Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  In Post No. 267 of this thread, you admitted, in your own words, that:
(1) your attempts to find honest objections often flounder;
(2) you often have plenty of dishonest objections.
May I take it that the below is just another one of your dishonest objections? |
No, it is an honest one.
Quote:
|
I laid a simple hypothesis. I said that I could attempt to raise my IQ through IM by a massive score. I didn't say that I was going to study, practice IQ tests, watch TV.
|
It is a hypothesis, but it would require a little more understanding of science than you display to establish.
Quote:
|
But you immediately say that if I do raise my IQ massively, it is due to other reasons. Such as studying; practising IQ tests; or watching TV.
|
Again - are you stupid or pretending? I do not say that an increase in your IQ is due to any of these things. That is the point. That would be the problem to be addressed, should your IQ increase during your experimental phase:
what the actual cause was. That way we can eliminate assumptions. And even if you don't watch TV, you will do a lot of other things, and proper research requires you to eliminate these potential effects as far as possible. If you don't understand the principle now, it will remain a moot point until you raise your IQ.
Quote:
|
You see - your argument grows more and more absurd.
|
Methinks you protest too much. This is pure projection, but I suspect not even unconscious. As far as discussing this point is concerned, you have your back against a wall. You'd pretend that magick was all my idea if it would get you off the hook now.
As to your research online on meditation, if your perception of the situation is accurate (
) then clearly I have got a very distorted impression of it, and concede the point gladly. I may have got a distorted impression from working in mental health and from a lot of my research being into long retreats, or concerning scientific experiments in meditation. The first you have already indicated as showning some evidence of disturbance, and the latter perhaps requires much more stringent protocol regarding possible risks, or is itself conducted by medical practitioners. It was a very minor point in relation to the subject, I think, and I'm happy for us to agree that if someone reading this wants to do meditation, they need not see a doctor first. I was erring on the side of caution, and don't have a high opinion of them anyway.