My "ESP" experiences

[Stereolab]

Hi all,

I have a degree in engineering, and am currently going for my MBA. Everyone who knows me agrees that I am as logical as they come. I have no burning desire to "believe" or "disbelieve" things...I just want to know the truth. I am not a religious person. I consider myself a skeptic.

All that said, I have experienced some things in my life that simply cannot be explained, as far as I can tell. I am wondering if anyone might have some insight as to what has happened to me, or if anyone has similar experiences to share.

I have had roughly 15 "ESP" experiences during my lifetime. I am going to explain the two most "powerful" in some detail. I will be happy to share others if there is any interest.

1. About 17 years ago, I was upstairs in my old house, and Wheel of Fortune was on on the downstairs television. It was prime-time, and we did not have cable TV, so there was no way I could have seen this particular episode before. I could not see the television at all, but when I heard Pat Sajak introduce the letters as "Place," I KNEW that the answer was "THE LAND OF OZ." I walked downstairs to see the TV, saw that the letters were placed just that way (even though none had yet been flipped around), and I informed my parents what the answer was going to be. I KNEW. I stuck around to see that I was right, and then went back upstairs. It really didn't strike me as all that odd, because I was only 12 at the time and didn't know about being "skeptical" yet.

2. This one was even more powerful. About 4 years ago, I was at my desk at work when the phone rang. I work with about 10,000 people--and there are literally hundreds of people that might have reason to call me at any particular time. I get calls all day long. Yet, this one instance, I immediately KNEW who was calling...what he was going to say...and what he wanted. It was like my thinking was about five seconds ahead of what was going on in reality. The person who called me only calls maybe two or three times a year, and the report he asked me for (and I KNEW that he would) was something I had done years before, I hadn't touched since, and I had absolutely no logical reason to believe that anyone would ever want to see it again.

Please understand that these were not just "coincidences" that I convinced myself were "ESP" after the fact. I've had plenty of "coincidences," as has everyone I'm sure. But...in these instances I KNEW, was absolutely 100% sure, what was going to happen.

Please let me know if you have ANY possible explanation for these occurences. I readily admit that I may not have thought about every possible explanation. But I've tried.

Please do NOT attack me personally. I will be happy to provide more details, and I am willing to present more of my credentials if need be. But I cannot stress enough that I am NOT exaggerating, and NOT trying to put one over on anyone.

And yes, I know there's a million dollars for me if I can do this type of thing on command. I have never been able to do so, nor has it ever come in handy for anything "important." I never know when it's going to happen, and I can't do anything that I know of to trigger it.

[pupdog]

On a number of occasions, I've been sure who was ringing my phone--but I've also been wrong, and sometimes it was someone who calls often. When it has been someone who doesn't call often, it does strike me as remarkable. But I think if one adds up the remarkable intuitions and compares the tally against the incorrect or trivial ones, it's rather humdrum.

On other occasions, certain events seem remarkably familiar--but this I think is "deja vu", or my brain getting ahead of my senses--a new experience somehow getting refiled as an old memory. I think it's a matter of how the brain works, rather than foresight of events. If it actually was foresight, then I think it should be possible to write down "predictions".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Coincidence. You just happened to feel sure about it.

Regarding #2, I wonder if it's possible that you really didn't predict the call, but just remember it that way. In other words, I wonder if your thinking was five seconds behind what was happening. Also, is it possible that in a previous conversation he had given you a hint that he would ask for the report later?

I see Pupdog had the same thought.

~~ Paul

[Smartyfarty]

Regarding #1, it is entirely possible that you did see the episode before, even without cable. It could have been a rerun. Maybe hearing other parts of the show triggered your memory of a past show, and you really did KNOW the answer.

It's a possibility.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Coincidence. You just happened to feel sure about it.

Regarding #2, I wonder if it's possible that you really didn't predict the call, but just remember it that way. In other words, I wonder if your thinking was five seconds behind what was happening. Also, is it possible that in a previous conversation he had given you a hint that he would ask for the report later?

I see Pupdog had the same thought.

~~ Paul

Don't forget to bring a towel!

[plindboe]

Welcome to the forum. :)

I think there's a good chance that in the first case you had prior knowledge of the event. Though almost forgotten and tugged away in your memory. As soon as your brain recognized familiar sounds, from the TV, the knowledge shortly surfaced. Perhaps you hadn't watched a full episode before, but had noticed a snippet from a prior broadcast, while at a friend's house or somewhere else.

With event no. 2, I think the possibilities pupdog and Paul provided are quite likely.

Memory is a funny thing.

[Tanja]

I watch a lot of TV, but while watching it I usually do about five different things at the same time as well. It happened to me several times that I watch a film, have no instant recollection that I have already seen it, but then a detail of some sort triggers my memory so I remember what comes next (like "oh yes, now they are going to enter this house and be attacked by a mad lady with a parrot" or something like that). This still does not mean I explicitly remember seeing the film, I just remember this particular event.

I never tried to attribute it to ESP, I just assumed I must have seen the film while I was not really concentrating on it, or that I saw it long time ago.

[CFLarsen]

Stereolab,

1st experience

It's not even necessary to have seen the show before. Imagine the X's are the letters:

XXX XXXX XX XX

OK, we know it's a place. We also know that it's a sentence, not a one-word place. What do sentences usually begin with in English?

THE

It's a place. A house, a room, a cellar, a basement, a...land.

So, far, we have two possibilities:

THE ROOM

or

THE LAND

A two-letter word following each possibilites? In English, that has to be:

OF, IN, AT, ON

So, we have:

THE ROOM OF/IN/AT/ON

or

THE LAND OF/IN/AT/ON

And then, we need a two-letter word, which most likely is a place-name?

THE LAND OF OZ.

We also know that you lived in the US, where L. Frank Baum's story of Dorothy's adventures are much more known than in other parts of the world.

You said you were 12 at the time: When had you last read it, or had it told? Was it a favorite of yours?

No mystery at all.

2nd experience

A classical example of selective memory. Michael Shermer explains it too, in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things". We remember the times when we guessed right, but forget the many times we guessed wrong.

You also have to realize that memory is not a tape-recorder. We do not remember events, we reconstruct events. Each experience you remember is not a piece of film, ready to be played.

No mystery at all.

Be very careful with taking examples like these as evidence that the paranormal exists. They are merely quaint reminders of just how complicated we are.

[Richard]

We get questions like this all the time. The best answer is,

I don't know what happend to you.

It might have been psychic, it might have been something else, it might not have happend the way you remember or at all.

[Lucianarchy]

Hi, Stereolab.

You provide some interesting experiences. As a skeptic myself, I have also experienced some interesting 'coincidences' and, as a skeptic, I have applied critical thinking to try to explain what happened. To date, I have no rational explanation for what happens, and it does indeed appear that effects like 'esp' may well be beyond the the understanding of current mainstream science.

See the links in my sig for my examples.

Best wishes and good luck to you.

[dharlow]

Claus, I believe he said he thought of the phrase "The Land of OZ" before seeing the television (although it could be a misremembering of the sequence of events). Nevertheless, we cannot be sure that this was not a rerun. Sometimes the same show is run at a different time on different channels. I did not have cable in my house either, but we had access to local channels from the neighboring state, and the same show of Jeopardy was run at 5:00 on one station, and 5:30 on another. I would sometimes watch the 5 show, then watch the 5:30 with my family and "know" all the answers, having memorized them before. A possible explanation would be that the poster caught a glimpse of the show run at an earlier time when this phrase was displayed, then remembered it when the show was rerun later.

[Jeff Corey]

I get the #2 thing all the time.
But there is a mundane explanation.

[CFLarsen]

dharlow,

You're right, my bad. Stereolab could not see the TV.

However, we do not have the date of broadcast, so we cannot track down to see whether it was a rerun.

Of course, we also have to take into account that it could simply be blind luck. What we would need is independently repeated experiments, not anecdotes.

[uneasy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Stereolab,

1st experience

It's not even necessary to have seen the show before. Imagine the X's are the letters:

(snip)

No mystery at all.

2nd experience

A classical example of selective memory. Michael Shermer explains it too, in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things". We remember the times when we guessed right, but forget the many times we guessed wrong.

(snip)

No mystery at all.

In the first case, that is the most complicated way to say "You took a guess and got lucky" I have seen in a while.

In the second case, wait a second, in the first case you proved his ESP wrong because he was smart, but now he has faulty memory.

Never mind...


Stereolab, it frightens me that someone with a degree in engineering can believe those experiences are significant. Do you remember hearing something about scientists or engineers in your studies? Did any of them promote theories by saying, "I saw something that no one else saw, and I can't measure, and no one else can measure, but I know it's significant"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by uneasy
In the first case, that is the most complicated way to say "You took a guess and got lucky" I have seen in a while.

In the second case, wait a second, in the first case you proved his ESP wrong because he was smart, but now he has faulty memory.

I did not "prove" his ESP wrong. I provided a perfectly rational explanation, one much more probable than a supernatural one. I see no problem with elaborating on an explanation. Simply saying "You took a guess and got lucky" explains very little in itself.

I did not say he has faulty memory, I explained that the memory is not a tape recorder.

In any case, I don't see why being smart excludes a faulty memory.

[SteveGrenard]

Stereolab:

There is an emergent literature poviding hard, neuralistic evidence for the precognitive faculty. The fact that there are people here challenging Occam by looking for complicated, elaborate rationales for your experience is well and good but they continue to remain close minded regarding the scientific evidence and ignore it. Fortunately they are in a minority but happen to congregate here led by a person who epitimizes close-mindedness. This makes me uneasy.


JSE: Volume 16: Number 2: Article 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differential Event-Related Potentials to Targets and Decoys in a Guessing Task
Bruce E. McDonough, Norman S. Don, and Charles A. Warren, Kairos Foundation, University of Illinois at Chicago

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 20 subjects performing a computerized, forced-choice guessing task. On each of 40 trials, ERPs were elicited by digitized images of 4 playing cards, sequentially presented on a video monitor for 150 ms. After the last card was presented, subjects guessed which of the 4 cards would be the target for that trial. Following the subject's guess, the computer randomly selected one of the 4 cards to be the target and presented this as feedback; the remaining 3 cards served as nontarget decoys for the trial. We found that a negative Slow Wave measured at 150-500 ms post-stimulus had greater amplitude when elicited by targets than when elicited by nontarget decoys (p ¾ .05). This result indicates an apparent communications anomaly because no viable conventional explanation of the ERP differential could be identified. It is the fourth study in our laboratory employing essentially the same design to yield this or a similar ERP effect.

Keywords: event-related potential (ERP), slow wave, communications anomaly, anomalous information transfer, ESP, guessing task, target stimuli
-------------------------------------------------

Here's a primer on event related potentials for those who don't know about or understand them from:

Arbib (Ed.) The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2002, pp. 412-415.

(Event-Related Potentials by Steven L. Bressler)

www.ccs.fau.edu/~bressler/pdf/HBTNN.html

[uneasy]

I just found it amusing, that's all.

Case 1:
(2 pages of explanation)
No mystery at all.

Case 2:
Oh, that's just faulty memory.
No mystery at all.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There is an emergent literature poviding hard, neuralistic evidence for the precognitive faculty.

Same old manure from you, Steve. "Emergent"...right. It's always right around the corner. However, it never really emerges, this evidence of yours, does it?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The fact that there are people here challenging Occam by looking for elaborate rationales for your experience is well and good but they continue to remain close minded regarding the scientific evidence.

Thanks for admitting that you do not have me on ignore, Steve.

You have been asked to provide that evidence so many times, but you never do.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by uneasy

Stereolab, it frightens me that someone with a degree in engineering can believe those experiences are significant. Do you remember hearing something about scientists or engineers in your studies? Did any of them promote theories by saying, "I saw something that no one else saw, and I can't measure, and no one else can measure, but I know it's significant"?

The events are significant only because I cannot explain what happened. While I've come up with some "theories" that might be considered "supernatural" or whatever, I admit I have no hypothesis to test. (Oh, and my parents did see this occur. They're not the deepest thinkers, though, so it probably didn't make much of an impression.)

What I'll never be able to convince any of you (or, for that matter, you'll never be able to convince me otherwise), is the 100% confidence that I had in the outcome of those events before they happened. Again, I've had tons of weird coincidences that seemed like precognition at first, but in retrospect they could have just been lucky guesses that I choose to remember, or knowledge that was triggered by something in the past. I'm really not one to look for something magical in everything.

But thank you all for discussing this intelligently with me! Since I'm new here, I was worried that I might not make it out of this thread alive :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

1st experience

It's not even necessary to have seen the show before. Imagine the X's are the letters:

(snip)


As pointed out, as he reported, he thought of the exact answer without seeing the program.


2nd experience

A classical example of selective memory. Michael Shermer explains it too, in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things". We remember the times when we guessed right, but forget the many times we guessed wrong.


Doesn't that assume he was guessing????


What we would need is independently repeated experiments, not anecdotes.


One can always say that when investigating anything wierd.

Pay attention 12 year olds! Next time you have a 'ESP' experience about anything, make sure to call in scientists (before it occurs!) and set up a controlled, randomized, double-blind, replicable experiment. :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
As pointed out, as he reported, he thought of the exact answer without seeing the program.

As pointed out, I already admitted my error. Do try to keep up, will'ya? Do try to read what is posted here.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Doesn't that assume he was guessing????

Sure, but from what? A paranormal phenomenon?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
One can always say that when investigating anything wierd.

Pay attention 12 year olds! Next time you have a 'ESP' experience about anything, make sure to call in scientists (before it occurs!) and set up a controlled, randomized, double-blind, replicable experiment. :rolleyes:

And what is your problem with that? How do you think mankind has progressed, by relying on anecdotes or by relying on controlled, randomized, double-blind, replicable experiments?

I do want to hear your answer to that one.

[zultr]

Originally posted by Stereolab

1. About 17 years ago... I KNEW that the answer was "THE LAND OF OZ."

2. I immediately KNEW who was calling...what he was going to say...and what he wanted.

From what you've said, you're about 30. Two big instances, and one happened 17 years ago. How many times in the intervening years have you guessed and been completely wrong? About 20 years ago, I was watching wheel with my sister - for famous person, she said simultaneously with the appearance of the blank letters "Princess Grace of Monaco." Exact. She had seen a Grace Kelly movie three days before. She's never done it again. I don't think she has ESP either.

Your work experience is biased because of what you're doing, what projects you're working on, and daily patterns you may not pay attention to. Again, I've had moments when similar things have happened, but I chalk it up to chance - for every few times I'm right, I'm wrong literally thousands of times. Once, I was sure a prospective employer was calling to offer me a job, but instead it was my mechanic telling me I needed a new tranny. Kind of ESP in reverse.

In short, it's kind of the trap the cold readers want you to fall into - remember the hits, ignore the misses. You're wrong the vast majority of the time, so you don't even pay attention to it because it's so common. When you're right, by comparison, it seems miraculous. I'd say it was chance unless it happens frequently - otherwise, if you had the ability, it would turn up more than every 17 years (for that example anyway) and you'd be able to replicate it and test it (and win a lot of money on game shows).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

As pointed out, I already admitted my error. Do try to keep up, will'ya? Do try to read what is posted here.


I obviously am keeping up and reading. Why do you think I replied with "As pointed out," ?


Sure, but from what? A paranormal phenomenon?


Well, it a priori assumes guessing was involved, so there is no need to do inquiry after one already assumes the answer.


And what is your problem with that? How do you think mankind has progressed, by relying on anecdotes or by relying on controlled, randomized, double-blind, replicable experiments?
I do want to hear your answer to that one.

I have no problem with science or its methods. I do have a problem with some of its followers often saying such and such should have been done when conditions obviously precluded it, and since they weren't done, non-coincidence conclusions are most probably not correct.

Are you saying he, when he was 12 years old and didn't even know that his 'ESP' experience would occur, should have called up some scientists and magicians to set up a double-blind, controlled, randomized, replicable experiment? Are you suggesting he should have proceeded in this way, or not? :)

[Aoidoi]

For whatever it's worth, I can recall very distinctly several times where I was absolutely convinced something horrible had happened to my parents. I'd get details like "My Mom had a car accident" or "My Dad had a heart attack." I would be absolutely sure they were dead and panic for a few moments... until reason reasserted itself and I realized that they were most likely fine. Given that they're both still living it's fairly clear that these instances where I was so certain something was wrong were decidely incorrect.

I have several times answered the phone sure I knew who was calling... and been wrong. Once or twice to decidedly humorous results. :D

So do I have anti-paranormal powers? ;)

Actually, a couple times I've watched wheel of fortune and guessed the puzzle before any letters were chosen, but I don't think I've ever tried guessing without seeing the word pattern. Well, at least not guessing correctly, which would really be the only thing that you'd remember. It does help when you pick up on the theme for that episode, since I've noticed the puzzles are often related (at least for the on-location and special shows).

