New PSI forum

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Such a Catch 22 situation just seems like a complete cop out to sceptics… like Lucianarchy’s.. “You effected the result of my prediction with your “negative” psi.

When the ONLY effect of “psi” seems to raise its head when tested by someone who WANTS to find doesn’t that ring alarm bells for you ?


No. Within the greater context of my own belief system it makes perfect sense, although I understand completely why it looks suspicious to the skeptics. I think it must be this way.


Because when it is done it produces nothing except random chance.. not very sexy results to report on !


We don't know that.


When it is something that can be shown without subjectivity involved we WILL acknowledge it.. when its very existence DEPENDS on subjectivity we will shun it !


I don't think subjectivity can be eliminated completely from anything except for mathematics. I am an admirer of Richard Rorty, a person who has placed an embargo on two words : "objective" and "relative". As far as he is concerned, neither word has any real meaning. Instead of "objective", he uses "inter-subjective consensus". Strangely enough, Rorty is also a materialist (of sorts).

But yes, you will shun things which depend on subjectivity. However, that doesn't mean those things don't exist.


Now Geoff.. I asked that particular question for a reason. I often find that people are UNWILLING to give up their “supernatural” experience or are particularly vague about it.


Well, this particular person was posting intensively at this site at the time, and I was perfectly willing to be very clear indeed about it. There is no shortage of people here who will confirm to you that this is true. At the time I spoke about little else to anybody. I have learned from that experience. I am now more careful about what I say and where I choose to say it. If I describe some of the things I am talking about openly on the website, the result will be lots of heat and not very much light.


As a sceptic I often think that is from fear of ridicule, unwillingness to examine the experience logically, unwillingness to have the issue examined by others with a critical eye or a need to “hold on” to the experience..


I had to examine the experience logically myself. I can understand your attitude. But I can also tell you that in September I am going to University to study Cognitive Science and Philosophy. Does that sound like someone who is not willing to examine things logically, or is frightened to turn a critical eye on things? I have no fear of "losing hold" of my experience. For a long time my fear was the reverse - that I could never be free of it.


I do not doubt you experienced something which you FULLY believe… but will you accept that it could have been a figment of your own mind ?


We would have to define "figment" and "mind". One of my multiple epistemologies is subjective idealism, a worldview which holds that everything is merely a figment of the mind of God. Under such a system, asking me whether such things were a figment of my mind almost becomes a meaningless question. But that is not what you meant. The answer is that there is not the slightest doubt in my mind whatsoever that what happened to me was very real indeed. There is nothing at all about which I am more certain. I would not accept that it could have been a figment of my own mind. But I also have zero expectation that you will believe it could have been real. Why should you believe my testimony? I would not have believed yours.

[Aussie Thinker]

JG,

I would believe your testimony.

You have NO reason to lie and I have no reason to expect you would.

Your experience was obviously profound enough for you to abandon what I would call a logical sceptical path for one that gives more credence to “psi” and its ilk !

However you MUST accept that in spite of its profundity, in spite of its reality to you that humans ARE capable of HONESTLY accepting unreality as reality.

Off course YOU think it is real..

Sometimes it is unacceptable for us to think WE can be fooled or deluded. It is perfectly normal human nature to THINK we have it right.

You naturally don’t think you have been deluded, hallucinating, dreaming, creating false memories etc… yet all these are REAL FACTUAL reasons for fantastic experiences… they are far more real and likely explanations than the fantastic experience actually being reality.

I cannot convince your experience was not real.. as to you it was. The only thing you must say does the experience fit into reality outside of subjective experience… if the answer is NO then look for a mundane explanation.. most generally human failing and misperception.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker


Sometimes it is unacceptable for us to think WE can be fooled or deluded. It is perfectly normal human nature to THINK we have it right.

You naturally don’t think you have been deluded, hallucinating, dreaming, creating false memories etc… yet all these are REAL FACTUAL reasons for fantastic experiences… they are far more real and likely explanations than the fantastic experience actually being reality.

I cannot convince your experience was not real.. as to you it was. The only thing you must say does the experience fit into reality outside of subjective experience… if the answer is NO then look for a mundane explanation.. most generally human failing and misperception.

Of course, and that applies to both sides of the paradigm of belief.

The simplest explanation is that what people have reported throughout the history of mankind is what they actually experienced and that the human scientific understanding of what the effects are have simply not caught up with reality.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Of course, and that applies to both sides of the paradigm of belief.

The simplest explanation is that what people have reported throughout the history of mankind is what they actually experienced and that the human scientific understanding of what the effects are have simply not caught up with reality. The simplest explanation of reported history is that the sun is dragged across the sky by a god driven chariot. Human scientific understanding of what the effects are have simply not caught up with reality.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The simplest explanation is that what people have reported throughout the history of mankind is what they actually experienced and that the human scientific understanding of what the effects are have simply not caught up with reality.

Do you believe in fairies? Goblins? That millions of Americans are abducted by aliens?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
The simplest explanation of reported history is that the sun is dragged across the sky by a god driven chariot. Human scientific understanding of what the effects are have simply not caught up with reality.

That used to be the dominant belief at a certain point in time, however, that is not the dominant belief now. The future may yet come up with different explantions. There is no known divine arbiter of truth.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Do you believe in fairies? Goblins? That millions of Americans are abducted by aliens?

It is certainly possible that there are other dimensions of existence which human perception has generally not yet percieved.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


That used to be the dominant belief at a certain point in time, however, that is not the dominant belief now. The future may yet come up with different explantions. There is no known divine arbiter of truth.

The dominant belief at this point is that there is nothing that goes anywhere near demonstrating "PSI" even if you could get two peple to agree on what "PSI" is.....There is no divine arbiter of truth but I can quite easily be the divine arbiter of "nobody has shown me a pink unicorn yet"

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I think you will find many informed paranormalists will say exactly what we just said, and I think it is quite important. If true, then it means that any person who believes they can prove to skeptics the existence of anything more than borderline, ambiguous paranormal phenomena is destined to fail and Randis money is safe. It also means that any skeptic who would like to live in a world where humanity has "grown out" of its belief in the paranormal is also destined to be disappointed because it's never going to happen.

Indeed. If the nature of belief is, as indicated, an integral and crucial aspect of the effect, it may well be the case that these effects become more common-place as the information about them becomes 'memed' in our shared consciousnees. If my psipothesis is correct, the more information / data is shared, the stronger the effect becomes.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Indeed. If the nature of belief is, as indicated, an integral and crucial aspect of the effect, it may well be the case that these effects become more common-place as the information about them becomes 'memed' in our shared consciousnees. If my psipothesis is correct, the more information / data is shared, the stronger the effect becomes. In other words the more people that believe in Santa Claus the more likely he is to pop into existance.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Fool


The dominant belief at this point is that there is nothing that goes anywhere near demonstrating "PSI" even if you could get two peple to agree on what "PSI" is.

I think you will find that there are studies which show that the overwhelming population of the world actually do 'believe' in things like 'esp', 'telepathy', 'spirit' etc,. Certainly, these days there is now increasingly positive scientific evidence which supports the liklihood of these 'psi effects'.

The simplest explanation is that current scientific knowledge does not yet have an understanding of the action.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
In other words the more people that believe in Santa Claus the more likely he is to pop into existance.

Those "words" are yours, not mine. At one point in my existence, he most certainly did, not any more though :( The evidence has swayed my thinking to just see him as a character from folklore. I would say, though, if you have been in the company of his many believers at certain times of the year, you most certainly can still feel the 'magic' his image invokes.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[B]

Those "words" are yours, not mine.

Please explain how the logical conclusion of your theory would not lead to the creation of Santa if enough people believed in it. After all you believe if enough people want certain lottery numbers to come up you believe they will. I see no difference. In any case you would not be alone among paranormal believers to hold to the theory that we can make fantasy figures appear through mere belief.

BTW I note you are responding quite rapidly to my posts. Do you still claim to have me on ignore and only quote me because someone PM’d you to tell you what I said or am I now on you best buddy list ?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian


Please explain how the logical conclusion of your theory would not lead to the creation of Santa if enough people believed in it. After all you believe if enough people want certain lottery numbers to come up you believe they will. I see no difference. In any case you would not be alone among paranormal believers to hold to the theory that we can make fantasy figures appear through mere belief.

BTW I note you are responding quite rapidly to my posts. Do you still claim to have me on ignore and only quote me because someone PM’d you to tell you what I said or am I now on you best buddy list ?

No, you are indeed now my best buddy! I just don't like rudeness, the rest of you, I like. I don't hold a grudge for long.

Re; Santa. I thought I'd already explained that. I'm not very good at explaining things sometimes, sorry :(

Non believers can still feel the magic of the imagination of the experience of the child believer. If you haven't experienced it, you are missing a treat.

I guess the adult version is 'Mr God', with his white beard etc,.

Did Santa never exist in your own personal history?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It is certainly possible that there are other dimensions of existence which human perception has generally not yet percieved.

You didn't answer my questions:

Do you believe in fairies? Yes or no?

Goblins? Yes or no?

That millions of Americans are abducted by aliens? Yes or no?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You didn't answer my questions:

Do you believe in fairies? Yes or no?

Goblins? Yes or no?

That millions of Americans are abducted by aliens? Yes or no?

I think you will find that I did answer your questions, Claus. I said that it is certainly possible that there are other dimensions of existence which human perception has generally not yet percieved.

If that is not acceptable to you, then I am sorry for you.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No, you are indeed now my best buddy! I just don't like rudeness, the rest of you, I like. I don't hold a grudge for long.

Re; Santa. I thought I'd already explained that. I'm not very good at explaining things sometimes, sorry :(

Non believers can still feel the magic of the imagination of the experience of the child believer. If you haven't experienced it, you are missing a treat.

I guess the adult version is 'Mr God', with his white beard etc,.

Did Santa never exist in your own personal history? Listen bud, you are really getting me confused now.

With Santa you suggest that the effects only exist in the mind but with lottery numbers you talk about an actual effect. Please clarify. If lots of people believe something does your theory state that it is likely to make it happen or merely that the believers imagine it happens (but doesn’t really).

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
Listen bud, you are really getting me confused now.

With Santa you suggest that the effects only exist in the mind but with lottery numbers you talk about an actual effect. Please clarify. If lots of people believe something does your theory state that it is likely to make it happen or merely that the believers imagine it happens (but doesn’t really).

My 'psipothesis' says that consciousness forms reality. I am inclined to think it is often invoked through mutually shared symbolic projections. This could account for some UFO's, poltergeist effects, 'ghosts', even the drawing of '911' on the New York Lottery, on the first anniversary of the attack on the WTC in New York.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I think you will find that I did answer your questions, Claus. I said that it is certainly possible that there are other dimensions of existence which human perception has generally not yet percieved.

If that is not acceptable to you, then I am sorry for you.

Very well: You think they are possible. What do you base that on?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Very well: You think they are possible. What do you base that on?

My 'psipothesis' says that consciousness forms reality. I am inclined to think it is often invoked through mutually shared symbolic projections. This could account for some UFO's, poltergeist effects, 'ghosts', even the drawing of '911' on the New York Lottery, on the first anniversary of the attack on the WTC in New York.

There do not appear to be many proponents of goblins and fairies in this point in time, but their existence has been reported by people in the past when magical properties were the predominant belief. In the 21c people are more likely to see 'aliens', reflecting the changing nature of symbols in more modern times. If 'aliens' are a projective creation of the human psyche, it could re-present a symbolic alientation of the '(s)elf' of humanity.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


My 'psipothesis' says that consciousness forms reality. I am inclined to think it is often invoked through mutually shared symbolic projections. So to repeat myself. you are saying that if the mass consciousness has a belief in Santa then it forms the reality of Santa.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

I would believe your testimony.

You have NO reason to lie and I have no reason to expect you would.

Your experience was obviously profound enough for you to abandon what I would call a logical sceptical path for one that gives more credence to “psi” and its ilk !


I don't think I have abandoned logic. I had to abandon some things I had previously assumed to be true in order to accomodate what happened into the rest of my belief system. For example I am no longer a materialist but I am still a darwinist. Had I abandoned logic I would have been completely and utterly lost.


However you MUST accept that in spite of its profundity, in spite of its reality to you that humans ARE capable of HONESTLY accepting unreality as reality.


Yes, most humans do this.


Off course YOU think it is real..

Sometimes it is unacceptable for us to think WE can be fooled or deluded. It is perfectly normal human nature to THINK we have it right.


Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Deep down you are 99.9% convinced (if not 100%) that I have made some sort of honest mistake! And that is fair enough. Just like you are asking me whether there is a glimmer of possibility that it could all just have been a mistake, I could ask you whether there is a glimmer of possibility that in fact I have made no mistake. But I have several times in this thread also said that I think the world needs both skeptics and paranormalists. I'm not here on a mission to convince anyone who is as skeptical as I was.


You naturally don’t think you have been deluded, hallucinating, dreaming, creating false memories etc… yet all these are REAL FACTUAL reasons for fantastic experiences… they are far more real and likely explanations than the fantastic experience actually being reality.


Depends on how fantastic the experience was, and the context. There are limits to what can be put down to hallucination, especially if you are a person who has experimented with as many hallucinogens as I have. The trouble is that the more fantastic the claim I make, the less likely you are to believe I am telling you the truth. Yet, the more fanatastic what actually happened, the less likely I am able to put it down to hallucination.


I cannot convince your experience was not real.. as to you it was. The only thing you must say does the experience fit into reality outside of subjective experience… if the answer is NO then look for a mundane explanation.. most generally human failing and misperception.


Yes, it fitted, but I had to rearrange some things.

I'll try to give you an example of what I mean. From my perspective, I saw the past altered. From the POV of most humans beings, this is beyond absurd. Even most paranormalists would tell you that the past is absolutely fixed and that events which occured in the past cannot be altered. But why are we so sure of this? Think a bit harder, and you realise that a fixed past is one of those things like the sun going round the earth - it is completely obvious to us, but only true from one very limited perspective. In fact, science tells us that the past is not fixed. Think about Schroedingers cat. According to S, the cat is both dead and alive until you open the box - so here we have an event which lies in the past (the potential death of the cat) which is in a fuzzy indeterminate state until we open the box - at which point the history becomes fixed. The cat thought experiment itself causes many people a great deal of trouble - precisely because it suggests that the past isn't fixed. So when I make a claim that I have experienced something very similar happening to me it isn't contradicting logic or science at all. It is merely contradicting some assumptions we have made about reality which actually turn out to be wrong. I have not abandoned logic, but I have abandoned my belief in a completely fixed past.

:)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lothian
So to repeat myself. you are saying that if the mass consciousness has a belief in Santa then it forms the reality of Santa.

My question, too.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ok, perhaps I am going to be foolish enough to jump into the ring.

It is not so simple as "everyone believes in Santa and Santa becomes reality." There are conditions. For example, it does not matter how many people believe in perpetual motion machines, because if perpetual motion machines are physically impossible then they cannot be incorporated into reality without creating a contradiction. For this reason it is incorrect for any new-ager or paranormalist to make claims like "you create your own reality" or "you can have anything you can focus your mind on" (claims some of them do actually make). On the other hand, it is all too easy for the skeptics to throw in lines like "If we all believe in Santa then Santa will appear", because Santa is as impossible as the perpetual motion machine. In bringing up this example you are not demonstrating that the whole idea is ludicrous, you are simply demonstrating it has limits, and the limits are defined by what is logically possible - by that can be incorporated into current reality without creating a logical contradiction.

From the POV of the new ager, everybody creates their own version of reality but these "reality tunnels" are held together into one single logically coherent whole. They don't just have to cohere with each other (everyone believing in Santa) - the whole system is a whole system and it has to be completely self-coherent (Santa can't break the laws of physics or logic).

[Lothian]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ok, perhaps I am going to foolish enough to jump into the ring.

It is not so simple as "everyone believes in Santa and Santa becomes reality." ...For example, it does not matter how many people believe in perpetual motion machines, because if perpetual motion machines are physically impossible then they cannot be incorporated into reality without creating a contradiction. ... Santa is as impossible as the perpetual motion machine. I fully agree Geoff and the ‘psi effects’ that Luci quotes are just as impossible as the perpetual motion machine.

However Gary Schwartz confirmed to Marc Berard that his theory did mean that Santa etc would come into existence if there was enough conciousness. Luci regularly quotes Gary Schwartz so the natural conclusion is that she agrees with him that the impossible can be created if you just get enough people thinking hard enough.

That she won’t directly answer Claus’s questions or mine confirms in my mind that we have correctly ascertained her beliefs.

[scribble]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ok, perhaps I am going to foolish enough to jump into the ring.

From the POV of the new ager, everybody creates their own version of reality but these "reality tunnels" are held together into one single logically coherent whole. They don't just have to cohere with each other (everyone believing in Santa) - the whole system is a whole system and it has to be completely self-coherent (Santa can't break the laws of physics or logic).

So, Geoff, in what way does God posting messages on your computer NOT violate the laws of physics or logic?

I'm just curious, you know.

[CFLarsen]

JustGeoff,

It isn't the skeptics who claim that "If we all believe in Santa then Santa will appear". That's Lucianarchy, and he is the opposite of a skeptic.

Why is it logically impossible that Santa doesn't exist? You point to physical laws, as a reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist, but how can people remote view, independent of time and distance? How can they dowse for water, claiming electromagnetic influence, yet these are not tracable? How can they be abducted by aliens? How can they talk to dead people?

Do you believe in something supernatural that is logical and physically possible?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lothian
That she won’t directly answer Claus’s questions or mine confirms in my mind that we have correctly ascertained her beliefs.

That's true. And, it becomes even more true, the more people believe it!!!

[The Don]

Something could be said to come into existence when belief is so strong that all evidence to the contrary is simply dismissed as a hoax or a mistake.

For example, if everyone believed that, say, Jim Carey was a mythical character trying to prove otherwise would be terrifically difficult particularly if those people are desperate not to be wrong.

- Show them his films - they'll say you faked them
- Introduce them to people who've met him - they'll say they're lying
- Introduce them to him - they just won't see him or they'll assume they're giving into the group psyche

Lucianarchy believes that there is no such thing as absolute truth, merely the interpretation of personal experiences (after all, we have nothing else). Whilst this is doubtless correct, many people prefer to consider the type of evidence and soruce as part of their analysis of whether something is "true". Thus, a reliable, expert, impartial person (say an independent vehicle inspector) may be a better judge of whether a car is road worthy than an inexpert (say The Don) or partial, unreliable (the person selling the car) person.

Some people believe that the vast repository of anecdotal evidence is highly significant on the grounds that "they experienced it so they should know". Lucianarchy is not so ignorant that he/she/it says that everyone is a wholly reliable witness but I guess that the volume of evidence is such that some of them must be - aren't they ?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Lothian
I fully agree Geoff and the ‘psi effects’ that Luci quotes are just as impossible as the perpetual motion machine.


I haven'ty been following all of Lucis posts, so I do not know precisely what has been claimed. If it is physically/logically impossible then no amount of belief will make any difference. However, I have already seen Claus try to argue that all PSI effects are impossible based, only to then base his argument of psycho-kinesis breaking Newtons laws. Many supposed forms of PSI aren't impossible. Many are impossible. But you cannot discount the possible ones by citing examples of impossible ones.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by JustGeoff

I haven't been following all of Lucis posts, so I do not know precisely what has been claimed. . posted by Luci
UFO's, poltergeist effects, 'ghosts', the drawing of '911' on the New York Lottery,

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by scribble


So, Geoff, in what way does God posting messages on your computer NOT violate the laws of physics or logic?

I'm just curious, you know.

Hey Scribble! :D

Since I came back here you have attempted on at least ten occasions to draw me into a discussion about my own experiences, and on each occasion I have resisted the temptation to do so. I am going to resist temptation this time also. Your recollections and representations of what I said at the time are exactly that - yours. So for anybody else reading this - please do not assume that scribbles claims on my behalf match up with what I would claim myself. For example - according to how most Americans would define God, I do not believe that God exists, and therefore doesn't feature in any experiences I ever had.

I will explain again, scribble. This is a skeptic site which demands evidence to back up claims. I do not wish to make claims for which I can provide no evidence. I know you want me to, but I will once more respectfully decline the opportunity to do so.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why is it logically impossible that Santa doesn't exist?


In order to be Santa, he has to visit every house in the world in one night. Unless he is capable of being at 100,000 different locations simultaneously this is logically impossible.


You point to physical laws, as a reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist, but how can people remote view, independent of time and distance?


I thought I explained that already. Remote viewing does not contradict any existing laws, it just isn't predicted or explained by any of them. Perpetual motion machines clearly break the laws of physics, remote viewing just seems unimaginable. No additional laws or discoveries could make a perpetual motion machine possible - we would have to modify Newtons Laws. The same is not true of RV or telepathy.


How can they dowse for water, claiming electromagnetic influence, yet these are not tracable?


If they are claiming EM influence, but no EM influence is recorded on devices designed to record EM then they are simply wrong.


How can they be abducted by aliens?


Very easily! :D


How can they talk to dead people?


Given that dead people no longer have brains, they can't.


Do you believe in something supernatural that is logical and physically possible?


I have avoided the word "supernatural". I think that many things which are considered to be "paranormal" are in fact natural, but not yet understood. Do I believe in paranormal phenomena which are logical and physically possible? Yes, I probably do. Maybe I could give an example of Tarot Cards. Contraversial enough? I don't think they neccesarily work the way many people think they do, but do they work? Yes, in some cases they do. They are just a tool, a previously agreed language. Fate does the rest, but only when a person has allowed this to happen by believing in the mechanism. The important word is "fate". There is cause and effect going on, but it is not physical cause and effect. The connection between cause and effect is hidden from us - it is metaphysical and ex-temporal. Here is an example of something paranormal, yet not contradicting science or logic.

[scribble]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Hey Scribble! :D


Hi, UcE! :D


Since I came back here you have attempted on at least ten occasions to draw me into a discussion about my own experiences,


Ten? Don't be so full of yourself. I count three, if you include this one. Quite spread out in time, too. Don't make it out like I'm stalking you. You're not that cool.


and on each occasion I have resisted the temptation to do so. I am going to resist temptation this time also.


Big surprise.


Your recollections and representations of what I said at the time are exactly that - yours. So for anybody else reading this - please do not assume that scribbles claims on my behalf match up with what I would claim myself.


We'll never know, since the posts have been deleted, and you refuse to talk about it anymore.


For example - according to how most Americans would define God, I do not believe that God exists, and therefore doesn't feature in any experiences I ever had.


I used "God" as shorthand for what you actually said. I think at the time you might have used the phrase "the Universe" but I dont' recall exactly. You definately did claim that some paranormal force posted a message to you on your computer that answered all of your questions about things.

And then you claimed you couldn't share it with us because you were concerned about copyright violations.

Remember that, UcE? I'm sure a lot of others here do besides me, don't make me drag someone else into this just to get you to admit it.


I will explain again, scribble. This is a skeptic site which demands evidence to back up claims. I do not wish to make claims for which I can provide no evidence.


You shoudl have thought about that *before* you made those claims, silly.


I know you want me to, but I will once more respectfully decline the opportunity to do so.

Nothing new there. Do you remember why I got so pissed off at you originally?

I'll give you a hint: it didn't have anything to do with your mathematical idiocy or finally admitting you didn't knwo jack s**t about math.

It didn't have anything to do with zero or infinity.

It was because you claimed to have answers, and you refused to discuss them.

Remember when we first started talking? You are the first one who told me I was a materialist. You were wrong then, but I didn't know it for a long time, because materialism sounds all spiffy to me. But it's not what I believe fundamentally.

Remember our conversations about my quest for spirituality?

Or did you put the whole thing from your mind, like your delusions about God posting messages on your PC?

Well, I'm patient. If I have to wait 'till 2012 to prove to you what an idiot you are, then I will.

Yeah, remember that? Big things coming in 2012, right, UcE?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
In order to be Santa, he has to visit every house in the world in one night. Unless he is capable of being at 100,000 different locations simultaneously this is logically impossible.

Wrong. It isn't logically impossible. It is quite possible that Santa can zap from place to place - he doesn't have to stop for tea at each place, you know.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I thought I explained that already. Remote viewing does not contradict any existing laws, it just isn't predicted or explained by any of them. Perpetual motion machines clearly break the laws of physics, remote viewing just seems unimaginable. No additional laws or discoveries could make a perpetual motion machine possible - we would have to modify Newtons Laws. The same is not true of RV or telepathy.

Whoa, just a second: Why can people be in two different places at once - or perhaps zap back and forth very fast, while Santa cannot?

RV contradicts natural laws for exact the same reason you gave that Santa cannot exist.

Wanna try again?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
If they are claiming EM influence, but no EM influence is recorded on devices designed to record EM then they are simply wrong.

Really? What if our equipment simply isn't sensitive enough, or we are simply measuring the wrong thing?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Very easily! :D

Come on, be serious. How can people be abducted by aliens?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Given that dead people no longer have brains, they can't.

You don't believe that we exist outside our brains, then. OK. How can people RV, then?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have avoided the word "supernatural". I think that many things which are considered to be "paranormal" are in fact natural, but not yet understood. Do I believe in paranormal phenomena which are logical and physically possible? Yes, I probably do. Maybe I could give an example of Tarot Cards. Contraversial enough? I don't think they neccesarily work the way many people think they do, but do they work? Yes, in some cases they do. They are just a tool, a previously agreed language. Fate does the rest, but only when a person has allowed this to happen by believing in the mechanism. The important word is "fate". There is cause and effect going on, but it is not physical cause and effect. The connection between cause and effect is hidden from us - it is metaphysical and ex-temporal. Here is an example of something paranormal, yet not contradicting science or logic.

What, exactly, in Tarot, is paranormal, and cannot be explained by rational means, e.g. cold reading, self-fulfilling prophecies, telling people what they want to hear, selective memories, etc?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Wrong. It isn't logically impossible. It is quite possible that Santa can zap from place to place - he doesn't have to stop for tea at each place, you know.


:D

Claus, one person cannot visit every house in the world in one night. It IS logically impossible. The only way it could happen is if that person can be in more than one place at the same time, or if they are capable of moving at speeds that would mean he would be in and out of your bedroom faster than your eye could register he was there. Neither of these things are possible.


Whoa, just a second: Why can people be in two different places at once - or perhaps zap back and forth very fast, while Santa cannot?


RV does not require that a person be physically located in more than one place. The person does not have to move, only the information has to move.


RV contradicts natural laws for exact the same reason you gave that Santa cannot exist.

Wanna try again?


I don't think I need to. I am happy to stand by the answers already provided.



Really? What if our equipment simply isn't sensitive enough, or we are simply measuring the wrong thing?


If we are measuring the wrong thing then it isn't EM and the original claim was false. If our equipment isn't sensitive enough then we falsely debunked the original claim. We would have made a mistake in our testing.



Come on, be serious. How can people be abducted by aliens?


Aliens arrive, abduct people, and return them! I don't believe it either, but it isn't logically impossible.


You don't believe that we exist outside our brains, then. OK. How can people RV, then?


No - I believe that speech requires a brain. "Existence" is a whole other ball game. RV requires only a transfer of information from one place to another - all it requires is a concealed mechanism for that information to get around, a mechanism which only appears impossible to the materialists amongst us.


What, exactly, in Tarot, is paranormal, and cannot be explained by rational means, e.g. cold reading, self-fulfilling prophecies, telling people what they want to hear, selective memories, etc?

Let's simplify the scenario and take the example of a person carrying out a tarot reading on themselves. What would be paranormal is if the cards which appear in the reading are considerably more relevant to the person than would be predicted by chance alone, and that this happens on a continual basis. The skeptic can and will explain everything in terms of normal determinism, self-fulfilling prophecies and selective memory. But that does not mean the skeptic is correct. The tarot reader will claim that there are hidden metaphysical mechanisms which play a part while he or she is shuffling the cards - just like the RV, there has to be an unseen ("occulted") path of cause and effect. As he or she meditates on the cards as they are shuffled, this unseen cause/effect is ordering the cards in such a way as to produce a specific outcome that is not merely down to chance. Should such a hidden cause and effect exist then it would be classed as paranormal and mean that for some people, Tarot cards work. A similar sort of mechanism would lie behind some other sorts of paranormal phenomena, such as the creation of synchronicity.

There is plenty of scope for this provided by QM. As it stands, physics tells us that "God plays dice" - that a particle is everywhere at once until you look at it, at which point one of the potential outcomes manifests. I am suggesting it is possible that these outcomes are not random at all. But they are also NOT the result of normal physical determinism, rather they are the result of a cause-effect mechanism currently unknown (and maybe unknowable) to science. I do not believe anything is truly random. There is physical causality, which we are all familiar with, and there is metaphysical causality which is ex-temporal, hidden from view and takes advantage of the apparent randomness built into the laws of physics.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by scribble

Big things coming in 2012, right, UcE?

Maybe, scribble. We shall see. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Claus, one person cannot visit every house in the world in one night.

