. In any case, it is the fifth last paragraph of chapter 10: “Nothing is unstable”.

  116. cwfongon 13 May 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Dream on. Your long post re special relativity had nothing to do with the time difference phenomena posted by Olsen, which you never came close to grasping. Also all versions of the Kindle have percentages and location numbers at the bottom of the page. Even the ones that can be downloaded to the computer as Kindle readers. The fact that you can’t find it is revealing.
    The title of “Nothing is Unstable” is however correct. It contains the very meaning that you fail to grasp. But you can’t seem to write down the entire paragraphs that you took snippets from, and yet I wrote mine from the same chapter. Please write yours, full and unedited, so that everyone can see it.

  117. BillyJoe7on 13 May 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Just look up the original thread.
    It’s all there.

    Anyway, I know the worms are restless, but be a good boy and stop moving around in that coffin I’ve put you in, six foot under and mound on top.

    There’s a boy. ;)

  118. cwfongon 13 May 2012 at 6:57 pm

    Of course you can’t give us the actual paragraphs where you took some snippets out of context to deceive us. They’d blow your whole cover.
    Caught once more as a liar, are you? If you had honestly gone so far already as to tell us where to look, why not honestly go the whole way and copy the material for us to read? Supposedly, you had done so earlier, right?

    Rhetorical question, as there’s only one answer. That as usual, you’re simply lying.

  119. cwfongon 13 May 2012 at 7:02 pm

    I think we’ve gone as far with this now as we can go. There’s nothing more that you can do to save your face. You’d have to admit that you were not only wrong, but an ill practiced liar to boot.
    But of course your lying is so automatic you’ll keep on with it. Sociopathic liars don’t see the need to actually make sense.

  120. BillyJoe7on 14 May 2012 at 12:11 am

    RIP….please.

  121. cwfongon 14 May 2012 at 1:04 am

    You can’t give us the actual paragraphs where you took some snippets out of context to deceive us. They’d blow your whole cover.
    Keep on lying. I enjoy catching you. It’s what I do.

  122. BillyJoe7on 14 May 2012 at 6:58 am

    RIP…pretty please

  123. cwfongon 14 May 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Sorry, have to wait for your next lie. Can’t help myself.

  124. Steven Novellaon 14 May 2012 at 2:25 pm

    FYI – Dirk has exceeded in Troll quota and his usefullness to discussion and will be taking an involuntary break from NeuroLogica

  125. cwfongon 14 May 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Thanks. I’ll take mine voluntarily.

  126. cwfongon 14 May 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Nick Stuart is a sock puppet for Dirk.

  127. cwfongon 14 May 2012 at 3:42 pm

    And with that, I’m gone.

  128. BillyJoe7on 14 May 2012 at 5:33 pm

    …tail between your legs. :D

  129. BillyJoe7on 14 May 2012 at 5:45 pm

    “If you read this thread Dirk seems to be trying to stop the arguments between CWFONG and BILLYJOE7″

    And he is trying to stop us because we are undermining his trolling efforts.

    “who have dominated all of your threads with irrelevant discussions.”

    It is nearly always cwfong who launches an irrelevant attack. Even when responding to someone else he has to fire a missile in my direction. It is difficult for me to ignore him because I feel I have to defend my position.

    I truely hope he has gone so sensible discussion can be given a freer rein. He really has nothing to offer here and that has been my point all along. He never has anything worthwhile to say. Adaptive mutation has no legs, he has no understanding of special relativity, and he has no idea what Krauss means by “nothing” in The Universe from Nothing.

  130. Steven Novellaon 14 May 2012 at 8:03 pm

    Nick was a sock puppet and is now banned.

  131. ccbowerson 14 May 2012 at 9:47 pm

    Honestly, Steve has show much restraint here.

  132. Johannon 16 May 2012 at 10:29 am

    This paper provides an intensive review of the history of biophoton research, starting all the way back from “mitogenic radiation”, uncovered by Alexander Gurwitsch in 1923, to modern day biophysics, pioneered by Popp and his contemporaries.

    http://zeniclinic.com/zen/articles/B…munication.pdf

    It is a must-read for those with an interest in biophotons, and (hopefully) an open mind.

    - Johann

  133. Johannon 16 May 2012 at 10:31 am

    Oops, it seems as if the lat post contained a broken link.

    The fixed version: http://zeniclinic.com/zen/articles/BiophotonsAndBiocommunication.pdf

    - Johann

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.