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by zultr


From what you've said, you're about 30. Two big instances, and one happened 17 years ago. How many times in the intervening years have you guessed and been completely wrong?

I've had roughly 15 "ESP" experiences in my life (along with TONS of coincidences.)

Of these, there are some that could be explainable by unbelievable coincidence, or by subconscious memories, or whatever. I am open to such explanations.

But the thing about these 15 times in question is that they weren't "guesses." I KNEW.

I have guessed at lots of things. Been wrong plenty of times. But I've never, ever been wrong when I KNEW like that. And I really did KNOW right then, I'm not simply remembering it that way after the fact.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Actually, a couple times I've watched wheel of fortune and guessed the puzzle before any letters were chosen

I've done that plenty of times...I'm very good with puzzles and words. I could do that twenty times in a row and not attribute that to any kind of unexplainable power.

[athon]

As people have suggested here, Stereolab, while you may indeed have experienced a moment of ESP, there are explanations that do not require such complicated, revolutionary theories.

In addition to what has already been pointed out, I would like to add one thing that many people find unthinkable - our memories are rarely accurate portraits of what actually happened. The reason for this is slowly being understood, but essentially our brain is more of a plastic, evolving pool of information than a solid 'warehouse' of sounds and pictures.

The reason for this is simple - back when we were fleeing cave bears and beating women with sticks, it was of advantage to have an evolving stock of memories and associations. As pattern making creatures, we can form cognitive patterns between events, emotions, and recently (in evolutionary terms) with novel situations that we have not directly experienced (i.e. imagination - a truly human adaptation). This is wonderful for finding food, making simple tools and learning to stay away from Mr. Bear's cave. It's not all that good when divining the true nature of our universe.

So, why do our memories change? If you were to associate two events based on a single experience (cave + roar = terror), it may be incorrect. Cause and effect are not always apparent, and just because two events occur close together in time it does not make them related. Multiple experiences would provide a more accurate association, however each experience, due to the nature of our brains, alters how all related experiences are perceived. Experiments with mice have supported this.

In other words, what happened on each occasion probably wasn't quite how you remember it. No amount of 'but I know I what I was thinking' will change that - I've been pretty stubborn about things like that in the past, and have ended up eating a lot of humble pie afterwards. Simply put, I knew what had happened - unfortunately, it didn't happen like that in reality.

It can be a humble experience realising that we are still basic animals on a foundation level - knowing this is the greatest tool we have in science, and separates true scientific thinking from psuedoscience nonsense.

Athon

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I've done that plenty of times...I'm very good with puzzles and words. I could do that twenty times in a row and not attribute that to any kind of unexplainable power. I take it you watch the show a lot? I really only watch it when my grandmother is around, so I don't practice all that much (she lives in another state). If you're a regular viewer it is certainly possible that the episode was a rerun and you had seen it before (they do reruns on the network showing, right? Or do they have a new one every day? Sorry, reached the limit of my knowledge of the realm of Pat Sajak a while back ;)) In any case, if you're a regular viewer I suppose random chance isn't too far fetched on that one. :)

On the other hand, wouldn't it be boring if you never experienced anything that you couldn't explain? What a simplistic world we would live in where all events have straightforward answers.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Stereolab
But the thing about these 15 times in question is that they weren't "guesses." I KNEW.

I have guessed at lots of things. Been wrong plenty of times. But I've never, ever been wrong when I KNEW like that. And I really did KNOW right then, I'm not simply remembering it that way after the fact.
This is the part that I find odd. I mean, if you were right significantly more often when you KNEW, that's one thing--but "never ever" being wrong under those circumstances? That is a bit odd.

Certainly I (and, I would wager, everybody) gets hunches where we KNOW we are right about something. Sometimes we are, sometimes we aren't. And yes, memory researchers will verify that we will remember proportionally more hits than misses. And so, SteveGrenard to the contrary, occam's razor suggests that your perfect record when you KNOW is likely to be your human, imperfect memory at work.

On the other hand...if you do occasionally KNOW the answer (I'm not being facetious here, I am following your capitalization model, as I think it is helpful), then we could, in theory, test your abilities in a more controlled fashion. It would essentially be a standard ESP test (Zener cards, anyone?), but we only look at the ones you KNOW you got right. Yup, it will take longer, but it ought to be worth it. Either you find out something about your memory, or you find a way to earn a million bucks...

[T'ai Chi]

Stereolab,
(I like that group)

Have you written any of these experiences down? If so, how long after the experience did you write it down?

[epepke]

15 to 17 experiences? That's not too many. But then again, you're young. I'm 42 and have had scores more than that.

Anyway, about the gazzilionth time I had an experience and there was no evidence for it other than my memory, I gave up. There were many times that, according to my memory, I could have written something down to show it, but somehow I didn't, even when I had a feeling that I was making some sort of a psychic prediction. Now I have a Palm Zire, which automatically dates notepad notes, and if I have one of these experiences, I'll be sure to jot it down, and if I can show it after the fact, then I'll lend some credence to it, and maybe go for a shot at a million bucks, which I could really use right now, as I've made way less than the poverty level last year.

But until then, isn't it curious that I should remember having thought about writing it down but never actually doing it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mercutio

then we could, in theory, test your abilities in a more controlled fashion. It would essentially be a standard ESP test (Zener cards, anyone?), but we only look at the ones you KNOW you got right. Yup, it will take longer, but it ought to be worth it. Either you find out something about your memory, or you find a way to earn a million bucks...

The intention is good, but if Stereolab cannot control and doesn't know when he gets his 'ESP' experiences, then it seems that setting up a controlled test becomes more than problematic.

[Stereolab]

While I didn't write anything down beforehand, I can say that there were witnesses to what happened, or at least my explanation of what happened (my parents were in the room during the Wheel of Fortune thing, and I talked to a friend about the "phone" experience that same day). So, I can easily verify with them that this is not something I'm remembering incorrectly years later.

I actually never did watch Wheel of Fortune all that much, and haven't done so in years. But--as far as I know--the prime-time ones were never "re-run" during prime time. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Stereolab
While I didn't write anything down beforehand, I can say that there were witnesses to what happened, or at least my explanation of what happened (my parents were in the room during the Wheel of Fortune thing, and I talked to a friend about the "phone" experience that same day). So, I can easily verify with them that this is not something I'm remembering incorrectly years later.

I actually never did watch Wheel of Fortune all that much, and haven't done so in years. But--as far as I know--the prime-time ones were never "re-run" during prime time. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

As they used to say, whatever, dude.

I'd like to encourage you not to be skeptical but rather to try you damnedest to produce some tangible evidence of such experienced in the future. After all, if you've had 17, there are probably more to come. If you get some, you could win a million bucks! If not, you might have to look elsewhere for explanations.

A forum like this one can't give you pat answers, and I'm sure you can always come up with some counter-explanation to any of the possible explanations that are given. It's pointless.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The intention is good, but if Stereolab cannot control and doesn't know when he gets his 'ESP' experiences, then it seems that setting up a controlled test becomes more than problematic.

Now, where have we heard that excuse before?

And yes, it is an excuse, because psychics only seems to have trouble, when they are being tested, or there's a skeptic around.

Originally posted by Stereolab
While I didn't write anything down beforehand, I can say that there were witnesses to what happened, or at least my explanation of what happened (my parents were in the room during the Wheel of Fortune thing, and I talked to a friend about the "phone" experience that same day). So, I can easily verify with them that this is not something I'm remembering incorrectly years later.

Sorry, no, that's not verification. That's your own version of what happened.

Originally posted by Stereolab
I actually never did watch Wheel of Fortune all that much, and haven't done so in years. But--as far as I know--the prime-time ones were never "re-run" during prime time. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

What was the date?

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Originally posted by Stereolab
What I'll never be able to convince any of you (or, for that matter, you'll never be able to convince me otherwise), is the 100% confidence that I had in the outcome of those events before they happened.

What you seem to be saying here is that reality is determined by your level of confidence. If you're 100% confident in something, then it must be the case. Surely you can see the fault in this reasoning? And you must admit, that this 100% confidence you describe could possibly be ex post facto?

But perhaps you can't, because also as you say here, we will never be able to convince you that these events were mundane. Yes, we will never be able to convince you because for whatever reason, you need these events to be paranormal. The only real question left is, why it is you need these things to be paranormal?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The intention is good, but if Stereolab cannot control and doesn't know when he gets his 'ESP' experiences, then it seems that setting up a controlled test becomes more than problematic. ...which was precisely the reason for this particular methodology (i.e., only paying attention to the ones he KNEW).

In fact, it could take considerably less time. The very first instance of a trial where he KNEW but turned out to be a false alarm would address his original claim (that he has never been wrong when he KNEW). Of course, as folk here have taken great pains to point out, since the incidents in question are in the past, we cannot ever adequately address them.

[Ipecac]

Nearly everyone has these types of experiences. They're perfectly natural and a function of our human brain. The fact that Stereolab does seem to need to believe in this, as Hand Bent Spoon has pointed out, says more about Stereolab than the objective nature of reality.

Same old, same old.

[DangerousBeliefs]

I knew you were going to post this!

Seriously, 15-17 experiences with "ESP" aren't that great....

Try shuffling a deck of cards and guessing what a randomly drawn card will be.

Re-shuffle after each guess.

If you get more than 1 out of 20 right, you've got a gift powerful enough to win $1 million.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Now, where have we heard that excuse before?

And yes, it is an excuse, because psychics only seems to have trouble, when they are being tested, or there's a skeptic around.


How does a skeptic propose to test someone's 'ESP' experiences when that person doesn't even know when those experiences will occur, and can't control them when they do occur?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


How does a skeptic propose to test someone's 'ESP' experiences when that person doesn't even know when those experiences will occur, and can't control them when they do occur? [/B]

You mean it appears to be the same as random chance but we forget the failures and remember the successes?

I have that kind of ESP too!

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


The intention is good, but if Stereolab cannot control and doesn't know when he gets his 'ESP' experiences, then it seems that setting up a controlled test becomes more than problematic.

Why are you making misstatements?

He said that these were unique in that he knew, that is, had a feeling of certain knowledge, when he had the experiences. It would be quite simple for him to make sure that he is always in range of a record-keeping device, such as my Palm Zire, and then when he knows, to make a record.

Either his claim that he knew is accurate, and his memory of having known at the time is accurate., in which case your suggestion that he doesn't know must be false. Why this follows is left as an exercize for the reader.

Or else his claim that he knew is inaccurate, in which case, why should anyone care anyway?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

You mean it appears to be the same as random chance but we forget the failures and remember the successes?

I have that kind of ESP too!

So... no one has answered my question yet. :)

How do you test it when you don't even know if or when it will happen, and when it does you can't control it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by epepke

He said that these were unique in that he knew, that is, had a feeling of certain knowledge, when he had the experiences. It would be quite simple for him to make sure that he is always in range of a record-keeping device, such as my Palm Zire, and then when he knows, to make a record.


I don't think he knows if or when these events will happen again.

But anyway, say he does make a record during or right after said events happen. A skeptic could simply say that since that is not a controlled experiment, the record is worthless as far as evidence is concerned.

Perhaps he should have a video recorder on at all times. ;)

[Darwin'sGoat]

TRUE STORY.

I started reading this post moments after I started watching "The Wizard of Oz" on TV tonight (on WB) AND my girlfriend is playing the Wheel of Fortune on her computer and got "L. Frank Baum" as one of her puzzles.

Coincidence is just coincidence. *shrug*

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So... no one has answered my question yet. :)

How do you test it when you don't even know if or when it will happen, and when it does you can't control it?

Like I said... this is exactly the way ESP appears to work. It's a combination of selective thinking (http://www.skepdic.com/selectiv.html) and confirmation bias (http://www.skepdic.com/confirmbias.html).

Once a person puts the ESP to a quantitive, measurable test... well then the ESP isn't predictable or they can't control when and where it happens.

Or as Aerosmith puts it... "It's the same old song and dance, my friend!"

The one thing that absolutely disproves the powers of ESP in my mind is gambling. Even a slight edge of a Psi-user would make them rich beyond their wildest dreams.... and yet Casinos still have enough money to pay the electricity bills. So either ESP is bunk or its effect is so small as to be insignificant.

[thaiboxerken]

How do you test it when you don't even know if or when it will happen, and when it does you can't control it?

The premise that it is random and can't be controlled has rendered the claim unfalsifiable, and it cannot be tested. Because the claim is unfalifiable, it's not worth entertaining seriously.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon

Yes, we will never be able to convince you because for whatever reason, you need these events to be paranormal. The only real question left is, why it is you need these things to be paranormal?

I figured that all this was coming.

If I needed these events to be paranormal, I wouldn't have come to this forum and posted about them to an obviously skeptical audience.

I don't need my events to be anything. I just don't really accept any of the possible scientific explanations that I've thought of, or that anyone here has presented. Sorry.

Some of you have become so smug in your skepticism that you'll automatically attack the credibility, intelligence, and/or rationality of anyone that has a question about something. What was it that I said, exactly, that made you think I need to have experienced paranormal events?

Or are you just blindly jumping to conclusions?

At least the first people that responded to me were nice.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

The one thing that absolutely disproves the powers of ESP in my mind is gambling. Even a slight edge of a Psi-user would make them rich beyond their wildest dreams.... and yet Casinos still have enough money to pay the electricity bills. So either ESP is bunk or its effect is so small as to be insignificant.

I should note that I consistently win betting on NFL football. I have doubled my money two seasons in a row.

I have never suspected, not once, that my success has had anything to do with anything paranormal.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I should note that I consistently win betting on NFL football. I have doubled my money two seasons in a row.

I have never suspected, not once, that my success has had anything to do with anything paranormal.

So does my father-in-law.... and he doesn't claim to have ESP... he's just really good at picking odds over a season.

Try something truly random and get back to us....

For claiming to be a skeptic and a reasonably intelligent person, you certainly have a lot to learn about probability and biased thinking.

I will admit that my posts are coming across as direct even possibly rude, but this is all very much Skeptic 101 stuff.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You appear be making an extraordinary claim and justifying it with the feeblist of evidence... on a skeptics forum. What kind of response are you expecting?

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You appear be making an extraordinary claim and justifying it with the feeblist of evidence... on a skeptics forum. What kind of response are you expecting?

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I have no extraordinary evidence, and never had a way to collect/present any. It's frustrating.

In case this makes my case just a little bit, as to how I don't just write off every coincidence as paranormal, here are some weird "coincidences" and explainable things that I've never considered anything special:

I was discussing Somerset, PA with someone around 8 AM on 9/11/01. About two hours later, Flight 93 was crashed into the ground in Somerset, killing everyone aboard. (But I had no suspicion that anything was going to occur.)

I am extremely good at guessing people's favorite colors. (But they're always just that, guesses.)

I got up and took a bath at three in the morning one night. I very rarely take baths, and that is the only time I've ever taken a bath at that hour. The next morning, I got the call that my mother had passed away at 3:25 AM.

All kind of weird...but not at all "ESP-like" like the original ones I posted. Because I had no idea something was going to happen, and had no desire to convince myself otherwise after the fact.

[renata]

I had a similar weird experience. A friend was doing online shopping for shirts on sale, and was upset because he kept clicking on shirts and they were out of his size. The website was designed so you saw pictures of shirt styles and only after clicking on the picture they would tell you what sizes they had left. They had dozens of styles, and he just could not find his size, and was cranky after continuing to click. I had a feeling. I scrolled down a few rows, to shirts he has not yet looked at, and stopped at a picture of a random shirt. I told him to try it, I had a feeling about it. He laughed, did not believe me. Clicked on it- there was one his size! He thought I cheated- I had not. We later went through every shirt on the website, this one was the only one his size available at the time. Flush with my success and with visions of dollars dancing in my head, I tried a week later, next time during sale- and could not replicate it, of course. Every time after that, I never did find the correct size just by looking at a style. There was usually 2-3 shirt styles with desired size among 40-50 shirt styles, and I never again guessed right. It was, of course, a coincidence, and I never thought otherwise. However, I should have stopped at the first and only trial, I would have had 100% success rate, and it could have made a great- explain this, damn skeptics story! :D

Unless....my friend had a need I tuned into, and that is how ESP works. The other times, it was merely experimentation for my own gain and curiosity, and my gift does not allow for that. Hmmm....

As to phone calls- I guessed that more times than I can count. My accuracy is higher now that I have caller ID, though.

[Brown]

I too had a similar strange experience. I was listening to a song on the radio that I was quite sure I'd never heard before, and suddenly I found myself saying the next line of the song before it was sung! The line was not a logical extension or a rhyme of what had already been sung, and yet I KNEW it, word for word.

The experience was spooky as hell, but easily explainable. I had heard the song on a previous occasion, but forgot that I had heard it. After all, the song was aired on an "oldies" station, so there was plenty of opportunity for me to have heard the song previously.

[epepke]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I don't think he knows if or when these events will happen again.