But that's not what Santa does. He visits those houses where there are people who believe in him. And he has a full 24 hours to do it.

We can do an estimate of just how fast he has to make each delivery, but it sure isn't logically impossible.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It IS logically impossible. The only way it could happen is if that person can be in more than one place at the same time, or if they are capable of moving at speeds that would mean he would be in and out of your bedroom faster than your eye could register he was there. Neither of these things are possible.

Santa doesn't have to be in more than one place at the time. And things can move faster than my eye can register.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
RV does not require that a person be physically located in more than one place. The person does not have to move, only the information has to move.

Not correct: The astral body moves - or something has to move to another place to get that information. The information doesn't move by itself.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't think I need to. I am happy to stand by the answers already provided.

I think you need to. Unless you are happy to stand by the answers already provided.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
If we are measuring the wrong thing then it isn't EM and the original claim was false. If our equipment isn't sensitive enough then we falsely debunked the original claim. We would have made a mistake in our testing.

But what about the effect - that they can find water? Sure, they were wrong about what causes it, but that doesn't make the effect go away.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Aliens arrive, abduct people, and return them! I don't believe it either, but it isn't logically impossible.

It is most certainly logically impossible: People are abducted through walls and closed doors.

Why don't you believe it, if it isn't logically impossible?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No - I believe that speech requires a brain. "Existence" is a whole other ball game. RV requires only a transfer of information from one place to another - all it requires is a concealed mechanism for that information to get around, a mechanism which only appears impossible to the materialists amongst us.

Psychics like John Edward claim that they get information not only by sound, but also by sight, emotions, etc. What about information that is shown to them by the spirits?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Let's simplify the scenario and take the example of a person carrying out a tarot reading on themselves. What would be paranormal is if the cards which appear in the reading are considerably more relevant to the person than would be predicted by chance alone, and that this happens on a continual basis.

Can you point to any controlled experiment where this happens?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The skeptic can and will explain everything in terms of normal determinism, self-fulfilling prophecies and selective memory. But that does not mean the skeptic is correct. The tarot reader will claim that there are hidden metaphysical mechanisms which play a part while he or she is shuffling the cards - just like the RV, there has to be an unseen ("occulted") path of cause and effect. As he or she meditates on the cards as they are shuffled, this unseen cause/effect is ordering the cards in such a way as to produce a specific outcome that is not merely down to chance. Should such a hidden cause and effect exist then it would be classed as paranormal and mean that for some people, Tarot cards work. A similar sort of mechanism would lie behind some other sorts of paranormal phenomena, such as the creation of synchronicity.

But that person would have to produce statistics that shows that the cards do come up the way it is perceived - and remembered. Until that happens, we can point to natural and rational explanations like flawed/selective memory, wishful thinking, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
There is plenty of scope for this provided by QM. As it stands, physics tells us that "God plays dice" - that a particle is everywhere at once until you look at it, at which point one of the potential outcomes manifests. I am suggesting it is possible that these outcomes are not random at all. But they are also NOT the result of normal physical determinism, rather they are the result of a cause-effect mechanism currently unknown (and maybe unknowable) to science. I do not believe anything is truly random. There is physical causality, which we are all familiar with, and there is metaphysical causality which is ex-temporal, hidden from view and takes advantage of the apparent randomness built into the laws of physics.

For this explanation, you must provide the proper equations that show that QM can influence a macro-atomic object like a Tarot-card. Please do so.

What happens in the case where a Tarot reader is doing the interpretations for another person? How do you guarantee that we don't see cold reading, etc?

[steenkh]

I do not think Santa is possible, even given unlimited speed. He still needs to handle normal objects like chimneys, and if a fat man tries to squeeze down a chimney at near-light speeds, for a start, the chimney will explode in a cloud of dust. Besides, we all know that if, say, a little child wakes up and walks into the room while Santa is working, he (according to the legend that causes him to be real) will stop and say ho-ho-ho, and that will rob him of valuable time.

Many houses nowadays do not have a chimney, in which case Santa will have to make a break-in, and he will also have to clear up the mess so that nobody finds out. And finally, he needs to take off with his reindeers real slow so that believers can wave to him. He will also need to change clothes after each chimney in case he is observed at the next chimney.

I think Santa in the department store is much more plausible as an embodiment of the true spirit of Christmas than the lightning-speed Santa who delivers gifts a children's homes. I have sometimes seen one myself, although Occam's razor has told me that it is more likely to be an employee dressed up as Santa.

I do not know if you are aware that there is a festival of Santa Claus'es here in Copenhagen every summer. the trouble is to figure out who is the real Santa ...

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But that's not what Santa does. He visits those houses where there are people who believe in him. And he has a full 24 hours to do it.

We can do an estimate of just how fast he has to make each delivery, but it sure isn't logically impossible.


Well, you make the estimate and we'll see how possible it is. :)


Santa doesn't have to be in more than one place at the time. And things can move faster than my eye can register.


Not humans though. We are limited to rather slower movement. :rolleyes:


Not correct: The astral body moves - or something has to move to another place to get that information. The information doesn't move by itself.


Are you quoting new age literature at me? :D

No Claus, nothing physical has to move in order for the information to get from one place to another. You are still thinking like a materialist, which is fair enough, but I'm not one.

Think of entangled QM particles. Somehow they effect each other instantly, regardless of whether they happen to be on opposite sides of the galaxy. Nothing moves from one place to another. The "information moves by itself".


But what about the effect - that they can find water? Sure, they were wrong about what causes it, but that doesn't make the effect go away.


No, but something else can make the effect go away. It all comes back to the "belief" factor we were talking about before. Although I'd rather keep dowsing out of this, because I am opinionless on it. I'm not sure whether I believe it is possible or not.


It is most certainly logically impossible: People are abducted through walls and closed doors.


Well, then that is impossible. Not everybody who was abducted had to pass through a closed door, though, were they Claus? You have managed to erect an entire army of straw men to shoot down during this thread. RV is impossible because PK breaks Newtons laws. Alien abductions are impossible because they occur through closed doors. Come on CFLarsen.....why do you keep manufacturing easier targets than the ones actually put in front of you? :rolleyes:


Why don't you believe it, if it isn't logically impossible?


Because I haven't seen it, and because I have other reasons for believing life in this Universe is centred on planet Earth. For aesthetic reasons I suppose. Just because I believe some things that you don't, it doesn't follow that I have to believe in every claim that isn't ruled out by logic, does it?


Psychics like John Edward claim that they get information not only by sound, but also by sight, emotions, etc. What about information that is shown to them by the spirits?


I don't really want to speak for JE. I don't know very much about him. I don't see it as impossible that he could receive some sort of paranormal communication, but it isn't coming from dead humans with no brains.


Can you point to any controlled experiment where this happens?


No. But why would I want to do so? I have already repeated as infinitum that I have no interest in proving this to you, and I have already explained that the phenomena can only manifest in the presence of people who have granted it existence by believing it. Therefore : (a) I have no reasons to point to controlled experiments and (b) those experiments would yield a negative result for reasons already discussed.

You asked me what I believed. You did not ask me what I could prove. I'm not like you. I am prepared to believe things based on personal experience and information gleaned from outside the realm of science. You aren't. That is just the way it is. Why should everyone share the same beliefs of the same epistemology? I do not want to live in a uniform world. :)


But that person would have to produce statistics that shows that the cards do come up the way it is perceived - and remembered. Until that happens, we can point to natural and rational explanations like flawed/selective memory, wishful thinking, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc.


That person does not have to do any such thing. They would only have to do that if they wanted to prove to the skeptics that these phenomena exist. If all they were doing was following their own path by their own rules, then they have no need to produce any statistics. You will always be able to provide an argument as to why you don't believe it, and they will always have the option of believing differently based upon their own personal experiences.


For this explanation, you must provide the proper equations that show that QM can influence a macro-atomic object like a Tarot-card. Please do so.


No, CFL, I do not have to. You asked me what I believed, and why it does not contradict science. There is a huge difference between something being compatible with scientific knowledge and something being scientifically demonstrable. Let us remind ourselves how we got into this discussion :

You asked me :"Do you believe in something supernatural that is logical and physically possible?"

I replied with this example about tarot cards, and in response you have switched the context of the original question. I have provided an example of something I believe in which is paranormal, yet also logically and physically possible. You DID NOT ask me to provide an example of something supernatural that I could scientifically demonstrate, indeed I have repeatedly told you I cannot do so.


What happens in the case where a Tarot reader is doing the interpretations for another person? How do you guarantee that we don't see cold reading, etc?

We don't guarantee that. If money is changing hands, we certainly can't guarantee that. I do tarot readings for people, on the occasions that they are requested. I don't charge.

I have actually done a tarot reading on a skeptic from this site. Remember "Q-Source"? Perhaps I can convince her to comment on that reading. :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by steenkh

Many houses nowadays do not have a chimney...


Funny we should be talking about this. As we are speaking, there is actually a man on my roof re-seating my genuine 1868 chimney pots! :D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Funny we should be talking about this. As we are speaking, there is actually a man on my roof re-seating my genuine 1868 chimney pots! :D

Give him a mince pie!

W hy are we talking about Father Chrismans anyway?

I think this is getting a little derailed.

[Lucianarchy]

Is it possible for one particle to be in two places at once?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Well, you make the estimate and we'll see how possible it is. :)

0.23 milliseconds/visit. (http://employees.csbsju.edu/SSAUPE/essays/santa-speed.htm) Yes, it is fast, but it is not impossible.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not humans though. We are limited to rather slower movement. :rolleyes:

Who said that Santa is human? Try again.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Are you quoting new age literature at me? :D

I am telling you what the claims are.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No Claus, nothing physical has to move in order for the information to get from one place to another. You are still thinking like a materialist, which is fair enough, but I'm not one.

Think of entangled QM particles. Somehow they effect each other instantly, regardless of whether they happen to be on opposite sides of the galaxy. Nothing moves from one place to another. The "information moves by itself".

But we are not talking about QM particles. We are talking about information, stored in our brains.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, but something else can make the effect go away. It all comes back to the "belief" factor we were talking about before. Although I'd rather keep dowsing out of this, because I am opinionless on it. I'm not sure whether I believe it is possible or not.

No, it does not come down to belief, if we can point to an effect. Whether you believe it or nor, could you address this eventuality?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Well, then that is impossible. Not everybody who was abducted had to pass through a closed door, though, were they Claus? You have managed to erect an entire army of straw men to shoot down during this thread. RV is impossible because PK breaks Newtons laws. Alien abductions are impossible because they occur through closed doors. Come on CFLarsen.....why do you keep manufacturing easier targets than the ones actually put in front of you? :rolleyes:

I am not erecting any straw men, I am pointing to examples that show you are wrong.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Because I haven't seen it, and because I have other reasons for believing life in this Universe is centred on planet Earth. For aesthetic reasons I suppose. Just because I believe some things that you don't, it doesn't follow that I have to believe in every claim that isn't ruled out by logic, does it?

Absolutely not. But you are talking around the issue, instead of addressing it: You now point to something having to be self-experienced, and not logical. You keep piling on explanations, you know...

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't really want to speak for JE. I don't know very much about him. I don't see it as impossible that he could receive some sort of paranormal communication, but it isn't coming from dead humans with no brains.

I am not asking you to speak for him, I am asking you to address the fact that he claims to be shown things. If he sees something, and the sitters validates that as spirit communication (and Edward also claims that it comes from that..other...side), then what makes you claim that it can't be dead people? You haven't experienced it (I take it), but Edward has - why do you brush his experience aside?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. But why would I want to do so? I have already repeated as infinitum that I have no interest in proving this to you, and I have already explained that the phenomena can only manifest in the presence of people who have granted it existence by believing it. Therefore : (a) I have no reasons to point to controlled experiments and (b) those experiments would yield a negative result for reasons already discussed.

If you are not prepared to provide evidence of such a claim (or rather, argument), then your argument is nothing but an idea, completely unsubstantiated by any facts at all. A fantasy, based on wishful thinking.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You asked me what I believed. You did not ask me what I could prove. I'm not like you. I am prepared to believe things based on personal experience and information gleaned from outside the realm of science. You aren't.

Indeed. But be also prepared to have your points examined.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is just the way it is. Why should everyone share the same beliefs of the same epistemology? I do not want to live in a uniform world. :)

Where have skeptics claimed that everyone should share the same beliefs of the same epistemology? That is a straw man, if there ever was one!

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That person does not have to do any such thing. They would only have to do that if they wanted to prove to the skeptics that these phenomena exist. If all they were doing was following their own path by their own rules, then they have no need to produce any statistics. You will always be able to provide an argument as to why you don't believe it, and they will always have the option of believing differently based upon their own personal experiences.

Indeed. However, we must strive to find answers to the phenomena around us. If we took your approach, we would never have left the caves.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, CFL, I do not have to. You asked me what I believed, and why it does not contradict science. There is a huge difference between something being compatible with scientific knowledge and something being scientifically demonstrable.

Yes, you have to, because otherwise, you merely throw out a term like "QM" and point to something that is completely irrelevant to how Tarot cards are dealt. It's like I ask you "What colors are there in the Danish flag?", and you answer "Tuesday".

Without the proper equations, your explanation is irrelevant. It's that simple.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I replied with this example about tarot cards, and in response you have switched the context of the original question. I have provided an example of something I believe in which is paranormal, yet also logically and physically impossible. You DID NOT ask me to provide an example of something supernatural that I could scientifically demonstrate, indeed I have repeatedly told you I cannot do so.

I have not asked you to. All I pointed out was that, for your points to be valid, evidence must be produced. Otherwise, why should we believe the person?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
We don't guarantee that. If money is changing hands, we certainly can't guarantee that. I do tarot readings for people, on the occasions that they are requested. I don't charge.

Fine, no money is changing hands. Then, what? Can you guarantee that what we see isn't cold-reading, etc.?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have actually done a tarot reading on a skeptic from this site. Remember "Q-Source"? Perhaps I can convince her to comment on that reading. :D

Perhaps you can do a reading for people? An experiment?

[Lucianarchy]

Ah, I see it is possible. Cool!

http://higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


0.23 milliseconds/visit. (http://employees.csbsju.edu/SSAUPE/essays/santa-speed.htm) Yes, it is fast, but it is not impossible.



Hmm, I am sceptical. All those mince pies would give one hell of a digestion problem.

How many poos would Santa need to do on an average nights work?

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

If somebody wants a tarot reading, then I am happy to give them a tarot reading, but there is never going to be any conclusive proof of any of these phenomena. They arrive only when invited in, because everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality. Anyway...it's been nice chatting. :)

Geoff

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Claus,

If somebody wants a tarot reading, then I am happy to give them a tarot reading, but there is never going to be any conclusive proof of any of these phenomena. They arrive only when invited in, because everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality. Anyway...it's been nice chatting. :)

Geoff

Too bad. We were actually getting somewhere. Apparently, that was not your goal.

Too bad indeed.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Too bad. We were actually getting somewhere. Apparently, that was not your goal.

Too bad indeed.


Is it so bad to have no goal? You will probably remember I was once a bit like lifegazer, desperate to change peoples views, and trying to change the world. I would like to think I was never quite as bad as he is, but I was pretty bad. Maybe the difference is that LG is desperately unhappy, and looking for the world to change rather than changing himself (he being perfect already) whereas people like Franko and the more recent incarnation of myself are actually quite happy and relaxed about the world, just the way it is.

For you "getting somewhere" can only mean "convincing the believers they are wrong". I am glad there are people like you to discredit Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller and alienrockwherediditcomefromgiveusfivedollars.com. They deserve to be discredited. But when it comes to people like me, is it so bad if I am allowed to go on believing stuff which different to what you believe? Do you think I am hurting anyone? I am certainly not hurting myself, because I have never been happier.

:)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Is it so bad to have no goal? You will probably remember I was once a bit like lifegazer, desperate to change peoples views, and trying to change the world. I would like to think I was never quite as bad as he is, but I was pretty bad. Maybe the difference is that LG is desperately unhappy, and looking for the world to change rather than changing himself (he being perfect already) whereas people like Franko and the more recent incarnation of myself are actually quite happy and relaxed about the world, just the way it is.

I am not talking about changing peoples views, but I am talking about finding answers to questions. We can learn so much, if these paranormal claims are true. You, it seems, are content with sitting back and dream about it. I want to know, if possible.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
For you "getting somewhere" can only mean "convincing the believers they are wrong". I am glad there are people like you to discredit Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller and alienrockwherediditcomefromgiveusfivedollars.com. They deserve to be discredited. But when it comes to people like me, is it so bad if I am allowed to go on believing stuff which different to what you believe? Do you think I am hurting anyone? I am certainly not hurting myself, because I have never been happier.

:)

Well, good for you, but you are wrong about my intentions. I am not out to convince believers that they are wrong - I have learned that it is close to impossible. However, as I said, I am out to find answers. We can learn something here, something that will help a lot of people immensely, and I want to know what it is.

You may sit back, but I won't.

[scribble]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well, good for you, but you are wrong about my intentions. I am not out to convince believers that they are wrong - I have learned that it is close to impossible. However, as I said, I am out to find answers. We can learn something here, something that will help a lot of people immensely, and I want to know what it is.


Hey, careful there. That's the kind of talk that got Geoff to attack me way back when.

Seems he's only got two explanations for his beliefs: ignoring you or running away.

[Aussie Thinker]

I am amused by all “Possible/Impossible” stuff.

EVERYTHING is possible if you make up enough ridiculous parameters in which they can operate.

EG Santa could have a teleportation device and a time machine.. allowing instantaneous access to all houses with no “real” time lost in each visitation.

But we must judge Santa (and psi) by KNOWN science (or even allow for likely science).

Teleportation devices and times machine do not exist therefore Santa is considered impossible.

There is no KNOWN scientific (or even likely) mechanism for psi to work. Therefore for all intents and purposes it is impossible.

JustGeoff,

Your example of the past altering does NOT fit with scientific possibility. But what DOES fit with scientific possibility is the FACT that humans can mistakenly THINK the past has altered.

Therefore WHY would you think it reality that the past has altered and discount the (more likely and mundane) explanation that you (fallible human) are wrong.

All we EVER ask for is collaborating evidence of fantastic claims. The simple fact that NONE ever exist is why we tend to discount those claims. If I personally had your experience I would look for collaborating evidence.. if NONE was forthcoming I would HAVE to assume it was some human failing on my part that led me to the experience.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am not talking about changing peoples views, but I am talking about finding answers to questions. We can learn so much, if these paranormal claims are true. You, it seems, are content with sitting back and dream about it. I want to know, if possible.


Then go look for it. On your own. If what I am telling you is true then it is also true that you cannot wait for science to find these answers for you. Instead you have to find them yourself. Science is very effective at answering a very wide set of clearly defined questions about the history and behaviour of the physical world, but there are a whole load of other questions that science on its own cannot provide answers to. Not because it hasn't had sufficient time, but because it is the wrong tool.


Well, good for you, but you are wrong about my intentions. I am not out to convince believers that they are wrong - I have learned that it is close to impossible. However, as I said, I am out to find answers. We can learn something here, something that will help a lot of people immensely, and I want to know what it is.

You may sit back, but I won't.


What answers are you looking for?

What questions would you most like to find answers to?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Your example of the past altering does NOT fit with scientific possibility. But what DOES fit with scientific possibility is the FACT that humans can mistakenly THINK the past has altered.


I think Schroedinger would have disagreed. QM really does suggest that the unobserved past is indeterminate. Which interpretation of QM do you ascribe to, and how does it deal with this problem?


Therefore WHY would you think it reality that the past has altered and discount the (more likely and mundane) explanation that you (fallible human) are wrong.


You know what my answer to this question is.


All we EVER ask for is collaborating evidence of fantastic claims. The simple fact that NONE ever exist is why we tend to discount those claims.


Perfectly understandable.


If I personally had your experience I would look for collaborating evidence.. if NONE was forthcoming I would HAVE to assume it was some human failing on my part that led me to the experience.


You can't really judge it, because you weren't there. I suppose that is what I have been trying to say for the whole thread. Nobody can judge somebody-elses experiences apart from by their own beliefs, understandings and standards. We all walk our own paths.

[scribble]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
What answers are you looking for?

What questions would you most like to find answers to?

Why do you ask? Are you going to arrange for "God" to make a little late-night post on his computer with all the answers in it, too?

Should he be concerned about hosting a copyright violation?


You can't really judge it, because you weren't there.

...

We all walk our own paths.


Your path has led you to delusion.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Is it possible for one particle to be in two places at once?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Ah, I see it is possible. Cool!

Talking to your self is not a good sign.


Originally posted by Lucianarchy
W hy are we talking about Father Chrismans anyway?

I think this is getting a little derailed.
Best Mate, it has got derailed you are right. As I recall it started when you said that to create Santa Claus out of thin air you only need to close your eyes, tap the heels of your red slippers together three times and repeat I wish there was a Santa, I wish there was a Santa.

Anyway, then Claus and Geoff started talking about whether this Santa created out of nothing would be defying the laws of Physics by visiting every house. Geoff thought it impossible. Scribble reminded Geoff of some of his impossible thoughts. Like in 2012 consciousness will reach critical mass and something special will happen, Can’t at the moment recall exactly what it was. Might have been the critical Santa event horizon.

So as stated we have got off topic. So back to the main subject.

Do you, like Dr Schwartz believe that if enough people want Santa Claus to exist it will physically create him ?
Do you believe that if enough people want certain lottery numbers to come up they will ?

If the answers to the questions above are both yes then is there any limit to what we can physically do or create through thought. In other words to take something really stupid could I actually fly to the moon without a spacesuit, stay for a day and fly back. Or even more outlandish could I remote view.

If one is yes and one is no then what limits the power of mass consciousness ?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Then go look for it. On your own. If what I am telling you is true then it is also true that you cannot wait for science to find these answers for you. Instead you have to find them yourself. Science is very effective at answering a very wide set of clearly defined questions about the history and behaviour of the physical world, but there are a whole load of other questions that science on its own cannot provide answers to. Not because it hasn't had sufficient time, but because it is the wrong tool.

I am perpetually surprised at this attitude. You are quite content with reaping the benefits of science, but you will not lift a finger to help it progress.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
What answers are you looking for?

In this field of interest, I would like to find answers to whether people really have paranormal powers. It would be an amazing discovery, so full of benefits for mankind.

You argue in favor of paranormal phenomena being true, but you are not really interested in finding out whether they are true or not. So, the question is: Do you really believe in paranormal phenomena, or is it merely something that makes you feel good inside, but you are afraid to have that fantasy shattered by reality?

[Aussie Thinker]

Claus,

The HUGE irony is that if anything paranormal is EVER discovered I would bet it will be by sceptics.

People who use proper protocols and scientific method and have little chance of being put off by “experimenter bias”.. (sorry experimenter effect).

The people who generally study the “paranormal” are so woo wooised that the experiments they produce are garbage.

[Pixel42]

Just reading Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel 'The Hogfather'. (The Hogfather is the Discworld equivalent of Santa Claus).

Here's a character answering a child's "Is there really a Hogfather?" question:

Wherever people are obtuse and absurd ... and wherever they have, by even the most generous standards, the attention span of a small chicken in a hurricane and the investigative ability of a one-legged cockcroach ... and wherever people are inanely credulous, pathetically attached to the certainties of the nursery and, in general, have as much grasp of the realities of the physical universe as an oyster has of mountaineering ...yes Twyla, there is a Hogfather.

I may make this my signature. :)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Pixel42
I may make this my signature.

That's a winner!

[scribble]

Originally posted by Lothian
Scribble reminded Geoff of some of his impossible thoughts. Like in 2012 consciousness will reach critical mass and something special will happen, Can’t at the moment recall exactly what it was. Might have been the critical Santa event horizon.


Hahaha...!!

Okay, I don't have to derail the thread any further. Just let me say thank you for validating my memories.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Claus,

The HUGE irony is that if anything paranormal is EVER discovered I would bet it will be by sceptics.

People who use proper protocols and scientific method and have little chance of being put off by “experimenter bias”.. (sorry experimenter effect).

The people who generally study the “paranormal” are so woo wooised that the experiments they produce are garbage.

I believe you are correct.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am perpetually surprised at this attitude. You are quite content with reaping the benefits of science, but you will not lift a finger to help it progress.


So why do you think I have decided to go to University to study a joint Cognitive Science and Philosophy degree? :D

If you are constantly surprised by this attitude, have you considered the possibility that you don't fully understand where it comes from?

Science is just one tool for understanding these issues, but it does not exist in isolation. My interest lies in the border between science and metaphysics, and that is why I have chosen to study it. The University I am going to (Sussex) has one of the best Cognitive Science departments in Britain, but it is the first year they have offered a joint degree with philosophy. I am already fascinated by the interplay between the two departments I will be studying under. When I spoke to them, I felt like both tried to play down the relevance of the other. The Philosophers spoke about the cognitive science department as "a chance to brush up on my programming" (I am a software engineer). I probably don't need to tell you how the cognitive scientists view the philosophers. PROGRESS will come when these two groups of people start working more closely together, wouldn't you agree?

Given my situation, I rather resent the comment I am responding to. I think I am doing more to help the situation than you are.


In this field of interest, I would like to find answers to whether people really have paranormal powers. It would be an amazing discovery, so full of benefits for mankind.


Not neccesarily. It is entirely possible that these phenomena do exist, but they cannot be harnessed and put to work like normal physical phenomena do. Their role may be rather different.


You argue in favor of paranormal phenomena being true, but you are not really interested in finding out whether they are true or not. So, the question is: Do you really believe in paranormal phenomena, or is it merely something that makes you feel good inside, but you are afraid to have that fantasy shattered by reality?


CFL, I know you cannot accept it, but I do not have to ask this question any longer. I know perfectly well that paranormal phenomena exist, it is not a question of belief. I have seen more than enough to answer those questions for myself. It dominated much of the previous few years of my life. That does not mean I have no remaining questions, far from it. I have more questions than I did before, it's just they are different questions. I am more interested in the circumstances under which these phenomena manifest, how they are being driven, whether they can be trusted to be as they appear to be, how they have influenced the development of mankind, and a whole host of other related topics. But I do not have to find an answer as to whether they exist, because denying their existence and reality would be denying the most powerful and important experiences of my life. From your POV, you still have to ask questions about whether I was hallucinating or mistaken. From mine, those questions lie in the past. I know I was not hallucinating, and I am not mistaken, and if you were in my position, so would you.

You seem to think I am scared of having my "fantasies destroyed". Fear of such things simply does not register with me any more. Some of the phenomena I experienced were absolutely terrifying. Indescribably terrifying to the point where I was a completely shattered and broken person, which in hindsight was the "purpose" of the phenomena - at that point I had to be broken. I had a very high breaking point, but these phenomena were being driven by forces so much more powerful than me that I was left like an ant before a bulldozer. I surrendered because I had no choice - my reality was collapsing in on me. That is fear. Being scared of broken fantasies is not an issue for me.

[scribble]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
CFL, I know you cannot accept it, but I do not have to ask this question any longer. I know perfectly well that paranormal phenomena exist, it is not a question of belief. I have seen more than enough to answer those questions for myself. It dominated much of the previous few years of my life. ... I know I was not hallucinating, and I am not mistaken, and if you were in my position, so would you. [/B]

You sound pretty confident, considering the drugs you admitted to doing back then.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by scribble


You sound pretty confident, considering the drugs you admitted to doing back then.

Well, I am also quite familiar with what a bad acid trip is like, and it just isn't on the same scale.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Lothian

Do you, like Dr Schwartz believe that if enough people want Santa Claus to exist it will physically create him ?
Do you believe that if enough people want certain lottery numbers to come up they will ?


No, and no. There is a kernel of truth here, but the examples you have given are poor ones.


If the answers to the questions above are both yes then is there any limit to what we can physically do or create through thought. In other words to take something really stupid could I actually fly to the moon without a spacesuit, stay for a day and fly back. Or even more outlandish could I remote view.

If one is yes and one is no then what limits the power of mass consciousness ?


Unknown. Apart from being unable to create something which is inherently illogical, I do not know what the limits are. That is a question I would also like to see answers to. And actually, if you read the opening post of this thread you will see that Lucianarchy also wants answers of this sort. Unfortunately we cannot get off of square one until the skeptics acknowledge that there is something to investigate! It is not people like me and Luci who are preventing progress on this. It is people who claim that all paranormalists are liars, frauds and incompetents, and claim that there is no bias whatsoever within the skeptical community. Progress will come when both sides stop the trench warfare and start trying to understand the other side.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

The HUGE irony is that if anything paranormal is EVER discovered I would bet it will be by sceptics.


Except you have discounted the possibility that it has already been discovered, and that the skeptics are failing to acknowledge the evidence.


People who use proper protocols and scientific method and have little chance of being put off by “experimenter bias”.. (sorry experimenter effect).


But you don't think that the skeptics are likely to be at all biased because of the (already discussed) fact that acknowledging the existence of paranormal phenomena would shatter their own belief system?

Come on folks, the argument that the skeptics are completely unbiased and that parapsychology is peopled entirely by frauds and jokers doesn't convince anyone but those people already in total agreement with the so-called "skeptics". I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by taking such an extreme and one-sided position. One might have thought that the hardliners here might have learned something from the whole ludicrous "brights" movement thing, which flew like a lead balloon last year.

Anyone here a "bright"? :rolleyes:

It was so ridiculous that even most of the skeptical movement could see the one-sidedness and extremism, but it looks like nothing was learned from it.


The people who generally study the “paranormal” are so woo wooised that the experiments they produce are garbage. [/B]

Oh good. Write off the whole field. I can see your impartiality shining like a beacon of fair-mindedness. :)

It's a great piece of circular reasoning :

All parapsychologists are woo-woos, therefore any result they produce can safely be discounted, therefore there is no evidence to back up their claims, therefore all parasychologists are woo-woos. Super!

I say again : do you actually think you are doing anything but preaching to the choir? :rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

My experience is that if you put down your net and stop running around furiously trying to catch them, the butterflies will come to you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
My experience is that if you put down your net and stop running around furiously trying to catch them, the butterflies will come to you.

"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push." (Wittgenstein)

He was a clever old fellow, our friend Ludwig. ;)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


"A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push." (Wittgenstein)

He was a clever old fellow, our friend Ludwig. ;)

Indeed. However, the penal system suggests that some people will only ever find security 'inside'.

If I am correct, the effects lead to an ultimate form of personal responsibility.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
So why do you think I have decided to go to University to study a joint Cognitive Science and Philosophy degree? :D

I was talking about discovering the truth behind the reality of paranormal phenomena. How will your study help you finding out about levitation?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
If you are constantly surprised by this attitude, have you considered the possibility that you don't fully understand where it comes from?

I am learning more and more each day, but I have to admit that I don't understand why people want to take a back seat to this.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Science is just one tool for understanding these issues, but it does not exist in isolation. My interest lies in the border between science and metaphysics, and that is why I have chosen to study it. The University I am going to (Sussex) has one of the best Cognitive Science departments in Britain, but it is the first year they have offered a joint degree with philosophy. I am already fascinated by the interplay between the two departments I will be studying under. When I spoke to them, I felt like both tried to play down the relevance of the other. The Philosophers spoke about the cognitive science department as "a chance to brush up on my programming" (I am a software engineer). I probably don't need to tell you how the cognitive scientists view the philosophers. PROGRESS will come when these two groups of people start working more closely together, wouldn't you agree?

Not really. I don't consider philosophy a science, and the benefits are not all that obvious. Philosophy seems more like an intellectual and semantical game.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Given my situation, I rather resent the comment I am responding to. I think I am doing more to help the situation than you are.

Get that degree first, and show some results, before you boast of doing more than me. So far, you have done nothing.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not neccesarily. It is entirely possible that these phenomena do exist, but they cannot be harnessed and put to work like normal physical phenomena do. Their role may be rather different.

That would contradict what we know now: These phenomena are harnessed even today, without any explanations whatsoever. Dowsers find water, psychics talk to dead people, even find missing children, astrologers predict the future, and healers cure cancer. I'd call that "harnessing these phenomena".

Originally posted by JustGeoff
CFL, I know you cannot accept it, but I do not have to ask this question any longer. I know perfectly well that paranormal phenomena exist, it is not a question of belief. I have seen more than enough to answer those questions for myself. It dominated much of the previous few years of my life. That does not mean I have no remaining questions, far from it. I have more questions than I did before, it's just they are different questions. I am more interested in the circumstances under which these phenomena manifest, how they are being driven, whether they can be trusted to be as they appear to be, how they have influenced the development of mankind, and a whole host of other related topics. But I do not have to find an answer as to whether they exist, because denying their existence and reality would be denying the most powerful and important experiences of my life. From your POV, you still have to ask questions about whether I was hallucinating or mistaken. From mine, those questions lie in the past. I know I was not hallucinating, and I am not mistaken, and if you were in my position, so would you.

Actually, I don't think so. And I find it downright scary that you seem to think that your experiences were real - nothing will persuade you otherwise.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You seem to think I am scared of having my "fantasies destroyed". Fear of such things simply does not register with me any more. Some of the phenomena I experienced were absolutely terrifying. Indescribably terrifying to the point where I was a completely shattered and broken person, which in hindsight was the "purpose" of the phenomena - at that point I had to be broken. I had a very high breaking point, but these phenomena were being driven by forces so much more powerful than me that I was left like an ant before a bulldozer. I surrendered because I had no choice - my reality was collapsing in on me. That is fear. Being scared of broken fantasies is not an issue for me.

I do think that you are terrified of having your fantasies destroyed, and your post just verified that. You have apparently reached a point of no return: Nothing can change your mind, you will continue believe.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Well, I am also quite familiar with what a bad acid trip is like, and it just isn't on the same scale.

Oh? Are you that much of a hands-on expert on how hallucinogens works? Is it possible - somewhere, somehow - that what you experienced were a hallucination?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, and no. There is a kernel of truth here, but the examples you have given are poor ones.

Then give examples that are not.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Unknown. Apart from being unable to create something which is inherently illogical, I do not know what the limits are. That is a question I would also like to see answers to.

Exactly how are you going to find those answers?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
And actually, if you read the opening post of this thread you will see that Lucianarchy also wants answers of this sort.

No. He does not. He wants to brag about his skills, but he doesn't want to find out for real if he has them or not.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Unfortunately we cannot get off of square one until the skeptics acknowledge that there is something to investigate!

Then show us!

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It is not people like me and Luci who are preventing progress on this. It is people who claim that all paranormalists are liars, frauds and incompetents, and claim that there is no bias whatsoever within the skeptical community. Progress will come when both sides stop the trench warfare and start trying to understand the other side.

Oh, please! All we need is one piece of evidence! Why is that so hard to provide?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Except you have discounted the possibility that it has already been discovered, and that the skeptics are failing to acknowledge the evidence.

Then, where is it? Can we see it? You are not holding back, so why don't you just shove it in our faces and be done with it?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
But you don't think that the skeptics are likely to be at all biased because of the (already discussed) fact that acknowledging the existence of paranormal phenomena would shatter their own belief system?

That's where you are wrong. Skeptics seek actively evidence of paranormal phenomena. Does that indicate a fear of being wrong? I don't think so. Perhaps you could - since you are so interested in cognitive sciences and philosophy - explain a bit about why skeptics would do such a self-destructive thing?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Come on folks, the argument that the skeptics are completely unbiased and that parapsychology is peopled entirely by frauds and jokers doesn't convince anyone but those people already in total agreement with the so-called "skeptics". I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by taking such an extreme and one-sided position. One might have thought that the hardliners here might have learned something from the whole ludicrous "brights" movement thing, which flew like a lead balloon last year.

It all comes down to evidence. Bias or not bias, it's all about evidence.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Oh good. Write off the whole field. I can see your impartiality shining like a beacon of fair-mindedness. :)

Hey, can I see just one piece of evidence in just one small part of the field?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
All parapsychologists are woo-woos, therefore any result they produce can safely be discounted, therefore there is no evidence to back up their claims, therefore all parasychologists are woo-woos. Super!

No, you got it upside down: There are claims, but no evidence. Despite of lack of evidence, people still believe in it.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I say again : do you actually think you are doing anything but preaching to the choir? :rolleyes:

Judging from people here, who have expressed sentiments that they have been helped, I would say that we are actually doing something to help dispel the darkness.

What, exactly, have you been doing, except getting high?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


That would contradict what we know now: These phenomena are harnessed even today, without any explanations whatsoever. Dowsers find water, psychics talk to dead people, even find missing children, astrologers predict the future, and healers cure cancer. I'd call that "harnessing these phenomena".



Those aren't examples of "harnessing" anything, Claus. The closest analogy I can think of is riding a wild stallion, unless you are a 'horse whisperer' the results can be entirely unpredictable (sic).

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No. He does not. He wants to brag about his skills, but he doesn't want to find out for real if he has them or not.



Then why did I undergo tests for the Koestler Inst? Why am I one of the only people here who is prepared to take exploratory tests with fellow skeptcs, right here? Do you still think I was just 'lucky' with my 'ladybrook' example in my opening post in the thread 'Lucianarchy and Remote Viewing'?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Those aren't examples of "harnessing" anything, Claus. The closest analogy I can think of is riding a wild stallion, unless you are a 'horse whisperer' the results can be entirely unpredictable (sic).

Nobody is saying anything about these phenomena having to work every time, but they are working enough of the times to have a lot of people making a living from it.

That's harnessing a phenomenon.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Then why did I undergo tests for the Koestler Inst? Why am I one of the only people here who is prepared to take exploratory tests with fellow skeptcs, right here? Do you still think I was just 'lucky' with my 'ladybrook' example in my opening post in the thread 'Lucianarchy and Remote Viewing'?

Yes. And your subsequent lying and deception prove that you are a fake.

As for your "tests" at the Koestler Institute, we still have only your word for it. You have refused to allow us to check that claim. We can only wonder why that is.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


And your subsequent lying and deception prove that you are a fake.

.

Claus, that is completely untrue. We have moved onto more positive ways of discussing things on the new forum. Please refrain from making such outrageous claims unless you provide proof yourself.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I was talking about discovering the truth behind the reality of paranormal phenomena. How will your study help you finding out about levitation?


The whole field of paranormal phenomena is rooted in the issues covered by cognitive science, psychology and metaphysics. It is no use just singling out individual phenomena and trying to "debunk" them. That will not lead you to the truth about paranormal phenomena. Trying to understand these issues without an understanding of the philosophical issues which underpin them is a complete waste of time.


I am learning more and more each day, but I have to admit that I don't understand why people want to take a back seat to this.


I am not really "taking a back seat". When I initially encountered this stuff what I wanted more than anything was more rationalists on board. Rather like yourself, it was clear to me that the field was populated largely by people trying to make money or people who were just plain crazy. When I first began to understand what had been incorrect about my previous views, and when I first began to experience the phenomena, all I wanted was to get more rationalists alongside me so I did not have to walk through looked like very swampy ground all on my own. I had failed to understand the significance of what was happening to me. Trying to get others to follow me was NOT what I was supposed to be doing. Instead, it was neccesary for me to walk the swamp on my own, to find my own answers, to find my own path to the truth. Now I believe that this is always the way it must be. It is NO USE trying to force other people to follow. They must choose that path for themselves. I am not "taking a back seat". I am waiting for you to catch up.



Not really. I don't consider philosophy a science, and the benefits are not all that obvious.


No, they are not obvious. That does not mean they are not there. You think philosophy is irrelevant? If they stopped teaching it, you would change your mind.


Philosophy seems more like an intellectual and semantical game.


That is part of philosophy, and in incredibly important part. You see, all of us are tricked by our own use of language. Only by analysing very carefully our own use of language do we begin to understand how our views about the nature of reality and life are shaped by the way we construct our arguments. Without the semantic analysis of philosophy, we remain prisoners of "semantic spooks".



That would contradict what we know now: These phenomena are harnessed even today, without any explanations whatsoever. Dowsers find water, psychics talk to dead people, even find missing children, astrologers predict the future, and healers cure cancer. I'd call that "harnessing these phenomena".


The trouble is that the people who are making money out of these supposed powers aren't usually harnessing the phenomena at all. They are leeches. They deserve to be exposed as such. REAL paranormal phenomena are not there to be made money out of. They serve a very different purpose, as both myself and Luci have repeatedly tried to explain. I dislike the Uri Gellers of this world even more than you do. All they do is make a mockery of the whole field and continually re-inforce the beliefs of people like you that all parapsychology is worthless. They serve nobody but themselves.


Actually, I don't think so. And I find it downright scary that you seem to think that your experiences were real - nothing will persuade you otherwise.


You think that is downright scary? How friggin' scary do you think it would be if you are wrong, and the phenomena are real? Just how scary would that be, CFLarsen? Can't you see how much more scary the REALITY would be than the destruction of a mere fantasy? Can you imagine what you would feel like if your own skepticism was blown to pieces by experiencing phenomena that you previously could never even begun to imagine existed? It is a whole different league. It makes you feel very small very quickly indeed.


I do think that you are terrified of having your fantasies destroyed, and your post just verified that. You have apparently reached a point of no return: Nothing can change your mind, you will continue believe.


I have indeed passed a rubicon. There can be no going back from where I am, and that is a characteristic others in my position will identify with. Luci talked about "the ultimate form of personal responsibility". She was not wrong. This is not a game.


Oh? Are you that much of a hands-on expert on how hallucinogens works? Is it possible - somewhere, somehow - that what you experienced were a hallucination?


No, that is what I am saying. In my younger years I have experienced the whole gamut of hallucinogens, up to and including DMT. It is not possible that what I was experiencing was a hallucination, because many times I tried to deny it was happening, just as a person on a bad acid trip repeats to themselves "This is only a trip, it is not real". The trouble was that it was real, and the harder I tried to run away from it the more powerful became the effects. In the end, I was forced to accept that what I was experiencing was real, because that was the only way to escape the existential situation I found myself in. That is why I cannot return to where I came from. I didn't know it at the time, but I bought a one-way ticket.


Then give examples that are not.


We have already been through this. If I give you an example of something which is not actually illogical, you will simply ask me for proof the it exists, which is not the same as it not being illogical. You don't want examples of logically coherent paranormal phenomena. You wan't examples of logically coherent paranormal phenomena you can also apply scientific testing to.


Exactly how are you going to find those answers?


By learning as much as I can about ALL the related disciplines and trying to make sense of the whole picture. Science forms part of this picture, but never the totality.





Then show us!

Oh, please! All we need is one piece of evidence! Why is that so hard to provide?

Then, where is it? Can we see it? You are not holding back, so why don't you just shove it in our faces and be done with it?


Sometimes I wonder if I am talking to myself here. :(

I have gone to great lengths to explain why you can't see it. To me it feels like you keep trying to drag the debate back to where you are comfortable with your understanding, instead of trying to understand what the other side are trying to explain to you. I think you want a target to shoot down with tools you know how to use. I don't think you are interested in developing a more holistic understanding of the deeper issues that are relevant.


That's where you are wrong. Skeptics seek actively evidence of paranormal phenomena. Does that indicate a fear of being wrong? I don't think so.


I did not actually say "fear of being wrong". You do not fear being wrong because you are completely confident that you are right. I said that in order to accept that you were wrong would imply a complete reversal of your belief system, and it is true, isn't it?


Perhaps you could - since you are so interested in cognitive sciences and philosophy - explain a bit about why skeptics would do such a self-destructive thing?


Because according to their own way of understanding this, what they are doing does not risk any self-destruction. Because of the whole way you approach the issue it is pre-determined that you will never find what you are supposedly looking for. You are not looking for paranormal phenomena at all. You are trying to demonstrate to people that no such phenomena exist. Some honesty please? So long as you retain the same belief system and do not look to critically at the flaws in that belief system, you are not at risk of having your belief system destoyed. As destruction of belief systems, sometimes it is a neccesary process, because sometimes you need to take a few steps back in order to be able to go forwards. There must be a fire in order for there to be a phoenix. Indeed I believe the current discussion concerns the original meaning behind that myth, and many other familiar myths which share the same theme.


It all comes down to evidence. Bias or not bias, it's all about evidence.


That is your opinion. I would personally say that there is no subsitute for direct personal experience. That, for me, was the only evidence which was good enough.


Hey, can I see just one piece of evidence in just one small part of the field?


You have. You used Occams Razor to discard it on the grounds that experimental error was far more likely than it being genuine evidence of PSI. Beyond that sort of level of evidence science is not going to go any time soon.


No, you got it upside down: There are claims, but no evidence. Despite of lack of evidence, people still believe in it.


And some of those people believe it because it actually happened to them. This eventuality seems to be completely missing from your assessment of the possible truths of this situation - you have eliminated it as a 0% chance. You simply don't believe it, so you don't believe it is possible that some of the people who make these claims are actually telling the truth. But that does not mean that you are correct, so you cannot claim that people believe it because of lack of evidence. You want to know why people study philosophy? It is precisely so they do not keep making the same mistakes in their reasoning over and over again. They have to deconstruct their own thinking and realise that some of their initial assumptions are driving their way through their whole analysis of a situation and coming out the other end looking like a conclusion when they are in fact built into the thought process from start to finish. People study philosophy so that their belief system is stripped down to its component parts and rebuilt again without so many defects in it. That is why people study philosophy, and that it is why it matters.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, that is completely untrue. We have moved onto more positive ways of discussing things on the new forum. Please refrain from making such outrageous claims unless you provide proof yourself.

Although we have "moved on" doesn't mean that your previous behavior is forgotten.

Now, can we check that you were tested at the Koestler Institute, yes or no?

And can we see your test results, yes or no?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Those aren't examples of "harnessing" anything, Claus. The closest analogy I can think of is riding a wild stallion, unless you are a 'horse whisperer' the results can be entirely unpredictable (sic).

I have a T-Shirt which reads :

"I whisper. But my horse doesn't listen."

;)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Although we have "moved on" doesn't mean that your previous behavior is forgotten.

Now, can we check that you were tested at the Koestler Institute, yes or no?

And can we see your test results, yes or no?

No, that would mean giving you my personal details. I'm not bothered if you believe me or not. But please do not make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about me again as being a 'proven' "fake" or "liar" (I am not) it is clearly against the guidelines of civility. You can have an opinion, I don't mind, but please don't make claims about "proven".

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I have a T-Shirt which reads :

"I whisper. But my horse doesn't listen."

;)

Lol! Good one!

[JPK]

Just a quick question for JustGeoff.

Are you trying to say that there is no way that you can be foolled? That you are incapable of being mistaken about what you percieve? Impossible to be self deluded? Your eyes have never played tricks on you?

quote by JustGeoff

No, that is what I am saying. In my younger years I have experienced the whole gamut of hallucinogens, up to and including DMT. It is not possible that what I was experiencing was a hallucination, because many times I tried to deny it was happening, just as a person on a bad acid trip repeats to themselves "This is only a trip, it is not real". The trouble was that it was real, and the harder I tried to run away from it the more powerful became the effects. In the end, I was forced to accept that what I was experiencing was real, because that was the only way to escape the existential situation I found myself in. That is why I cannot return to where I came from. I didn't know it at the time, but I bought a one-way ticket

end quote.

There are all kinds of hallucinations. Those induced by drugs can be drasticly differant from those induced by trauma or psychological dissorders. Just because a person experiences a hallucination, doesn't mean they are crazy. It could be a sign that something is wrong, but it can also be triggered by less harmfull reasons.

A couple of books you might find interesting are Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer , and The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Both are excellant books.

JPK

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The whole field of paranormal phenomena is rooted in the issues covered by cognitive science, psychology and metaphysics. It is no use just singling out individual phenomena and trying to "debunk" them. That will not lead you to the truth about paranormal phenomena. Trying to understand these issues without an understanding of the philosophical issues which underpin them is a complete waste of time.

At some point, you have to look at just one phenomenon and investigate it. Simply backing down from this will certainly not lead you to the truth about paranormal phenomena.

I see no reason to understand any philosophical issues - all we have to look at is the evidence. Where is it? After we have seen it, we can discuss the philosophical implications.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am not really "taking a back seat". When I initially encountered this stuff what I wanted more than anything was more rationalists on board. Rather like yourself, it was clear to me that the field was populated largely by people trying to make money or people who were just plain crazy.

I don't necessarily consider people who believe in paranormal phenomena crazy. Lucianarchy is clearly insane, but it is not my general impression that believers are nuts.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
When I first began to understand what had been incorrect about my previous views, and when I first began to experience the phenomena, all I wanted was to get more rationalists alongside me so I did not have to walk through looked like very swampy ground all on my own. I had failed to understand the significance of what was happening to me. Trying to get others to follow me was NOT what I was supposed to be doing. Instead, it was neccesary for me to walk the swamp on my own, to find my own answers, to find my own path to the truth. Now I believe that this is always the way it must be. It is NO USE trying to force other people to follow. They must choose that path for themselves. I am not "taking a back seat". I am waiting for you to catch up.

Spare me the condescending "I know more than you do" attitude. You are doing nothing yourself, and your arguments are falling flat.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, they are not obvious. That does not mean they are not there. You think philosophy is irrelevant? If they stopped teaching it, you would change your mind.

That may be so. However, this thread is not for a discussion of philosophical benefits.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is part of philosophy, and in incredibly important part. You see, all of us are tricked by our own use of language. Only by analysing very carefully our own use of language do we begin to understand how our views about the nature of reality and life are shaped by the way we construct our arguments. Without the semantic analysis of philosophy, we remain prisoners of "semantic spooks".

Yes, thank you, I'm aware of Wittgenstein. FWIW, I don't consider myself a prisoner of my language(s).

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The trouble is that the people who are making money out of these supposed powers aren't usually harnessing the phenomena at all. They are leeches. They deserve to be exposed as such. REAL paranormal phenomena are not there to be made money out of. They serve a very different purpose, as both myself and Luci have repeatedly tried to explain. I dislike the Uri Gellers of this world even more than you do. All they do is make a mockery of the whole field and continually re-inforce the beliefs of people like you that all parapsychology is worthless. They serve nobody but themselves.

Stop right here. How do you know that they are not really speaking to dead people? Is it a belief of yours, or do you know it as a fact?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You think that is downright scary? How friggin' scary do you think it would be if you are wrong, and the phenomena are real? Just how scary would that be, CFLarsen? Can't you see how much more scary the REALITY would be than the destruction of a mere fantasy? Can you imagine what you would feel like if your own skepticism was blown to pieces by experiencing phenomena that you previously could never even begun to imagine existed? It is a whole different league. It makes you feel very small very quickly indeed.

If I want to feel very small very quickly, I simply go outside and look at the stars. I don't find occult beliefs expanding, I find them extremely confining.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have indeed passed a rubicon. There can be no going back from where I am, and that is a characteristic others in my position will identify with. Luci talked about "the ultimate form of personal responsibility". She was not wrong. This is not a game.

Indeed it isn't, which is why I keep emphasizing the need to know what this is about. I take it that nothing will ever persuade you that you could be wrong. That is the mindset of a true fanatic.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, that is what I am saying. In my younger years I have experienced the whole gamut of hallucinogens, up to and including DMT. It is not possible that what I was experiencing was a hallucination, because many times I tried to deny it was happening, just as a person on a bad acid trip repeats to themselves "This is only a trip, it is not real". The trouble was that it was real, and the harder I tried to run away from it the more powerful became the effects. In the end, I was forced to accept that what I was experiencing was real, because that was the only way to escape the existential situation I found myself in. That is why I cannot return to where I came from. I didn't know it at the time, but I bought a one-way ticket.

Spoken like a true dopehead. You have fried your brain with all sorts of hard drugs, and you want us to believe that what you experienced was real? What, exactly, did you experience, that could not have been drugs?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
We have already been through this. If I give you an example of something which is not actually illogical, you will simply ask me for proof the it exists, which is not the same as it not being illogical. You don't want examples of logically coherent paranormal phenomena. You wan't examples of logically coherent paranormal phenomena you can also apply scientific testing to.

I want some evidence, that's all. Is that so hard to understand? Why should I believe you, and not Sylvia Browne?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
By learning as much as I can about ALL the related disciplines and trying to make sense of the whole picture. Science forms part of this picture, but never the totality.

But what "disciplines" are related? Since Quantum Mechanics are also included in parapsychological explanations, are you going to study at CERN as well?

How have you determined what "disciplines" are related? Can you give me a complete list?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Sometimes I wonder if I am talking to myself here. :(

No, it's really the voices in your head. I'm a drug-induced hallucination.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have gone to great lengths to explain why you can't see it. To me it feels like you keep trying to drag the debate back to where you are comfortable with your understanding, instead of trying to understand what the other side are trying to explain to you. I think you want a target to shoot down with tools you know how to use. I don't think you are interested in developing a more holistic understanding of the deeper issues that are relevant.

No, I want to see some evidence. You want me to take your word for it, and I won't.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I did not actually say "fear of being wrong". You do not fear being wrong because you are completely confident that you are right. I said that in order to accept that you were wrong would imply a complete reversal of your belief system, and it is true, isn't it?

It would certainly mean one of the most fundamental discoveries of mankind. But since I'm looking for evidence, I can't be all that scared, can I?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Because according to their own way of understanding this, what they are doing does not risk any self-destruction. Because of the whole way you approach the issue it is pre-determined that you will never find what you are supposedly looking for. You are not looking for paranormal phenomena at all. You are trying to demonstrate to people that no such phenomena exist. Some honesty please? So long as you retain the same belief system and do not look to critically at the flaws in that belief system, you are not at risk of having your belief system destoyed. As destruction of belief systems, sometimes it is a neccesary process, because sometimes you need to take a few steps back in order to be able to go forwards. There must be a fire in order for there to be a phoenix. Indeed I believe the current discussion concerns the original meaning behind that myth, and many other familiar myths which share the same theme.

I am brutally honest with you, there is no need to accuse me of dishonesty, just because I don't agree with you. And you are most welcome to point out the flaws in skepticism. Do something, instead of merely talking about doing something.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is your opinion. I would personally say that there is no subsitute for direct personal experience. That, for me, was the only evidence which was good enough.

And that is why I say that you are taking the back seat. If there is no substitute for direct personal experience, then you have no need for modern scientific advances. Go to a healer, he will cure you of cancer.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You have. You used Occams Razor to discard it on the grounds that experimental error was far more likely than it being genuine evidence of PSI. Beyond that sort of level of evidence science is not going to go any time soon.

But what is most likely, and in correspondance with what we know of the universe? That it is due to experimental error (which hardly are unknown to paranormal research), or that it is due to PSI? (What is PSI, anyway?)

You choose the paranormal answer, because it fits with your beliefs. I choose the non-paranormal answer, because no evidence is there.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
And some of those people believe it because it actually happened to them. This eventuality seems to be completely missing from your assessment of the possible truths of this situation - you have eliminated it as a 0% chance. You simply don't believe it, so you don't believe it is possible that some of the people who make these claims are actually telling the truth. But that does not mean that you are correct, so you cannot claim that people believe it because of lack of evidence.

I know it does not mean that I am correct, but I am pointing to the weakness of personal testimonials. Why should we attach significance to these people, and not those who tell stories of other phenomena, which you don't believe in?

That is the key question, which you skirt: Why you, Geoff? What makes your experience so compelling, that we don't merely have to discard scientific discoveries, but also place our faith in you alone? Why are you so special?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You want to know why people study philosophy? It is precisely so they do not keep making the same mistakes in their reasoning over and over again. They have to deconstruct their own thinking and realise that some of their initial assumptions are driving their way through their whole analysis of a situation and coming out the other end looking like a conclusion when they are in fact built into the thought process from start to finish. People study philosophy so that their belief system is stripped down to its component parts and rebuilt again without so many defects in it. That is why people study philosophy, and that it is why it matters.

That may be, but what does this have to do with dowsing, mediumship and healing?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No, that would mean giving you my personal details. I'm not bothered if you believe me or not.

If you are not prepared to have your claim checked, then don't make it. Here, we check claims. Here, we point out if claims are unsubstantiated. Your claim of being tested and getting significant results at Koestler is one such claim.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
But please do not make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about me again as being a 'proven' "fake" or "liar" (I am not) it is clearly against the guidelines of civility. You can have an opinion, I don't mind, but please don't make claims about "proven".

Sorry, but you have been proven a liar, a cheat and a fake. End of story.

Now, can we move on? Got any evidence? Some studies you want to discuss?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Lucianarchy is clearly insane,



Claus, this is really not on at all.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by JPK

Are you trying to say that there is no way that you can be foolled? That you are incapable of being mistaken about what you percieve? Impossible to be self deluded? Your eyes have never played tricks on you?


Hello JPK

No, I am not saying that this is generally the case, but that you have to use particular judgements in particular situations. There some cases where it is reasonable to conclude that you may have been tricked, and other cases where you cannot reasonably reach the same conclusion.


There are all kinds of hallucinations. Those induced by drugs can be drasticly differant from those induced by trauma or psychological dissorders. Just because a person experiences a hallucination, doesn't mean they are crazy. It could be a sign that something is wrong, but it can also be triggered by less harmfull reasons.


And it could also have not been an hallucination. :)


A couple of books you might find interesting are Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer , and The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Both are excellant books.


Both are written by people who think like I used to think. I am familiar with their contents. I know precisely how they come to the conclusions they do, because I spent most of my life thinking like they do and reaching precisely the same conclusions. The title of the first is a bit of a giveaway. Like most of the people in this thread, he simply does not believe that paranormal phenomena could be real, and so he writes a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things.", blissfully unaware of the fact that some of the people who believe weird things do so simply because weird things actually happen to them! :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The title of the first is a bit of a giveaway. Like most of the people in this thread, he simply does not believe that paranormal phenomena could be real, and so he writes a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things.", blissfully unaware of the fact that some of the people who believe weird things do so simply because weird things actually happen to them! :D

How do you distinguish between a real phenomenon and a hallucination?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Sorry, but you have been proven a liar, a cheat and a fake. End of story.