But anyway, say he does make a record during or right after said events happen.[/b]

Actually, he'd need to make a record, say, after the time he heard wossname say "Place" and before the time that "The Land of Oz" is revealed.

A skeptic could simply say that since that is not a controlled experiment, the record is worthless as far as evidence is concerned.

Now, this is just a faux polite way of saying that skeptics are just dogmatists who will not accept anything ever.

But in any event, you completely miss my point. What I'm suggesting for him to do is primarily a way for him to ensure the veracity of what he thinks to himself. No third parties or other "skeptics" involved.

I've had many, many experiences that are just like what he describes, including the feeling of knowledge. I'd like to think of myself as a precog. But I am not willing to do that until I've managed to produce some information outside of my brain to confirm it. I'll keep trying, though.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Stereolab


Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I have no extraordinary evidence, and never had a way to collect/present any. It's frustrating.

In case this makes my case just a little bit, as to how I don't just write off every coincidence as paranormal, here are some weird "coincidences" and explainable things that I've never considered anything special:

I was discussing Somerset, PA with someone around 8 AM on 9/11/01. About two hours later, Flight 93 was crashed into the ground in Somerset, killing everyone aboard. (But I had no suspicion that anything was going to occur.)

I am extremely good at guessing people's favorite colors. (But they're always just that, guesses.)

I got up and took a bath at three in the morning one night. I very rarely take baths, and that is the only time I've ever taken a bath at that hour. The next morning, I got the call that my mother had passed away at 3:25 AM.

All kind of weird...but not at all "ESP-like" like the original ones I posted. Because I had no idea something was going to happen, and had no desire to convince myself otherwise after the fact.

Sounds like classic "remember the hits, forget the misses".

You were talking to someone about Somerset, PA? But then, you didn't have an ESP moment, you had selective validation. If nothing would have happened, you wouldn't have put significance to this event. I'm sure you've had hundreds of thousands that you've forgotten because they didn't "hit".

My favorite color is... gasp.... BLUE. For most people, their favorite color is either blue or red.

So far, all your postings about your amazing ability are easily attributable to well-known human conditions... selective thinking, retroactive clairvoyance, self-deception, and wishful thinking.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say you are definitely not a skeptic. You are a believer. And nothing anyone posts will change your mind that you have a true psychic power.

But instead of pointless discussion on this, why not test your powers using logical, controlled conditions?

Surely an MBA can come up with a reasonable controlled situation... something more statistically meaningful than "pick my favorite color".

Or better yet, ask some skeptics to come up with a test (re: my guess the card idea).

I think you'll find when you try to look at your powers objectively, that they just simply disappear. If they don't consider taking Randi's challenge and win a million dollars!

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
So far, all your postings about your amazing ability are easily attributable to well-known human conditions... selective thinking, retroactive clairvoyance, self-deception, and wishful thinking.

Calm down there Tex. You're attacking him for things he's not saying. That last post was full of coincidences he was NOT attributing to anything supernatural.

So far he's been playing nice and not flaming about what he does and does not believe. Let's try to respond in fashion.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat


Calm down there Tex. You're attacking him for things he's not saying. That last post was full of coincidences he was NOT attributing to anything supernatural.

So far he's been playing nice and not flaming about what he does and does not believe. Let's try to respond in fashion.

I am NOT attacking him. I am attacking his claim... or at least trying to get him to look at it with a skeptical eye.

If I was attacking his claim, I'd call him a nut case that needs to lay off the crack pipe. :D

Seriously, claim away.... but how about testing your claim than posting about the test?

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
My favorite color is... gasp.... BLUE.

Surely an MBA can come up with a reasonable controlled situation... something more statistically meaningful than "pick my favorite color".


Yeah, they didn't sound like insults or anything.

Regardless you were attacking claims he didn't make because you misread his post.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat



Yeah, they didn't sound like insults or anything.

Regardless you were attacking claims he didn't make because you misread his post.

No, I'm trying to show how easy it is to justify events. How about testing your abilities?

[Darwin'sGoat]

You've got him quoted in your own post:

"In case this makes my case just a little bit, as to how I don't just write off every coincidence as paranormal, here are some weird "coincidences" and explainable things that I've never considered anything special"

Did he edit your post too?

[Stereolab]

--sigh--

I'm skeptical alright...I'm skeptical about DangerousBeliefs' ability to read.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Ow. Crying 'post edit' and then editting your own post when I refute you. Bad pool.

[thaiboxerken]

Why do strange coicidences necessitate a paranormal explanation?

Stereo, you are a believer. You have rejected all explanations simply because you can't believe your weird experiences could be mundane. You are about as skeptic as Lucianarchy.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Why do strange coicidences necessitate a paranormal explanation?

Stereo, you are a believer. You have rejected all explanations simply because you can't believe your weird experiences could be mundane. You are about as skeptic as Lucianarchy.

It's really funny how some of you guys flex your skeptical muscles by refuting claims that I have not made.

The fact that I do not believe any of the explanations put forth so far does not indicate any insistence on my part that the experiences were "paranormal."

I bet you make fun of religious people because they're closed minded and never listen, don't you?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Stereo, you are a believer. You have rejected all explanations simply because you can't believe your weird experiences could be mundane. You are about as skeptic as Lucianarchy.

Because one has found explanations to be lacking doesn't necessarily mean that one is a believer.

[thaiboxerken]

It's really funny how some of you guys flex your skeptical muscles by refuting claims that I have not made.

Yes, you are not the first believer to come in and "not make a claim". Clancie is the queen of this. She "doesn't believe JE is a medium" but she fights the notion that he isn't a medium and rejects any and all evidence that he isn't. Just like her, you are rejecting all explanations that don't describe a paranormal experience.


I bet you make fun of religious people because they're closed minded and never listen, don't you?

Yes, because you are exactly right. They are closed-minded and they don't listen to reason.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

In fact, I'd go so far as to say you are definitely not a skeptic. You are a believer. And nothing anyone posts will change your mind that you have a true psychic power.


Wow, then you should apply for the $1 Million then since you can read minds and the future.


But instead of pointless discussion on this, why not test your powers using logical, controlled conditions?


Again, how does one come up with a controlled experiment to test his 'ESP', something which he doesn't know when it will occur, and if it does, he can't control it?

Why on Earth do you keep insisting for him to put something to a controlled test, something which he hasn't claimed he can control?


Surely an MBA can come up with a reasonable controlled situation... something more statistically meaningful than "pick my favorite color".


That's just insulting, but not entirely unexpected. You'll have to try better in a rational discussion to be taken seriously by skeptics.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's just insulting, but not entirely unexpected. You'll have to try better in a rational discussion to be taken seriously by skeptics.

When, and if, you ever become a skeptic, maybe you can become the spokeman for us. Until then, speak for yourself.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


It's really funny how some of you guys flex your skeptical muscles by refuting claims that I have not made.

Just like her, you are rejecting all explanations that don't describe a paranormal experience.


I bet you make fun of religious people because they're closed minded and never listen, don't you?

Yes, because you are exactly right. They are closed-minded and they don't listen to reason.

I have rejected some scientific explanations. What makes you so convinced that I have, in fact, rejected all (your word) scientific explanations?

I don't "believe" in anything in particular regarding these experiences, nor do I think I have all the answers. That's why I'm on here soliciting thoughts from people.

You're no more open-minded than the religious people are. Based on my experiences and interpretations, you're absolutely convinced I'm a heretic in your skeptical world.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's just insulting, but not entirely unexpected. You'll have to try better in a rational discussion to be taken seriously by skeptics. [/B]

Where the hell did that come from? Pot calling the kettle a cooking implement methinks.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


When, and if, you ever become a skeptic, maybe you can become the spokeman for us. Until then, speak for yourself.

Tai Chi is demonstrating far more logical, critical thought then you are.

My position in this discussion is admittedly a tough one to defend. But boy, do I wish I had a chance to debate you on a more "normal" topic sometime. I could whip you from either side.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Yes, you are not the first believer to come in and "not make a claim". Clancie is the queen of this. She "doesn't believe JE is a medium" but she fights the notion that he isn't a medium and rejects any and all evidence that he isn't. Just like her, you are rejecting all explanations that don't describe a paranormal experience.


We are talking about possibly testing 'ESP', not Clancie. Bringing up/in other people is irrelevant.


I bet you make fun of religious people because they're closed minded and never listen, don't you?

Yes, because you are exactly right. They are closed-minded and they don't listen to reason.

Stereolab, check out some of the atheist rooms in Paltalk sometime.

[thaiboxerken]

I have rejected some scientific explanations. What makes you so convinced that I have, in fact, rejected all (your word) scientific explanations?

Most people will realize that when I said "all" scientific explanations, I meant all of the ones that you've been presented. Let's stick to arguments and not semantics. Are there any scientific explanations (that have been presented to you) that you haven't rejected?

I don't "believe" in anything in particular regarding these experiences, nor do I think I have all the answers. That's why I'm on here soliciting thoughts from people.

And rejecting those explanations that are mundane.

You're no more open-minded than the religious people are.

Sure I am, it only takes evidence to change my mind.

Based on my experiences and interpretations, you're absolutely convinced I'm a heretic in your skeptical world.

Yep, because you haven't shown a skeptical position regarding your "weird" experiences.

[renata]

Originally posted by Stereolab



The fact that I do not believe any of the explanations put forth so far does not indicate any insistence on my part that the experiences were "paranormal."



There has been a variety of possible explanations put forth, and you apparently reject them all. Perhaps now is the time for you to put forth your explanation for your experiences.

Please also explain what you think is lacking in the array of explanations so far, and what kind of explanation you were looking for. None of us know exactly what happened, since you don't recall the exact date of the first experience we can't even check if it was a rerun.

Several people who posted know quite a bit about memory studies and skepticism. Some had similar experiences but upon reflection found mundane explanations. So I am a little unsure what kind of assistance you are seeking. Since you have a degree in engineering, you should know quite a bit about testable claims, experimental design and other related relevant information. In other words- you yourself should be able to articulate possible alternative explanations for your experiences and see how you can differentiate between ESP and the various alternatives offered here if anything unusual happens in the future. Perhaps some people here can give assistance in that.

I remember someone here who thought astrology was real, and designed a forum test. That person was a believer, and people participated in a test here, and results were predictable-no better than chance. It was very interesting to see a believer cooperating with skeptics. Unfortunately, I can't find the thread- it may have been purged, but veterans can confirm it. My point is that there are substantial resources here, but you need to get a little more specific.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

When, and if, you ever become a skeptic, maybe you can become the spokeman for us. Until then, speak for yourself.

For the second time, this is about possibly testing 'ESP'. Please try and stay on the subject.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Stereolab, check out some of the atheist rooms in Paltalk sometime.

Yes, they are full of open-minded atheists. All it takes is evidence to change their minds. I'm Reverend Boxer on there, feel free to say hi to me. I'm there now.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


For the second time, this is about possibly testing 'ESP'. Please try and stay on the subject.

Unfalsifiable claims can't be tested. When one says that ESP is random and uncontrollable, it makes the claim unfalsifiable.

If you want to stay on topic, quit straying off of it. There was no need for your "skeptic" remark.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Yes, they are full of open-minded atheists. All it takes is evidence to change their minds. I'm Reverend Boxer on there, feel free to say hi to me. I'm there now.

Stereolab, visit those rooms for a while and make your own observations, then please report back to us on this thread, another thread, or by PM.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Stereolab


Tai Chi is demonstrating far more logical, critical thought then you are.

But boy, do I wish I had a chance to debate you on a more "normal" topic sometime. I could whip you from either side.

I am skeptical of these statements.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I have rejected some scientific explanations. What makes you so convinced that I have, in fact, rejected all (your word) scientific explanations?

Most people will realize that when I said "all" scientific explanations, I meant all of the ones that you've been presented. Let's stick to arguments and not semantics. Are there any scientific explanations (that have been presented to you) that you haven't rejected?

I don't "believe" in anything in particular regarding these experiences, nor do I think I have all the answers. That's why I'm on here soliciting thoughts from people.

And rejecting those explanations that are mundane.

You're no more open-minded than the religious people are.

Sure I am, it only takes evidence to change my mind.

Based on my experiences and interpretations, you're absolutely convinced I'm a heretic in your skeptical world.

Yep, because you haven't shown a skeptical position regarding your "weird" experiences.

Do you even understand what "semantics" means in logic? Semantics are not trivial; they're actually very, very important. In order for you to be so sure that I am a "believer," I would think you'd want to be certain (at the very least) that I was, in fact, rejecting all "mundane" explanations, not just the ones that some people on a message board happened to come up with.

Otherwise, you seem way too quick to jump to conclusions to be the skeptic you think you are.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you even understand what "semantics" means in logic? Semantics are not trivial; they're actually very, very important.

Only to sophists.

In order for you to be so sure that I am a "believer," I would think you'd want to be certain (at the very least) that I was, in fact, rejecting all "mundane" explanations, not just the ones that some people on a message board happened to come up with.

The explanations people have given are all rational and evident. Yet you have rejected them without giving any intelligent reason to.

Otherwise, you seem way too quick to jump to conclusions to be the skeptic you think you are.

I doubt it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Unfalsifiable claims can't be tested. When one says that ESP is random and uncontrollable, it makes the claim unfalsifiable.


Yes, I agree. So why do some people keep bringing up testing Stereolab if Stereolab hasn't claimed he can control 'ESP'?


If you want to stay on topic, quit straying off of it. There was no need for your "skeptic" remark.

For the third time, this is about possibly testing 'ESP', not individual people.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, I agree. So why do some people keep bringing up testing Stereolab if Stereolab hasn't claimed he can control 'ESP'?

I don't know, maybe it just hasn't sunk in that his claim is unfalsifiable.


For the third time, this is about possibly testing 'ESP', not individual people.

Then why did you steer off topic?

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by renata


There has been a variety of possible explanations put forth, and you apparently reject them all. Perhaps now is the time for you to put forth your explanation for your experiences.

Please also explain what you think is lacking in the array of explanations so far, and what kind of explanation you were looking for. None of us know exactly what happened, since you don't recall the exact date of the first experience we can't even check if it was a rerun.

I have no explanation for the experiences.

I am looking for an explanation that makes sense. I have no urge to believe in anything "weird" (other than it would be really cool to win a million dollars). I do not accept the explanations put forth so far because they involve improper recollection on my part (and while my memory is far from perfect, I knew something had happened on those instances that I couldn't explain, and I talked with others about it immediately), and/or the assumption that I jump to conclusions that mere coincidences reflect something paranormal (and I've tried to make my case that that is not so).

I do not know the date that the Wheel of Fortune episode ran, but I believe that the shows were not re-run during prime time. If someone were to present me evidence that prime-time WOF episodes during that time period were sometimes reruns, I would immediately think that the most logical explanation for that occurence.

[thaiboxerken]

I do not accept the explanations put forth so far because they involve improper recollection on my part (and while my memory is far from perfect, I knew something had happened on those instances that I couldn't explain, and I talked with others about it immediately), and/or the assumption that I jump to conclusions that mere coincidences reflect something paranormal (and I've tried to make my case that that is not so).

These mantras have been presented by believers too often in here. You should read the "Ladybrook" thread.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, I agree. So why do some people keep bringing up testing Stereolab if Stereolab hasn't claimed he can control 'ESP'?

I don't know, maybe it just hasn't sunk in that his claim is unfalsifiable.


I guess not. :) As far as I can tell, Stereolab isn't making the claim that he can control his 'ESP', or predict when it will occur.


For the third time, this is about possibly testing 'ESP', not individual people.

Then why did you steer off topic? [/B]

For the fourth time, please stay on topic. We are having a skeptical discussion about possibly testing 'ESP'; not singling out people, not Lucianarchy, and not Clancie.

[thaiboxerken]

I guess not. :) As far as I can tell, Stereolab isn't making the claim that he can control his 'ESP', or predict when it will occur.

I thought that Stereolab didn't claim it was ESP.


For the fourth time, please stay on topic. We are having a skeptical discussion about possibly testing 'ESP'; not singling out people, not Lucianarchy, and not Clancie.

When you become my boss, I'll consider obeying your commands. Until then, screw you. I am using the names of those other believers that claim to be skeptics to push a point.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Hi all,

I have a degree in engineering, and am currently going for my MBA. Everyone who knows me agrees that I am as logical as they come. I have no burning desire to "believe" or "disbelieve" things...I just want to know the truth. I am not a religious person. I consider myself a skeptic.

Here is the main problem I have with this statement. I have some trouble taking you seriously as a skeptic. People often start off with the bit about being the most logical person they know and a skeptic. Yet you have no qualms claiming your incidents as ESP. In fact, its obvious this is what you want them to be as you actively try to poke holes in all explanations offered to you. Perhaps you're a person that has been disillisioned in their worldview and considers themselves a skeptic as a matter of rebelling against that worldview. But to see how convinced you appear to want to be that what you have experienced is in fact some form of ESP I must express doubt in the convinction of your apparent skepticism.