Claus, please. I don't mind what you think or believe about me, but making those sorts of unproven claims about people is insulting and clearly go against the new guidelines on civility. We have a good thing going here, please don't drag things back to the gutter.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


At some point, you have to look at just one phenomenon and investigate it. Simply backing down from this will certainly not lead you to the truth about paranormal phenomena.

I see no reason to understand any philosophical issues - all we have to look at is the evidence. Where is it? After we have seen it, we can discuss the philosophical implications.

{snip}This post has been reported for uncivil behavior.

Let's try to keep cool heads. Claus, if you make blanket statements about someone, please be prepared to back them up. Everyone else, if you don't agree with something Claus (or anyone) says, challenge him on it.

The civility guidelines are meant to keep the forum viable, not protect posters from every confrontation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, please. I don't mind what you think or believe about me, but making those sorts of unproven claims about people is insulting and clearly go against the new guidelines on civility. We have a good thing going here, please don't drag things back to the gutter.

I'm sorry if you, in the past, have not been able to refrain from this, but it doesn't change the fact that evidence has been shown. When someone lies, it is not dragging things in the gutter to point it out.

You cannot abuse the new rules to make your previous actions disappear.

Originally posted by Upchurch
Let's try to keep cool heads. Claus, if you make blanket statements about someone, please be prepared to back them up.

Of course. Especially if challenged.

Originally posted by Upchurch
The civility guidelines are meant to keep the forum viable, not protect posters from every confrontation.

Quite agree.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This post has been reported for uncivil behavior.

Let's try to keep cool heads. Claus, if you make blanket statements about someone, please be prepared to back them up. Everyone else, if you don't agree with something Claus (or anyone) says, challenge him on it.

The civility guidelines are meant to keep the forum viable, not protect posters from every confrontation.

Of course, I personally, do not mind about dealing with confrontation. I have no problems about other people's beliefs or opinions, they are healthy. However, I do object though, to be called "clearly insane". "liar" "fake" or "fraud".

[JPK]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Hello JPK

No, I am not saying that this is generally the case, but that you have to use particular judgements in particular situations. There some cases where it is reasonable to conclude that you may have been tricked, and other cases where you cannot reasonably reach the same conclusion.



And it could also have not been an hallucination. :)


So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure?


Originally posted by JustGeoff

Both are written by people who think like I used to think. I am familiar with their contents. I know precisely how they come to the conclusions they do, because I spent most of my life thinking like they do and reaching precisely the same conclusions. The title of the first is a bit of a giveaway. Like most of the people in this thread, he simply does not believe that paranormal phenomena could be real, and so he writes a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things.", blissfully unaware of the fact that some of the people who believe weird things do so simply because weird things actually happen to them! :D

It doesn't sound like being "familiar with their contents" is good enough. After reading both of the above mentioned books several times, and others by both authors, I didn't come away with the opinion that Shermer and Sagan think that paranormal phenomena is impossible. Agreed, they both seem to have come to the conclusion that the evidence for what has been claimed so far seems weak at best and can be explained by rather normal phenonena.
Weird things happen to everyone. It's our individual interpritations of the weird thing that leads us down the path of rationality or irrationality. The danger of going down the irrational path seems to be that once you except the supernatural explanation for something weird, how and where can you draw the line as to what is real? Just because "I believe " something happened, doesn't mean it did.

JPK

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I'm sorry if you, in the past, have not been able to refrain from this, but it doesn't change the fact that evidence has been shown. When someone lies, it is not dragging things in the gutter to point it out.

You cannot abuse the new rules to make your previous actions disappear.




I'm not trying to! Claus, it is just not on to call me "clearly insane" "fake" "fraud" "liar" etc,. If you have proof of something then provide it, don't make clearly uncivil insults.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

However, I do object though, to be called "clearly insane". "liar" "fake" or "fraud".
I would too. Challenge his claims. If he can't prove it, it'll be plain for everyone to see.

(note: this is my personal opinion and doesn't reflect any official JREF ...yadda, yadda, yadda)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

At some point, you have to look at just one phenomenon and investigate it.


That is your only approach, Claus. Yes, at some point you need to visit all the different ways of looking at it. I have. I'm not sure you have. You have one tool only. If it is the wrong tool for the job it doesn't matter to you, because it is the only tool you are willing to use.


I see no reason to understand any philosophical issues - all we have to look at is the evidence. Where is it? After we have seen it, we can discuss the philosophical implications.


No, you don't need philosophy. You already know you have nothing to learn from philosophy. Good for you. :)


Spare me the condescending "I know more than you do" attitude.


The skeptics have done it to me all the way through this thread. The only way they have of conducting the conversation is on the basis that they are right and everybody else is wrong. As I said at the start, you are actually 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist and that anybody who believes in them is either mistaken or a liar. That is "I know more than you do". You think you know more than I do about my own experiences.


Yes, thank you, I'm aware of Wittgenstein. FWIW, I don't consider myself a prisoner of my language(s).


Neither do any of the others.


Stop right here. How do you know that they are not really speaking to dead people? Is it a belief of yours, or do you know it as a fact?


It is a strong belief, based on facts. I already said that for this to be possible then there must be some sort of preservation of a physical brain after the physical body has disintegrated. This is a case where it is difficult to see how it could be possible that the phenomena in question was true, for the above reason. Not all phenomena fall into this category, but this one does so quite clearly. We know for a fact that human thoughts are intimately united with human brains, and therefore it follows that when there is no brain then there is no human thoughts and hence no ability to communicate with the living.


If I want to feel very small very quickly, I simply go outside and look at the stars.


That may be a good place to start. Watch out for a shooting star next time you are out on a clear night. Maybe one has got your name on it. :)



Spoken like a true dopehead. You have fried your brain with all sorts of hard drugs, and you want us to believe that what you experienced was real?


I don't want you to believe anything at all. I think I may have said that about five times now. I don't want you to believe me. If I want anything at all, I want you to look more closely at your own belief system, but that isn't where you want this to go. That is why you keep going on and on about evidence, instead of listening to, thinking about, and responding to the comments I made about why this approach won't lead you anywhere. You aren't interested in finding any new destinations, you are only interested in defending the method which led you to your current destination. All you want is clear unambiguous evidence you know is never going to be presented. You do not want to examine your own belief system at all.



What, exactly, did you experience, that could not have been drugs?


There is no point in me answering the question. The more extra-ordinary and bizarre the experience I describe, the more certain you will be that it was a hallucination. The less extra-ordinary and bizarre the description, the more certain you will be that it had a non-paranormal explanation. If it falls somewhere in between then you will consider it was a bit of both. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference how I answer this question, you will always have a way of dismissing what I tell you. Until you genuinely believe that what I telling you could be possible, there is no point in me telling you. Until you take an interest in philosophy, there is little chance of you being able to genuinely believe it is possible. That is why the philosophy has to come before the evidence.



I want some evidence....


Excuse me, but... :yawn:


, that's all. Is that so hard to understand?


No, it is easy to understand.


Why should I believe you, and not Sylvia Browne?


You should believe nobody. There is only one person whose personal experiences matter to you, and that is you, oddly enough. :)


But what "disciplines" are related? Since Quantum Mechanics are also included in parapsychological explanations, are you going to study at CERN as well?


You do not have to be a CERN physicist to understand the philsophical implications of QM. QM is one part of the picture. What is needed is not ever more detail of the bits you already know, whatever it is. What is needed is a broader and more inclusive view of all the related fields. You cannot be an expert in all of them, and you don't need to be. But you cannot ignore whole areas of academic knowledge, especially philosophy.


How have you determined what "disciplines" are related? Can you give me a complete list?


No. But I could give you a list of some of the things which were relevant to me.


No, I want to see some evidence. You want me to take your word for it, and I won't.


You aren't reading my posts properly. I do NOT want you to take my word for anything at all. I want you to think about your belief system.


It would certainly mean one of the most fundamental discoveries of mankind.


THE fundamental discovery. ***What could ever top it?***


But since I'm looking for evidence, I can't be all that scared, can I?


It does not take bravery to look for evidence which both you and I have acknowledged you will never find using the system you are using to find it. It takes bravery to examine your belief system and be genuinely prepared to change it.


I am brutally honest with you, there is no need to accuse me of dishonesty, just because I don't agree with you.


I am sorry if the accusation is false. I am sure you can understand why I might think your motive is to convince others that paranormal phenomena don't exist. It is the prime reason this site exists, and anyone who says otherwise is "mistaken".


And that is why I say that you are taking the back seat. If there is no substitute for direct personal experience, then you have no need for modern scientific advances. Go to a healer, he will cure you of cancer.


That is another straw man, CFL. I did not say you should abandon science. I said you might consider abandoning it as your exclusive tool. You wish to portray me as saying something I am not saying, so you can attack it. That is called a straw man.


But what is most likely, and in correspondance with what we know of the universe?


What WHO knows of the Universe, Claus?

Who is WE?

I will tell you - for YOU, "we" means scientists. It does not mean philosophers, or historians of religion, or psychologists and certainly not parapsychologists. After all, they are "woo-woo-ified" and come up with theories that "sound squirelly".

What is most likely, in correspondance to what you know about the Universe rather depends on what you happen to know about the Universe, doesn't it? :)


You choose the paranormal answer, because it fits with your beliefs. I choose the non-paranormal answer, because no evidence is there.


Ah, yes. I believe it because of my beliefs, but your beliefs play no part at all in coming to your conclusions!


I know it does not mean that I am correct, but I am pointing to the weakness of personal testimonials.


Yep, they are almost useless. They are only useful when considered all together as a body of evidence which can be analysed as a whole, and even then the answers can only ever be clues and not firm conclusions.


Why should we attach significance to these people, and not those who tell stories of other phenomena, which you don't believe in?


We shouldn't neccesarily. But we should also make sure we do not convict them by association, or try to discredit an entire field because some people in that field engage in similar activities which are fraudulent. Most politicians are liars. That does not mean I ignore everything each and every one of them says, and every now and then you come across an honest one.



That is the key question, which you skirt: Why you, Geoff?


It isn't just me, Claus. Why Lucianarchy? Why Franko? Or are they discounted for being mad? There is absolutely nothing unique about me.


What makes your experience so compelling, that we don't merely have to discard scientific discoveries, but also place our faith in you alone?


I haven't discarded ANY scientific discoveries. Where did you make that one up from? It's come from nowhere at all! :D


Why are you so special?


I am not.


That may be, but what does this have to do with dowsing, mediumship and healing?


Nothing directly. They are side issues. By taking a greater interest in philosophy I am suggesting you may be taken in directions you were not actually expecting to be taken, and via a route that you currently cannot see you will find a new way of looking at those things. Philosophy does not provide direct answers. It improves your ability to find new answers for yourself by making fewer mistakes in your analysis of problems and mysteries of all sorts.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I would too. Challenge his claims. If he can't prove it, it'll be plain for everyone to see.



Does that mean that Claus is allowed to call people 'clearly insane, fake, fraud, liar' etc,.? Do I have to go and challenge every personlaly insulting and clearly uncivil claim he makes about me before he even provides any proof? If so, I really can't see what's to stop the whole thing sliding back to one hell of a name-calling flame-fest.

Things have been going well, it would be a shame for things to slide back. Uncivil behaviour does stifle debate.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Does that mean that Claus is allowed to call people 'clearly insane, fake, fraud, liar' etc,.? Claus, can you back these claims or not? Otherwise, please retract them.



edited to add "please". This is not an official request, just my request.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by JPK

So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure?


More than once, the experience was of a change in the physical Universe which remained changed. After the experience was finished, the change remained in place. I do not want to discuss my specific experiences. They are of no use to anyone but me.


Weird things happen to everyone. It's our individual interpritations of the weird thing that leads us down the path of rationality or irrationality.


It all does rather depend on the wierdness level, doesn't it? And that is always going to be a personal judgement. It can never be anything else. Put yourself in my position for a moment. Do I trust somebody-elses judgement of my own personal experiences, or do I trust my own judgement? The problem is that Shermer and Sagan definately never experienced any paranormal phenomena, so they have no experience to go on, do they? They are rationalising other peoples experiences according to their own beliefs and thought processes. That is all very fine, but it is only of passing interest to me.


The danger of going down the irrational path....


I'm not. What appears irrational to you may not be so. Lose logic, and you're lost. I am in the philosophy camp rather than the science camp. Logic is my best friend.


....seems to be that once you except the supernatural explanation for something weird, how and where can you draw the line as to what is real? Just because "I believe " something happened, doesn't mean it did.


"Where do you draw the line?" is typical of the sort of questions that need to be looked at closely. In the end it may turn out to be another case of not asking the right question.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Of course, I personally, do not mind about dealing with confrontation. I have no problems about other people's beliefs or opinions, they are healthy. However, I do object though, to be called "clearly insane". "liar" "fake" or "fraud".

I have no problems acknowledging that it is my opinion that you are insane. It is not meant derogatory in any way; I say it, because I find it very hard to understand how a sane person can argue the way you do. It may be my limited understanding of the complexities of your arguments, but it doesn't strike me as though your arguments are getting through to all that many other people here.

However, it is beyond doubt that you are guilty of the last three. If you really want to see examples of this, challenge me. But when I do so - not if, but when - will you also acknowledge that I have shown evidence of it?

I ask, because you have made this request before, and it was duly met with evidence. That you now deny that such evidence has been produced is strongly indicative that you will, in the future, simply start all over again.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Claus, can you back these claims or not? Otherwise, please retract them.

As for Lucianarchy being insane, I have explained the reason.

As for the rest, here is one thread, where Lucianarchy lies/cheats:

FORTEAN TIMES / JREF Provide evidence for RV/Telepathy/Psi (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870381336&highlight=baldfaced). He claims that:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Session 1: "rooftops, chimneys, outline of buildings against night time background-" OK, it was 'overcast' not night, but the rest was there.

Here is what Lucianarchy guessed:

Dark (blue / puple), roof tops, chimneys, outline of buildings / roofs against poss night time background.
Strongest impression during session was an image of what appeared to be an eagle or an owl, with outstretched wings.
Dark blue to black background,

Here is how it was judged:

Lucianarchy appeared to describe the background of the image; chimneys and buildings which was of slight significance, but failed to pick up on the sign and it was not a night scene.
...
I didn’t feel we had any hits here. “Rooftops” is rather tenuous although there were buildings. Dark blue to black was not accurate, I felt the overwhelming colour was grey, typically British weather. Miss.

As for fraud, in the very same thread Lucianarchy has claimed to be tested by the Fortean Times, as well as in a "FT/JREF collaborative RV experiment". He was not. Neither the Fortean Times or the James Randi Educational Foundation was involved.


Originally posted by Upchurch
edited to add "please".

The magic word. It works miracles. Evidence asked, evidence provided.

[Lucianarchy]

OK, Upchurch. Thanks for your time here, but Claus' evidence is certainly not proof of anything for which he claims. If the new guidelines allow for Claus to continue with his insults based on that standard of evidence as his proof, then as I said, it just opens the doors for anyone to make uncivil claims about anyone else, which would be a terrible step backwards. So can you make a decision on this so we know where we stand for the future of civility in this forum.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I have no problems acknowledging that it is my opinion that you are insane. It is not meant derogatory in any way;

Good. Will you please have the deceny to edit your post where you claim that I am "clearly insane", either that or give permission for one of the mods to do it for you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I ask, because you have made this request before, and it was duly met with evidence. That you now deny that such evidence has been produced is strongly indicative that you will, in the future, simply start all over again.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, Upchurch. Thanks for your time here, but Claus' evidence is certainly not proof of anything for which he claims. If the new guidelines allow for Claus to continue with his insults based on that standard of evidence as his proof, then as I said, it just opens the doors for anyone to make uncivil claims about anyone else, which would be a terrible step backwards. So can you make a decision on this so we know where we stand for the future of civility in this forum.

I hate being right all the time...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Good. Will you please have the deceny to edit your post where you claim that I am "clearly insane", either that or give permission for one of the mods to do it for you.

No. It is my opinion that you are not at your full mental capacity. It is not meant derogatory, therefore there are no reasons to remove it.

You will not succeed in censoring other people's opinions, either. I had a feeling it would come to this: First, you want evidence to go away, and now, you want to control what people say. You try to abuse the new forum for your desires for censorship.

It won't work.

[UndercoverElephant]

RE : Personal testimony.

People keep asking me for personal testimony and then in the next sentence explaining why personal testimony is no use to them. The reason I am reluctant to give personal testimony is because it almost useless to anybody but me.

I say "almost useless". I am currently slowly reading a book which is considered an classic in American philosophy and is read by anyone seriously studying the philosophy of religion or the history of psychology. The book is called "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and it is written by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. This book contains an analysis of a large collection of religious experiences. It is precisely the sort of book that skeptics would discount before they even started, because they believe they know everything they need to know about what causes these experiences, and their nature. They do not seem to have any interest in finding out why the book is considered to be a classic, and 100 years after publication is still being read. I am reading this book because the author is the fiercely opposed to the position I am most comfortable with philosophically - which is German Idealism. James describes the experiences of Schopenhaeur and Nietzche as "like the squealing of a pair of dying rats", and refuses to even accept them as coming under the scope of his discussion. I do not agree with everything James writes, but I am still reading his book because I am learning from it and because it is making me think critically about what I believe. When I suggest that people look outside of science it is this sort of thing I am talking about. It is not a worthless book, just because I don't agree with it. It is deservedly a classic, and I want to be able to talk about it having actually read it, instead of making my mind up it contains no useful information without reading it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is your only approach, Claus. Yes, at some point you need to visit all the different ways of looking at it. I have. I'm not sure you have. You have one tool only. If it is the wrong tool for the job it doesn't matter to you, because it is the only tool you are willing to use.

I assume you are talking about science? Science has proved itself to be fantastically suited to explain phenomena happening in nature. How can you ever know anything about a phenomenon, unless you investigate it? Sure, you believe that something happened to you, but are you really going to work from that alone?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, you don't need philosophy. You already know you have nothing to learn from philosophy. Good for you. :)

I didn't say that. I said I don't need philosophy to investigate a phenomenon. It's either there or it is not.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The skeptics have done it to me all the way through this thread. The only way they have of conducting the conversation is on the basis that they are right and everybody else is wrong. As I said at the start, you are actually 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist and that anybody who believes in them is either mistaken or a liar. That is "I know more than you do". You think you know more than I do about my own experiences.

Even if "the skeptics" (unnamed, of course) have done it (and I don't think anybody has), does that justify you doing the same?

It would be nice if you could refrain from stating that skeptics are 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I don't know any who says this. What skeptics are saying is that there is no evidence. There is a difference.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It is a strong belief, based on facts. I already said that for this to be possible then there must be some sort of preservation of a physical brain after the physical body has disintegrated. This is a case where it is difficult to see how it could be possible that the phenomena in question was true, for the above reason. Not all phenomena fall into this category, but this one does so quite clearly. We know for a fact that human thoughts are intimately united with human brains, and therefore it follows that when there is no brain then there is no human thoughts and hence no ability to communicate with the living.

How do you know it wasn't a human (OK, an ex-human!) who tried to communicate with you, in some post-life manner?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That may be a good place to start. Watch out for a shooting star next time you are out on a clear night. Maybe one has got your name on it. :)

I sure hope not. Those suckers are fast! (And how do we know this? Science or belief? :) )

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't want you to believe anything at all. I think I may have said that about five times now. I don't want you to believe me. If I want anything at all, I want you to look more closely at your own belief system, but that isn't where you want this to go. That is why you keep going on and on about evidence, instead of listening to, thinking about, and responding to the comments I made about why this approach won't lead you anywhere. You aren't interested in finding any new destinations, you are only interested in defending the method which led you to your current destination. All you want is clear unambiguous evidence you know is never going to be presented. You do not want to examine your own belief system at all.

I have invited you to point out the flaws of skepticism. In a separate thread, preferably.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
There is no point in me answering the question. The more extra-ordinary and bizarre the experience I describe, the more certain you will be that it was a hallucination. The less extra-ordinary and bizarre the description, the more certain you will be that it had a non-paranormal explanation. If it falls somewhere in between then you will consider it was a bit of both. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference how I answer this question, you will always have a way of dismissing what I tell you. Until you genuinely believe that what I telling you could be possible, there is no point in me telling you. Until you take an interest in philosophy, there is little chance of you being able to genuinely believe it is possible. That is why the philosophy has to come before the evidence.

I don't know how I would describe it, since you haven't told me what it was. Why are you so reluctant to let us know? It is rather difficult to discuss your experience, when you are the only one who knows what happened.

You're not scared, are you? ;)

Incidentally, did you come to your belief before or after you looked at the scientific explanations?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Excuse me, but... :yawn:

Excuse me, but that is how we determine whether a phenomenon is real or not.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You should believe nobody. There is only one person whose personal experiences matter to you, and that is you, oddly enough. :)

So, where does that leave us? Your experience is something you want to keep secret, and you won't accept rational explanations.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You do not have to be a CERN physicist to understand the philsophical implications of QM. QM is one part of the picture. What is needed is not ever more detail of the bits you already know, whatever it is. What is needed is a broader and more inclusive view of all the related fields. You cannot be an expert in all of them, and you don't need to be. But you cannot ignore whole areas of academic knowledge, especially philosophy.

But surely, you must have a solid grasp of QM to understand the philosophical implications? How can you be sure that you understand it at all, then?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. But I could give you a list of some of the things which were relevant to me.

That would be helpful, but it wouldn't solve the problem you have just created for yourself: If you cannot determine what disciplines are related, how can you even begin to understand anything? What if you leave out some crucial discipline?

It seems more to me that you have already made up your mind about what these disciplines are, and you then try to find a solution based on them.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You aren't reading my posts properly. I do NOT want you to take my word for anything at all. I want you to think about your belief system.

We can do that in a different thread. We are discussing your experience, and why you think it is paranormal.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
THE fundamental discovery. ***What could ever top it?***

For once, we may actually agree on something. Perhaps life outside this planet is a contendah...

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It does not take bravery to look for evidence which both you and I have acknowledged you will never find using the system you are using to find it. It takes bravery to examine your belief system and be genuinely prepared to change it.

I have not said that we will never find evidence using science. I have just said that we have not found any - yet.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am sorry if the accusation is false. I am sure you can understand why I might think your motive is to convince others that paranormal phenomena don't exist. It is the prime reason this site exists, and anyone who says otherwise is "mistaken".

Try again. The JREF's goals are:


Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

Source (http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html)

I don't see any indication that paranormal phenomena don't exist.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is another straw man, CFL. I did not say you should abandon science. I said you might consider abandoning it as your exclusive tool. You wish to portray me as saying something I am not saying, so you can attack it. That is called a straw man.

But this will be the consequence if you are right: People actually claim to be cured by healers - it is not only their beliefs, it is also their experiences. Who are you to discard other peoples' experiences?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
What WHO knows of the Universe, Claus?

Who is WE?

Mankind. The English language should invent more specific words for "you".

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I will tell you - for YOU, "we" means scientists. It does not mean philosophers, or historians of religion, or psychologists and certainly not parapsychologists. After all, they are "woo-woo-ified" and come up with theories that "sound squirelly".

Who is now erecting strawmen?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
What is most likely, in correspondance to what you know about the Universe rather depends on what you happen to know about the Universe, doesn't it? :)

Indeed. However, it is based on empirical evidence and one heck of a sound scientific method. Science is not tautology.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ah, yes. I believe it because of my beliefs, but your beliefs play no part at all in coming to your conclusions!

Sure it does, but I base my "beliefs" on evidence. Verifiable facts. What do you have, besides a drug-fried brain and a deep desire to believe?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Yep, they are almost useless. They are only useful when considered all together as a body of evidence which can be analysed as a whole, and even then the answers can only ever be clues and not firm conclusions.

Now we are back to Santa again. Or elves. Or fairies. Or alien abductions.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
We shouldn't neccesarily. But we should also make sure we do not convict them by association, or try to discredit an entire field because some people in that field engage in similar activities which are fraudulent. Most politicians are liars. That does not mean I ignore everything each and every one of them says, and every now and then you come across an honest one.

Fine. How do we distinguish between the frauds and the real ones, if all we have is personal testimonials?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It isn't just me, Claus. Why Lucianarchy? Why Franko? Or are they discounted for being mad? There is absolutely nothing unique about me.

But you argue that your experience was a real phenomenon, and not a hallucination. How do we know that you are right?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I haven't discarded ANY scientific discoveries. Where did you make that one up from? It's come from nowhere at all! :D

It is a consequence of your argumentation: If previous scientific observations cannot be trusted (because they could be either genuine observations, hallucinations, or paranormal phenomena), then everything collapses.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Nothing directly. They are side issues. By taking a greater interest in philosophy I am suggesting you may be taken in directions you were not actually expecting to be taken, and via a route that you currently cannot see you will find a new way of looking at those things. Philosophy does not provide direct answers. It improves your ability to find new answers for yourself by making fewer mistakes in your analysis of problems and mysteries of all sorts.

Answers? All I have seen from you is wishful thinking and a fanatic belief. I'm sorry, but there it is: I have not seen any answer from you.

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

If you don't mind too much I am just going to concentrate on the points you have made that I don't think have already been sufficiently address. I see an opportunity to move this forward rather than repeating myself.


Sure, you believe that something happened to you, but are you really going to work from that alone?


I have never stopped refering to science. I cannot work from personal experience alone any more than I can work from science alone.


It would be nice if you could refrain from stating that skeptics are 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I don't know any who says this. What skeptics are saying is that there is no evidence. There is a difference.


I know what the skeptics are saying. I am refering to what they actually believe.


How do you know it wasn't a human (OK, an ex-human!) who tried to communicate with you, in some post-life manner?


That the origin of the communication was another (living) human is among the possibilities I have considered. Living humans have working brains, dead ones don't.


I sure hope not. Those suckers are fast! (And how do we know this? Science or belief? )


If it happens, then you will have to evaluate the experience for yourself. Without science.


I have invited you to point out the flaws of skepticism. In a separate thread, preferably.


Actually, it is the flaws in certain peoples version of skepticism. In some ways, I have to be even more skeptical than you are, strange as that may sound.


I don't know how I would describe it, since you haven't told me what it was. Why are you so reluctant to let us know?


Because it will be next to meaningless to you. I have no way of communicating the full context, and no words to describe some aspects of the experience.


It is rather difficult to discuss your experience, when you are the only one who knows what happened.

You're not scared, are you?


No. But I have been posting on this board for a long time now, and I think I have learned from previous misjudgements.


Incidentally, did you come to your belief before or after you looked at the scientific explanations?


First of all I had to reassess somethings I thought about the basis of my scientific worldview, I had to ask myself some new questions. After that I was open to new sources of information, and only after my views about many things started to shift did anything happen to me that comes into the category we are talking about here. As for scientific explanations, they still play a very important part in what I believe. For example, if I try to get rid of Darwinism and adopt instantaneous creationism, which is possible in idealism, then there is a clash. Darwinism is still an integral part of my understanding, as is the whole of physics. They are important because they serve as a benchmark against which any new proposed theories cannot be in unresolvable conflict with.


But surely, you must have a solid grasp of QM to understand the philosophical implications? How can you be sure that you understand it at all, then?


Because it is not difficult to understand the problems QM causes to people with a Newtonian-Einsteinian view of the Universe. The problem is actually very clear. It is an agreed solution to the problem which seems so hard to arrive at. The problem with QM is that it implies things which are outside the reach of science, but can never do anything more than imply them. Schroedinger has already set out the problem with his rather wonderful cat experiment. I can suggest two books that illustrate the situation. One is "In search of Schroedingers Cat" by John Gribben, which sets out the mystery and makes quite clear that the story is not yet finished. The second, which should be read second, is "Quantum Questions", an anthology of the writings and thoughts of eight of the physicists who gave us QM. It is their thoughts on the relevance of QM, and I think you would find the book very interesting indeed.


That would be helpful....


1) QM.
2) The history of religion, especially the religion you are most familiar with (Christianity).
3) Metaphysics.
4) Psychological factors, especially regarding the experience and nature of time.


, but it wouldn't solve the problem you have just created for yourself: If you cannot determine what disciplines are related, how can you even begin to understand anything? What if you leave out some crucial discipline?


You keep looking for faults in your current beliefs and you keep searching in new places for new answers. You allow your knowledge and beliefs to evolve, just like you allow your knowledge of science to evolve now.


We can do that in a different thread. We are discussing your experience, and why you think it is paranormal.


I don't think that's going to get us anywhere.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
THE fundamental discovery. ***What could ever top it?***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For once, we may actually agree on something.


Good, because it is one very important thing to consider. I am glad you believe it is true. What you do not believe is that it could possibly have any relevance to this discussion. Nothing could top it. How would that change life on earth? Please consider the question for more than a fraction of a second before answering. I think it is the most important question I have asked you so far.


Who are you to discard other peoples' experiences?


Why not? I am telling you to discard mine, aren't I? My experiences are no use to you, and theirs are no use to me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
What WHO knows of the Universe, Claus?

Who is WE?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mankind. The English language should invent more specific words for "you".


And who are you to determine what "mankind" knows about the Universe?

Who made you the judge?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
What is most likely, in correspondance to what you know about the Universe rather depends on what you happen to know about the Universe, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. However, it is based on empirical evidence and one heck of a sound scientific method. Science is not tautology.


It is also not a Panacea.


Fine. How do we distinguish between the frauds and the real ones, if all we have is personal testimonials?


You can't. That is why you cannot rely on anyone elses experiences.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
It isn't just me, Claus. Why Lucianarchy? Why Franko? Or are they discounted for being mad? There is absolutely nothing unique about me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you argue that your experience was a real phenomenon, and not a hallucination. How do we know that you are right?


You don't, Claus. :)


It is a consequence of your argumentation: If previous scientific observations cannot be trusted (because they could be either genuine observations, hallucinations, or paranormal phenomena), then everything collapses.


Another strawman, and a revealing one. Now the argument is that if you accept a single genuine example of PSI, it invalidates the entire existing body of scientific knowledge. It is revealing because it clearly implies that you believe any instance of paranormal phenomena would leave you completely bereft of logic and rationalism. Hardly an appealling thought, which is why it is a good job it's not true. But if you think it is true, you will resist it at all costs, and so would I if I believe that.

[JPK]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
RE : Personal testimony.

People keep asking me for personal testimony and then in the next sentence explaining why personal testimony is no use to them. The reason I am reluctant to give personal testimony is because it almost useless to anybody but me.

I hope I'm not coming across as someone who disscounts your experience. I beleive, that you beleive, something paranormal happened. Further then that I can't go because I know little to nothing about your claim. Although I do agree that personal testimony is "almost" useless.


QUOTE]Originally posted by JPK


So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure? [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
More than once, the experience was of a change in the physical Universe which remained changed. After the experience was finished, the change remained in place. I do not want to discuss my specific experiences. They are of no use to anyone but me [/B]

So a change in the physical universe was observed by someone other then yourself, that can't be explained by anything other then paranormal means and you don't want to talk about it? OK.
Since I have not noticed any paranormal occurances in my life, I can't be certain as to how I would react. I would like to think that I would look to outside help to explain my experience. It might help me sleep better at night.
I have a friend who claims to have been abducted by "something". She has described to me in great detail the event. This is a belief she has had for over 20 years. I have given her several books, and accounts of other peoples experiences that are almost exactly the same, practicly word for word , her description of what happened to her. She simply refuses to even open these books or look at any reports. My only reason for tring to point out some alternative views is because how frightening the event was to her. To perhaps comfort her a bit.

Originally posted by JustGeoff

I say "almost useless". I am currently slowly reading a book which is considered an classic in American philosophy and is read by anyone seriously studying the philosophy of religion or the history of psychology. The book is called "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and it is written by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. This book contains an analysis of a large collection of religious experiences. It is precisely the sort of book that skeptics would discount before they even started, because they believe they know everything they need to know about what causes these experiences, and their nature. They do not seem to have any interest in finding out why the book is considered to be a classic, and 100 years after publication is still being read. I am reading this book because the author is the fiercely opposed to the position I am most comfortable with philosophically - which is German Idealism. James describes the experiences of Schopenhaeur and Nietzche as "like the squealing of a pair of dying rats", and refuses to even accept them as coming under the scope of his discussion. I do not agree with everything James writes, but I am still reading his book because I am learning from it and because it is making me think critically about what I believe. When I suggest that people look outside of science it is this sort of thing I am talking about. It is not a worthless book, just because I don't agree with it. It is deservedly a classic, and I want to be able to talk about it having actually read it, instead of making my mind up it contains no useful information without reading it. [/B]

I find it very helpfull to read books of an opposite view point of my own. It certainly makes it easier to disscuss the topic with someone of that viewpoint.

JPK

Someday I will figure out how to use this quote thing properly :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by JPK

I hope I'm not coming across as someone who disscounts your experience. I beleive, that you beleive, something paranormal happened.


I have only just met you and have not had any time to find out. Some of these others here I have been talking to for years. :)


So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure?


Yes. But it continues to be observed by others. What they did not observe was the change itself, from the point of view of the transition. Other people see the outcome, just like I do, but mostly they did not see the change occur. There is nothing so extra-ordinary about the outcome. What made it unusual was the way it happened.


So a change in the physical universe was observed by someone other then yourself, that can't be explained by anything other then paranormal means and you don't want to talk about it? OK.


I am talking about it. I am just trying to generalise what happened instead of speaking in specifics.


Since I have not noticed any paranormal occurances in my life, I can't be certain as to how I would react. I would like to think that I would look to outside help to explain my experience. It might help me sleep better at night.


I did, and it did help to some extent. But in the end I had to deal with it myself.


I have a friend who claims to have been abducted by "something". She has described to me in great detail the event. This is a belief she has had for over 20 years. I have given her several books, and accounts of other peoples experiences that are almost exactly the same, practicly word for word , her description of what happened to her. She simply refuses to even open these books or look at any reports. My only reason for tring to point out some alternative views is because how frightening the event was to her. To perhaps comfort her a bit.


If she was frightened then that was probably a good things to do. But no kind words can shield you from your own conscience.


I find it very helpfull to read books of an opposite view point of my own. It certainly makes it easier to disscuss the topic with someone of that viewpoint.


Sure does. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
If you don't mind too much I am just going to concentrate on the points you have made that I don't think have already been sufficiently address. I see an opportunity to move this forward rather than repeating myself.

No problem.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have never stopped refering to science. I cannot work from personal experience alone any more than I can work from science alone.

But you have abandoned the possibility of your experience being a rational one? As in not-explainable-by-science?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I know what the skeptics are saying. I am refering to what they actually believe.

Perhaps you could point to actual examples to support this statement?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That the origin of the communication was another (living) human is among the possibilities I have considered. Living humans have working brains, dead ones don't.

So, what conclusion did you reach, and why?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
If it happens, then you will have to evaluate the experience for yourself. Without science.

Not at all: It will be because of science.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Actually, it is the flaws in certain peoples version of skepticism. In some ways, I have to be even more skeptical than you are, strange as that may sound.

Which is why I ask for examples. Are you going to address this issue in a new thread? (To keep this one on track)

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Because it will be next to meaningless to you. I have no way of communicating the full context, and no words to describe some aspects of the experience.

Then I hope you understand why nobody can take your experience for anything else than an untold anecdote. You argue from a personal experience that nobody is allowed to see.

If you don't mind me saying so, that is not the strongest starting point in a discussion....

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. But I have been posting on this board for a long time now, and I think I have learned from previous misjudgements.

But that was not the reason you just gave: That nobody but you could explain the full context. So, you are afraid... ;)

Originally posted by JustGeoff
First of all I had to reassess somethings I thought about the basis of my scientific worldview, I had to ask myself some new questions. After that I was open to new sources of information, and only after my views about many things started to shift did anything happen to me that comes into the category we are talking about here. As for scientific explanations, they still play a very important part in what I believe. For example, if I try to get rid of Darwinism and adopt instantaneous creationism, which is possible in idealism, then there is a clash. Darwinism is still an integral part of my understanding, as is the whole of physics. They are important because they serve as a benchmark against which any new proposed theories cannot be in unresolvable conflict with.

Before, then. Do you think it is possible that this reassessment has in any way influenced your experience?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Because it is not difficult to understand the problems QM causes to people with a Newtonian-Einsteinian view of the Universe. The problem is actually very clear. It is an agreed solution to the problem which seems so hard to arrive at. The problem with QM is that it implies things which are outside the reach of science, but can never do anything more than imply them. Schroedinger has already set out the problem with his rather wonderful cat experiment. I can suggest two books that illustrate the situation. One is "In search of Schroedingers Cat" by John Gribben, which sets out the mystery and makes quite clear that the story is not yet finished. The second, which should be read second, is "Quantum Questions", an anthology of the writings and thoughts of eight of the physicists who gave us QM. It is their thoughts on the relevance of QM, and I think you would find the book very interesting indeed.

Thank you. You have just demonstrated that you have a very tenuous grasp of QM. QM has nothing to do with Newtonian physics, they simply describe two difference levels. QM does not imply things that are outside the reach of science, it merely poses some questions that physicists work at solving. There are no indications that science will never be able to "do" anything about them. Schrödinger is not the first, nor will he be the last, to come up with clever ways of posing important questions. While I applaud you reading books about QM, your lack of understanding emphasizes my point about the need to study QM, and not merely read condensed explanations of it.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
1) QM.
2) The history of religion, especially the religion you are most familiar with (Christianity).
3) Metaphysics.
4) Psychological factors, especially regarding the experience and nature of time.

How do you know which religion I am most familiar with?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You keep looking for faults in your current beliefs and you keep searching in new places for new answers. You allow your knowledge and beliefs to evolve, just like you allow your knowledge of science to evolve now.

Indeed. But if your starting point lacks a few stones in the foundation, don't you run the risk of going off in the wrong direction?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't think that's going to get us anywhere.

I'm sorry that you feel this way. It does put a stop to any discussion about your experience, and renders the discussion rather theoretical. I would have preferred to discuss facts and evidence.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Good, because it is one very important thing to consider. I am glad you believe it is true. What you do not believe is that it could possibly have any relevance to this discussion. Nothing could top it. How would that change life on earth? Please consider the question for more than a fraction of a second before answering. I think it is the most important question I have asked you so far.

You are not the first to ask me this, and I have given it quite some thought. After all, it is at the base of skepticism.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Why not? I am telling you to discard mine, aren't I? My experiences are no use to you, and theirs are no use to me.

What I don't understand is: What use is beginning a new education, if you will not be able to do anything with it? Since you are here, and you are arguing your points, you must have some kind of goal. If you hadn't, you would not be here, but sit at home, never talking to anyone.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
And who are you to determine what "mankind" knows about the Universe?

Who made you the judge?

I refer you to the vast amount of scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It is also not a Panacea.

Strawman. Nobody has claimed that.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You can't. That is why you cannot rely on anyone elses experiences.

Yes, if their observations are confirmed, independently. The more fossils found, the more certain dinosaurs existed.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You don't, Claus. :)

So, where do we go from there? What goals do we strive for?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Another strawman, and a revealing one. Now the argument is that if you accept a single genuine example of PSI, it invalidates the entire existing body of scientific knowledge. It is revealing because it clearly implies that you believe any instance of paranormal phenomena would leave you completely bereft of logic and rationalism. Hardly an appealling thought, which is why it is a good job it's not true. But if you think it is true, you will resist it at all costs, and so would I if I believe that.

No, it is not a strawman. As I have pointed out to you, the various fields of science depend on each other. If geology turns out to be wrong, then paleontology collapses. If chemistry turns out to be wrong, geology collapses. And so on.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You will not succeed in censoring other people's opinions, either. I had a feeling it would come to this: First, you want evidence to go away, and now, you want to control what people say. You try to abuse the new forum for your desires for censorship.



It is nothing to do with censorship. It is to do with upholding the guidelines and integrity of this forum. Uncivil behaviour will stifle debate. That will effectively censor people from participating here.

You have not posted those statements as opinions. You have posted them as facts. "Luci is..." is not the same as "IMO, Luci is.."

They are insults. Pure and simple. Completely unwarranted. The whole thread has been quite cordial until you started with the insults.

I want this decision defined so we all know where we stand on the issue of maintaining civility.

For this reason I have made a formal appeal.

[Timble]

In my opinion Lucinarchy is both a troll and a drama-queen.
I cite the post above as evidence.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It is nothing to do with censorship. It is to do with upholding the guidelines and integrity of this forum. Uncivil behaviour will stifle debate. That will effectively censor people from participating here.

You have not posted those statements as opinions. You have posted them as facts. "Luci is..." is not the same as "IMO, Luci is.."

They are insults. Pure and simple. Completely unwarranted. The whole thread has been quite cordial until you started with the insults.

I want this decision defined so we all know where we stand on the issue of maintaining civility.

For this reason I have made a formal appeal.

That's nice, and you should appreciate that this forum even allows you to make such an appeal. Even if you have tried your best to smear the very same forum. How's that for open-mindedness?

Nevertheless, I have explained the reasons why I call you insane. It was not meant in a derogatory way, but you still want to censor my posts. You still want people to stop referring to your lies, your deceit, your fraud.

You lied. You cheated. You are a fraud. You asked for the evidence. The evidence is there. There is more, if you want it. Plenty! And yes, it is still my opinion that you are insane. And until someone with psychiatric knowledge explains to me why I am wrong - because I am always prepared to be swayed by evidence - I will maintain that opinion.

You could do something yourself to change my mind. You could start arguing in a sane manner. If you want to discuss paranormal matters, just let me know. Because, quite frankly, I'm getting a wee bit tired of pointing out your lies. It won't stop me from pointing out your lies, because I consider lies a major hindrance to human development. But I do wish you would stop.

Let's talk about paranormal issues, eh?

[UndercoverElephant]

CFL


But you have abandoned the possibility of your experience being a rational one? As in not-explainable-by-science?


"Rational" and "explainable by science" aren't the same thing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
That the origin of the communication was another (living) human is among the possibilities I have considered. Living humans have working brains, dead ones don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, what conclusion did you reach, and why?


I haven't reached a firm conclusion at all. It is partly a process of elimination, and more information is coming to me over the next few years.


Then I hope you understand why nobody can take your experience for anything else than an untold anecdote. You argue from a personal experience that nobody is allowed to see.


No I don't. I am not expecting you to start believing in paranormal phenomena on the basis that I told you they exist. I only mentioned because I was asked about it. I just answered the question. :)


But that was not the reason you just gave: That nobody but you could explain the full context. So, you are afraid...


I'm afraid of people like Bill Hoyt and scribble going into overdrive and losing the thread amidst a torrent of wailing abuse, yes. I know what lies down that path, and it is not constructive for anyone.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
First of all I had to reassess somethings I thought about the basis of my scientific worldview, I had to ask myself some new questions. After that I was open to new sources of information, and only after my views about many things started to shift did anything happen to me that comes into the category we are talking about here. As for scientific explanations, they still play a very important part in what I believe. For example, if I try to get rid of Darwinism and adopt instantaneous creationism, which is possible in idealism, then there is a clash. Darwinism is still an integral part of my understanding, as is the whole of physics. They are important because they serve as a benchmark against which any new proposed theories cannot be in unresolvable conflict with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before, then. Do you think it is possible that this reassessment has in any way influenced your experience?


The re-assessment was a pre-requisite of the experience. No reassement : No phenomena. Everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.


Thank you. You have just demonstrated that you have a very tenuous grasp of QM. QM has nothing to do with Newtonian physics, they simply describe two difference levels.


I thought all of physics was supposed to be related, Claus? If so, then how can QM have nothing to do with Newton and Einstein? They don't just descrive different levels. The two levels "don't fit".


How do you know which religion I am most familiar with?


I don't. But it is reasonable to say most westerners are likely to have grown up in a Christian culture, since the west is synonymous with Christendom.


Indeed. But if your starting point lacks a few stones in the foundation, don't you run the risk of going off in the wrong direction?


I don't believe you can only have one starting point. I am anti-foundationalist. I have no single foundation. The greater risk is that if you start with one single foundation, you end up only being able to build one sort of "building". If you start with no single foundation at all, and attempt to build a coherent single picture based on multiple starting points you are always able to adjust any one part without risking a total collapse. Any materialist, any Christian and any other foundationalist is handicapped by the fact they have one rigid set of starting assumptions and they point blank refuse to let go of them. That includes Lifegazer, Franko and all of the skeptics posting in this thread. They can't let go, because it is the foundation of their system of beliefs. That is why I am an anti-foundationalist.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Good, because it is one very important thing to consider. I am glad you believe it is true. What you do not believe is that it could possibly have any relevance to this discussion. Nothing could top it. How would that change life on earth? Please consider the question for more than a fraction of a second before answering. I think it is the most important question I have asked you so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not the first to ask me this, and I have given it quite some thought. After all, it is at the base of skepticism.


Go on......

Life is a journey of discovery. How much less rich would it be if everyone was given the biggest and best answers on a plate at the start, instead of going through the process of finding the peak of discovery for themselves!

What would life be like if mankind had already passed this one-off rubicon of discovery? Wouldn't the show rather be over?


What I don't understand is: What use is beginning a new education, if you will not be able to do anything with it?


Do anything with it? Philosophy is about learning to think better.


Since you are here, and you are arguing your points, you must have some kind of goal. If you hadn't, you would not be here, but sit at home, never talking to anyone.


Actually, I was just a bit bored and thought I would come back to my old haunt. I made a flippant comment about skeptics not believing it if they saw evidence and since then I have just been answering questions that arose from that comment. I have no real goal apart from to talk about a subject which interests me.


I refer you to the vast amount of scientific knowledge.


That isn't an answer. I said would you trust your own judgement regarding your own subjective experiences or would you trust someone-elses? Science on its own cannot supply an answer. Someone has to make a judgement. If you would allow someone else to make that judgement for you then you are a fool, Claus. As would I be if I believed Michael Shermers interpretation of experiences he has never had rather than my own which I have had. For me, this isn't a tough issue to decide.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
It is also not a Panacea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strawman. Nobody has claimed that.


Indirectly you keep doing so. "Panacea" means a cure for all problems, and that is how you treat science. Any other means of seeking answers is not worth a sausage. If science can't provide an answer, you might as well just make a blind guess. That is the attitude you seem to display.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
You can't. That is why you cannot rely on anyone elses experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, if teir observations are confirmed, independently. The more fossils found, the more certain dinosaurs existed.


That isn't relying on other peoples experiences. That is going and replicating their experiences for yourself. That is precisely what I am telling you to do with PSI. You only believe in the fossils because you can go an look at them yourself and make your own mind up. You would only believe in paranormal phenomena if you experienced them yourself and made up your own mind. See? :)

That is the difference between paranormal phenomena and fossils. Fossils sit there for anyone to experience them and paranormal phenomena are like elusive butterflies which run away if you chase after them.


So, where do we go from there? What goals do we strive for?


That must be self-defined. You have to stop thinking in terms of 'we', and think for yourself. You cannot expect the rest of humanity, or the rest of the scientific community to do it with you.

[JPK]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff

As would I be if I believed Michael Shermers interpretation of experiences he has never had rather than my own which I have had. For me, this isn't a tough issue to decide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to go into this any deeper, but I think the title of the book has misslead you. You know what they say about judging them... :)
What if your experience wasn't so unique? What if you were to discover that many people have been through a very similar ordeal? Would that mean it's more likely to be paranormal and add to the body of evidence of things beyond science or could it mean that it is part of being human and some kind of "bug" hardwired into the way humans think?
Demon Haunted World gives some excellent examples of experiences that Sagan had himself that could easily be mistaken as paranormal. I don't have the book at hand but I remember him talking about hearing his fathers voice calling to him after his dad had died. A hallucination. It felt very real to him, but what makes more sense, a voice from beyond or a memory causing a hallucination? We might dissagree on the answer to that. Once again I admit to have not experienced anything I would consider paranormal. Perhaps I'm missing things because I look for normal reasons. There are plenty of things I can't explain and really do not feel the need to. I also do not feel the need to chalk it up to the supernatural.
I am far more interested in why people beleive or not beleive in the paranormal then the paranormal itself.

JPK

[Aussie Thinker]

JustGeoff,

I am trying to paraphrase this rather than go through a bucketload of quotes..

1. Your claim of paranormal experience has NO support except for your own observation.

2. You claim that NO one should accept anything but their OWN experience.

Your first claim is EXACTLY the same as a lunatic claiming they are Napoleon. The ONLY support the lunatic has is their OWN deluded experience.

How do we show the lunatic that they are not Napoleon?.

We show them EVIDENCE Separate to their own delusion that they are not Napoleon… eg.. History books, Birth records, other human testimony, evidence of human delusion and hallucination etc etc..

You have NO evidence aside from your own interpretation of your experience. Worse than that you don’t even want any. Worse again is you won’t even discuss the experience and gain insights from people who may explain it to you..

This is Delusion at its worst.

Has ANYONE agreed with you that the Past altered or whatever happened to you ???

Second you argue that you can ONLY know through experience. That is just plain silly. It is the classic cop out by paranormalists that ALWAYS ensures their fantasy remains safe. As soon as we experience it (and become delusional too) we will then agree with you ! While we remain rational we can NEVER sense the paranormal… Whew.. that’s crazy.

Lucianarchy.

Insane/Liar/Fraud

Lets see……..

I think you are crazy too. Anyone who thinks the lame debunked and tiny amount of evidence you have shows you have some sort of “psi” power would have to be demented.

You were banned from the Fortean board for dishonesty (illegally editing posts) so that pretty much shows you to be a liar.

I suspect you of being a fraud on the Ladybrook issue (due to working in the home office or some such thing).. but have no proof so I wont outright accuse you of it.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by the clearly insane lying faking fraud.


Of course, I personally, do not mind about dealing with confrontation. I have no problems about other people's beliefs or opinions, they are healthy. However, I do object though, to be called "clearly insane". "liar" "fake" or "fraud". It is funny but if you search for clearly insane liar fake fraud the only posts you find is Luci's original (as above) or people quoting it.

I was really surprised, however, to only find one hit with Luci credulous innumerate spamming twat, But I suppose now there will be two. :D

In spite of what you think of Lucianarchy, please try to carry on this conversation without resorting to so much name callling.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
"Rational" and "explainable by science" aren't the same thing.

Perhaps. You have abandoned the possibility of your experience being not-explainable-by-science?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I haven't reached a firm conclusion at all. It is partly a process of elimination, and more information is coming to me over the next few years.

What do you mean? Are you still hallu...getting your experiences?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No I don't. I am not expecting you to start believing in paranormal phenomena on the basis that I told you they exist. I only mentioned because I was asked about it. I just answered the question. :)

But you are basing your assertation that paranormal phenomena exist, solely based on your own experience.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I'm afraid of people like Bill Hoyt and scribble going into overdrive and losing the thread amidst a torrent of wailing abuse, yes. I know what lies down that path, and it is not constructive for anyone.

Then, put them on ignore. It's only two clicks.

.

.

Done? Good! Let's hear it, then.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The re-assessment was a pre-requisite of the experience. No reassement : No phenomena. Everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.

Yes, that's nice. So, you had made up your mind before your experience happened.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I thought all of physics was supposed to be related, Claus? If so, then how can QM have nothing to do with Newton and Einstein? They don't just descrive different levels. The two levels "don't fit".

Yes, they "fit", because they describe what happens on different levels.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't believe you can only have one starting point. I am anti-foundationalist. I have no single foundation. The greater risk is that if you start with one single foundation, you end up only being able to build one sort of "building". If you start with no single foundation at all, and attempt to build a coherent single picture based on multiple starting points you are always able to adjust any one part without risking a total collapse. Any materialist, any Christian and any other foundationalist is handicapped by the fact they have one rigid set of starting assumptions and they point blank refuse to let go of them. That includes Lifegazer, Franko and all of the skeptics posting in this thread. They can't let go, because it is the foundation of their system of beliefs. That is why I am an anti-foundationalist.

Yes, that's nice. You still need to lay down some stones, before you start building.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Go on......

Feel free to open a thread about this.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Life is a journey of discovery. How much less rich would it be if everyone was given the biggest and best answers on a plate at the start, instead of going through the process of finding the peak of discovery for themselves!

What would life be like if mankind had already passed this one-off rubicon of discovery? Wouldn't the show rather be over?

Who said anything about handing answers on a plate? There are many things in nature that science has not explained. Nobody claims that science has found everything.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Do anything with it? Philosophy is about learning to think better.

And then? What will you achieve by learning to think better?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Actually, I was just a bit bored and thought I would come back to my old haunt. I made a flippant comment about skeptics not believing it if they saw evidence and since then I have just been answering questions that arose from that comment. I have no real goal apart from to talk about a subject which interests me.

This would fit nicely with your laid back attitude. You want to talk, I want to find answers.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That isn't an answer. I said would you trust your own judgement regarding your own subjective experiences or would you trust someone-elses? Science on its own cannot supply an answer. Someone has to make a judgement. If you would allow someone else to make that judgement for you then you are a fool, Claus. As would I be if I believed Michael Shermers interpretation of experiences he has never had rather than my own which I have had. For me, this isn't a tough issue to decide.

I trust science with my life, and so do you. Every time you fly somewhere, you lay your life on the doorstep on other people's experiences.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Indirectly you keep doing so. "Panacea" means a cure for all problems, and that is how you treat science. Any other means of seeking answers is not worth a sausage. If science can't provide an answer, you might as well just make a blind guess. That is the attitude you seem to display.

Then you have perceived wrongly. Do you consider it possible that you have?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That isn't relying on other peoples experiences. That is going and replicating their experiences for yourself. That is precisely what I am telling you to do with PSI. You only believe in the fossils because you can go an look at them yourself and make your own mind up. You would only believe in paranormal phenomena if you experienced them yourself and made up your own mind. See? :)

No, that wasn't what I meant: I am relying on other people's experiences, because I have never dug up a dino myself. Have you? If not, then why do you believe dinos existed? (I assume that you do, of course)

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is the difference between paranormal phenomena and fossils. Fossils sit there for anyone to experience them and paranormal phenomena are like elusive butterflies which run away if you chase after them.

No, you are wrong. Paranormal phenomena can also be experienced by everyone: Either a dowser finds water, or he doesn't.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That must be self-defined. You have to stop thinking in terms of 'we', and think for yourself. You cannot expect the rest of humanity, or the rest of the scientific community to do it with you.

I am not. I was merely hoping you would help out finding THE biggest discovery of all times.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi JPK

Originally posted by JPK

What if your experience wasn't so unique? What if you were to discover that many people have been through a very similar ordeal?


I don't suppose for one moment that I was the first person to experience something along those lines. I never claimed to be unique.


Would that mean it's more likely to be paranormal and add to the body of evidence of things beyond science or could it mean that it is part of being human and some kind of "bug" hardwired into the way humans think?


I don't think it has anything to do with the way humans think, no. The fact that other people may have experienced something similar doesn't make it a human defect.


Demon Haunted World gives some excellent examples of experiences that Sagan had himself that could easily be mistaken as paranormal. I don't have the book at hand but I remember him talking about hearing his fathers voice calling to him after his dad had died.


I have had a previous experience also very similar to the one you describe, shortly after the suicice of my best friend at the age of 21. I didn't put it down to paranormal phenomena, I just thought it was a bit strange. What I am talking about now belongs in a whole different league. I don't think reading books by Randi, Sagan and Shermer are going to make any difference. I am a registered ex-arch-skeptic myself. It's like asking an ex-Christian to read Michael Behe. There's really no point.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
[B]JustGeoff,

I am trying to paraphrase this rather than go through a bucketload of quotes..

1. Your claim of paranormal experience has NO support except for your own observation.

2. You claim that NO one should accept anything but their OWN experience.

Your first claim is EXACTLY the same as a lunatic claiming they are Napoleon.


A.T.,

I have to stop you there. You have just said that anyone claiming a paranormal experience (and most have no 3-rd party evidence) is "as lunatic as claiming they are Napoleon."

I am sorry, A.T., but that is not the way we do business around here. You can't just accuse anyone who believes in the paranormal of being "mad as Napoleon". It has no content - it is just you blathering about your own opinion as if it was fact, and being rather insulting at the same time. It isn't debate.

I am not even going to read the rest of your post. Calm down, and try again - this time sticking to a sensible argument and avoiding the wild ad hominems. Stop getting upset. We are just having a chat, alright? :(

Geoff

[CFLarsen]

But the point is: How do we tell the difference between a person who claims to have a paranormal experience with no support except his own observation, and someone claiming to be Napoleon?

Napoleon's spirit could have overtaken the person, you know.

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus :


Perhaps. You have abandoned the possibility of your experience being not-explainable-by-science?


I don't see how it could ever be reliably repeated. I'm not sure it can happen to anyone more than once. That on its own would make it science-unfriendly, even if understanding it properly requires a grasp of physics. To me it seems you are using over-emotive language - I haven't "abandoned" science. I just use it as only one tool. It's "abandoned" in my toolbox, reading to be used next time I need it, rather than being permanently glued to my hands.


What do you mean? Are you still hallu...getting your experiences?


No Claus. I am about to start a philosophy and cognitive science degree.


But you are basing your assertation that paranormal phenomena exist, solely based on your own experience.


I believe based on personal experience. That doesn't mean I expect you to believe it based on my experience. Answering questions about my own experience doesn't imply I expect or desire you to change your own belief system in accordance with what I tell you.


Yes, that's nice. So, you had made up your mind before your experience happened.


No, I had to take the lock of the door. I say for the third time : Everyone is sovereign over their experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.


Yes, they "fit", because they describe what happens on different levels.


Read Gribbens book. Then read Wilburs book. Arguing that "Geoff doesn't understand QM" is a bit lame. I think this discussion has moved beyond here.