For example:
I am looking for an explanation that makes sense. I have no urge to believe in anything "weird" (other than it would be really cool to win a million dollars). I do not accept the explanations put forth so far because they involve improper recollection on my part (and while my memory is far from perfect, I knew something had happened on those instances that I couldn't explain, and I talked with others about it immediately), and/or the assumption that I jump to conclusions that mere coincidences reflect something paranormal (and I've tried to make my case that that is not so).

I do not know the date that the Wheel of Fortune episode ran, but I believe that the shows were not re-run during prime time. If someone were to present me evidence that prime-time WOF episodes during that time period were sometimes reruns, I would immediately think that the most logical explanation for that occurence.
In the first paragraph you discount the thoughts put forth that your memory recollection could possible have altered some of these facts. Your completely sure of them you reassure us. Yet in the second paragraph you show that you have no idea what the date was that the show occured. And you "believe" that the shows were not re-run during prime time. This leads us to start questioning what other parts of this story you "believe" rather than "know".

I'm not intentionally trying to be a jerk here, but we get people on here quite often that put us through the same exercise, yet it always takes the same form. I am simply of the opinion that you have come to your skepticism for different reasons than perhaps the rest of us on here, and think it shows somewhat in your discussions here.

Edited to correct horrendous late night spelling.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I guess not. :) As far as I can tell, Stereolab isn't making the claim that he can control his 'ESP', or predict when it will occur.

I thought that Stereolab didn't claim it was ESP.


He didn't say it was ESP, and that is precisely why I put ESP in quotes; because his experience could be said to be ESP-like, or approximately ESP, or 'ESP'.

Anyway, suggesting, as some have done, a controlled experiment to test Stereolab, seems moot in this case since he makes no claim, from what I can see, of being able to predict it or control it.



For the fourth time, please stay on topic. We are having a skeptical discussion about possibly testing 'ESP'; not singling out people, not Lucianarchy, and not Clancie.

When you become my boss, I'll consider obeying your commands. Until then, screw you. I am using the names of those other believers that claim to be skeptics to push a point.

I issued no commands, only suggestions for a skeptical discussion.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by voidx

Here is the main problem I have with this statement. I have some trouble taking you seriously as a skeptic. People often start off with the bit about being the most logical person they know and a skeptic. Yet you have no qualms claiming your incidents as ESP. In fact, its obvious this is what you want them to be as you actively try to poke holes in all explanations offered to you. Perhaps you're a person that has been disillisioned in their worldview and considers themselves a skeptic as a matter of rebelling against that worldview. But to see how convinced you appear to want to be that what you have experienced is in fact some form of ESP I must express doubt in the convinction of your apparent skepticism.

For example:

In the first paragraph you discount the thoughts put forth that your memory recollection could possible have altered some of these facts. Your completely sure of them you reassure us. Yet in the second paragraph you show that you have no idea what the date was that the show occured. And you "believe" that the shows were not re-run during prime time. This leads us to start questioning what other parts of this story you "believe" rather than "know".

I'm not intentionally trying to be a jerk here, but we get people on here quite often that put us through the same exercise, yet it always takes the same form. I am simply of the opinion that you have come to your skepticism for different reasons than perhaps the rest of us on here, and think it shows somewhat in your discussions here.

Edited to correct horrendous late night spelling.

The interval between my KNOWING something, and that event taking place, has been roughly five to ten seconds each time. I have not been successful at, nor have I even attempted, setting up some kind of recording and documentation to be used in a double-blind testing procedure. And I sure couldn't have done it when I was 12.

I do not claim the events were ESP. I am stating that I don't know what they were.

While outsiders' speculations may certainly be useful at times, you have to understand that I have a unique understanding of these experiences that no one else could ever have.

Why are you all insisting to try and read so much into what I am saying? Stop getting hung up on "is he a skeptic or isn't he?" If I wasn't a skeptic, I would not have any reason to be posting here. I have no real desire to convince any of you of anything. I'm only looking for explanations that make sense. While I am appreciative of those people that have offered scientific explanations, which could certainly explain many events that might otherwise be called "ESP," I do not feel that these explanations are applicable to what I experienced. I really don't have any way to make my point further.

I admit I'm new to these forums. Perhaps you've been bombarded with so many jokesters and trolls and weirdos that you're conditioned to lash out at someone like me...someone who comes here simply looking for answers. Maybe only time, more time spent here, will convince you of my beliefs and intentions. Based on what I've seen so far, I'll likely take the skeptical "side" in 99% of topics in which I participate.

[renata]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I do not know the date that the Wheel of Fortune episode ran, but I believe that the shows were not re-run during prime time. If someone were to present me evidence that prime-time WOF episodes during that time period were sometimes reruns, I would immediately think that the most logical explanation for that occurence.

Since we do not know when it was aired, other than approximately 17 years ago, it is indeed diffucult. However, you can contact Wheel of Fortune producers and ask them.

Here is some food for thought. Wheel of Fortune premiered January 6, 1975. It is a syndicated show, has been since 1984, If we assume it runs 5 days a week, it means there would have been about 7500 episodes since the premiere (rounding up to 29 years, 52 weeks, 5 days a week). However, according to my tv channel, the episode showing this week is number 3966. Even assuming it played once a week from 1975-1984, and then 5 days a week since then, it would mean there would be 5600 episodes. (Someone please check my math, I am just doing a basic count). Furthermore, apparently from 1975-1991 there was a daytime version, and the nightime version was the one running in syndication. Now only the nighttime version remains. In other words, 17 years ago, you could have seen the same show in daytime and then, later- at night- in syndication!


So- not only is the show in syndication, and so you could have seen the show earlier, but there are simply not enough episodes to fill up all the years of original programming.

Sources for information above
http://www.gameshowfame.com/shows/wheeloffortune.htm
http://www.kingworld.com/about-KWP.htm
http://www.wheeloffortuneinfo.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/06/tv.wheeloffortune.ap/

[renata]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I admit I'm new to these forums. Perhaps you've been bombarded with so many jokesters and trolls and weirdos that you're conditioned to lash out at someone like me...someone who comes here simply looking for answers.

Quibble- you are not new to the forums- why be shy? You registered here in July of 2002, and you made some posts in February and April of 2003. Granted, your activity is very high recently, you made several threads some interesting questions- such as- your potential ESP experience, herbal medicines, limb regeneration in humans- in the past 3 days but you are certainly not "new". How is that Atkins diet? Did you ever get hypnotized? Still curious about space aliens and their technologies?

I assume since you registered here a year and a half ago you lurked somewhat and saw how a skeptical board works.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Please let me know if you have ANY possible explanation for these occurences. I readily admit that I may not have thought about every possible explanation. But I've tried.

Please do NOT attack me personally. I will be happy to provide more details, and I am willing to present more of my credentials if need be. But I cannot stress enough that I am NOT exaggerating, and NOT trying to put one over on anyone.


Possible explanations:

- You are able to interpret electromagnetic radiation and resolve it into meaningful information
- You are able to receive and interpret telepathic information sent "like" electromagnetic radiation
- By some currently unexlpained phenomena, you have limited access to future occurences. Perhaps this is by shortcutting the spacetime continuum and taking a more direct route between the occurrence and yourself (thus getting prior knowledge)
- You are actually able to influence the future. Rather than merely predicting the future, you've actually managed to influence the future. In effect you made them chose that phrase, you influenced your colleague to ring you.
- You are deliberately fibbing abour what happened (very unlikely because you seemvery genuine)
- You have selectively remembered certain cases whre you have successfully predicted the future and forgotten the times you haven't

I think it unlikely that the being able to influence the future or receiving telepathic information is likely to be the cause. The reason for this is the Wheel of Fortune was pre-recorded and so you wouldn't be able to influence the future at that point in time. Likewise for the telapathy explanation, for thepre-recroded show you would have to have received the message many weeks in advance when the show was originally recorded.

If the premonitions were due to benig able to interpret electromagnetic information, you are lucky that the gift only comes infrequently. Otherwise, given the number of TV, radio and cellular phone transmissions, it's be like living in the tower of Babel.

Shortcutting spacetime is an intruiging notion. It takes a finite amount of time for anything happening a distance away to reach someone. In the case of teh telephone call, their intention to ring you was formed long before they made the call. A troublesome aspect of this is that we haven't yet got evidence of this kind of thing happening with highly energetic particles (where the weirdest stuff happens) - that doesn't mean that it could never happen, just that it hasn't yet.

I think we can completely eliminate lying as a possible explanation, I just added it to complete the list.

The most likely explanation is in my opinion, I'm afraid, that you've remembered the premonitions which have come to pass (because they are so interesting and exciting) and forgotten those which haven't.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by The Don

- You are able to interpret electromagnetic radiation and resolve it into meaningful information
- You are able to receive and interpret telepathic information sent "like" electromagnetic radiation
- By some currently unexlpained phenomena, you have limited access to future occurences. Perhaps this is by shortcutting the spacetime continuum and taking a more direct route between the occurrence and yourself (thus getting prior knowledge)
- You are actually able to influence the future. Rather than merely predicting the future, you've actually managed to influence the future. In effect you made them chose that phrase, you influenced your colleague to ring you.
- You are deliberately fibbing abour what happened (very unlikely because you seemvery genuine)
- You have selectively remembered certain cases whre you have successfully predicted the future and forgotten the times you haven't

The most likely explanation is, I'm afraid, that you've remembered the premonitions which have come to pass (because they are so interesting and exciting) and forgotten those which haven't.

If that is the most likely, I'd like to see how you determined that.

Can you derive (and show your work) probabilities for all the various possibilities above?

[The Don]

I explained why I found the other explanations difficult to credit.

I will amend the post to say "in my opinion"

[Undodog]

Self styled sceptic – Type 1
“How does David Blaine fly?”
“Well. I’m afraid it’s 1% skill, and 98% editing and wirework”
“How disappointing.”
“Yeah”

Self styled sceptic – Type 2
“How does David Blaine fly?”
“Well. I’m afraid it’s 1% skill, and 98% editing and wirework”
“What?! That rubbish! He would never stoop so low. He was clearly exhausted after it and I don’t think you understand the powers he has.”

Self styled sceptic – Type 3
“How does David Blaine fly?”
“It’s obviously electromagnets!”

Looks to me like Stereolab is Type1. Some of you are treating him like Type2 and acting like Type3.

-

As a suggestion for the Wheel of Fortune experience I would say that it seems odd that the question for ‘The Land of Oz’ was ‘Place’ and not ‘Fictional Place’.
That tiny detail remembered wrongly 17 years later could make all the difference.
If I was about 12 and I had to name a fictional place it’s probably the first one I would think of.

[Undodog]

I meant 99%. Shhh! Its monday morning here. :(

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Anyway, suggesting, as some have done, a controlled experiment to test Stereolab, seems moot in this case since he makes no claim, from what I can see, of being able to predict it or control it. [/B] Control it? No. Predict it? Yes. He KNOWS these ones...admittedly rarely, and, he adds, with only seconds advanced warning. Still, this is enough for an adequate test. Perhaps an hour a day at an automated ESP test, and it may be a year before we get a KNOWN event. It may be considerably less. We don't know yet. Suppose it took a couple of years to find a handful of data points? I can think of a million reasons to keep looking.

Sure, this is a difficult claim to evaluate, but it is by no means impossible.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by renata


Quibble- you are not new to the forums- why be shy? You registered here in July of 2002, and you made some posts in February and April of 2003. Granted, your activity is very high recently, you made several threads some interesting questions- such as- your potential ESP experience, herbal medicines, limb regeneration in humans- in the past 3 days but you are certainly not "new". How is that Atkins diet? Did you ever get hypnotized? Still curious about space aliens and their technologies?

I assume since you registered here a year and a half ago you lurked somewhat and saw how a skeptical board works.

I figured someone was going to call me out on that, since it says 2002 right under my name. I did register and post a few times quite a while ago; but while I have read Randi's commentaries every now and then, I haven't lurked in the forums hardly at all until recently. I did, however, know exactly what I was getting into when I posted this.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Undodog
Looks to me like Stereolab is Type1. Some of you are treating him like Type2 and acting like Type3.


As a suggestion for the Wheel of Fortune experience I would say that it seems odd that the question for ‘The Land of Oz’ was ‘Place’ and not ‘Fictional Place’.
That tiny detail remembered wrongly 17 years later could make all the difference.
If I was about 12 and I had to name a fictional place it’s probably the first one I would think of.

Good observations.

After I logged off last night, I was thinking of how a conversation on this board might have gone if I'd have seen a Stealth Bomber flying around in the '80's, before it was declassified.

"Hey, I just saw the strangest thing flying around in the sky. It didn't look like any plane I have ever seen. It was flat, and triangular, and had this zig-zag pattern in the back, and went really fast but didn't make any noise."

"So, you're saying you're sure it wasn't a kite? And you're sure you didn't just dream it, or you're not just remembering it incorrectly? And you weren't on drugs? Well then, you're just a 'believer', and you think intergalactic space pirates are here to harvest the intestines of our livestock. Bob believes that, too."

As for "Place" vs. "Fictional Place"...I am going to try and check on that. I agree that that would be an important detail.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Good observations.

After I logged off last night, I was thinking of how a conversation on this board might have gone if I'd have seen a Stealth Bomber flying around in the '80's, before it was declassified.

"Hey, I just saw the strangest thing flying around in the sky. It didn't look like any plane I have ever seen. It was flat, and triangular, and had this zig-zag pattern in the back, and went really fast but didn't make any noise."

"So, you're saying you're sure it wasn't a kite? And you're sure you didn't just dream it, or you're not just remembering it incorrectly? And you weren't on drugs? Well then, you're just a 'believer', and you think intergalactic space pirates are here to harvest the intestines of our livestock. Bob believes that, too."

As for "Place" vs. "Fictional Place"...I am going to try and check on that. I agree that that would be an important detail.

The thing is, you've stated from the start that these two times you KNEW the answer/future, and so it couldn't be coincidence. That you've had coincidental hits (and corresponding misses) at other times, but that these were KNOWLEDGE. When others point out that conventional psychological research show that humans have a tendency to KNOW things all the time, and forget the misses and accept the hits, you appear to ignore this or think it can't apply to you.
But even if you _have_ experienced some extraordinary form of KNOWING, it could still be coincidence that it's only happened twice and that you've been right both times.
You put ESP in quotes, but you insist on capitalising KNOW, which means you are either extraordinary or unwilling to accept that humans can't separate 'knowing' from 'KNOWING'.

[Lothian]

Stereolab,

I too consider myself sceptical, but have had a few experiences like yourself on the wheel of fortune.

I have known the answer to the next question before it is even asked.

I should say I watch many quizzes.

Some like university challenge in the UK have linked questions. Eg.

Question Who wrote macbeth ? Team confer I say shakespere think a bit about him. While team give the answer, he is from Stratford, Globe theatre etc,

Next question: Where was he from !

It may be that there was some link in the earlier part of the show that got you thinking of oz.

I am sure that I have at other times random thoughts and they have turned out to be answers to questions about to be asked.

But….How many quiz show’s are there? How many questions ? and how many viewers?. and how many viewers minds wander ?.

Lets say the chance of someone having a random thought that turns out to the answer to the next quiz question they hear is a billion to one.

Say there are (huge under estimate) each week 100 quiz shows in the world and 50 questions each episode and 5,000,000 people watching each show. It follows that (if my sums are right that there will be 5,000,000 x 50 x 100 which is 5 billion opportunities to guess an answer. Each week there will be 5 people who for no apparent reason know the answer to a question before it is asked.

You are one of those people it happened to.

Think about the lottery what are the chances that you will win a lottery draw. Millions to one.

What are the chances that someone wins the lottery. 100%.

Don’t make the mistake of mixing the odds up. That you hold the winning lottery ticket doesn’t change the certain odds that someone will win it.

Each week it is fairly certain that (assuming rough calculations above) 5 people will know the answer. This is not surprising. The chances of it being you are remote but the chances someone knew an answer is certain.

It does not make it ESP dispite what innumerates like luci say.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by bjornart

You put ESP in quotes, but you insist on capitalising KNOW, which means you are either extraordinary or unwilling to accept that humans can't separate 'knowing' from 'KNOWING'.

I capitalize KNOW only to emphasize that this was not just a lucky guess, as the posters above me and others have speculated. I KNEW it as surely as I know I am wearing a grey shirt right now.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Lothian
Think about the lottery what are the chances that you will win a lottery draw. Millions to one.

I have aced three undergraduate statistics courses, and am finishing up a graduate level one now. I hear what you're saying, believe me. But please understand that what I am talking about is equivalent to winning the lottery on at least five separate occasions, those being the only times I have ever played the lottery in my life.

[Starrman]

The fact that I do not believe any of the explanations put forth so far does not indicate any insistence on my part that the experiences were "paranormal."