Yes, that's nice. You still need to lay down some stones, before you start building.


You don't have to have one single "holy and untouchable" foundation. These days, I often feeling like bashing foundationalists of all creeds over the head with a blunt instrument. I don't want any untouchable foundation. It isn't helping you either. It is a hindrance.


Who said anything about handing answers on a plate?


That is what would happen if and when humanity as a whole comes to an understanding of paranormal phenomena. I am suggesting to you that the discovery would be so important, and making sense of it would provide so many other BIG answers, that life would be robbed of much of its richness and mystery. I am saying than rather than discovery being a cumulative process, this would be a one-off rubicon which once passed would rob life of its most important value by giving the game away. It would be like ruining your favourite film by giving away the ending at the beginning.


And then? What will you achieve by learning to think better?


A better understanding of everything I choose to think about.


I trust science with my life, and so do you. Every time you fly somewhere, you lay your life on the doorstep on other people's experiences.


Sure. But I don't trust other people to make subjective judgements for me.


No, that wasn't what I meant: I am relying on other people's experiences, because I have never dug up a dino myself.


No Claus, the point is that you know that if you wanted to, and were allowed to, that you COULD go and dig up the dino yourself. You don't have to actually repeat all scientific experiments yourself - but you know there is no theoretical reason why you cannot do so.


Have you? If not, then why do you believe dinos existed? (I assume that you do, of course)


I have certainly pulled the odd bit of cretaceous sea-monster out of the bottom of the cliffs at Eastbourne, yes.


No, you are wrong. Paranormal phenomena can also be experienced by everyone....


Never seems to happen though, does it? ;)


I am not. I was merely hoping you would help out finding THE biggest discovery of all times.


Wouldn't it be more fulfilling for you if you found out for yourself?

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But the point is: How do we tell the difference between a person who claims to have a paranormal experience with no support except his own observation, and someone claiming to be Napoleon?

Napoleon's spirit could have overtaken the person, you know.

No, the point is you can't just fling your arms up and say "anyone claiming paranormal experiences is as insane as Napoleon!".

It doesn't exactly encourage sensible debate, does it? :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't see how it could ever be reliably repeated. I'm not sure it can happen to anyone more than once. That on its own would make it science-unfriendly, even if understanding it properly requires a grasp of physics. To me it seems you are using over-emotive language - I haven't "abandoned" science. I just use it as only one tool. It's "abandoned" in my toolbox, reading to be used next time I need it, rather than being permanently glued to my hands.

If you want a true perception of the world, then you cannot pick and choose the tools that give you the answer you want. You need to be consistent.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No Claus. I am about to start a philosophy and cognitive science degree.

OK. And you are sure that will provide you with answers?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I believe based on personal experience. That doesn't mean I expect you to believe it based on my experience. Answering questions about my own experience doesn't imply I expect or desire you to change your own belief system in accordance with what I tell you.


Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, I had to take the lock of the door. I say for the third time : Everyone is sovereign over their experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.

Yes, I heard you the first time. I think it is interesting that you on one hand say that you believe because of personal experience, but you also say that you had made up your mind before the experience had happened.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Read Gribbens book. Then read Wilburs book. Arguing that "Geoff doesn't understand QM" is a bit lame. I think this discussion has moved beyond here.

Perhaps.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You don't have to have one single "holy and untouchable" foundation. These days, I often feeling like bashing foundationalists of all creeds over the head with a blunt instrument. I don't want any untouchable foundation. It isn't helping you either. It is a hindrance.

But science is neither holy or untouchable. Science invites to be attacked, by evidence. That is what's so strong about science.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That is what would happen if and when humanity as a whole comes to an understanding of paranormal phenomena. I am suggesting to you that the discovery would be so important, and making sense of it would provide so many other BIG answers, that life would be robbed of much of its richness and mystery. I am saying than rather than discovery being a cumulative process, this would be a one-off rubicon which once passed would rob life of its most important value by giving the game away. It would be like ruining your favourite film by giving away the ending at the beginning.

Aren't you arguing that believers are extremely reluctant to give up that mystery? :)

Originally posted by JustGeoff
A better understanding of everything I choose to think about.

That's it? No benefits for anyone else than yourself? That seems rather selfish to me. If you understand something better, you should share it, so others can achieve the same understanding as you have.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Sure. But I don't trust other people to make subjective judgements for me.

Nobody is asking you to. Science is objective.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No Claus, the point is that you know that if you wanted to, and were allowed to, that you COULD go and dig up the dino yourself. You don't have to actually repeat all scientific experiments yourself - but you know there is no theoretical reason why you cannot do so.

Absolutely, but that was not my point: My point was that even you trust other people's experiences with your life.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have certainly pulled the odd bit of cretaceous sea-monster out of the bottom of the cliffs at Eastbourne, yes.

How do you know that they were from that period? Did you philosophize your way to it, or did you depend on other people's experiences?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Never seems to happen though, does it? ;)`

Yes, it does! That's exactly the point! How can you dismiss so many people's experiences?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Wouldn't it be more fulfilling for you if you found out for yourself? :)

Perhaps. I doubt that filling my brain with drugs is the right way to do it, though.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, the point is you can't just fling your arms up and say "anyone claiming paranormal experiences is as insane as Napoleon!".

It doesn't exactly encourage sensible debate, does it? :rolleyes:

Why not? Because the possibility that you might be insane scares you?

What is the bleedin' difference, Geoff? We need to know.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you want a true perception of the world, then you cannot pick and choose the tools that give you the answer you want. You need to be consistent.


Each to his own, Claus. If you want to restrict yourself to one solitary means of understanding Life, the Universe and Everything that is your choice. I am sure you can understand why others have chosen differently. :)



OK. And you are sure that will provide you with answers?


I'm sure it will help me to ask better questions.



Yes, I heard you the first time. I think it is interesting that you on one hand say that you believe because of personal experience, but you also say that you had made up your mind before the experience had happened.


There is no clash if you think about it carefully. Being geniunely open to a possibility is not the same as believing it. I had not "made up my mind" - you are slightly misrepresenting what I said. Rather, I "unmade my mind" from the sort of hardline skeptical point you are at. I backed down to a neutral position. That is not the same as deciding before the experience that paranormal phenomena exist. I might add that the phenomena kind of "crept up on me". They started mildly, and I did not really acknowledge them. I just thought "Hmm. That's a bit funny.".


But science is neither holy or untouchable. Science invites to be attacked, by evidence. That is what's so strong about science.


You are a foundationalist. You have a single foundation to your belief system which you are not willing to compromise on. You are even trying to convince me to share that view.


Aren't you arguing that believers are extremely reluctant to give up that mystery? :)


No. I'm not sure how you derived that suggestion from the paragraph you are responding to. For people like you, there is a mystery. Once you cross the rubicon, much of the mystery is gone. All that remains are lots of loose ends to be tied up. I am suggesting to you that each person must cross the rubicon alone, that this is the way it has always been and that it must remain this way until the end of time. Science cannot cross it, because it would deny all who followed the opportunity to cross it on their own. It would rob people like you of the opportunity to find out for yourself who and what you really are and how and why things are the way they are.


That's it? No benefits for anyone else than yourself? That seems rather selfish to me. If you understand something better, you should share it, so others can achieve the same understanding as you have.


I am doing my best, Claus. I am trying. :)


Nobody is asking you to. Science is objective.


Yes, but that does not mean Michael Shermers analysis of experiences he hasn't had are more reliable than my own analysis of experiences I have had. The original point is getting drowned out by your incessant flag-waving on behalf of science. ;)


Absolutely, but that was not my point: My point was that even you trust other people's experiences with your life.


I don't believe in anything based solely on somebody-elses experiences.


How do you know that they were from that period? Did you philosophize your way to it, or did you depend on other people's experiences?


I went on the internet to find out how old the rocks were. They are easy to identify, because they are a layer of clay underneath an enormous tower of chalk. I actually went looking because in addition to the fossils I found a bizarre lump of iron embedded in the rock. It looked like a lump of pig iron, although it couldn't have been, since there were no humans to make it and there's no way it could have ended up in the rock recently. I'm still not sure what it is. It is about the size and shape of a persons finger, and its definately metal, and it was embedded in a lump of clay.


Yes, it does! That's exactly the point! How can you dismiss so many people's experiences?


Because I don't rely on personal testimony. :D


Perhaps. I doubt that filling my brain with drugs is the right way to do it, though.


I wasn't suggesting it was. In your case, the way forward is to take a genuine interest in some other points of view which you are currently too quick to dismiss as irrelevant. If you are genuine about wanting the answers, what is so bad about reading an anthology of the philosophical thoughts of Schroedinger, Eddington and the rest of the QMers? If you really wanted answers, you'd be open to giving those guys a fair crack at the whip, no?


Why not? Because the possibility that you might be insane scares you?


No. I'm not scared of anything. Except needles maybe. :)


What is the bleedin' difference, Geoff? We need to know.

Napoleon was a loser! :D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker


You were banned from the Fortean board for dishonesty



No I wasn't.

The fact that you and a few others are violating the forum guidelines in such a way, the door being kicked open by Claus, shows that you have nothing left to argue with rationaly in this thread.

It also leads the way to stifling debate, a form of censorship, as you know that there are few people who will participate and share their experiences in the face of such abuse.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Then, put them on ignore. It's only two clicks.


No, Claus. You are being abusive towards people because of their beliefs. It is not only extremely uncivil, it is completely unwarranted and of no useful purpose in a discussion forum other than to inflame and insult.

It could be that you have reached the point where your arguments have failed, and the more that happens, the more you will have to accept that what we are saying is not only true, but increasingly likely that at some point or other you will have to re address your own connection to the rest of reality and the part you play in it. I can imagine for you, that would be Hell.

Which explains your current behaviour, but it does not excuse it.

[Anders W. Bonde]

JustGeoff,

Just my two pennies worth: If other people's subjective experiences are unreliable, does that not automatically render meta-analysis of, say, PSI investigations useless? As I understand you, in order to give credence to other people's experiences, then you would necessarily have to replicate all the experiments - and that is exactly where PSI (and other paranormal) research has failed miserably so far - the lack of replication combined with subjective (read experienced) validation of "hits".

As I see it, PSI phenomena cannot be determined to exist, unless replicable and objective experiments can be devised and performed - with positive results.

A further point: I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. I'm the only one who can see it or experience it, so I know it's real. Can you see what I'm hinting at? I don't suppose you are a solipsist?;)

Concerning philosophy and philosophers: An interesting subject, indeed - but why is it that philosophers have argued and debated for eons, and yet they don't really appear to ever having reached any semblance of useful concensus? I mean, we still call it different schools of philosophy, yet it's the same discipline. It appears to me that philosophy only deals with how we humans interpret the world (and that very much dependent on cultural and historical context), not with how the world just happens to be, independent of human interpretation. As far as I can tell, philosophy cannot establish the objective existence of any phenomenon. However, philosophy does enable us to understand the human, cultural and logical implications of a phenomenon, once it is established empirically (using the scientific approach). Philosophy also allows us to deal with what if scenarios, but that doesn't turn the "what ifs" into objective realities. I guess what I'm trying to stutter forth, is that I do not believe philosophy can disclose reality, but it can help us pose questions based on established reality and it can help us understand reality in a human context.

Science, on the other hand, does have different schools of thought within a discipline, but usually not for long - eventually the schools converge, but may and will yet again move away in different directions, perhaps sprout into new disciplines, based on new discoveries, only to converge again as proximity to objective reality approaches. (I'm not too sure I phrased that too clearly, though, not being a philospher myself...)

Methinks there's an important message in that subtle difference between philosophy and science.

BTW, I do not for a moment think that the establishment of PSI (or any other paranormal phenomenon) as real will take the mystery away from the World - quite the opposite, in fact: It would pose more new questions than it would answer, IMH(umble)O. I would not lose my World view - it would add to it and reshape it, but I wouldn't lose anything (perhaps other than the privacy of my thoughts, but who says that's necessarily a bad or terrifying concept?).

I'm sorry, Geoff, but your claim that you have opened your mind appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part - you have ruled out that figments of your imagination might be just that - figments of your imagination.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Anders,

Please just call me Geoff by the way. I am only "justGeoff" because "Geoff" was already taken and I didn't want any more silly pseudoymns.


Just my two pennies worth: If other people's subjective experiences are unreliable, does that not automatically render meta-analysis of, say, PSI investigations useless? As I understand you, in order to give credence to other people's experiences, then you would necessarily have to replicate all the experiments - and that is exactly where PSI (and other paranormal) research has failed miserably so far - the lack of replication combined with subjective (read experienced) validation of "hits".

As I see it, PSI phenomena cannot be determined to exist, unless replicable and objective experiments can be devised and performed - with positive results.


When you say "cannot be determined to exist" I think you mean in a "generally accepted" way i.e. "determined objectively". If so, I would agree. I still reserve the right to judge my own experiences myself. I don't think you need to replicate all the results. I think a statistically significant positive result should be enough, but that it would always be rejected, just like Claus rejected the RV results using Occams Razor on the grounds that PSI is so unlikely that it must have been experimental error. Follow that logic and any positive result for PSI would be rejected by the same argument.


A further point: I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. I'm the only one who can see it or experience it, so I know it's real. Can you see what I'm hinting at? I don't suppose you are a solipsist?


Not if it can be avoided. This question runs deep. There is only One Solipsist. Solipsism is the only position I reject purely on the grounds that I am not willing to tolerate it. It is an unacceptable conclusion on the grounds that if it is true then I don't want to know.


Concerning philosophy and philosophers: An interesting subject, indeed - but why is it that philosophers have argued and debated for eons, and yet they don't really appear to ever having reached any semblance of useful concensus?


Appearances can be deceptive. One has to ask what the true purpose of philosophy really is. Providing answers is not its purpose. Enabling others to find their own answers might well be its purpose.



I mean, we still call it different schools of philosophy, yet it's the same discipline.


Perhaps then the key to understanding what is going on lies in the relationship between the different schools. Hegel claimed his philosophy was the end of history. Probably not quite true, but it may have been the beginning of the end of philosophy. You can't out-Hegel Hegel. By countering his argument (by providing an anti-thesis to his thesis) you prove him correct, don't you?


It appears to me that philosophy only deals with how we humans interpret the world (and that very much dependent on cultural and historical context), not with how the world just happens to be, independent of human interpretation. As far as I can tell, philosophy cannot establish the objective existence of any phenomenon. However, philosophy does enable us to understand the human, cultural and logical implications of a phenomenon, once it is established empirically (using the scientific approach). Philosophy also allows us to deal with what if scenarios, but that doesn't turn the "what ifs" into objective realities. I guess what I'm trying to stutter forth, is that I do not believe philosophy can disclose reality, but it can help us pose questions based on established reality and it can help us understand reality in a human context.


I would agree with this, I think.


Science, on the other hand, does have different schools of thought within a discipline, but usually not for long - eventually the schools converge, but may and will yet again move away in different directions, perhaps sprout into new disciplines, based on new discoveries, only to converge again as proximity to objective reality approaches. (I'm not too sure I phrased that too clearly, though, not being a philospher myself...)

Methinks there's an important message in that subtle difference between philosophy and science.


Yes, you may well be correct.


BTW, I do not for a moment think that the establishment of PSI (or any other paranormal phenomenon) as real will take the mystery away from the World - quite the opposite, in fact: It would pose more new questions than it would answer, IMH(umble)O.


OK. Our opinions differ. :)


I would not lose my World view - it would add to it and reshape it, but I wouldn't lose anything (perhaps other than the privacy of my thoughts, but who says that's necessarily a bad or terrifying concept?).


Sounds pretty scary to me.


I'm sorry, Geoff, but your claim that you have opened your mind appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part - you have ruled out that figments of your imagination might be just that - figments of your imagination.


You have every right to that opinion. I walk a tightrope here, because I am trying to explain my position, but I do not want to claim any achievements I have no right to claim. With respect to philosophy (and mysticism in particular) I firmly remain a student. I have not earned the right to teach.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Science is objective.


Yes, science is merely objective.

But only the subjective is real.

[UndercoverElephant]

Anders,

Regarding philosophy and the curious conundrum it presents I'd offer the following :

"Whereof I cannot speak, thereof I shall remain silent." (Wittgenstein).

"He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know." (Lao Tsu).

I'd say that might explain the (apparent) lack of consensus, but hey, what do I know? :D


Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes, science is merely objective.

But only the subjective is real.

Hello Ian! :)

[hammegk]

UCE, good to see you back. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by hammegk
UCE, good to see you back. :)

Hi hammegk. Yeah. Seems like I can't stay away. :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No I wasn't.

No? Then tell us, why did you get banned? Because banned you were...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The fact that you and a few others are violating the forum guidelines in such a way, the door being kicked open by Claus, shows that you have nothing left to argue with rationaly in this thread.

If you think anyone are violating the forum guidelines in any way, why don't you report us? Why aren't we censored?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It also leads the way to stifling debate, a form of censorship, as you know that there are few people who will participate and share their experiences in the face of such abuse.

Let's see how your prediction turns out. So far, you have been really, really lousy at making predictions...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No, Claus. You are being abusive towards people because of their beliefs. It is not only extremely uncivil, it is completely unwarranted and of no useful purpose in a discussion forum other than to inflame and insult.

Then report me.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It could be that you have reached the point where your arguments have failed, and the more that happens, the more you will have to accept that what we are saying is not only true, but increasingly likely that at some point or other you will have to re address your own connection to the rest of reality and the part you play in it. I can imagine for you, that would be Hell.

Which explains your current behaviour, but it does not excuse it.

Considering the fact that you have been running away from question after question (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701), engaging in lies, cheating and fraud, I think we have learned a lot about your behavior.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Each to his own, Claus. If you want to restrict yourself to one solitary means of understanding Life, the Universe and Everything that is your choice. I am sure you can understand why others have chosen differently. :)

Yes, it gives them comfort, but not truth. That comfort is then a false one.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I'm sure it will help me to ask better questions.

So, you are not looking for answers?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
There is no clash if you think about it carefully. Being geniunely open to a possibility is not the same as believing it. I had not "made up my mind" - you are slightly misrepresenting what I said. Rather, I "unmade my mind" from the sort of hardline skeptical point you are at. I backed down to a neutral position. That is not the same as deciding before the experience that paranormal phenomena exist. I might add that the phenomena kind of "crept up on me". They started mildly, and I did not really acknowledge them. I just thought "Hmm. That's a bit funny.".

Oh, the clash can be heard from far away. You say that only personal experience can convince you that paranormal exists. But you had also made up your mind that it existed before you had your personal experience.

HUGE contradiction.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You are a foundationalist. You have a single foundation to your belief system which you are not willing to compromise on. You are even trying to convince me to share that view.

Trying to dismiss my arguments by calling me something I am not, is not the way to go.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. I'm not sure how you derived that suggestion from the paragraph you are responding to. For people like you, there is a mystery. Once you cross the rubicon, much of the mystery is gone. All that remains are lots of loose ends to be tied up. I am suggesting to you that each person must cross the rubicon alone, that this is the way it has always been and that it must remain this way until the end of time. Science cannot cross it, because it would deny all who followed the opportunity to cross it on their own. It would rob people like you of the opportunity to find out for yourself who and what you really are and how and why things are the way they are.

I'm sorry, but there is no "mystery" to me, because I cannot find evidence that any paranormal phenomena are real. And if you read a bit about what believers say, it's all about this "mystery" that we skeptics cannot even see.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am doing my best, Claus. I am trying. :)

Do you think you are doing a good job?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Yes, but that does not mean Michael Shermers analysis of experiences he hasn't had are more reliable than my own analysis of experiences I have had. The original point is getting drowned out by your incessant flag-waving on behalf of science. ;)

I am not flag-waving, but I am pointing out to you how we really discover what is real and what is not. I'm sorry if you don't like that idea, but it doesn't invalidate it.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't believe in anything based solely on somebody-elses experiences.

So, you believe in something, if there are enough anecdotes about it?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I went on the internet to find out how old the rocks were. They are easy to identify, because they are a layer of clay underneath an enormous tower of chalk. I actually went looking because in addition to the fossils I found a bizarre lump of iron embedded in the rock. It looked like a lump of pig iron, although it couldn't have been, since there were no humans to make it and there's no way it could have ended up in the rock recently. I'm still not sure what it is. It is about the size and shape of a persons finger, and its definately metal, and it was embedded in a lump of clay.

Science, then. Thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Because I don't rely on personal testimony. :D

But you attach significance to personal testimony, if the numbers are high enough?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I wasn't suggesting it was. In your case, the way forward is to take a genuine interest in some other points of view which you are currently too quick to dismiss as irrelevant. If you are genuine about wanting the answers, what is so bad about reading an anthology of the philosophical thoughts of Schroedinger, Eddington and the rest of the QMers? If you really wanted answers, you'd be open to giving those guys a fair crack at the whip, no?

No, because I don't think the answer lies in philosophical masturbation, but in whether evidence can be found or not.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. I'm not scared of anything. Except needles maybe. :)

You are not scared that people here will say bad things about you?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Napoleon was a loser! :D

If you think you are going to get away with flippant remarks like that in philosophy class, you are sorely mistaken. Just answer the question.

[JPK]

Hello JustGeoff,

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I have had a previous experience also very similar to the one you describe, shortly after the suicice of my best friend at the age of 21. I didn't put it down to paranormal phenomena, I just thought it was a bit strange.

Was this before or after you made the decision to accept paranormal events?
This is kind of what I meant when I said "Where does one draw a line..." If I remember correctly , you have stated that you do not believe a dead person can talk to a living person. But just supose you did believe comunication with the dead was possible. Let's say just for fun you were a big John Edward fan and couldn't wait to see him live because your friend just commited suicide and you needed to know why. What if at a moment like that, your brain played a little trick and caused a hallucination of your friends voice talking to you. It would be a pretty vulnerable time for you. And when I say "you" please feel free to substitute "me" or any one else you desire. This is after all a "what if " senerio. In fact let me switch "you" to "me " from this point on. Would that weird me out a bit? You bet. Might I think a paranormal event has occured? Quite possibly. Would this help cement a belief system I have already chosen to accept back when I became a John Edward fan? Yup.

In my opinion, the differance between a skeptic and a believer of paranormal stuff, is just a matter of where they draw the line as to what is acceptical evidence.

Originally posted by JustGeoff

There is no clash if you think about it carefully. Being geniunely open to a possibility is not the same as believing it. I had not "made up my mind" - you are slightly misrepresenting what I said. Rather, I "unmade my mind" from the sort of hardline skeptical point you are at. I backed down to a neutral position. That is not the same as deciding before the experience that paranormal phenomena exist. I might add that the phenomena kind of "crept up on me". They started mildly, and I did not really acknowledge them. I just thought "Hmm. That's a bit funny.".

Are you saying cumulative personal experiences cause you to become an "ex-skeptic", or are you saying that once you choose to except paranormal phenomenon, more and more supernatural things began to occur. Or is it that they always did occur and you either ignored them or coundn't recognize them as paranormal due to your previous skeptical stance?

And please believe me when I say this, I do not rule out the possiblility that something truely supernatural did happen to you. That is why I am asking questions. I am not tring to be insulting, just tring to learn.

Originally posted by JustGeoff

I don't think it has anything to do with the way humans think, no. The fact that other people may have experienced something similar doesn't make it a human defect.

Can you be so sure? Certainly a possibility isn't it? Many individuals experincing similar events that seem to be outside what is considered normal everyday occurances. But with no second hand observation, you can see why people would question the validity of the event. That is why I would like to think I would question it myself should it happen to me. You say they events started mildly and continued, I think I would seek professional help. No offence intended. I certainly hope the people around me would get me that help.

Originally posted by JustGeoff

What I am talking about now belongs in a whole different league. I don't think reading books by Randi, Sagan and Shermer are going to make any difference. I am a registered ex-arch-skeptic myself. It's like asking an ex-Christian to read Michael Behe. There's really no point.

OK, so you are an ex-arch-skeptic. I'm not sure I'm following this. Have you abandoned critical thought? What is that saying, Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out on the floor? Brains on the floor can be slippery, a slope can cause serious injury. :)

JPK

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,


So, you are not looking for answers?


Sure I am. I have come to believe that much of the time when you are faced with a very difficult, seemingly impossible question that more often than not the reason it seems so difficult is that you are asking the wrong question. I think I have stolen that from Wittgenstein also, but I believe it to be true. To take a trivial example from cosmology : "What happened before the [theorised] Big Bang?" - asking the wrong question. These days I would put the question "Does God exist?" into the same category. Wrong question, IMHO.


Oh, the clash can be heard from far away. You say that only personal experience can convince you that paranormal exists. But you had also made up your mind that it existed before you had your personal experience.

HUGE contradiction.


Erm. I didn't say that. I wish you'd read my posts more carefully. I said I had genuinely accepted that they were possible, as a result of a changed view of metaphysics. Changing your metaphysics isn't the same as believing in things you've never seen. Is it? :confused:

So, as quite clearly stated three times already, I had not made my mind up that it existed before I experienced it. You are directly misquoting me, Claus. Is it intentional? :(


Trying to dismiss my arguments by calling me something I am not, is not the way to go.


:D

Go and look up "foundationalist" and tell me again that you aren't one! If you are a materialist, then you are a foundationalist. Period. If you aren't a materialist, then what the hell are you? :confused:


I'm sorry, but there is no "mystery" to me, because I cannot find evidence that any paranormal phenomena are real.


Not that mystery. For you, it is a different mystery. Why there is something instead of nothing, perhaps. I don't know how you would frame your Ultimate Question.


And if you read a bit about what believers say, it's all about this "mystery" that we skeptics cannot even see.


That depends on the believer and what they happen to believe.


Do you think you are doing a good job?


That isn't for me to judge.



I am not flag-waving, but I am pointing out to you how we really discover what is real and what is not.


Without philosophy, you can't even define "real" properly.


So, you believe in something, if there are enough anecdotes about it?


Anecdotal evidence can only ever be a clue.


Science, then. Thanks for proving my point.


Yeah, it's great for things like rocks.


But you attach significance to personal testimony, if the numbers are high enough?


No. Even then the significance is only marginal. It is mood music, nothing more.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
I wasn't suggesting it was. In your case, the way forward is to take a genuine interest in some other points of view which you are currently too quick to dismiss as irrelevant. If you are genuine about wanting the answers, what is so bad about reading an anthology of the philosophical thoughts of Schroedinger, Eddington and the rest of the QMers? If you really wanted answers, you'd be open to giving those guys a fair crack at the whip, no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, because I don't think the answer lies in philosophical masturbation, but in whether evidence can be found or not.


You appear to have judged the philosophical thoughts of most of the greatest physicists of the early 20th century as worthless without knowing anything about what they wrote. This is exactly the sort of tunnel vision I am criticising. Even though these men clearly "understand QM" (having invented it), their interpretation of its significance is floccipaucinihilipilificated by you, even without knowing what that interpretation is. It's just not in your tunnel, so you aren't interested in it.

Sorry for the silly word, but for once in my life I found myself typing "valued by you as worthless". :D


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. I'm not scared of anything. Except needles maybe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not scared that people here will say bad things about you?


I am scared of generating more heat than light. People have trigger points which I'd sooner avoid.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Napoleon was a loser!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think you are going to get away with flippant remarks like that in philosophy class, you are sorely mistaken. Just answer the question.


If this was a philosophy class, the debate would never have arrived at the point it did. I was asked what sounded like a dumb question, so I gave a dumb answer. The English regiment which defeated Napoleon at Waterloo spent today leading a ceremonal march through Paris. Even the greatest of enemies can find resolution to their differences! :)

[TheBoyPaj]

Just out of interest, Luci was banned from the Fortean Board for flaming. Kinda "psironic", eh?

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14116&perpage=15

[Aussie Thinker]

JG,

A.T.,

I have to stop you there. You have just said that anyone claiming a paranormal experience (and most have no 3-rd party evidence) is "as lunatic as claiming they are Napoleon."

I can only conclude you read it that way to avoid answering the tough questions raised by the analogy.

I am sorry, A.T., but that is not the way we do business around here. You can't just accuse anyone who believes in the paranormal of being "mad as Napoleon". It has no content - it is just you blathering about your own opinion as if it was fact, and being rather insulting at the same time. It isn't debate.

I wasn’t accusing anyone of anything. I used an EXTREME version of someone being delusional to show you how odd your argument is. YOU would clearly declare anyone claiming they are Napoleon as deluded or insane.. yet you accept your own IMPOSSIBLE , UNCOLLABERATED, personal experience as being completely sane.

Honestly what is the distinction you make ?

I am not even going to read the rest of your post. Calm down, and try again - this time sticking to a sensible argument and avoiding the wild ad hominems. Stop getting upset. We are just having a chat, alright?

Geoff

Geoff I am completely calm. But often arguing with paranormalists does start to get frustrating. They CONSISTENTLY refuse to answer question when they get too tough. They make excuses (like you did above) to avoid destroying their fantasies.

Let me make is simple and unemotive for you.