Stereolab - why do you reject the coincidence, or luck hypothesis? Millions of long shots come to pass every day.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I capitalize KNOW only to emphasize that this was not just a lucky guess, as the posters above me and others have speculated. I KNEW it as surely as I know I am wearing a grey shirt right now. I had an argument once with someone who KNEW he had seen me playing a practical joke on a mutual friend. The more I denied it, the more he thought I was kidding; it simply was not possible that he was mistaken. We argued for probably half an hour, with him ready to swear on a stack of bibles that it was me who had played the joke. I would argue that he KNEW it as surely as you know you are wearing a grey shirt. He also just happened to be wrong. When the person who had actually done the deed showed up, it was like dawn breaking; suddenly the first man "knew" that he had been mistaken.

I myself was ready to swear in court that a man had mugged me...only to find that this man was not even a suspect, but only bore a resemblance to the man who was eventually brought in (who had, in fact, mugged me). I would say that I KNEW the first man had done it...and I was wrong.

It is, of course, impossible to say that this is what has happened to you. I would argue, though, that it is also impossible to dismiss it as a possibility.

[Ipecac]

My wife and I dated through high school and have been married for a long time since then. We met for the first time in Junior High School when we both attended a city-wide math contest between the Jr. Highs. We were attending different schools.

I remember clearly that when I went head to head against her in the long division competition, I won. We discussed this recently and, to my great surprise, she remembers that she won. Both of us are adamant, both remember winning. We can't both be right. Being a skeptic, I have to acknowledge that I could be mistaken. But then again, so could she.

This happens ALL THE TIME TO HUMAN BEINGS. Human memory generally sucks. Given this, it is extremely likely that the answer to this "puzzle" is that Stereolab just doesn't remember the incidents as they actually happened. Time has changed events, human ego has rendered the new versions as fact.

Sterolab, considering the extraordinary nature of your claim, unless you somehow come up with more compelling evidence than "that's how I remember it", if you truly are a skeptic, the only conclusions you can reach are that you may be mistaken about the facts of the events, indeed, are likely mistaken, or that the events were mere coincidence.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I do not know the date that the Wheel of Fortune episode ran, but I believe that the shows were not re-run during prime time. If someone were to present me evidence that prime-time WOF episodes during that time period were sometimes reruns, I would immediately think that the most logical explanation for that occurence.

renata showed you that there is no way reruns couldn't have happened.

Why haven't you addressed her post?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I have aced three undergraduate statistics courses, and am finishing up a graduate level one now. I hear what you're saying, believe me. But please understand that what I am talking about is equivalent to winning the lottery on at least five separate occasions, those being the only times I have ever played the lottery in my life. I am surprised you have sailed through three stats exams and still claim you only entered 5 lotteries.

You have entered millions and millions of lotteries. From the day you were born and put in a room the previous occupant who shared your forename, and the person in the bed next to your mum was her best friend at school who she hadn’t seen for 15 years, Then later you cut your first tooth when you were 4 months 3 days old the exact same day as your sister, took your first step on your first birthday the exact same day as your sister, then when you were older and you went down town but forgot to call on your neighbour as promised and therefore you didn’t get the bus you would have got with her, you know the one that crashed. Then at college your assigned room mate turned out to have been born on the same day as you.

Of course none of the above actually happened but each is a lottery you entered and ended up with a losing ticket. You just remember 5 winners of the millions you entered, that is all. We have all had five winning tickets. The odds of each individually were huge but we have bought so many that to not have any winner would be unusual.

I have amended my signature to a quote from John Allen Paulos from his book Innumeracy. It is a book you should read.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Starrman


Stereolab - why do you reject the coincidence, or luck hypothesis?

Just like I am 'lucky' to predict the Ladybrook terrorist attack?

Just like the New York lottery drawing (in order) '911' on the first anniversary of 9/11?

[Darwin'sGoat]

Bet you can't tell me what number I'm thinking of.

[Suezoled]

Oh fer gawd's sake the freakin' Ladybrooke affair again! Just shoot it like a sick dog!

....wow.... I feel better already.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stereo said:
"Hey, I just saw the strangest thing flying around in the sky. It didn't look like any plane I have ever seen. It was flat, and triangular, and had this zig-zag pattern in the back, and went really fast but didn't make any noise."
You must carry around a strong pair of binoculars, because you ain't gonna see that thing far enough away to be quiet, yet close enough to perceive that it's flat and triangular.

I might not have considered you deluded if you'd told me this, because you cleverly avoided saying that it was hovering just 50 feet above the trees. :D

~~ Paul

[hgc]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...
Just like the New York lottery drawing (in order) '911' on the first anniversary of 9/11? You are impervious to all statistical explanations for this, eh? A true believer has to believe, facts be damned.

[Starrman]

Just like I am 'lucky' to predict the Ladybrook terrorist attack?

Just like the New York lottery drawing (in order) '911' on the first anniversary of 9/11?


Exactly! Good examples.

[Thanz]

I think that Stereolab is getting a bit of unwarranted rough treatment here. I don't think that he is claiming any useful extra-ordinary powers here, and actually seems quite reasonable.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have had 2 experiences that are similar in nature to Stereolab's. Both involved me KNOWING what bad news had just arrived by telephone the instant it rang. Both were unexpected. I understand the difference between knowing and KNOWING, and do not recall having an instance of KNOWING that turned out to be incorrrect. However, I can accept that this may be due to selective memory.

On the first incident, going by what Renata posted, it would seem entirely possible that Stereolab had simply seen the episode before and forgotten that he had seen it, but something triggered the memory and he KNEW the place. If the show started syndication in 1984, and the incident occurred in 1986, it is quite possible that he had seen the episode years before.

I would be interested in knowing the details of some of the other 15 incidents that have occurred.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Just like the New York lottery drawing (in order) '911' on the first anniversary of 9/11?

I wish that the ghosts of 9/11 decided to contact us in a more believable way than just fixing the lottery. Like a crop circle or something.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat


I wish that the ghosts of 9/11 decided to contact us in a more believable way than just fixing the lottery. Like a crop circle or something. They sent Luci to tell us the truth. Everyone believes him.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I capitalize KNOW only to emphasize that this was not just a lucky guess, as the posters above me and others have speculated. I KNEW it as surely as I know I am wearing a grey shirt right now.

I doubt it. I think you only remember it as such. Many people "know" things are going to happen, and when they don't happen, they immediately forget about that "knowledge" because it wasn't significant. It's just how the human mind works. You didn't "know" anything, you just think you did and the coincidence happened that made that event significant to you. But, if you insist on claiming that it's a fact that you "knew" the future event was going to happen, there is really no point in even discussing it with you. Your statement of "i knew" shows that you are a true believer. You may not call it ESP, but clairvoyance by any other name is still clairvoyance.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Just like the New York lottery drawing (in order) '911' on the first anniversary of 9/11? Lunacy,

Can you tell me the odds of this occuring again. What was it you claimed

365 days in a year times 50 states in America times 1000 possible numbers in the draw times 2 different ways of expressing the date times two towers collapsing = 73 million to one.

Please correct me if I got your calculation wrong.

[Darwin'sGoat]

The odds are only 1 in 1000.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Actually 1 in 500 because NY has two pick 3 lotteries.

[Aussie Thinker]

Stereolab,

I’ll start out nice although that isn’t in my nature when confronted with ESP stuff.

If you have a 5-10 second advance of those thing you KNOW will be correct you have a simple self test method.

Just flip cards from a deck…

Quickly jot down when you KNOW what the next card will be.. 5-10 secs is plenty of time (its take about 2 secs). Ignore all those ones you don’t KNOW.

Please report back your results. If you have some ability Randi will test you under the same conditions and the $ 1m is YOURS !

When you find out you have a random chance you can ignore the “ability” and start to accept peoples advice here that your memory is not ALWAYS reliable and can “invent” and selectively remember certain things.

Easy huh ?

Tai Chi…

How many times did you have to be TOLD that there WAS a way to test the ability (as I have just shown above).

You seem to epitomise the “idiot” sort of believer that wants to desperately hang on to belief in spite of NO EVIDENCE.. your excuses of .. but it just isn’t testable are ridiculous…

[Darwin'sGoat]

Anyone else want to jump aboard and tell this poor guy to go for the million bucks?

He (and T'ai Chi I'm assuming) are not saying that there are not tests. They're asking how you expect him to test something he (thinks) happens once every five to ten years. He's claiming to be a witness to it, not to be able to do it on command.

/devil's advocate

Yes, I believe he's miss-remembering things. Yes, I think he's unwilling to accept that as an answer at this point. This, however, does not mean that every angry skeptic who glances at this thread should insult the guy and throw the 'Million Dollar Randi Challenge' in the his face.

[Aussie Thinker]

Darwin,

I thought I was calmly telling the guy how to test himself.

I am surprised you are feeling in anyway benevolent toward him after he unjustly accused you of not being able to read (when I thought your post to him was eminently sensible).

I agree if the thing only happens rarely it is very difficult to test.. but isn’t that the rub ? To most of us this rings ALARM bells.. Not to Tai Chi though !

Doesn’t that immediately imply that the thing is purely a selective memory thing…

I understand how Stereo does not want accept that it may be his own memory playing tricks.. but people here are not trying to say he is bad or a liar.. just that this happens to EVERYONE.

[Darwin'sGoat]

That was DangerousBeliefs, not me.

My problem is that so many people keep on voicing the suggestion: "Well do it again, smart guy." and in my opinion that option fits in here about as well as "Well it must be ESP."

[Aussie Thinker]

Darwin.. yeah it was DB sorry.

My problem is that so many people keep on voicing the suggestion: "Well do it again, smart guy." and in my opinion that option fits in here about as well as "Well it must be ESP."

Bur Darwin .. it may sound rude.. but it is a completely relevant response.

Evidence for ESP = zero

Therefore it is completely NORMAL to treat the ESPer as something akin to a believer in the “tooth fairy”.

Now Stereo has not claimed any ESP.. so he hasn’t warranted that sort of treatment.

He has however discounted completely NORMAL explanations for his “ability” which tends to discredit him somewhat.

But you cannot lump a “do it again then” with an “ESP believer”.. one is sceptical the other is a woo woo !

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Therefore it is completely NORMAL to treat the ESPer as something akin to a believer in the “tooth fairy”.

He came here to have a discussion not get bullied.

But you cannot lump a “do it again then” with an “ESP believer”.. one is sceptical the other is a woo woo !

I'm lumping them together because neither answer solves the problem. Telling him to test something that he claims he can't do on command is as illogical as claiming that you can do something on command except when people want to test you.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat

He came here to have a discussion not get bullied. Agreed. I'd say only part of the perceived bullying is actual bullying, but we do tend to polarize pretty darned fast around here.

I'm lumping them together because neither answer solves the problem. Telling him to test something that he claims he can't do on command is as illogical as claiming that you can do something on command except when people want to test you. But at least 2 people ( I'm one of them) have addressed this. Admittedly, it is not a brief test, but frankly, if we are to give credence to the claim, it must be tested, and the way we have suggested is the way to do it. If the claim is real (which, of course, none of us can say one way or the other at this point), then the methodologies suggested here are reasonable ways of testing it. So it takes a while...it is absolutely not an untestable claim, as long as there is a qualitative difference to the KNOWN trials.

Not being able to summon this ability on command is inconvenient, but not at all a deal-breaker, as long as he can discriminate between KNOWN and guessed trials.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Not being able to summon this ability on command is inconvenient, but not at all a deal-breaker, as long as he can discriminate between KNOWN and guessed trials.

Yes exactly.

[Aussie Thinker]

Darwin,

You seemed to miss this part that I posted

Now Stereo has not claimed any ESP.. so he hasn’t warranted that sort of treatment.

I'm lumping them together because neither answer solves the problem. Telling him to test something that he claims he can't do on command is as illogical as claiming that you can do something on command except when people want to test you.

Stereo DID claim to KNOW the times when his predictive capability would be correct. I devised a way to test it (Mercutio did raise the testing first and had it spot on).. just for himself.. I only raised the 1 Mill if he could convince himself he had an ability.

BTW Darwin I think sceptic have every right to scoff at the “untestable” “can’t do on command” claims. We have heard that for YEARS.. its implication is CAN’T DO AT ALL !

If the person with the ability thinks they have an ability but can never repeat it when they want (or even often enough for a test) then THEY should consider their own memory or recollection to be the problem and not bother us with it !

[plindboe]

Stereolab,

Mercutio made an excellent point earlier, showing the imperfection of the human memory, that I think is very important for you to realize. I recently KNEW something that turned out not to be not true at all. I clearly remembered giving an important book to my driving instructor. I remembered he asked for it and put it in his glove compartment, the last time we had been out driving. I simply KNEW it. I talked with him on the phone, and he denied having the book, and to this day I'm very happy that I didn't raise my voice and instead just hang up the phone. It turned out it was on the floor at my home under a magazine. :o

There's also another one where my mother and I had completely opposing recollections of a certain event. No need to go into details with this one too. But we both KNEW. Memory distorts facts. It's like that with every human on this planet.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
You seemed to miss this part that I posted

I did. I'm sorry.

Stereo DID claim to KNOW the times when his predictive capability would be correct.

I think this is where the confusion is creeping in. He claimed to know as they happened that they were correct. Not that he knows when he will have them.

BTW Darwin I think sceptic have every right to scoff at the “untestable” “can’t do on command” claims. We have heard that for YEARS.. its implication is CAN’T DO AT ALL !

Yes, you're right. I agree with you 100% that we should be skeptical. That does not mean that his calm disbelief should be met with venemous responses.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat

Yes exactly. Hmmmm...I'm thinking it is quite possible I missed your earlier point, if you are so quick to agree here. My apologies, then, if I addressed something you did not say.

[Aussie Thinker]

I don’t think anyone got too abrasive here anyway.

Summary of thread..

1. Stereo posted a calm query about possible precognition
2. Several posters posted very good calm responses with explanations for the possible precognition.
3. Stereo calmly rejected most of the suggestions on the basis of “he KNEW he wasn’t wrong”
4. It was pointed out by a few posters that the very memory of KNOWING could be what was wrong.
5. Tai Chi lobbed in with inanities about inability to prove ESP doesn’t discount it.
6. Stereo got a little peeved at what he perceived was posters telling him it was a problem with his memory
7. Some posters basically told Stereo he had his advice but did not really take any heed of it.
8. We started arguing amongst ourselves about how civilly we address queries of this nature.

In a nutshell I think all parties behaved quite well.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I don’t think anyone got too abrasive here anyway.

Summary of thread..
(snip)


5. should be 'T'ai Chi commented that peoples' suggestion of tests is odd at best as Stereolab did not claim to be able to predict or control his 'ESP' experiences.'

Your 3. is also partially false. Stereolab rejected some or all of the current "explanations" mainly because, I felt, they are too vague to be useful.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


5. should be 'T'ai Chi commented that peoples' suggestion of tests is odd at best as Stereolab did not claim to be able to predict or control his 'ESP' experiences.' 5a. This point was addressed twice. There is sufficient prediction time, given Stereolab's account, to experimentally examine the phenomenon.

Your 3. is also partially false. Stereolab rejected some or all of the current "explanations" mainly because, I felt, they are too vague to be useful. Stereolab rejected them because you felt they were vague? We may have another claim to test!:p

[Suezoled]

Minnesota, USA and vanilla. Nagasaki, Japan and fire in the rain.

My predictions.

Date: before this Friday, December 12, 2003.

;)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mercutio
5a. This point was addressed twice. There is sufficient prediction time, given Stereolab's account, to experimentally examine the phenomenon.


This point was then addressed twice inadequately (sp), as there isn't "sufficient prediction time" because Stereolab doesn't even know if or when these events will occur.

How, for example, would you attempt to analyze his experience at work?


Stereolab rejected them because you felt they were vague? We may have another claim to test!:p

I felt Stereolab rejected them because he considered them too vague to be useful.

[Loki]

plindboe,

There's also another one where my mother and I had completely opposing recollections of a certain event
"ehBowen" from the Religion and Philosphy Forum has a nice little theory that such contradictory events actually both happened, but God and Satan are arguing over which one will be "the" reality. Just thought you might like to know that both you and your mother may actually have 100% accurate memories, but are simply Satan's play things!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This point was then addressed twice inadequately (sp), as there isn't "sufficient prediction time" because Stereolab doesn't even know if or when these events will occur.

How, for example, would you attempt to analyze his experience at work?
[/B] If you insist that every aspect of the original experience must be involved in the experimental replication of that experience, then I must congratulate you on setting up an impossible task. Every detail any experimenter could set up may be countered with yet another detail that was not the same--after all, any moment of your life is in some ways absolutely impossible to perfectly replicate. Eventually, we get to "it is not the same situation, because he was changed by going through the experience the first time."

Any experiment, any operational definition, is necessarily a compromise. The methodologies suggested do address the major aspects of the experience. The key element is the KNOWN aspect; this is precisely what is addressed in the proposed methodology. Stereolab has said that he gets 10-15 seconds notice, as it were. That is plenty of warning for this, unless you have a specific reason why experimental controls must necessarily prohibit the 10-15 second warning.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Loki
"ehBowen" from the Religion and Philosphy Forum has a nice little theory that such contradictory events actually both happened, but God and Satan are arguing over which one will be "the" reality. Just thought you might like to know that both you and your mother may actually have 100% accurate memories, but are simply Satan's play things!

Hehe. Sounds like this person is an entirely logical being, with a not at all confused view of how the world works. :j1:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Stereolab has said that he gets 10-15 seconds notice, as it were. That is plenty of warning for this, unless you have a specific reason why experimental controls must necessarily prohibit the 10-15 second warning.

Right, but he doesn't know when the experience will occur.

For your controlled experiment of him, are you going to follow him around all day everyday with a video camera? How exactly does one test his 'ESP'?

[thaiboxerken]

Since Stereolab's claims show that his "paranormal" experiences are as random and reliable as coincidence, it is not testable. But, since it has the same properties as coincidence, it should be treated as such. He can remember "knowing" all he wants, but until he can learn to control his superpower to working more than coincidences.. then why even entertain the possibility of it being real?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
, but until he can learn to control his superpower to working more than coincidences.. then why even entertain the possibility of it being real?

It might be.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It might be.

I doubt it. There is no reason to entertain the notion without evidence.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I doubt it. There is no reason to entertain the notion without evidence.

Sure there is a reason; the notion is interesting and there might be something to it. True, there might not, but I think the potential benefits outnumber the potential costs.

In this specific case, however, I don't think it is possible to set up a controlled experiment.

[thaiboxerken]

Sure there is a reason; the notion is interesting and there might be something to it.

No, interesting fiction doesn't make for a good reason to believe. And no, there is not anything to it.. otherwise there would be evidence associated.

True, there might not, but I think the potential benefits outnumber the potential costs.

There is no benefit in chasing wild geese.


In this specific case, however, I don't think it is possible to set up a controlled experiment.

of course not, it's an unfalsifiable claim. It would be like trying to catch the invisible, blue, intangible smurfs that only I know about.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Sure there is a reason; the notion is interesting and there might be something to it.

No, interesting fiction doesn't make for a good reason to believe. And no, there is not anything to it.. otherwise there would be evidence associated.


You outright state it is fiction. What you keep forgetting is your leader Sagan's mantra that absence of evidence is not evidence of an absense. I'm still willing to explore and see if it belongs in the fiction or the non-fiction category. If there is evidence, we can explore it and make a decision one way or the other. --but just because there is no evidence, you are only justified emotionally in saying it is fiction.


True, there might not, but I think the potential benefits outnumber the potential costs.

There is no benefit in chasing wild geese.


There is if you're a hunter, birdwatcher, biologist, or naturalist.



In this specific case, however, I don't think it is possible to set up a controlled experiment.

of course not, it's an unfalsifiable claim. It would be like trying to catch the invisible, blue, intangible smurfs that only I know about.

No, it wouldn't be like that at all. No one is relating their experience with invisible, blue (how you ascertained invisible and blue I have no idea) intangible Smurfs. Stereolab related some real world experiences, some of which many of us have had. That is levels of reality above your example of Smurfs.

[Darat]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
...snip...


of course not, it's an unfalsifiable claim. It would be like trying to catch the invisible, blue, intangible smurfs that only I know about.

You can see them as well?!

[thaiboxerken]

You outright state it is fiction.

It is.

What you keep forgetting is your leader Sagan's mantra that absence of evidence is not evidence of an absense.

I don't agree with Sagan, and he's not my leader.

I'm still willing to explore and see if it belongs in the fiction or the non-fiction category.

It's unfalsifiable. How do you explore unfalsifiable claims? Unlike you, I don't entertain any extraordinary claims that don't have evidence associated with them.

If there is evidence, we can explore it and make a decision one way or the other.

There is no evidence, so I conclude that it's fiction.

--but just because there is no evidence, you are only justified emotionally in saying it is fiction.

No emotions involved, just pure calculated rationality. There is no evidence to support his story and there is no logical reason to believe there is any paranormal.

There is if you're a hunter, birdwatcher, biologist, or naturalist.

You obviously don't understand what the figure of speech was.. or you're being a complete troll and deliberately f(*& with me. I think the latter. But, I will restate. Chasing the nonexistent has no benefit.

No, it wouldn't be like that at all. No one is relating their experience with invisible, blue (how you ascertained invisible and blue I have no idea) intangible Smurfs. Stereolab related some real world experiences, some of which many of us have had. That is levels of reality above your example of Smurfs.

No, maybe my smurfs are real world experiences. Prove me wrong. You cannot, because it is unfalsifiable. Stereo's claims are also unfalsifiable and therefore my smurfs are just as "realistic" as his "esp". You just find the notion of smurfs unbelievable, so you think it's unrealistic and not worth investigating.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Ken

There is no benefit in chasing wild geese.


Originally posted by T'ai Chi


There is if you're a hunter, birdwatcher, biologist, or naturalist.

I read that Sheldrake is a biologist by trade.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Right, but he doesn't know when the experience will occur.

For your controlled experiment of him, are you going to follow him around all day everyday with a video camera? How exactly does one test his 'ESP'? Read the proposed methodologies again. Nobody said it would absolutely be finished in a week. We are taking advantage of the apparent randomness of the events by performing the test over quite a long period of time--this would, of course, depend on his schedule and life priorities. As our first concern is his testing his own abilities, we need not follow him with a camera; it is enough that he be examining his experience systematically, as opposed to retrospectively analyzing hits and misses. If and when he demonstrates to himself that even when he is keeping track of KNOWN trials and is still batting one thousand, we can take the next step and control the experiment.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You outright state it is fiction.

It is.


Yeah, you believe that, but have yet to show it. You also have yet to provide proof of your claim that 'there is no God.. and that is a fact.', which isn't surprising.


What you keep forgetting is your leader Sagan's mantra that absence of evidence is not evidence of an absense.

I don't agree with Sagan, and he's not my leader.


Do you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence??


There is no evidence, so I conclude that it's fiction.


All you can conclude from 'no evidence' is that there is no evidence.


There is if you're a hunter, birdwatcher, biologist, or naturalist.

You obviously don't understand what the figure of speech was.. or you're being a complete troll and deliberately f(*& with me. I think the latter. But, I will restate. Chasing the nonexistent has no benefit.


You assume it is nonexistent so you have already made up your mind. Some here have suggested an experiment to examine Stereolab's future experiences (if he has any). How can you conclude, without an experiment, that it is nonexistent?


No, maybe my smurfs are real world experiences. Prove me wrong. You cannot, because it is unfalsifiable. Stereo's claims are also unfalsifiable and therefore my smurfs are just as "realistic" as his "esp". You just find the notion of smurfs unbelievable, so you think it's unrealistic and not worth investigating.

First, you are violating your skeptic rules and asking me to prove a universal negative.

Second, with the false comparisons to Smurfs, Santa, IPU's, cheese on the moon, etc., that is a tactic many skeptics and atheists use to discredit plausible notions. That type of "reasoning" might work as an analogous position to those who say that a God exists, but not the more day-to-day experiences that most of us have.

In any case, the Smurfs were a concept created in 1958 by Pierre Culliford, made into books in the 1960's, and later made into a television cartoon in the early 1980's, so it's easy to show that they don't belong in the same category as Stereolab's real-world experiences.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat
Anyone else want to jump aboard and tell this poor guy to go for the million bucks?

He (and T'ai Chi I'm assuming) are not saying that there are not tests. They're asking how you expect him to test something he (thinks) happens once every five to ten years. He's claiming to be a witness to it, not to be able to do it on command.

Are people even thinking before they post things like this?

If it happens every five to ten years, and it has happened to him 15 to 17 times, then taking age 5 as a practical minimum for forming clear long-term memories, then he must necessarily be between 75 and 170 years old, in which case there's a good chance he's at least somewhat senile anyway.

Come on, people! Even if it's rare, that's no excuse. The number of times I've run out of gas is at least an order of magnitude smaller than the number of psychic-seeming events I've had in my life. Although conceivably I could run out of gas on command, I am highly motivated not to. And yet I still manage to keep a gas can in my car.

Forget about the Challenge. Personally, my motivation to have evidence for myself that I had psychic abilities would give me such a kick that it is way more important to me than avoiding paying full-service gas prices for one damn tank to borrow a gas can from the station. That's like, what, $5 max on a Chrysler Neon? I've spent more than that on a single glass of beer! It was really good beer, but still... Would it be worth five bucks to me to have evidence of my psychic ability? Hell, yeah!

Perhaps I just have superhuman foresight combined with the superhuman math abilities that allow me to multiply 5 by 15. But I still don't see how the concept is so gob-smacking.

Or perhaps that is the distinguishing characteristic of psychic phenomena. Perhaps that, while ordinary people have no problem preparing for the possibility of ordinary events, however rare, they'll go to almost comical lengths, up to and including forgetting 3rd grade math, to keep psychic phenomena untestable. If so, there must be a motivation.

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah, you believe that, but have yet to show it.

No need to, until he can show that there is something real there.. it is fictional. Why do you insist on shifting the burden of evidence to those that doubt claims? When I claim it's fiction, I'm simply stating that I don't believe him.

Do you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence??

Yes.

All you can conclude from 'no evidence' is that there is no evidence.

That's a rather redundant and useless position. If there is no evidence, one can conclude that there is nothing there. Until there is evidence, it's pointless to entertain such extraordinary claims.

You assume it is nonexistent so you have already made up your mind. Some here have suggested an experiment to examine Stereolab's future experiences (if he has any). How can you conclude, without an experiment, that it is nonexistent?

Because there is no evidence. I need no experiments to figure out BS when I hear it. The burden of evidence is upon the claimee, not the doubters.

First, you are violating your skeptic rules and asking me to prove a universal negative.

Exactly, do you understand now? You are claiming that this "ESP" must be proven false. You are doing the same damn thing. You can see the false logic when I give the argument, but you can't see it in your own.......... interesting.

Second, with the false comparisons to Smurfs, Santa, IPU's, cheese on the moon, etc., that is a tactic many skeptics and atheists use to discredit plausible notions.

It is not a false comparison because those claims are exactly like his "ESP" claim, they are unfalsifiable and are based on the same "logic" and evidence as his "ESP" claim.

That type of "reasoning" might work as an analogous position to those who say that a God exists, but not the more day-to-day experiences that most of us have.

What "experiences" are you talking about? Oh.. ESP? Where are your statistics that show that ESP even exists and that most people experience it? You are adding more claims upon claims. Many people experience "god" as well, this "ESP" claim is just as analogous.

In any case, the Smurfs were a concept created in 1958 by Pierre Culliford, made into books in the 1960's, and later made into a television cartoon in the early 1980's, so it's easy to show that they don't belong in the same category as Stereolab's real-world experiences.

ESP is the concept that is used in many sci-fi and other fictional novels. It's in the same category as Smurfs.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by epepke
Are people even thinking before they post things like this?

If it happens every five to ten years, and it has happened to him 15 to 17 times, then taking age 5 as a practical minimum for forming clear long-term memories, then he must necessarily be between 75 and 170 years old, in which case there's a good chance he's at least somewhat senile anyway.

Yep, I never stop. I am assuming that I have somehow missed his post where he said he had more than 2 experiences. All I saw was the Wizard of Oz story, the phone call story, and a list of things he said were, to him, obviously coincidences. Am I somehow reading this post incorrectly, or is the rest of the world?

"In case this makes my case just a little bit, as to how I don't just write off every coincidence as paranormal, here are some weird "coincidences" and explainable things that I've never considered anything special:"

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
All you can conclude from 'no evidence' is that there is no evidence.

You assume it is nonexistent so you have already made up your mind. Some here have suggested an experiment to examine Stereolab's future experiences (if he has any). How can you conclude, without an experiment, that it is nonexistent?


You're missing a very critical step in this, I hope you're not doing it on purpose.

If verifiable, repeatable, scientific proof suddenly shows up (true) skeptics will change their views.

We are not just "assuming" that it doesn't exist. We're stating that 100% of the previous claims have been proved false. This case may very well prove us wrong, but I would say the odds lie very heavily in our favor.

The moment you can come to me with evidence and prove the claim, I will believe you. Until you do that work, I will be skeptical. I will not believe in something that has been, to this date, verifiably non-existant. That just doesn't make sense.

[renata]

Does anyone find it funny that Stereolab seems to have disappeared, but you guys are still arguing? :D

Where did he go, anyway? I hoped he would respond to my Wheel of Fortune information....hmmmm

[Stereolab]

I'm still here. Just enjoying the debate.

It AMAZES me how half of the people in this thread claim to be such critical thinkers, and yet QUITE OBVIOUSLY have not taken the time to read and comprehend my posts. I am no Pulitzer Prize winner, but I think I'm able to write intelligently enough that people should understand what I am saying. How can you tell me that I am jumping to conclusions, which I'm not, when you are jumping to conclusions about me based on things I haven't said?

I will respond to your post, Renata, after I have looked into it further. (And by the way, I was never on the Atkins Diet, nor did my post imply that.)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Stereolab
How can you tell me that I am jumping to conclusions, which I'm not, when you are jumping to conclusions about me based on things I haven't said?


Because of the mere fact that you have rejected every mundane explanation given to you without a logical reason to. The very basis of your "knowing" those couple of events would happen is an emotional one. You have no idea if you actually "knew" anything, you only think you do and feel threatened when your recollection of the event is questioned. You emotionally reject coincidence because "it just doesn't makes sense".

Like Clancie, you didn't make a claim.. but you still believe it.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darwin'sGoat


Yep, I never stop. I am assuming that I have somehow missed his post where he said he had more than 2 experiences. All I saw was the Wizard of Oz story, the phone call story, and a list of things he said were, to him, obviously coincidences. Am I somehow reading this post incorrectly, or is the rest of the world?


Well, this is a long thread, so I forgive you. But from the original statement:

I have had roughly 15 "ESP" experiences during my lifetime. I am going to explain the two most "powerful" in some detail. I will be happy to share others if there is any interest.

I think I got the 17 from the next paragraph and misremembered it as 15 to 17. So he only has to be between 75 and 150 years old. But that's an object lesson as to how tricky and confabulatory memory is. It was just a couple of days ago, and I could have sworn he said 15 to 17.

But still, 15 is 15, and roughly 15 is still probably 12 to 18, almost certainly more than 2. So maybe he's between 60 and 180. Still not a great range for having a good memory.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Because of the mere fact that you have rejected every mundane explanation given to you without a logical reason to. The very basis of your "knowing" those couple of events would happen is an emotional one. You have no idea if you actually "knew" anything, you only think you do and feel threatened when your recollection of the event is questioned. You emotionally reject coincidence because "it just doesn't makes sense".

Like Clancie, you didn't make a claim.. but you still believe it.

Listen to how sure you are that you have all the answers, and I don't. Please, keep telling me what I "believe."

I have rejected the "false memory" explanation because it's simply not true. I probably have emails saved, sent minutes after the "phone call" incident, that "prove" this, at least to me. I have rejected the "coincidence" explanation, because I am not one to think coincidences are ESP. I tried to explain this. It is "possible" that they were coincidences, but it's about as likely as winning the Lotto five times in five attempts, as I also explained. Finally, I am looking into the possibility of the Wheel of Fortune episode being a rerun, and also the possibility that "THE LAND OF OZ" was perhaps announced as a "Fictional Place," not simply a "Place." If those turn out to be real possibilities, I have no problem AT ALL saying "hey, that probably wasn't ESP after all." You act like I am so sure in my beliefs about what happened, when I have been trying to tell you all along that I am not...that is why I started this topic! If I was sure it was ESP, believe me, I would have had no reason to post on here.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Stereolab


Listen to how sure you are that you have all the answers, and I don't. Please, keep telling me what I "believe."

I have rejected the "false memory" explanation because it's simply not true. I probably have emails saved, sent minutes after the "phone call" incident, that "prove" this, at least to me. I have rejected the "coincidence" explanation, because I am not one to think coincidences are ESP. I tried to explain this. It is "possible" that they were coincidences, but it's about as likely as winning the Lotto five times in five attempts, as I also explained. Finally, I am looking into the possibility of the Wheel of Fortune episode being a rerun, and also the possibility that "THE LAND OF OZ" was perhaps announced as a "Fictional Place," not simply a "Place." If those turn out to be real possibilities, I have no problem AT ALL saying "hey, that probably wasn't ESP after all." You act like I am so sure in my beliefs about what happened, when I have been trying to tell you all along that I am not...that is why I started this topic! If I was sure it was ESP, believe me, I would have had no reason to post on here.

After the incident, which means your brain had time to recognise this has one heck of an unlikely event and, possibly, over-emphasising the level of certainty.

"I am not one to think coincidences are ESP." because you've experienced coincidences and non-coincidences and don't remember them as having the same level of certainty. It's been pointed out that KNOWING and knowing is subjective and that psychological studies indicate people can't actually tell the difference, and you don't seem to be accepting that.