Your paranormal experience could be either :

1. Real
2. Delusion
3. Lies

I tend to discount 3 as (unlike some other paranormalists) you aren’t trying to prove some “power” (see Luci) or make some money.

So that leaves 1 or 2. Delusion is a proven fact. Humans CAN and ARE deluded often. And they cannot separate the delusion form reality. To them it IS real.

1 Is also a possibility but with NO collaborating evidence it can generally be dismissed.

[UndercoverElephant]

JPK,


Was this before or after you made the decision to accept paranormal events?


For "accept" I am reading "accepting as possible". Many years before. I was 22 at the time, and remained a hardline skeptic until I was about 32.

Just for the record, I still consider myself a skeptic, of sorts. I really do not believe everything put before me. If I did, I would be very lost indeed.


This is kind of what I meant when I said "Where does one draw a line..." If I remember correctly , you have stated that you do not believe a dead person can talk to a living person. But just supose you did believe comunication with the dead was possible. Let's say just for fun you were a big John Edward fan and couldn't wait to see him live because your friend just commited suicide and you needed to know why.


I'm still reading, but I know why he committed suicide. He had a non-cancerous growth in his brain next to his pituatary gland which was causing weird changes in his physiology and he was facing a lifetime on powerful drugs and operations on his brain.

But I will accept your "what if".


What if at a moment like that, your brain played a little trick and caused a hallucination of your friends voice talking to you. It would be a pretty vulnerable time for you. And when I say "you" please feel free to substitute "me" or any one else you desire. This is after all a "what if " senerio. In fact let me switch "you" to "me " from this point on. Would that weird me out a bit? You bet. Might I think a paranormal event has occured? Quite possibly. Would this help cement a belief system I have already chosen to accept back when I became a John Edward fan? Yup.


If I was already a John Edward fan I would have actually been looking for it, and I have no doubt I would have accepted it differently to the way I did at the time. In reality I was at the time working in a room with one other person who just happened to be a seventh-day adventist. I explained what happened, rather inevitably given my condition at the time, and the seventh-day adventist in question used the opportunity to ask me "What if you could see your friend again one day? I could help you." I think you can probably guess what sort of reply he got.

I don't normally talk about this. This time remains a formative experience in my life. It taught me how lucky I was to be alive, however painful this world can be.


In my opinion, the differance between a skeptic and a believer of paranormal stuff, is just a matter of where they draw the line as to what is acceptical evidence.


Very true.


Are you saying cumulative personal experiences cause you to become an "ex-skeptic", or are you saying that once you choose to except paranormal phenomenon, more and more supernatural things began to occur. Or is it that they always did occur and you either ignored them or coundn't recognize them as paranormal due to your previous skeptical stance?


OK. I would now say that the base-level most-insignificant "paranormal phenomena" is synchronicity, as defined by Jung. Before I abandoned my skeptical stance, even in retrospect, I cannot remmeber consciously registering a single instance of this phenomena. Before anything at all happened to me my views about things like metaphysics and the history of religion had begun to shift. Whether they (synchronicity) occured before and I failed to notice them is hard to say. It is too long ago.


And please believe me when I say this, I do not rule out the possiblility that something truely supernatural did happen to you.


I believe you. You seem to be very neutral. :)


Can you be so sure? Certainly a possibility isn't it? Many individuals experincing similar events that seem to be outside what is considered normal everyday occurances. But with no second hand observation, you can see why people would question the validity of the event.


I can see why anyone evaluating a description of the event would question its validity, because I myself would question its validity. But nobody but me can evaluate my own experiences, and that is the way it should be. No matter how skeptical a person, there is a limit to what they can accept as "normal". Having decided it wasn't normal, they cannot then expect anyone else to believe their testimony.



That is why I would like to think I would question it myself should it happen to me.


I question everything that happens to me. It wasn't all nice. Much of it I would have prefered to dismiss.


You say they events started mildly and continued, I think I would seek professional help. No offence intended.


None taken. :D

But I am not crazy. I have been there, and I could have a long discussion with you about the head-doctor proffesions and the definition of madness. This is a whole other discussion.


I certainly hope the people around me would get me that help.


JPK, 6 months before my best mate died I was inside a psychiatric hospital, diagnosed with psychosis and depression, categorised as a suicide risk. His death cured me of my narcissistic self-pity. Since then, I have had no need of a psychiatrist.


OK, so you are an ex-arch-skeptic. I'm not sure I'm following this.


I spent a year as the science and skepticism moderator at www.infidels.org. Does that qualify?


Have you abandoned critical thought?


In September I start a degree in Philosophy and Cognitive Science at Sussex University. Do you think I have abandoned critical thought?

:)

[Loki]

Geoff,

How ya doing! Been to any good Brighton Psychic parties lately? (which reminds me, you never did tell if that 'circle of believers' ever did let you join?)

Anyway, just a quick comment...
They can't let go, because it is the foundation of their system of beliefs.
Perhaps you truly believe this, or perhaps you just need to believe it Geoff. But it isn't ALWAYS true (no, really, it isn't!). Show me a flaw in any foundation, and I'll acknowledge it. But you seem to constantly want/need to confuse "disagree about a flaw" with "refuse to let go".

I had kind of hoped you might have moved past that particular technique, but apparently not (yet).

[JPK]

Thanks JustGeoff,

I'm sorry if any pain was caused by talking about your best mate. I simply was tring to understand, and thank you for your time in answering some of my questions. I would love to hear in detail about the event you elude to. But I certainly understand how this would be incredibly personal to you. I also understand that this might not be a place you would be willing to post it. That's OK. Good luck with your studies and hopefully they will lead to more questions. Jung.... Now theres some reading I havn't done in a while.
Good science can give a good answer to a question. You know how good by how many more questions the answer breeds. All of course is open for debate and open for review.

JPK

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Loki
Geoff,

How ya doing! Been to any good Brighton Psychic parties lately?


Hello Loki.

No psychic parties, no. I'm doing just fine, as I hope are you. :)


(which reminds me, you never did tell if that 'circle of believers' ever did let you join?)


Who? Ah.....I remember now. No, I never heard from any of them again. And it wasn't a "psychic party' - I just met a psychic at a party, which isn't particularly unusual around these parts.


Perhaps you truly believe this, or perhaps you just need to believe it Geoff. But it isn't ALWAYS true (no, really, it isn't!).

Show me a flaw in any foundation, and I'll acknowledge it.


I don't think you understand. I am not (currently) criticising any particular foundation. I am suggesting it is unhelpful for people to have one single foundation at all - any one foundation. I am saying that there is NO perfect and all-encompassing foundation. All have different strengths and weaknesses. My argument is that the very fact that there is only one foundation is in itself a weakness, not about weaknesses in that one foundation.


But you seem to constantly want/need to confuse "disagree about a flaw" with "refuse to let go".


No, I'm not confused. If you only have one foundation then letting it go will prompt a collapse because there is no other structure to hold it up. I don't quite see how you can argue with that. Having more than one foundation removes that problem and allows you to examine the foundations without any fear of total collapse. I know damned well that many of the people here fear (wrongly, IMO) a total collapse of science should PSI be proven, because they keep telling me!


I had kind of hoped you might have moved past that particular technique, but apparently not (yet). [/B]

Actually, I can't remember making this point at this site before, ever. :confused:

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by JPK

I'm sorry if any pain was caused by talking about your best mate.


None was caused. It was a long time ago, however shocking it was at the time.


I simply was tring to understand, and thank you for your time in answering some of my questions. I would love to hear in detail about the event you elude to. But I certainly understand how this would be incredibly personal to you. I also understand that this might not be a place you would be willing to post it. That's OK.


If you want to PM me I can certainly talk some more. I feel it is inappropriate to go into too much detail about this here simply because it never achieves anything. I can't prove it so why bother claiming it here? It is like a red rag to a field full of bulls.

[Aussie Thinker]

Justgeoff,

Did my use of the word lunatic and your mistaken interpretation that I was implying YOU were a lunatic exclude me from further discussion ? Trust me the slight was in your imagination only.. not intended.

I have thought about your “experience” quite a bit lately as you do seem lucid and it is unfortunate you won’t give us more to go on.

I have tried to honestly put myself in the same situation and work out how I would react..

EG.. You mentioned the past changing from what you KNEW it to be.

If this happened to me I would look for corroboration.

If another person said “yes you are right that was not how it was.. the past HAS changed”. Or..

If I found physical evidence that backed me up.

I would tell the world about it.

BUT.. if I could find no other human that supported the events and no physical evidence and the event was unlikely or even impossible by known science I would HAVE to conclude I was deluded.

Regardless of how REAL it seemed that conclusion would be inescapable.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Sure I am. I have come to believe that much of the time when you are faced with a very difficult, seemingly impossible question that more often than not the reason it seems so difficult is that you are asking the wrong question. I think I have stolen that from Wittgenstein also, but I believe it to be true. To take a trivial example from cosmology : "What happened before the [theorised] Big Bang?" - asking the wrong question. These days I would put the question "Does God exist?" into the same category. Wrong question, IMHO.

In other words: Yes, you are looking for answers, but since you are not happy with the answers you get, the questions must be wrong.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Erm. I didn't say that. I wish you'd read my posts more carefully. I said I had genuinely accepted that they were possible, as a result of a changed view of metaphysics. Changing your metaphysics isn't the same as believing in things you've never seen. Is it? :confused:

So, as quite clearly stated three times already, I had not made my mind up that it existed before I experienced it. You are directly misquoting me, Claus. Is it intentional? :(

I'm sorry, but you are not all that clear at times.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Go and look up "foundationalist" and tell me again that you aren't one! If you are a materialist, then you are a foundationalist. Period. If you aren't a materialist, then what the hell are you? :confused:

I am a skeptic. No, I am not a "foundationalist". I believe that knowledge can also be about love, poetry, literature - something that is outside the boundaries of science.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not that mystery. For you, it is a different mystery. Why there is something instead of nothing, perhaps. I don't know how you would frame your Ultimate Question.

I have a lot of questions - I don't base my entire life on just one foundation. :D

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That depends on the believer and what they happen to believe.

Sure, it does. But it is what I get thrown in my face a lot: That I simply can't see this mystery, that my life is sooo empty without it, that I miss sooooo much.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That isn't for me to judge.

Give us your best shot. Surely, you must have some idea.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Without philosophy, you can't even define "real" properly.

Sure, I can.

(hits you on the head with a hammer).

That's real.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Anecdotal evidence can only ever be a clue.

Of what?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Yeah, it's great for things like rocks.

Yes, it is! And you know what? Rocks are real.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. Even then the significance is only marginal. It is mood music, nothing more.

So, you dismiss other people's personal experiences.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You appear to have judged the philosophical thoughts of most of the greatest physicists of the early 20th century as worthless without knowing anything about what they wrote. This is exactly the sort of tunnel vision I am criticising. Even though these men clearly "understand QM" (having invented it), their interpretation of its significance is floccipaucinihilipilificated by you, even without knowing what that interpretation is. It's just not in your tunnel, so you aren't interested in it.

Sorry for the silly word, but for once in my life I found myself typing "valued by you as worthless". :D

How do you know what I know about what they wrote? Aren't you floccipaucinihilipilificating now?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am scared of generating more heat than light. People have trigger points which I'd sooner avoid.

Then put them on ignore! Come on, you are stalling.....

Originally posted by JustGeoff
If this was a philosophy class, the debate would never have arrived at the point it did. I was asked what sounded like a dumb question, so I gave a dumb answer. The English regiment which defeated Napoleon at Waterloo spent today leading a ceremonal march through Paris. Even the greatest of enemies can find resolution to their differences! :)

Listen, if you want to debate, fine. But don't dismiss questions by calling them dumb. That will stifle any debate, because we could do the same, at any point we encountered something we felt uneasy about.

You have lots of ways to avoid answering the tough questions.

The question is anything but dumb, because the answer will tell us how to separate the wheat from the chaff. If we don't know how to do that, we merely talk in circles, never getting anywhere.

Answer the question, OK?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Just out of interest, Luci was banned from the Fortean Board for flaming. Kinda "psironic", eh?

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14116&perpage=15

From the thread:

Originally posted by stu neville
As has been pointed out by other posters, this restriction is due to your track record of posting inflammatory material, then rapidly editing it to make it appear as if others are being pre-emptively inflammatory towards you.

Lucianarchy,

Why were you banned from FTMB again?

[Anders W. Bonde]

Originally posted by Geoff:
...snip...Just for the record, I still consider myself a skeptic, of sorts. I really do not believe everything put before me. If I did, I would be very lost indeed....snip...
Interesting remark, Geoff. What gets my curiousity is how you discern between what you will believe in, and what you will not believe in - what method of discrimination do you use?

I have noticed that you say you will not believe in things that are clearly impossible or illogical - but how, and by what means, do you make that distinction?

To me, this is a very important topic, not least because some intelligent people I know and love believe in things that fly in the face of evidence and logic, yet they claim, too, that they do not believe in everything put before them. When asked how they make the distinction, they either cannot (or will not) argue their case, and/or they base the distinction purely on personal experience. When I then demonstrate to them, with examples of evidence and logic, how easy it is to fool both one's senses and one's reasoning, they basically just end up saying either "well, yes, I know we can be fooled, but it doesn't happen to me - I know what I saw/experienced/know", but they cannot provide any evidence for either what they claim, or that they cannot be fooled. It is for this reason I find it extremely important to maintain a coherent method of discriminating between event and experience, as the two are demonstrably not the same. For that reason also, it is necessary to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims - if the claims are to be assumed to be related in any way to objective reality. Otherwise we're into useless solipsism. Like others have pointed out, one should not indiscriminately trust one's own senses and powers of reasoning - corrobative, exterior and objective evidence is a must.

A mundane example: Of and by itself, the claim that an automobile is brought to a halt every time you choose to apply the brakes is extraordinary because it is such a universal, life-critical assumption and it requires faith, otherwise no-one would dare to drive cars. The reason we trust our faith in cars having brakes that always work is beacuse the evidence that this is the case is so overwhelming, it is replicable by anyone and it can be theoretically predicted and verified by experience. Thus, we don't ask the car salesman "does it have brakes, and can I rely on them working?", simply because the body of evidence pro is so overwhelming relative to the evidence contra (yes, cases of brake failure are known, but rare, and can be investigated) - yet even if we have doubts, the means exist to verify for ourselves to a satisfactory extent. In short, we don't consider the reliability of brakes to be an extraordinary claim - simply because the amount of evidence to support it is already extraordinary.

If we take PSI and other purported paranormal phenomena, we only have uncorroborated personal experince, which also happens to fly in the face of the extraordinary body of non-personal evidence that renders it illogical AND overwhelmingly probable that we're dealing with errors in observation and reasoning - simply because we can provide, and have, indeed, provided, an extraordinary amount of evidence that it is both possible and common to fool one's senses and powers of reasoning.

Hallucinations, optical illusions, the fickle ways of the mind and good conjuring are just everyday examples of the reasons one's personal experiences are inadequate arbiters of truth - reliance one one's own experience as the "final verdict" on reality, is, IMHO, useless. More is needed.

I know this is probably sidetracking a bit, but take homeopathy: The body of evidence that evidence-based medicine has physiological effects is already extraordinary, the body of evidence that some ailments are cyclic and/or subject to natural remission is already extraoridinary, and the body of evidence that the placebo effect is a real phenomenon is also already extraordinary - and the theories based on observation allow us to predict results. Homeopathy's theories are fully unsupported by observation and fly in the face of what has already been established by an extraordinary body of evidence. For this reason, clinical trials of homeopathy actually must be more thorough and of a higher quality than for, say, something like penicillin or antihistamines, simply because the body of evidence for homeopathy is starting from scratch. As the hoemopaths have not yet (after 200 years of grace) provided such evidence, the mundane explanations are overwhelmingly superior - in short, the claims of the homeopaths based on the current state of the art may reasonably be, and should be, discarded.

For homeopathy substitute PSI, and for evidence-based medicine, substitute mundane methods of communication and errors in perception and reasoning. PSI needs to replicably demonstrate statistical significance at leastan order of magnitude higher than what the researchers claim they have demonstrated this far - simply because the body of evidence is starting from scratch, and the concept flies in the face of evidence for mundane explanations. Until then, it is simply unreasonable to believe that percieved phenomenons of PSI are not due to mundane causes and effects.

Jung's concept of synchronicity, is IMHO, not only unsubstantiated by evidence, but also an apologetic attempt to understand something, or make meaning thereof, without having considered more mundane explanations, and while QM is mind-boggling, no-one has AFAIK ever demonstrated an exception where QM applies at the macroscopic scale (even just a few hundred thousand paricles, which still isn't very much), and vice versa, where indertiminacy does not apply to single quantum particle. Positing QM as a possible mechanism for phenomena that requires discernible and quantifiable interaction with the billions of quantum particles in a human receptor is to me simply an unsubstatiated leap of faith since we are then no longer dealing with probabilistics of quanta but with macrocosmos - the human brain. I also have a hard time reasoning for the possibility of directing macroscopic amounts of quanta at will (simply beacuse you cannot predict the probability of a single quantum partcle, let alone all the others it can interact with in macrocosmos) in, say, PK. Even quantum encryption and communication requires macroscopic transmitters and receptors, which hardly evade detection! With my admittedly limited knowledge of QM, I still cannot believe that QM is suitable for describing phenomena in the macroscopic world - but I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise. Not by theory, but by replicable experiments.

Just my tuppeny's worth.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Lucianarchy,

Why were you banned from FTMB again?

Despite being flamed, insulted and abused by a few regulars, I had my editing rights taken away. Taht was because, when I responded in like, I thought twice about it and removed it. I suspected entrappment. I asked why this was, I PM'd Stu and the other mods - no response. I took it up in the forum management section, the reason i was given was completely bogus, as there was no rational reason why I alone should have been singled out to have my editing rights taken away. I suspected entrappment.

I was proved right.

it was simply not a level playing field.

Stu finally banned me becuase he thought I insulted his girlfriend by referring to her as a 'croaking frog'. :rolleyes:

This is why I want the decision made here about uncivil behaviour. I will abide by it, as long as it is a level playing field. If people insist on dishing it out.... well, we don't want to go back to the bad old days though, do we? Really?

That is the last time I'll comment on it in this thread though. If uncivil behaviour guidelines were enforced properly, then these issues wouldn't derail the threads.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Justgeoff,

Did my use of the word lunatic and your mistaken interpretation that I was implying YOU were a lunatic exclude me from further discussion ? Trust me the slight was in your imagination only.. not intended.


It sounded like you were accusing me of being like Napolean Bonaparte, and I wasn't particularly interested in responding to that sort of line of discussion.

It gets very wearying being continually accused of not understanding science or being crazy simply because the skeptics have no other way of rationalising my posts within their own belief system. It is never actually based on any evidence that I don't understand science or that I am crazy - it is based on the fact that they cannot accept that I might just be correct. But then it was me that decided to stroll back into the lions den and start pulling the lions tails. If I wanted a more sensible debate I'd go to philosophyforums.com.


I have thought about your “experience” quite a bit lately as you do seem lucid and it is unfortunate you won’t give us more to go on.


You mean you want a meatier target to shoot at. There's not much point. I don't go into details unless I am talking to someone who is actually capable of believing me and understanding what I'm talking about, usually because they have the option of looking at reality from an mystical or non-materialistic perspective, or because they have been through something similar themselves.


I have tried to honestly put myself in the same situation and work out how I would react..

EG.. You mentioned the past changing from what you KNEW it to be.

If this happened to me I would look for corroboration.

If another person said “yes you are right that was not how it was.. the past HAS changed”. Or..

If I found physical evidence that backed me up.


Again, if you could have seen the context you would understand. But you have no way of seeing the context. It's a dead-end discussion. It goes nowhere.


I would tell the world about it.


Oh boy. I did tell the world about it. Right here. And in case you hadn't noticed, there are still people who haven't forgiven me two years later.


BUT.. if I could find no other human that supported the events and no physical evidence and the event was unlikely or even impossible by known science I would HAVE to conclude I was deluded.

Regardless of how REAL it seemed that conclusion would be inescapable. [/B]

The truth is that nobody can know what conclusion they would come to unless it happened to them.

:)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I don't go into details unless I am talking to someone who is actually capable of believing me and understanding what I'm talking about, usually because they have the option of looking at reality from an mystical or non-materialistic perspective, or because they have been through something similar themselves.


:)


"Jack Sarfatti says that in 1953, when he was thirteen, he received a telephone call in which a machinelike voice announced that it was a conscious computer located on a spaceship from the future..."

http://www.stardrive.org/title.shtml

[UndercoverElephant]

CFLarsen :


In other words: Yes, you are looking for answers, but since you are not happy with the answers you get, the questions must be wrong.


Your reading comprehension in this thread has been seriously lacking, Claus. Every post you make you misrepresent and misquote me. NO, that is not what I said and not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Quite often when you cannot seem to find an answer AT ALL it is because you have framed the question incorrectly. Why have you turned that into "you didn't like the answers?"

You either aren't listening, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

I will repeat myself :

There is no sensible answer AT ALL to "what happened before the big bang" because the question itself results from a flawed understanding of cosmology. In my opinion, there is also no sensible answer to "Does God exist?" because the question is similarly flawed, for numerous reasons, some more obvious than others.



I'm sorry, but you are not all that clear at times.


Really? It's only yourself who seems to having problems reading my posts. The previous poster just described me as "lucid". That means "easily understood, intelligable".

The problem is not that I am unclear. The problem is that you keep misquoting me and erecting strawmen because that is easier than responding to what I actually post.


I am a skeptic. No, I am not a "foundationalist". I believe that knowledge can also be about love, poetry, literature - something that is outside the boundaries of science.


If this discussion is actually going to go anywhere, you need to get a better grasp of what foundationalism and antifoundationalism are.

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/foundation.html


The Four Categories Of Foundationalism

Rationalism, Platonism, Positivism, Sciencism.

[snip]


http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/antifoundation.html


Antifoundationalism is the position of many philosophers, such as Gorgias. Antifoundationalism is commonly divided into three main catagories: Sophism, Pragmatism, and Skepticism.

Antifoundationalism is the rejection of the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimatley interrelated. The existence of what we call knowledge only exists because we have created it. If posed with the question, "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, would it make a sound?" the antifoundationalist may doubt whether the tree even fell in the first place, after all,nobody saw the tree fall in the first place. In essence results don’t necessarily define the means. (Edwards 381-385)
An antifoundationalist believes that life is defined by personal experiences. Therefore a person's view of life is an "ongoing self-corrective process" in which "knowlege changes with time." (see inquiry.) In this respect knowlege is transient, existing only until something better comes along to replace it. (Edwards 381-385)

To an antifoundationalist, learning is only something which man uses to comprehend what society thinks. An antifoundationalist believes that everything exists only because we believe it is there. Therefore reality only exists for the individual, because everything we perceive is from the individual. (Petraglia-Bahri)

This field of thought was highly popular in the ancient Greek and Roman culture, but it is still a widely held view. Antifoundationalists claim that truth only exists in statements, not in facts. We (as a general populous) must then be convinced that these statements are true. If we are convinced... then it is true. If not... then it’s false. Scientists must consciously attempt to convince people of their hypotheses, otherwise they are not accepted. Isaac Newton’s paper on the structure of light rays is one example of this attempt to convince. Instead of coming right out and stating that light rays are made of particles he says that light behaves "as if" it were made of particles. He does this in order to persuade the skeptic that Newton may be onto something. Later in the paper he gives his complete hypothesis that light is made up of small particles. This is meant to clench his point. It is obvious that Newton doesn’t intend for everybody to just believe his latest discovery simply on the merit of a good idea. Instead he hopes that they will give it a chance and maybe accept it as possible. (Gross 569-574)


One line in this is rather confusing : "Antifoundationalism is the rejection of the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimatley interrelated."

That is not actually a particularly helpful description, but the rest of the article is quite good.

In fact, if you were a real skeptic then you would indeed be an anti-foundationalist, but I do not think you are that. I think you are a positivist or a sciencist, both forms of foundationalism. A true skeptic is skeptical of everything, and you are not so.

Please read these two short pieces and then tell me where you think you belong. I think it would help this discussion immensely if you did that.


Give us your best shot. Surely, you must have some idea.


No, Claus. I am not going to pronounce judgement on my own ability as a philosopher. You sound like a schoolboy, urging another schoolboy to run out in front of a bus in a game of "chicken". :(

Precisely how is it relevant whether or not I think I am doing a good job in helping others to understand these issues. You really should ask yourself why you are asking me the question. Does it have anything to do with the subject we have been discussing, or are you just trying to cause trouble?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Without philosophy, you can't even define "real" properly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, I can.

(hits you on the head with a hammer).

That's real.


No. That is called "man-in-the-street" realism, and it is the baseline position of most people who know nothing at all about metaphysics. It is Samuel Johnsons materialism, still famous for its total failure to dent the arguments of George Berkeley.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Anecdotal evidence can only ever be a clue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of what?


Of what people have experienced. After all, it is peoples experiences we are discussing.



Yes, it is! And you know what? Rocks are real.


Dr Johnson would have been proud of you.


How do you know what I know about what they wrote? Aren't you floccipaucinihilipilificating now?


Had you read the book, you would not have accused me of not understanding QM based on what I posted. If I don't understand QM based on what I posted, then neither do the people who invented it. I think if you read the book you would find yourself accusing Schroedinger and Heisenburg of not understanding their own theories. Even for you, this might be an irrational leap too far.


Then put them on ignore! Come on, you are stalling.....


No, Claus. I am not playing your game of chicken. :)


Answer the question, OK?


You mean the question about what is the difference between me and Napoleon? :rolleyes:

You haven't had your Weetabix this morning, have you?

[Lucianarchy]

'Gremlins'

"Most of us have noticed things missing from places where we're certain we last saw them. Lost socks, missing keys, wallets, and tools often seem to have a mind of their own... disappearing from the places we know we put them and sometimes reappearing unexpectedly. Mechanics are so familiar with this phenomenon that they refer to "gremlins" who must be responsible for moving their tools around.

We also notice synchronicities and coincidences in our lives... times when the events happening around us seem orchestrated to bring together ideas, people, and situations.

Take a moment now to consider the possibility that your thoughts and feelings are responsible for creating your experience of reality... that the very way you observe the universe is affecting what you are observing. Just as the most fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are non-locally connected across time and space so that they change their spin simultaneously when they are observed, so too can we notice such "spooky action at a distance" when we make wishes or prayers that come true.[...]

http://realityshifters.com/pages/intro.html

[TheBoyPaj]

"Scanners"

Darryl Revok is the most powerful of all the scanners, and is the head of the underground scanner movement for world domination. Scanners have great psychic power, strong enough to control minds; they can inflict enormous pain/damage on their victims. Doctor Paul Ruth finds a scanner that Revok hasn't, and converts him to their cause - to destroy the underground movement.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/plotsummary

[Lucianarchy]

Yes, I know it's funny, but 'non-commutative gremlins' is one explanation for the eventual actions of sub-atomic particles in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Your reading comprehension in this thread has been seriously lacking, Claus. Every post you make you misrepresent and misquote me.



Yes he has a habit of doing that. He even chased this poster Clancie off the board by such tactics. And I personally am not very impressed with either his knowledge or understanding. What baffles me is that other Skeptics hold him in such high regard.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Your reading comprehension in this thread has been seriously lacking, Claus. Every post you make you misrepresent and misquote me. NO, that is not what I said and not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Quite often when you cannot seem to find an answer AT ALL it is because you have framed the question incorrectly. Why have you turned that into "you didn't like the answers?"

You either aren't listening, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

I will repeat myself :

There is no sensible answer AT ALL to "what happened before the big bang" because the question itself results from a flawed understanding of cosmology. In my opinion, there is also no sensible answer to "Does God exist?" because the question is similarly flawed, for numerous reasons, some more obvious than others.

Repeating something that you complain I didn't understand? That's not explaining, that's preaching. If you cannot explain it further, then how do you expect me to understand? Teachers who merely repeat the same phrases endlessly are extremely poor teachers.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Really? It's only yourself who seems to having problems reading my posts. The previous poster just described me as "lucid". That means "easily understood, intelligable".

Aussie Thinker was referring to when you are talking about your experience.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The problem is not that I am unclear. The problem is that you keep misquoting me and erecting strawmen because that is easier than responding to what I actually post.

No, I find it easy to respond to what you actually post.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
If this discussion is actually going to go anywhere, you need to get a better grasp of what foundationalism and antifoundationalism are.

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/foundation.html

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/antifoundation.html

Thank you for the links.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
One line in this is rather confusing : "Antifoundationalism is the rejection of the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimatley interrelated."

That is not actually a particularly helpful description, but the rest of the article is quite good.

Yeps, I was right: I don't believe in the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimately interrelated.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
In fact, if you were a real skeptic then you would indeed be an anti-foundationalist, but I do not think you are that. I think you are a positivist or a sciencist, both forms of foundationalism. A true skeptic is skeptical of everything, and you are not so.