From what you've written so far it seems to me these "actual" coincidences were magnitudes below your "five Lotto wins" events, while the "I can't explain them" events were extremely unlikely. Knowing they were so unlikely singles them out, and would influence your memory of them, possibly making you surer you KNEW that time. If you'd acknowledge this possibility you'd see that they are not that unlikely when you look at 30 years of experience, and 6 billion other humans.

You say you're looking for proof it could be other than ESP, and that we act like you're so sure, but although you've acknowledged the "rerun" and "fictional place" theories for the Wheel of Fortune incident, you've shown no understanding of the arguments presented regarding coincidences, human memory and perception. And this despite accepting that it just may have been 'fictional place'.

Human memories are not created real time, they are created after the fact, and they are likely to change slightly with each recollection. As you continue to reject what appears to outside observers to be reasonable explanations, without actually refuting them, you seem more and more like a true believer.

[epepke]

Hmm...

I've reviewed this thread, which is pretty long by the standards of this forum.

I haven't seen evidence of Stereolab's responding to any of the responses that did not fight him.

Perhaps I am missing something, so I ask: can anyone think of a reason not to put Stereolab into the category of mindless creduloid schmucks who just come here to pick a fight?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by epepke
: can anyone think of a reason not to put Stereolab into the category of mindless creduloid schmucks who just come here to pick a fight? Charity ?

[Undodog]

Originally posted by Stereolab
It is "possible" that they were coincidences, but it's about as likely as winning the Lotto five times in five attempts...
Not as such. More like youve 'won the lotto' about 15 times in a your lifetime. But the Lotto (life) is played every second of every day. At $1 per second, you're not really on a winning streak.

Worst analogy ever! :D

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Undodog

Not as such. More like youve 'won the lotto' about 15 times in a your lifetime. But the Lotto (life) is played every second of every day. At $1 per second, you're not really on a winning streak.

Worst analogy ever! :D I pointed this out earlier but Stereolab ignored me and repeated the assertion that s/he had only entered 5 lottos.

A bit like ‘only remembering the hits’ Stereolab doesn’t remember the posts that prove her/him wrong. Don’t be surprised if s/he repeats the 5 lotto claim later.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Undodog
Worst analogy ever! :D

No, it isn't. It says exactly what I want it to say. I may be playing the coincidence lottery every second of every day, but that appears to be a different lottery.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by epepke

I haven't seen evidence of Stereolab's responding to any of the responses that did not fight him.

Perhaps I am missing something, so I ask: can anyone think of a reason not to put Stereolab into the category of mindless creduloid schmucks who just come here to pick a fight?

Go right ahead. That's what everyone seems so eager to do.

Do you not expect me to respond to posts that fight me?

I'm glad that you consider someone who doesn't necessarily accept your opinions a "mindless schmuck." However, I personally believe the mindless schmucks are those that, over and over, are insisting this is just coincidence (despite there being a few other "mundane" explanations being thrown around). Over and over and over, people are trying to prove themselves Skeptic of the Year or something, by mindlessly throwing out the same crap again and again. Look, you believe it's coincidence, and I don't, and it will just have to stay like that. But keep in mind that it's *me* that this all happened to. It's quite presumptuous of you all to think you can psychoanalyze me based on a few message board posts that people don't understand anyway.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Stereolab


No, it isn't. It says exactly what I want it to say. I may be playing the coincidence lottery every second of every day, but that appears to be a different lottery. I rest my case.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I'm glad that you consider someone who doesn't necessarily accept your opinions a "mindless schmuck." However, I personally believe the mindless schmucks are those that, over and over, are insisting this is just coincidence (despite there being a few other "mundane" explanations being thrown around). Over and over and over, people are trying to prove themselves Skeptic of the Year or something, by mindlessly throwing out the same crap again and again. Look, you believe it's coincidence, and I don't, and it will just have to stay like that. But keep in mind that it's *me* that this all happened to. It's quite presumptuous of you all to think you can psychoanalyze me based on a few message board posts that people don't understand anyway.

I certainly wouldn't call you a mindless schmuck. But by rejecting the most likely explanations (by a LARGE degree), you certainly don't appear to be a skeptic. The fact is, none of us, including you, can KNOW what happened because there is insufficient evidence and no more will ever be forthcoming.

Therefore, we have two ways we can deal with it.

(1) We can assume that there is a perfectly mundane, everyday explanation for what happened (e.g. imperfect memory, coincidence, you saw the show, etc.) or

(2) We can assume that somehow your brain received some sort of "ESP" communication from a pre-taped show broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum, an event unprecedented in human history.

Which option would a real skeptic choose? The answer's pretty clear.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Which option would a real skeptic choose? The answer's pretty clear.

Why are my alternatives limited to assumptions? I would think a real skeptic would investigate the explanations, even the mundane ones, which is exactly what I am doing...as I mentioned previously.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Lothian
I rest my case.

You don't seem all that bright.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Stereolab


You don't seem all that bright. You are totally wrong there. I am a ‘Bright’.

[Starrman]

I would think a real skeptic would investigate the explanations.

How would you sugget we investigate a story about you guessing a puzzle on wheel of fortune 17 damn years ago? It was a lucky guess or a coincidence - to spend time investigating any other explanation is a violation of Occam's razor and a waste of time.

[Stereolab]

I am looking into the possibility of the show being a re-run, and also the possibility of the category being "Fictional Place" rather than place. I don't suggest thatyou do anything. Kindly read the whole thread before responding.

[Stereolab]

By the way, I found an archived email sent five minutes after the phone call incident, (11/19/1999), that explains the occurence exactly as I've described it here. So, while I'm certainly aware that the human mind is imperfect, this is not a case of me remembering things incorrectly years later.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Why are my alternatives limited to assumptions? I would think a real skeptic would investigate the explanations, even the mundane ones, which is exactly what I am doing...as I mentioned previously.

What Starrman said.

Finding out whether or not the show was a rerun or they said "fictional place" won't prove anything. If it gives you closure, great.

There is no way of obtaining conclusive evidence. All we can do is speculate and make assumptions. Given the nature of your claim, extraordinary evidence would be required.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Stereolab
By the way, I found an archived email sent five minutes after the phone call incident, (11/19/1999), that explains the occurence exactly as I've described it here. So, while I'm certainly aware that the human mind is imperfect, this is not a case of me remembering things incorrectly years later.

Assuming (since we have no facts other than your word) that you accurately reported the event, you're right. It's not a case of misremembering. In this case it's you counting the hits but not the misses.

Other possible explanations. Did your phone have a display window on it? Maybe you glimpsed the person's name or number. You say that this person only calls you two or three times a year. So, maybe it was time. Maybe you hadn't heard from him in a long time so you were expecting a call. Maybe that report was due or overdue. Maybe he had e-mailed to tell you he was calling and you forgot. There are many mundane explanations.

This event is so obviously not paranormal I can't believe you give any credence to this at all.

[Valley_girl]

I know you guys are going to flame me for this one, but I am interested in your opinions on what happened here...

When I was in high school, I did a lot of painting. I painted this particular piece that was very abstract. It was really a painting of nothing discernible, just vivid colors. But it did have some identifiable shapes. An artistic "stream of consciousness" representation, I guess you could call it. It was very unique, or so I thought.

About four years ago, I went to an art showing in a neighboring community with my then-boyfriend. We were admiring the works of a certain artist, when I went around the corner to see more of his paintings. There, on the wall, was my painting. Exactly. I was stunned. The artist approached me and I asked him about it. I KNOW I had never met this man before, yet he kept insisting that we had met somewhere. He could not pinpoint where. He was not someone I would have forgotten (yes, he was hot) and I am very good with faces. I knew we had not met before. He said that particular painting was one of his favorites because he had woken out of a deep sleep after having a very vivid dream and painted it in his kitchen, feverishly, at 4 in the morning. The painting was special to him because he felt a very strong connection to "something" (his words) as he painted it.

I am a very logical person, and I know that this incident was just an unbelievable coincidence, but it has definitely given me pause. Weird, huh?

OK - flame away. :D

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Valley_girl
When I was in high school, I did a lot of painting. I painted this particular piece that was very abstract. It was really a painting of nothing discernible, just vivid colors. But it did have some identifiable shapes. An artistic "stream of consciousness" representation, I guess you could call it. It was very unique, or so I thought.

About four years ago, I went to an art showing in a neighboring community with my then-boyfriend. We were admiring the works of a certain artist, when I went around the corner to see more of his paintings. There, on the wall, was my painting. Exactly. I was stunned. The artist approached me and I asked him about it. I KNOW I had never met this man before, yet he kept insisting that we had met somewhere. He could not pinpoint where. He was not someone I would have forgotten (yes, he was hot) and I am very good with faces. I knew we had not met before. He said that particular painting was one of his favorites because he had woken out of a deep sleep after having a very vivid dream and painted it in his kitchen, feverishly, at 4 in the morning. The painting was special to him because he felt a very strong connection to "something" (his words) as he painted it.

I am a very logical person, and I know that this incident was just an unbelievable coincidence, but it has definitely given me pause. Weird, huh?

OK - flame away. :D

No flaming necessary. You're not claiming this was paranormal are you? You're admitting it was coincidence.

I suspect that if you compared the paintings side by side you'd see that they aren't exact. Similar perhaps, enough for you to think they were identical, but it's unlikely they were. As for what he said, he was just wrong, that's all. Or maybe hitting on you. :)

[renata]

Originally posted by Ipecac


No flaming necessary. You're not claiming this was paranormal are you? You're admitting it was coincidence.

I suspect that if you compared the paintings side by side you'd see that they aren't exact. Similar perhaps, enough for you to think they were identical, but it's unlikely they were. As for what he said, he was just wrong, that's all. Or maybe hitting on you. :)

You stole my idea!!! Did you have a strong connection to my mind? :D

First of all, those "can you explain this" stories are really hard. Too many variables, and some things really are difficult to explain. There are amazing coincidences in this world. But my first thought was that the artist saw a young woman, interested in his work, and whether he was hitting on you- or trying to sell the painting- decided to create a little mystery for you. The line- I am sure we met before is an old one, but he had a bonus, when you must have told him you painted a similar painting. I mean I assume you did, he did not just start talking about painting it at 4 am out of the blue, did he? Even if he did, it could still be because he noticed you were enthralled by it. Since you yourself said your painting was abstract, it is not surprising someone had a similar style.

It is also possible you unconsciously replicated style of his work in your painting- if you saw a sample of his work somewhere before you painted. This, once again is the reason it is hard to explain these things- too many possibilities. I also suspect the paintings are not exact, but you can get a photograph of your painting and a photo/reproduction of his, and compare.

Fact is, there are many "what the hell???" incidences in everyone's life. It is how we think about them and approach them separates a skeptic from a non skeptic. Nothing in your post made me think you were seeking out a paranormal explanation, although I am sure there are many people in your place who might :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Therefore, we have two ways we can deal with it.

(1) We can assume that there is a perfectly mundane, everyday explanation for what happened (e.g. imperfect memory, coincidence, you saw the show, etc.) or

(2) We can assume that somehow your brain received some sort of "ESP" communication from a pre-taped show broadcast over the electromagnetic spectrum, an event unprecedented in human history.

Which option would a real skeptic choose? The answer's pretty clear.

Uh, a real skeptic would chose neither, because a real skeptic wouldn't assume. They'd examine the evidence.

A real skeptic would also stick to examining the evidence, instead of resporting to personal attacks on Stereolab (not that you have, I'm just saying for those who are).

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Ipecac
This event is so obviously not paranormal I can't believe you give any credence to this at all.

I guess it's "obvious" to you, since you weren't there.

I appreciate your presenting some more possible explanations, but none of them apply.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Stereolab

Listen to how sure you are that you have all the answers, and I don't. Please, keep telling me what I "believe."


Get used to it Stereo!

[Valley_girl]

Originally posted by renata


You stole my idea!!! Did you have a strong connection to my mind? :D

First of all, those "can you explain this" stories are really hard. Too many variables, and some things really are difficult to explain. There are amazing coincidences in this world. But my first thought was that the artist saw a young woman, interested in his work, and whether he was hitting on you- or trying to sell the painting- decided to create a little mystery for you. The line- I am sure we met before is an old one, but he had a bonus, when you must have told him you painted a similar painting. I mean I assume you did, he did not just start talking about painting it at 4 am out of the blue, did he? Even if he did, it could still be because he noticed you were enthralled by it. Since you yourself said your painting was abstract, it is not surprising someone had a similar style.

It is also possible you unconsciously replicated style of his work in your painting- if you saw a sample of his work somewhere before you painted. This, once again is the reason it is hard to explain these things- too many possibilities. I also suspect the paintings are not exact, but you can get a photograph of your painting and a photo/reproduction of his, and compare.

Fact is, there are many "what the hell???" incidences in everyone's life. It is how we think about them and approach them separates a skeptic from a non skeptic. Nothing in your post made me think you were seeking out a paranormal explanation, although I am sure there are many people in your place who might :)

His evil plan might have worked, too, if I hadn't been there with my boyfriend! :D

I agree that side-by-side comparisons might show differences that weren't immediately apparent to my eyes. I hadn't seen any of his work before, though. He is a local artist and I didn't live here when I was in high school. I didn't explain why I was interested in the painting until he had already explained about the 4 am painting, the "strong connection", etc.

You are right. There are truly some amazing coincidences in this world. It's situations like the one that I described that help me to understand how people can believe in some of the woo-woo things that they do. Had I been less of a skeptic at that point, I might currently be using my "amazing artistic psychic powers" to make a hell of a lot more money that I do now!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No need to, until he can show that there is something real there.. it is fictional. Why do you insist on shifting the burden of evidence to those that doubt claims? When I claim it's fiction, I'm simply stating that I don't believe him.


It's not about shifting the burden, it is about being clear in what you are attempting to communicate.

One can be skeptical about something (which is fine), and one can state something as a fact. You seem to desire to do both. First, you say it is fictional, as if that is a fact. Then you say that by saying it is fictional, that you are merely claiming it is fictional. Why be so confusing here?


Do you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence??

Yes.


So absence of evidence of extraterrestrial life in the universe is evidence that no extraterrestrial life exists in the universe? Really?


All you can conclude from 'no evidence' is that there is no evidence.

That's a rather redundant and useless position.


Only if understanding reality correctly is redundant and useless. I don't think it is.


How can you conclude, without an experiment, that it is nonexistent?

Because there is no evidence. I need no experiments to figure out BS when I hear it. The burden of evidence is upon the claimee, not the doubters.


Again, you are confused. This isn't about the burden. This is about science. You are stating a fact without doing any controlled experiment.

We should really forget science and its methods and just take your subjective opinions on things from now on, beacuse you know how to "figure out BS", because that is really what you are desiring us to do here.


It is not a false comparison because those claims are exactly like his "ESP" claim, they are unfalsifiable and are based on the same "logic" and evidence as his "ESP" claim.


Yes, it is a false comparison. The history of the Smurfs is quite clear: invented around 1958, made in to figurines, books, then TV. The explanations of real-world ESP-like experiences is not that cut and dry, and needs experimentation to analyze it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Like Clancie, you didn't make a claim.. but you still believe it.

:rolleyes:

Again, you attempt guilt by association.

You have brought up Clancie's name twice, and Lucianarchy's name once when they have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

Just what are you trying to accomplish here?

[LTC8K6]

The universe is a special case.

The absence of evidence of pink elephants in my office is evidence that no pink elephants exist in my office.

[Stereolab]

Your office is the special case, not the universe. Most things aren't as clear-cut as the pink elephants that might be in your office.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Valley_girl
I know you guys are going to flame me for this one, but I am interested in your opinions on what happened here...

When I was in high school, I did a lot of painting. I painted this particular piece that was very abstract. It was really a painting of nothing discernible, just vivid colors. But it did have some identifiable shapes. An artistic "stream of consciousness" representation, I guess you could call it. It was very unique, or so I thought.

About four years ago, I went to an art showing in a neighboring community with my then-boyfriend. We were admiring the works of a certain artist, when I went around the corner to see more of his paintings. There, on the wall, was my painting. Exactly. I was stunned. The artist approached me and I asked him about it. I KNOW I had never met this man before, yet he kept insisting that we had met somewhere. He could not pinpoint where. He was not someone I would have forgotten (yes, he was hot) and I am very good with faces. I knew we had not met before. He said that particular painting was one of his favorites because he had woken out of a deep sleep after having a very vivid dream and painted it in his kitchen, feverishly, at 4 in the morning. The painting was special to him because he felt a very strong connection to "something" (his words) as he painted it.

I am a very logical person, and I know that this incident was just an unbelievable coincidence, but it has definitely given me pause. Weird, huh?