Please read these two short pieces and then tell me where you think you belong. I think it would help this discussion immensely if you did that.

I am a skeptic. Does it make you comfortable to label people, before you discuss with them?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, Claus. I am not going to pronounce judgement on my own ability as a philosopher. You sound like a schoolboy, urging another schoolboy to run out in front of a bus in a game of "chicken". :(

That wasn't what I asked you. You are misreading what I wrote: I asked how well you thought you had explained yourself here.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Precisely how is it relevant whether or not I think I am doing a good job in helping others to understand these issues. You really should ask yourself why you are asking me the question. Does it have anything to do with the subject we have been discussing, or are you just trying to cause trouble?

Answering a question with a question, of such generic quality that it will effectively put a stop to this discussion. Sorry, won't work. If you don't want to answer a question, just say so. Don't evade, don't talk around yourself, don't stall, don't come up with excuses. Just say no.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No. That is called "man-in-the-street" realism, and it is the baseline position of most people who know nothing at all about metaphysics. It is Samuel Johnsons materialism, still famous for its total failure to dent the arguments of George Berkeley.

Whatever.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Of what people have experienced. After all, it is peoples experiences we are discussing.

Yes. And you reject those, right?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Dr Johnson would have been proud of you.

Whatever.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Had you read the book, you would not have accused me of not understanding QM based on what I posted. If I don't understand QM based on what I posted, then neither do the people who invented it. I think if you read the book you would find yourself accusing Schroedinger and Heisenburg of not understanding their own theories. Even for you, this might be an irrational leap too far.

Don't resort to "Well, read the book, and you'll see the light". Present your own arguments on QM.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No, Claus. I am not playing your game of chicken. :)

You want to discuss from an experience you won't tell us about. That way, you can at any time declare us wrong, without ever giving any reasons.

Clever. Won't work, though.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You mean the question about what is the difference between me and Napoleon? :rolleyes:

You haven't had your Weetabix this morning, have you?

OK, so you don't want to tell us how we distinguish between a madman and someone with a real paranormal experience.

With each post, you stand weaker.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The Four Categories Of Foundationalism

Rationalism, Platonism, Positivism, Sciencism.




Looking at the link I'm very much a Platonist.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/r...foundation.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antifoundationalism is the position of many philosophers, such as Gorgias. Antifoundationalism is commonly divided into three main catagories: Sophism, Pragmatism, and Skepticism.



There is a confusion here. The word "skepticism" has shifted in meaning in recent times. See here (http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html) . The way "skeptic" is now applied, they are most certainly not anti-foundationalists. They are positivists or subscribe to scientism. This is certainly true for most of those who nowadays proclaim themselves to be skeptics.

[Lucianarchy]

Here's a new-wave of true, open-minded, progressive sceptics:

"WE INVESTIGATE TWO ASPECTS OF SKEPTICISM
Positive skeptical investigations
and an open-minded spirit.

And secondly...

People who call themselves skeptics, many of whom are not skeptics at all, but dogmatists
seeking to defend an ideology or world view."

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Here's a new-wave of true, open-minded, progressive sceptics:

Yeah. Puthoff, Radin, Jahn, Schlitz, Schwartz, Sheldrake, Stevenson, Targ, Tart....

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"WE INVESTIGATE TWO ASPECTS OF SKEPTICISM
Positive skeptical investigations

They admit that they are biased from the get-go? Not smart.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
and an open-minded spirit.

Ad hominem. Those that disagree with them are merely dismissed as closed-minded.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And secondly...

People who call themselves skeptics, many of whom are not skeptics at all, but dogmatists
seeking to defend an ideology or world view."

Perhaps. Who are these bad people?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who are these bad people?

You would make a suitable poster boy for "them". ;)


That is, from the viewpoint of geology, you furnish the type-section.

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

I think we have been repeating ourselves for a while now, so I hope you don't mind if I give it a break.

Ian


Looking at the link I'm very much a Platonist.


That doesn't surpise me. :)


There is a confusion here. The word "skepticism" has shifted in meaning in recent times.

The way "skeptic" is now applied, they are most certainly not anti-foundationalists. They are positivists or subscribe to scientism. This is certainly true for most of those who nowadays proclaim themselves to be skeptics.


OK. There are (at least) two different kinds of skepticism. The first is scientific skepticism, which is what Claus is, and which comes under the category of sciencism in the links I provided. The second is philosophical skepticism, which is anti-foundationalist and which Claus well and truly is not. I mean, does this sound like Claus?


An antifoundationalist believes that life is defined by personal experiences.


http://www.fact-index.com/p/ph/philosophical_skepticism.html


Philosophical skepticism is the philosophical school of thought in which one critically examines whether the knowledge and perceptions one has are true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge.

This article does not deal with Scientific skepticism, which is a practical position in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced in accordance with the scientific method.

Personally, these days I would put myself in the anti-foundationalist sub-category of pragmatism.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue43/43pfeiffer.htm


So what then best characterizes American pragmatism? Consider six characteristics.

1) Questions of the meaning of language are best resolved by studying the practical consequences of the ideas and statements in question.

2) The extent to which an idea fulfills important human goals clarifies the idea and also provides important evidence for and against the likelihood of its truth.

3) There is no real need for and little to be gained from pursuit of a First Philosophy in Descartes’ sense, or of a foundation of our knowledge, or of the foundation of reality, or of the foundation of all value, or of some set of basic truths that will answer the great philosophical questions.

4) Sharp, fixed distinctions of thought and reality are not reflected in nature, where one thing fades off into the next, one flows into another and the complexity of our thought is clarified only by theories that give tentative illumination to reality.

5) Enlightenment by some form of a priori knowledge is illusory. Even the definitions of our terms may be changed later, as inquiry proceeds.

6) Whatever promotes reasoned dialogue, inquiry and further understanding is good, and what stifles it is bad.

Can one be a strict pragmatist? It seems unlikely if one is to steer clear of dualisms, recognize the tentative nature of concepts and theories and avoid commitment to a supposed First Philosophy. Pragmatism does not merely reach out in all directions to all forms of thought: it is self-conscious and self-reflective and self-critical. That is, it is prone to examine its own ideas as tentative. We may one day need to reformulate parts of some of our thinking about ourselves. And finally, no parts of our thinking are immune to the weight of evidence that might come in future experience.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Claus,

I think we have been repeating ourselves for a while now, so I hope you don't mind if I give it a break.

I can understand that. When you repeatedly refuse to even tell us what your experience was, as well as refuse to answer the tough questions, then there isn't much point in going on.

[UndercoverElephant]

double post

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I can understand that. When you repeatedly refuse to even tell us what your experience was, as well as refuse to answer the tough questions, then there isn't much point in going on.

I have explained very clearly to you why there is no point in me providing personal testimony to you. You want me to describe the details of my own experiences so this debate will return to the familiar territory for you. I joined this thread with a comment about how many skeptics would be unable to believe their own eyes when presented with genuine evidence of PSI. My personal experiences have f*** all to do with that claim, and everyone here knows perfectly well that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what I say happened to me, you will think of one way or another of fitting it into your picture of reality. If you can't find a naturalistic interpretation, then you will either accuse me of experiencing hallucinations or inventing things in order to make me happy or just plain telling lies in order to gain attention. This is just like the way you invoke occams razor to discount scientific evidence on the grounds that experimental error or fraud is so much more likely than PSI.

It's boring, predicatable and nobody is interested in reading it, Claus.

And if you think "What is the difference between you and Napoleon?" is a tough question then I'd love to know what an easy one would sound like. :D :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I have explained very clearly to you why there is no point in me providing personal testimony to you. You want me to describe the details of my own experiences so this debate will return to the familiar territory for you. I joined this thread with a comment about how many skeptics would be unable to believe their own eyes when presented with genuine evidence of PSI. My personal experiences have f*** all to do with that claim, and everyone here knows perfectly well that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what I say happened to me, you will think of one way or another of fitting it into your picture of reality. If you can't find a naturalistic interpretation, then you will either accuse me of experiencing hallucinations or inventing things in order to make me happy or just plain telling lies in order to gain attention. This is just like the way you invoke occams razor to discount scientific evidence on the grounds that experimental error or fraud is so much more likely than PSI. Why you can't see that your conclusion is built into your thought-process I don't know.

It's boring, predicatable and nobody is interested in reading it, Claus.

And if you think "What is the difference between you and Napoleon?" is a tough question then I'd love to know what an easy one would sound like. :D :rolleyes:

Handwaving. Excuses. Evasions. Crying-to-mom. Same old manure.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Handwaving. Excuses. Evasions. Crying-to-mom. Same old manure.

Projection noted. :rolleyes:

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Handwaving. Excuses. Evasions. Crying-to-mom. Same old manure.

Bitterness. Seething resentment. Anger. Derision. Intolerance. Attempts to undermine the status of others. I mean "Crying-to-mom?" :rolleyes:

Shall I try it?

It's alright Claus, the Big Bad Geoff is going to go away again soon.

:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Bitterness. Seething resentment. Anger. Derision. Intolerance. Attempts to undermine the status of others. I mean "Crying-to-mom?" :rolleyes:

Shall I try it?

It's alright Claus, the Big Bad Geoff is going to go away again soon.

:D

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I am none of the things you list, and I am not wishing for anyone to go away.

Why else do you think I am encouraging you to participate in the debate?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I am none of the things you list, and I am not wishing for anyone to go away.

Why else do you think I am encouraging you to participate in the debate?


You have a strange way of showing it. :rolleyes:

Your uncivil, and frankly, nasty behaviour to anyone who has a different belief system to you, is stifling debate. Worse, I believe that is actually what you want.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You have a strange way of showing it. :rolleyes:

Your uncivil, and frankly, nasty behaviour to anyone who has a different belief system to you, is stifling debate. Worse, I believe that is actually what you want.

Then, report me to the moderators.

Otherwise, let's discuss paranormal issues.

[Lucianarchy]

"[...]The fundamental idea of the MWI, going back to Everett 1957, is that there are myriads of worlds in the Universe in addition to the world we are aware of. In particular, every time a quantum experiment with different outcomes with non-zero probability is performed, all outcomes are obtained, each in a different world, even if we are aware only of the world with the outcome we have seen. In fact, quantum experiments take place everywhere and very often, not just in physics laboratories: even the irregular blinking of an old fluorescent bulb is a quantum experiment.
There are numerous variations and reinterpretations of the original Everett proposal, most of which are briefly discussed in the entry on Everett's relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Here, a particular approach to the MWI (which differs from the popular "actual splitting worlds" approach in De Witt 1970) will be presented in detail, followed by a discussion relevant for many variants of the MWI.

The MWI consists of two parts:

A mathematical theory which yields evolution in time of the quantum state of the (single) Universe.
A prescription which sets up a correspondence between the quantum state of the Universe and our experiences.[..]"

Each action has an infinite number of possible outcomes. In one reality, your computer screen just fell apart and Neils Bohr appeared wearing a Tutu and singing "I Should Be So Lucky". In this reality, though, the one you are presently consiously focussed on, I suggest you are crawn to it, as a moth is drawn to a flame. One bright point of light. Hypnotic, is it not? Which way do you want / need to go next?

'Nothing you can do, that can't be done.
Nothing you can say, that can't be sung."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"[...]The fundamental idea of the MWI, going back to Everett 1957, is that there are myriads of worlds in the Universe in addition to the world we are aware of. In particular, every time a quantum experiment with different outcomes with non-zero probability is performed, all outcomes are obtained, each in a different world, even if we are aware only of the world with the outcome we have seen. In fact, quantum experiments take place everywhere and very often, not just in physics laboratories: even the irregular blinking of an old fluorescent bulb is a quantum experiment.
There are numerous variations and reinterpretations of the original Everett proposal, most of which are briefly discussed in the entry on Everett's relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Here, a particular approach to the MWI (which differs from the popular "actual splitting worlds" approach in De Witt 1970) will be presented in detail, followed by a discussion relevant for many variants of the MWI.

The MWI consists of two parts:

A mathematical theory which yields evolution in time of the quantum state of the (single) Universe.
A prescription which sets up a correspondence between the quantum state of the Universe and our experiences.[..]"

That part was from Lev Vaidman's text. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) Please make it clear, when you are lifting texts from other people's works.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Each action has an infinite number of possible outcomes. In one reality, your computer screen just fell apart and Neils Bohr appeared wearing a Tutu and singing "I Should Be So Lucky". In this reality, though, the one you are presently consiously focussed on, I suggest you are crawn to it, as a moth is drawn to a flame. One bright point of light. Hypnotic, is it not? Which way do you want / need to go next?

'Nothing you can do, that can't be done.
Nothing you can say, that can't be sung."

What does this have to do with paranormal issues?

[Aussie Thinker]

JustGeoff,

I don’t think you understand our frustration at all.

You simply refuse to respond to the most pressing and commonly asked question here but then suggest it is sceptics who “refuse” to consider other possibilities.

WE simply ask you this…

What separate YOUR paranormal experience with any other human experience we would call delusion ?

Your ONLY answer has been .. “I just KNOW”… which is EXACTLY what a guy professing to be Napoleon would say.

Your LUCIDITY just compounds the problem. The lunatic professing to be Napoleon would hardly be lucid and we could completely understand he was deluded. You on the other hand seem rational and sensible.

YET with NO more corroborating evidence than he you exhibit exactly the same intractability !

I would LOVE to give the paranormal a chance at being true.. yet when “so far on these boards” .. its most rational sounding proponent CANNOT (or will not) give us anything to go on more than .. “I just Know” and “You would too if you experienced it” or.. “Believe and it will be true”….

I am left floundering.. and HAVE to revert to corroborating evidence .. which tells me NO PARANORMAL stuff happens.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
“Believe and it will be true”….

I am left floundering.. and HAVE to revert to corroborating evidence .. which tells me NO PARANORMAL stuff happens.

How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

[Aussie Thinker]

Luci,

How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

I don’t…

So we examine if I am…

I believe that the paranormal does NOT exist.. am I deluded.. well lets look for corroborating evidence.

In this case we would have to find evidence FOR the paranormal.. as one cannot be asked to prove a negative.

Have I found any… NO.. have I even found pointers to some … NO.. is it logical.. NO.. does it fit with science… NO..

Conclusion I am NOT deluded.

Now let us look at JG..

He believes he had a paranormal experience.

Let us look for corroborating evidence..

Does he have witnesses .. NO.. does he have any other evidence.. NO.. is it logical.. NO.. does it fit with science.. NO..

Will he answers the most simple of questions.. NO

Will he provide his story.. NO

Conclusion HE is deluded !

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker


I believe that the paranormal does NOT exist.. am I deluded.. well lets look for corroborating evidence.

In this case we would have to find evidence FOR the paranormal.. as one cannot be asked to prove a negative.

Have I found any… NO.. have I even found pointers to some … NO.. is it logical.. NO.. does it fit with science… NO..

Conclusion I am NOT deluded.



Just because you have not found evidence of the paranormal, that does not mean that you are not deluding yourself. Indeed, given the huge body of evidence (not proof, evidence, don't forget that), which you apparently dismiss, it is highly likely that you are, in fact, deluding* yourself. None of the issues which have been raised in this thread, for example, have been debunked. As such, they are they remain supporting evidence for a 'paranormal' effect.

( * In psychology, we call this effect - 'cognitive dissonance'. )

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
None of the issues which have been raised in this thread, for example, have been debunked. [ It is very difficult to debunk some of your crazy ideas. You said that if enough people believe in Santa Claus he will be physically created. Well, we have millions of believers but he isn’t on the chat show circuit quite yet. You say that just there aren't enough believers. So how many do you need ? You don't know.
However for Santa Claus or under the bed goblins to spring into existence from nothing, creating solid matter from nothing, is such a stupid idea that most 10 year olds understand (even if you have difficulty) that it is impossible. The onus is not for us to debunk such a stupid idea but for you to prove it. We are talking invisible dragons in garages here.

As such, they are they remain supporting evidence for a 'paranormal' effect.
Anecdotes, wild fantasies, poor experiments or wishful thinking do not constitute evidence.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian

Anecdotes, wild fantasies, poor experiments or wishful thinking do not constitute evidence.

Just as subjective terms and opinions do not consitute debunking.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Just as subjective terms and opinions do not consitute debunking. Well I promise to not start using subjective terms and opinions if you promise to stop calling anecdotes, wild fantasies, poor experiments and wishful thinking evidence.

[Aussie Thinker]

Luci,

You claim we haven’t debunked certain things..

Could you debunk my claim that I am God ?

No .. of course not.. I MUST provide evidence that I am.. or the claim is just so much inanity.

NO paranormal claims have provided evidence.. just making them does not make them valid.

In this thread YOUR claims and flimsy evidence have been completely destroyed !

[Anders W. Bonde]

Just to rock the boat into motion again:

If telepathy is real, why has electonic communication boomed the way it has and why does human conflict still exist?

If human consciousness is a common-to-all shared "field", as it were, why aren't all people equally smart, why do we need to read, why an Internet, and again, why human conflicts?

If remote viewing is real, why are crimes committed and unsolved, why do casino owners still laugh all the way to the bank, and why has pornography and tourist industries boomed?

If PK is real, why has the transportation industry boomed, why are vaults and safes blown and torched to get them open, and why does anyone bother to calibrate instruments and measuring equipment?

In short, if PSI phenomena are real, why do they not reveal themselves at all in every-day life and in human history? Would a World where PSI phenomena existed outside the imagination of believers not be quite different from the World we actually see and know today? Or - can anyone provide evidence, that the World actually is the way it is because PSI is real?

[Lucianarchy]

.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
.


Do you have something to add? Perhaps you could address the points?

[Aussie Thinker]

I though he was making a point...

.


LOL

His most valid one to date it seems !

[Ratman_tf]

So where's the new Psi forum? :roll:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I though he was making a point...

.


LOL

His most valid one to date it seems !

No, no. It was a FULL STOP! :D

[Anders W. Bonde]

Just to recap (edited for spelling):

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde:
Just to rock the boat into motion again:

If telepathy is real, why has electronic communication boomed the way it has and why does human conflict still exist?

If human consciousness is a common-to-all shared "field", as it were, why aren't all people equally smart, why do we need to read, why an Internet, and again, why human conflicts?

If remote viewing is real, why are crimes committed and unsolved, why do casino owners still laugh all the way to the bank, and why have pornographic and tourist industries boomed?

If PK is real, why has the transportation industry boomed, why are vaults and safes blown and torched to get them open, and why does anyone bother to calibrate instruments and measuring equipment?

In short, if PSI phenomena are real, why do they not reveal themselves at all in every-day life and in human history? Would a World where PSI phenomena existed outside the imagination of believers not be quite different from the World we actually see and know today? Or - can anyone provide evidence, that the World actually is the way it is because PSI is real?

Lucianarchy's reply:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy in response to my post above:
.

I rest my case.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps Lucianarchy is running? Fleeing? Hiding?

He'll be back, no worries.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Just to recap (edited for spelling):



Lucianarchy's reply:





I have previously explained why the situation is like it is. If you have not read it, at least apply critical thinking to the hypothesis and work it out for yourself. It's not that hard, but it does involve a huge amount of self honesty and an ability to accept hard to comprehend scenarios.

The bottom line, it's a security threat, until it is controlled.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
'Gremlins'

"Most of us have noticed things missing from places where we're certain we last saw them. Lost socks, missing keys, wallets, and tools often seem to have a mind of their own... disappearing from the places we know we put them and sometimes reappearing unexpectedly. Mechanics are so familiar with this phenomenon that they refer to "gremlins" who must be responsible for moving their tools around.

We also notice synchronicities and coincidences in our lives... times when the events happening around us seem orchestrated to bring together ideas, people, and situations.

Take a moment now to consider the possibility that your thoughts and feelings are responsible for creating your experience of reality... that the very way you observe the universe is affecting what you are observing. Just as the most fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are non-locally connected across time and space so that they change their spin simultaneously when they are observed, so too can we notice such "spooky action at a distance" when we make wishes or prayers that come true.[...]

http://realityshifters.com/pages/intro.html

Body of a grown man -- mind of a ten-year-old child who has read 'Quantum Physics for Dummies'

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Just because you have not found evidence of the paranormal, that does not mean that you are not deluding yourself. Indeed, given the huge body of evidence (not proof, evidence, don't forget that), which you apparently dismiss, it is highly likely that you are, in fact, deluding* yourself. None of the issues which have been raised in this thread, for example, have been debunked. As such, they are they remain supporting evidence for a 'paranormal' effect.

( * In psychology, we call this effect - 'cognitive dissonance'. )

Body of a grown man -- mind of a teenager who has read 'Psychology for Dummies'.

Who is the 'we' in:

( * In psychology, we call this effect - 'cognitive dissonance'. )

Is Lucianarchy a psychologist now?

A true Legend in his own mind


:(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The bottom line, it's a security threat, until it is controlled.

This is rather funny: You have absolutely no problem with coming up with these predictions in public, and even boasting - and boosting - about them.

But when they turn out not to become true, you try to paint a picture of cloak-and-dagger, with references to secret services, national security, etc.

You are very, very transparent.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Lucianarchy,

Just answer my questions - or at least have the decency to point me to links or threads where you believe they have been answered.

As for the "security issue":
:bs:

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Just because you have not found evidence of the paranormal, that does not mean that you are not deluding yourself. Indeed, given the huge body of evidence (not proof, evidence, don't forget that), which you apparently dismiss, it is highly likely that you are, in fact, deluding* yourself. None of the issues which have been raised in this thread, for example, have been debunked. As such, they are they remain supporting evidence for a 'paranormal' effect.

( * In psychology, we call this effect - 'cognitive dissonance'. )
Wrong again.
Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is a hypothetical state that occurs when two cognitions contradict eachother. For example, "I believe I have magical predictive powers" and "I am not a looney", in your case.
These two thoughs are contradictory and produce a drive to reduce that dissonance, according to the theory. Thus you rationalize your repeated failures to predict anything with lame excuses that satisfy no one but you.
That's what "we" call cognitive dissonance.

[Lucianarchy]

Since Wiseman is being discussed h6eeeeeeeeee

[Ashles]

Since Wiseman is being discussed h6eeeeeeeeee
Well it's hard to argue with that.

[Lucianarchy]

Parapsychological, and even psychological experiments, may yield different outcomes depending upon the experimenters who conduct them. Personal characteristics of experimenters may influence the results of experiments in which humans or animals participate. Many such experimenter effects are quite likely mediated by conventional sensory cues. Experimenters may use slightly different instructions, different vocal intonations, gestures, and other forms of nonverbal communication and these "messages" could influence participants in the studies. Dr. Robert Rosenthal of Harvard University has conducted the most extensive work in this area.
Experimenter effects, however, can also be psi-mediated. Experimenters (or other involved personnel) can apparently influence their subjects without ever coming into physical contact with them. The parapsychological literature is filled with possible psi-mediated experimenter effects. For example, a famous series of ESP experiments indicated that people who simply checked results after an experiment seemed to have consistent influences upon their subjectsÂ’ earlier psi performance. A second example: It is well known that certain experimenters obtain consistently good results in their experiments, while other experimenters are well known for their negative findings. Many of the psi-conducive experimenters are known to have demonstrated strong psi performance themselves when participating in their own or othersÂ’ experiments. So it is not inconceivable that some experimenters may use their own psi, quite unconsciously, to influence the success or failure of their own studies.

The problem with the psi-mediated experimenter effect is that it can be used as an empty, untestable excuse or pseudo-explanation for all sorts of findings, if we are not careful. Also, since we know of no way to remove such an effect, it is difficult to know which of our findings are discoveries of lawful relationships and which are psi-fulfilled expectations of psi-talented investigations. Hopefully, in the future we may develop some adequate methodologies for dealing with this important issue.

Excellent examples of research on experimenter effects in psi research can be seen in two recent experiments by Dr. Marilyn Schlitz and Dr Richard Wiseman. Dr. Schlitz, the director of research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, designed a rigorous randomized trial evaluating whether subjects could detect another person staring at them from a distance (over a closed-circuit television system). The study yielded statistically significant positive results. When her skeptical colleague, British psychologist Richard Wiseman, failed to replicate the results, he invited her to England to repeat the experiment along with him in two separate but equal trials using the same subjects and the same equipment, and once again she got positive results and he got negative ones.

http://www.psiexplorer.com/experimenter_effect.htm

[Lucianarchy]

Wiseman doesn't like to mention that.

[Lucianarchy]

... it demonstrates the reality of the 'experimenter effect'.

[Lucianarchy]

FREQUENTLY, WHEN SOMEONE claims a positive psi result, Dr. Richard Wiseman appears in the media giving reasons why it probably isn't psi, often quoting a similar experiment that he has done which has failed. To his credit, he has been exploring his consistent failure with Marilyn Schlitz (1998) and they have discovered that whether in his lab or hers just by having Richard involved as experimenter the experiment will fail. However, I have never yet heard Richard mention this when telling the media of yet another of his failed experiments. I also know him as an accomplished stage magician and member of the Magic Circle who performed at the SPR Christmas meeting in 1998. The use of magicians in psychical research is important. They are aware of all the tricks that can be used to manipulate people and can thus help separate true results from false ones. However, it seems dubious that they should be performing experiments themselves. With their powers of manipulation they could easily, even subconsciously, be getting the results they want. Perhaps this is the origin of the Wiseman experimenter effect.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/O'Neill.htm

[Lucianarchy]

REFERENCES

BRAUD, W., SHAFER, D., & ANDREWS, S. (1993a). Reactions to an unseen gaze (remote attention): A review, with new data on autonomic staring detection. Journal of Parapsychology, 57, 373-390.

BRAUD, W., SHAFER, D., & ANDREWS, S. (1993b). Further studies of autonomic detection of remote staring: replications, new control procedures, and personality correlates. Journal of Parapsychology, 57, 391-409.

COOVER, J. E. (1913). The feeling of being stared at. American Journal of Psychology, 24, 570-575.

PALMER, J. (1986). ESP research findings: the process approach. In H. L. Edge, R. L. Morris, J. Palmer, & J. H. Rush (Eds.), Foundations of parapsychology (pp. 184-222). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

PALMER, J. (1989a). Confronting the experimenter effect. Parapsychology Review, 20, 1-4.

PALMER, J. (1989b). Confronting the experimenter effect. Part 2. Parapsychology Review, 20(5), 1-5.

PETERSON, D. M. (1978). Through the looking glass: an investigation of extra-sensory detection of being stared at. M.A. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

POORTMAN, J. J. (1959). The feeling of being stared at, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 40, 4-12.

ROBSON, C. (1983). Experiment, design and statistics in psychology. London: Penguin Books.

SCHLITZ, M. J., & LABERGE, S. (1997). Covert observation increases skin conductance in subjects unaware of when they are being observed: A replication. Journal of Parapsychology, 61, 185-196.

TITCHENER, E. B. (1898). The feeling of being stared at. Science, 8, 895-897.

WILLIAMS, L. (1983). Minimal cue perception of the regard of others: The feeling of being stared at. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of the Southeastern Regional Parapsychological Association, West Georgia College, Carrollton, GA. See Journal of Parapsychology, 47, 59-60.

WISEMAN, R., & SCHLITZ, M. (1996). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 39th Annual Convention, 149-157.

WISEMAN, R., & SMITH, M. D. (1994). A further look at the detection of unseen gaze. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 37th Annual Convention, 465-478.

WISEMAN, R., SMITH, M. D., FREEDMAN, D., WASSERMAN, T., & HURST, C. (1995). Two further experiments concerning the remote detection of an unseen gaze. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 38th Annual Convention, 480-492. Dept. of Psychology University of Hertfordshire College Lane Hatfzeld, Hertfordshire England AL10 9AB UK Institute of Noetic Sciences 475 Gate Five Road Suite 300 Sausalito, CA 94965

[Lucianarchy]

What made these results even more notable was what happened next. To ensure the validity of her data, Schlitz enrolled the assistance of a skeptical researcher from England, named Richard Wiseman. Following all of the same protocols that Schlitz had, Wiseman did not get any significant results. To see if he had done anything different, Schlitz went to England and did the experiment together with Wiseman. What they found is that the subjects who did the experiment with Schlitz produced significant results, while Wiseman’s did not. These findings were repeated in a second study conducted in Schlitz’ lab in California. Altogether, this has lead Schlitz to postulate that there is a significant "experimenter effect" that is occurring. She believes that it is likely that her own openness and positivity, in contrast to Wiseman’s skepticism, had, in fact, influenced their results. Even the skeptical Wiseman now believes there is something significant going on in the studies, although he is not certain what it is yet. After hearing about the results of their series of experiments, George Leonard coined the term "the Schlitz-Wiseman Effect" to describe how the intentions of the experimenter have a definite influence upon the results.

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=8&pageid=77&pgtype=1

[CFLarsen]

Your point??

Does this bring anything new to the table?

Or is it simply a rehash of debunked material?

[Loki]

I vote for "rehash" ...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
I vote for "rehash" ...

Or, in Lucianarchy's case, just "hash".