OK - flame away. :D
My biggest problem here is with the statement you KNEW you'd never met this man before. I find statements like these to be impossible. With all the people we interact in a liftetime its impossible to KNOW for sure we've never met them before. I myself often in the city I live in now see people who I think I recognize, but can't think of where, and I've had cases where they remembered me, but not vice versa, and I know I've done that myself, remembered someone, without them remembering me. Now to say he is a local artist, is that just assuming that we has lived there his whole life and gone to high school there and never lived anywhere else? Its likely you two never went to high school together, but its possible he was the quiet kid in the corner that no one ever paid any attention to either. Its just to hard to say with certainty you've never met him. As far as the artistic part goes abstraction is not at all uncommon, and the likely hood of all the highschool kids, 2 of them creating something quite similiar looking in an abstract fashion, is although rare, not impossible. Especially in high school artists are often not so unique and original as they like to think. I know, I was one of the artist kids :). I can think of only one kid in our class that had above and beyond everyone else, a latent talent, and even his work was just mimicry of his favored historical influences.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Uh, a real skeptic would chose neither, because a real skeptic wouldn't assume. They'd examine the evidence.

Sorry, T'ai Chi but there is no evidence. There's nothing but memory and conjecture. So nothing to examine here.

(If there were evidence, you'd be right, of course. But then I never would have used the word assume in the first place.)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I guess it's "obvious" to you, since you weren't there.

I appreciate your presenting some more possible explanations, but none of them apply.

The statements of a true believer.

You do understand that people make these kinds of claims ALL THE TIME? Everyone will occasionally pick up the phone KNOWING who is on the other line. People do it all the time. They just don't credit it when they're wrong.

Remarkably, one day I walked onto the train just before the doors closed and it left the station. When I arrived at the transfer station, I arrived at the next train just in time too. Did I telepathically summon the trains? No. I do this twice every day so I've done it thousands of times. Once in a while, the timing works out. Coincidence.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I guess it's "obvious" to you, since you weren't there.

I appreciate your presenting some more possible explanations, but none of them apply.

Then please explain to us why they don't apply? Why does this not qualify as a coincidence that leaped out as special to you because of its unlikeliness? Why can't it be that your feeling of certainty was based on that? And why don't you realize that really weird things happen a lot in a world with 6 billion people who can only observe what happens to them and tend to ignore the actual statistical possibilities?

[Valley_girl]

Originally posted by voidx

My biggest problem here is with the statement you KNEW you'd never met this man before. I find statements like these to be impossible. With all the people we interact in a liftetime its impossible to KNOW for sure we've never met them before. I myself often in the city I live in now see people who I think I recognize, but can't think of where, and I've had cases where they remembered me, but not vice versa, and I know I've done that myself, remembered someone, without them remembering me. Now to say he is a local artist, is that just assuming that we has lived there his whole life and gone to high school there and never lived anywhere else? Its likely you two never went to high school together, but its possible he was the quiet kid in the corner that no one ever paid any attention to either. Its just to hard to say with certainty you've never met him.

Ironically, this is the only thing about the whole experience that I have never questioned. I grew up in a town hundreds of miles away from where this artist was living, and the population of my hometown was 600 people. Out of the 19 people in my class, he wasn't the quiet kid in the corner. There was no hiding out in that school. ;)

On a sad note, I was just doing some research on the internet to find out where he grew up and if we might have crossed paths (he grew up in New Mexico and Texas, me in Colorado), only to find that he passed away a year and a half ago at the age of 34. :(

[LTC8K6]

The universe is the special case. There are others.

We have not, and we cannot explore all of it, therefore the absence of evidence of ET's in the universe is not evidence that there are no ET's in the universe.

This does not necessarily apply to everything.

That was my point.

For instance, the lack of evidence that stereolab has been in my office is not evidence that he hasn't been in my office.

The lack of evidence of live T. Rex on Earth is evidence that there are no live T. Rex on Earth.

If there were pink elephants in my office, there would be evidence of them.

Same for the live T. Rex on Earth.

If you had been in my office, there might not be evidence that you had been there, so.......

[Starrman]

I appreciate your presenting some more possible explanations, but none of them apply.

Stereolab, in your opinion, what is the most likely explanation for the events?

[thaiboxerken]

I have rejected the "false memory" explanation because it's simply not true. I probably have emails saved, sent minutes after the "phone call" incident, that "prove" this, at least to me.

Dejavu false memory type events can restructure your recollection of events minutes after it happens. You don't think that it could've been a Deja vu, memory misplacement type of event?

I have rejected the "coincidence" explanation, because I am not one to think coincidences are ESP.

This is circular.. you've basically said that you reject coincidence because you reject coincidence. IE.. you believe in ESP in this case.. just because. This is not a logical reason to dismiss the coincidence explanation.

I tried to explain this. It is "possible" that they were coincidences, but it's about as likely as winning the Lotto five times in five attempts, as I also explained.

No it's not. Your "probabilities" are wholly based on your personal outlook and not real statistics.

Finally, I am looking into the possibility of the Wheel of Fortune episode being a rerun, and also the possibility that "THE LAND OF OZ" was perhaps announced as a "Fictional Place," not simply a "Place."

It's rather tough, since you don't even remember the DAY that your wheel of fortune thing happened.

If those turn out to be real possibilities, I have no problem AT ALL saying "hey, that probably wasn't ESP after all."

Those facts will be very hard to establish indeed, I seriously doubt that you'll ever find out.

You act like I am so sure in my beliefs about what happened, when I have been trying to tell you all along that I am not...that is why I started this topic! If I was sure it was ESP, believe me, I would have had no reason to post on here.

Sure you would, I mean.. Luci still posts here.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Remarkably, one day I walked onto the train just before the doors closed and it left the station. When I arrived at the transfer station, I arrived at the next train just in time too. Did I telepathically summon the trains? No. I do this twice every day so I've done it thousands of times. Once in a while, the timing works out. Coincidence.

I will not debate the "coincidence" thing any longer. I have had plenty of coincidences occur in my lifetime. There is no need for you all to give me these condescending explanations of how coincidences happen. If you don't believe me that this was something more then a coincidence, then fine. I am not going to bother trying to convince you any longer.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by bjornart


Then please explain to us why they don't apply? Why does this not qualify as a coincidence that leaped out as special to you because of its unlikeliness? Why can't it be that your feeling of certainty was based on that? And why don't you realize that really weird things happen a lot in a world with 6 billion people who can only observe what happens to them and tend to ignore the actual statistical possibilities?

It's obvious they don't apply. I didn't have Caller ID...didn't expect a call from that person...etc.

This does not leap out as a "coincidence" because I'm quite sure that I knew what was going to happen.

I realize full well that weird things happen. I've experienced hundreds of them. I don't think most of them were paranormal in any way.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
The universe is the special case. There are others.

There are far more "others" than there are things you can easily explain through "evidence."

Right now, millions of things are happening all throughout the world, that you'd never be able to prove, no matter how hard you tried.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Starrman


Stereolab, in your opinion, what is the most likely explanation for the events?

I don't have an explanation.

[Stereolab]

[/B][/QUOTE]You don't think that it could've been a Deja vu, memory misplacement type of event?

No.

IE.. you believe in ESP in this case.. just because.

You can say this over and over, and it still doesn't change the fact that I don't have my mind made up at all, nor should I, based on the explanations and evidence that I have.

No it's not. Your "probabilities" are wholly based on your personal outlook and not real statistics.

Your "explanations" are wholly based on statistics, and not my particular experience.

[thaiboxerken]

I will not debate the "coincidence" thing any longer. I have had plenty of coincidences occur in my lifetime. There is no need for you all to give me these condescending explanations of how coincidences happen. If you don't believe me that this was something more then a coincidence, then fine. I am not going to bother trying to convince you any longer.

So you are closed off to the possibility that it's just a coincidence.. like a true believer. The fact is, strange coincidences happen all of the time and just because your mind tricked you into thinking that you "knew" something doesn't mean that you really did. You want to believe that you knew, you have to believe that this was more than coincidence because you want to believe in ESP. You claim you don't believe in ESP yet you certainly argue against the mundane like a believer. You have failed logic with your arguments. With all of your education, you are still just a woo-woo.

[thaiboxerken]

No.

Then you don't understand what Deja Vu is, do you? It's when the mind misplaces information into memory of an event that just occured giving the illusion that you have already experienced the event. How you have determined that it wasn't this phenomena will be interesting to hear.

You can say this over and over, and it still doesn't change the fact that I don't have my mind made up at all, nor should I, based on the explanations and evidence that I have.

You have made up your mind that it cannot be a coincidence, that it has to be something else. This is wholly based on emotion.

Your "explanations" are wholly based on statistics, and not my particular experience.

Exactly, it's because experiences are not reliable evidence.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Your "explanations" are wholly based on statistics, and not my particular experience.

Exactly, it's because experiences are not reliable evidence. [/B]

My experiences are not reliable evidence for you, because you didn't experience them. Nothing I can do about that. Perhaps you will have similar experiences one day.

But it's amusing that you're obviously trying to "win" an argument, trying to "prove" your point...and yet all you do is talk about other people, and talk about statistics. Everyone knows that statistics are all about probabilities and confidence intervals and so forth. Trying to prove your point by using statistics is just dumb. I think Randi and other respected skeptics would be the first to admit that they don't "know" much at all, really...and yet you're just so certain you have it all figured out.

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, please leave this thread and go start your own.

[thaiboxerken]

My experiences are not reliable evidence for you, because you didn't experience them. Nothing I can do about that. Perhaps you will have similar experiences one day.

They are not reliable evidence for anyone, including you. It doesn't matter who you are, anecdotes alone are not evidence.

But it's amusing that you're obviously trying to "win" an argument, trying to "prove" your point.

No, I'm merely showing you the fallacies of your thinking. You call yourself a skeptic, yet you don't think critically.

..and yet all you do is talk about other people, and talk about statistics.

I also talk about your fallacies.

Everyone knows that statistics are all about probabilities and confidence intervals and so forth. Trying to prove your point by using statistics is just dumb.p

You were the one trying to prove your point with statistics, it was you that claimed that your experiences were like winning the lottery. I simply didn't accept your "statistic" because it is wrong.

I think Randi and other respected skeptics would be the first to admit that they don't "know" much at all, really...and yet you're just so certain you have it all figured out.

Yea you're correct, I have figure out that you are a true believer in skeptic's guise. You aren't original in claiming "I'm skeptic BUT..."

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, please leave this thread and go start your own.

I have contributed to the thread. If you have a complaint, feel free to contact a moderator.

[Stereolab]

[/QUOTE]They are not reliable evidence for anyone, including you. It doesn't matter who you are, anecdotes alone are not evidence.

Then why do people get sent to jail every day, based on "anecdotes"?

I also talk about your fallacies.

Please stop throwing the word "fallacies" around until you learn what it means. Your insistence that I am fallacious helps to prove my point.

You were the one trying to prove your point with statistics, it was you that claimed that your experiences were like winning the lottery. I simply didn't accept your "statistic" because it is wrong.

I did not initiate the lottery discussion, I only attempted to correct someone else's explanation of the event that I (not he) experienced.

Yea you're correct, I have figure out that you are a true believer in skeptic's guise. You aren't original in claiming "I'm skeptic BUT..."

I assure you that originality is not a priority for me.
And there's nothing un-skeptical about saying "I am a skeptic, and I cannot yet explain this."

You call yourself a skeptic, yet you don't think critically.

My critical thinking indicates that there is a very high probability that you have major self-esteem issues.

[thaiboxerken]

Then why do people get sent to jail every day, based on "anecdotes"?

Jail.. maybe, just incase the person really did do the crime. They are not, however, convicted on anecdotes alone.

Please stop throwing the word "fallacies" around until you learn what it means. Your insistence that I am fallacious helps to prove my point.

But you are, your arguments are not logically valid.

I did not initiate the lottery discussion, I only attempted to correct someone else's explanation of the event that I (not he) experienced.

So he said it was a coincidence and you claimedthe lottery statistics.

I assure you that originality is not a priority for me.
And there's nothing un-skeptical about saying "I am a skeptic, and I cannot yet explain this."

Yes, but when you reject all mundane explanations given based solely on your experiences, you are no longer a skeptic.

My critical thinking indicates that there is a very high probability that you have major self-esteem issues.

You can insult me all you want, it doesn't matter. It seems that you are the one with esteem issue, especially when your experiences are questioned.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, this is a long thread, so I forgive you. But from the original statement:

"I have had roughly 15 "ESP" experiences during my lifetime. I am going to explain the two most "powerful" in some detail. I will be happy to share others if there is any interest."

I apologize whole-heartedly to anyone I argued with about this point.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Then why do people get sent to jail every day, based on "anecdotes"?

Eyewitness testimony is not reliable.

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt

[Darwin'sGoat]

T'ai Chi, since you have so easily evaded my previous response, let me ask you: "What things do you not believe in?"

[Aussie Thinker]

Stereolab,

Can I ask you to consider this…

People here are telling you your memory may have been unreliable or played a trick on you IMMEDIATELY after the event…

You reject this on the basis of that VERY SAME memory. (can you see the circular reasoning trap you have fallen into ?)

Now as NO ESP has ever been shown to exist.. doesn’t it give weight to their argument that your memory was faulty… It is understandable that you are unwilling to give this credence.. but NOT giving it credence does not make sense.. woo woo’s do not give the most logical answers credence !

As far as statistics go you have a 1 in 17 billion chance of winning the lottery 5 times in a row (in Melbourne anyway).. I would argue that predicting a friend who rings 2-3 times a year would be much less.

Lets say you have 20 phone calls a day.. this makes the odds 1 in 3,650 or 4.7 million times more likely than winning lotto 5 times in a row…

So I doubt the coincidence factor can be counted out either.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Stereolab
They are not reliable evidence for anyone, including you. It doesn't matter who you are, anecdotes alone are not evidence.

Then why do people get sent to jail every day, based on "anecdotes"?

:D Interesting statement, given some of the earlier examples on this thread. I was ready to swear that I had been mugged by somebody, and I was wrong. That person could have been sent to jail on an anecdote...and the anecdote would have been lousy evidence.

People have been executed wrongly because witnesses persist in thinking that their recollection could not possibly be mistaken. If you really want to open your eyes to what science knows about memory and eyewitness testimony, google "Loftus Eyewitness Testimony" and you'll see that quite a lot has been done. Of course, none of it applies to you since you know your experience is different. Somehow.

Please, take the time to learn a bit about the psychology of sensation, perception and memory. Particularly memory. The Loftus stuff is a great place to start. Then tell us exactly why it does not apply to you. I'll be very interested in hearing it.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Please, take the time to learn a bit about the psychology of sensation, perception and memory. Particularly memory. The Loftus stuff is a great place to start. Then tell us exactly why it does not apply to you. I'll be very interested in hearing it. [/B]

I will do that.

I am not going to bother responding to this constant blabbering from the pseudo-skeptical peanut gallery (not you, Mercutio) any longer...I will return when I have more information to share.

[Aussie Thinker]

Stereo,

I am not sure if you understood my “circular reasoning” issue.

You are judging your memory by using your memory.

I once asked a fundamental Christian how he KNEW the bible was the word of God and he told me.. “The Bible says so”

Isn’t it fair to admit that your memory MAY be wrong or selective.. and as these are KNOWN explanations for ESP isn’t it also fair to assume these are FAR more likely explanations for your situation than UNPROVEN UNLIKELY ESP ?

BTW.. Was I one of those in the pseudo-skeptical peanut gallery ? I treated you query with considerable respect (I thought .. especially for me) and got NO response…

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Stereolab
I am not going to bother responding to this constant blabbering from the pseudo-skeptical peanut gallery (not you, Mercutio) any longer...I will return when I have more information to share.

Sorry, but your unwillingness to seriously consider any mundane explanation and your insistent implication that this was somehow an unprecedented paranormal event makes you the pseudo-skeptic, not us.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Stereolab
All that said, I have experienced some things in my life that simply cannot be explained, as far as I can tell. I am wondering if anyone might have some insight as to what has happened to me, or if anyone has similar experiences to share.Absence of an immediate explanation does not indicate in any way, shape, or form, that magic is the only explanation.

Oh, and I have no burden of proof to "disprove" your conclusions. You are making the assertive claim, please support it.

[Thanz]

I was thinking about this thread and whether his experiences could be related to deja vu, so I read what I had missed to check and see if it had been mentioned. Then I see that TBK of all people had already mentioned it. Clearly there is something paranormal going on in this thread, as for once I agree with TBK and actually believe he contributed something. Cue spooky music.... :D

But seriously, I don't know about the rest of you but when I experience Deja Vu I try and anticipate what happens next. Most of the time I am quite wrong, or simply "can't remember". In his cases, however, perhaps he guessed correctly, which would give a very strong sensation of knowing something before it happened. Also, the times when he was "wrong" or "couldn't remember" would be written off as deja vu, and thereafter forgotten.

I am also still interested in the other incidents. Are there any other unexplainable incidents that Stereolab could share with us? I'd be very interested.