psi-esp - Slit from: Hypothetical Million Dollar Winner

[sthomson]

maatorc - I'm not necessarily talking about the MDC. I'm wondering in general why psi-esp's aren't more curious about their own power. It's not about "fame and fortune," it's about using their powers for the benefit of all society. If a group of people could be found to have genuine psychic powers, why weren't they found in the 70s? Why would they remain hidden now?

[maatorc]

maatorc - I'm not necessarily talking about the MDC. I'm wondering in general why psi-esp's aren't more curious about their own power. It's not about "fame and fortune," it's about using their powers for the benefit of all society. If a group of people could be found to have genuine psychic powers, why weren't they found in the 70s? Why would they remain hidden now?

You are correct.
Such people, who are very few indeed, are driven exactly by what you say.
They have always been around.
They will always be around.
Nothing special happened in the 70's, nothing special is happening today, and nothing special will happen tomorrow.
They are hidden by the very nature of what they are and do.
They are beyond control and manipulation by any individual or group.
They respect you and when you are ready you will know who and what they are.

[JoeEllison]

I have not said I 'can'.

In the context of the particular psi-esp conscious faculty, to which you are referring, it is the self imposed discipline of those who 'can'.

They have no interest in any public display to indulge those who deny the possibility of what they can do, and who by definition have no way of proving or disproving the truth or falsity of psi-esp.

All the talk about fame and fortune through the JREF MDC is of no interest to them whatsoever, and it would breach their code.

You mean all of these invisible, imaginary people who only exist in your head?

[Kevin_Lowe]

This reminds me of a piece written by someone else, that I cannot now find. It was addressed to people like Maatorc, and it went something like this:

Maatorc, beings vastly more intelligent than you are trying even now to communicate with you and raise your consciousness to a higher level. If you are not ready to understand what they have to teach you will not be able to grasp it, but if you are ready then they will teach you the secrets of the universe.

They are called "scientists".

[steenkh]

They have no interest in any public display to indulge those who deny the possibility of what they can do, and who by definition have no way of proving or disproving the truth or falsity of psi-esp.
How can you speak for the thousands of real psychics that you must believe exist in the world? Do you know every single one of them? Is there some property about ESP that makes it quite impossible for them to want to engage in public display? If so, how do you know about this property?

If some person can read the mind of another person, why would that not be provable in the same sense that everything else is provable? Or do you insist that if reading the mind of another person is provable, then it is not ESP because then it is no longer a noumenal ability?

[petre]

You are correct.
Such people, who are very few indeed, are driven exactly by what you say.
They have always been around.
They will always be around.
Nothing special happened in the 70's, nothing special is happening today, and nothing special will happen tomorrow.
They are hidden by the very nature of what they are and do.
They are beyond control and manipulation by any individual or group.
They respect you and when you are ready you will know who and what they are.

Clearly you cannot know these people exist, you just said they are hidden.

[maatorc]

This reminds me of a piece written by someone else, that I cannot now find. It was addressed to people like Maatorc, and it went something like this:Maatorc, beings vastly more intelligent than you are trying even now to communicate with you and raise your consciousness to a higher level. If you are not ready to understand what they have to teach you will not be able to grasp it, but if you are ready then they will teach you the secrets of the universe.They are called "scientists".

You wish.

[maatorc]

...........If some person can read the mind of another person, why would that not be provable in the same sense that everything else is provable? Or do you insist that if reading the mind of another person is provable, then it is not ESP because then it is no longer a noumenal ability?

Noumenal events cannot be measured by phenomenal means.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
You are correct.
Such people, who are very few indeed, are driven exactly by what you say.
They have always been around.
They will always be around.
Nothing special happened in the 70's, nothing special is happening today, and nothing special will happen tomorrow.
They are hidden by the very nature of what they are and do.
They are beyond control and manipulation by any individual or group.
They respect you and when you are ready you will know who and what they are.
Clearly you cannot know these people exist, you just said they are hidden.

Hidden from all those they choose to be hidden from.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hidden from all those they choose to be hidden from.

Why, because the ability to project an image into someone's mind (even if the ability was real which it isn't) is so terribly awesome it must be kept secret?

We have television and mobile phones now. They are much better than the silly superpower you claim these hidden masters have.

Let me guess, they also have lots of other really cool super powers too?

[maatorc]

Why, because the ability to project an image into someone's mind (even if the ability was real which it isn't) is so terribly awesome it must be kept secret? We have television and mobile phones now. They are much better than the silly superpower you claim these hidden masters have.Let me guess, they also have lots of other really cool super powers too?

You have wandered off on an unconnected tangent.
However, unwittingly, the TV-Phone analogy points in the right direction.
But as you say, you are only guessing.

[Czarcasm]

You have wandered off on an unconnected tangent.
However, unwittingly, the TV-Phone analogy points in the right direction.
But as you say, you are only guessing.Who do you think you are-some sort of "Gamemaster"? If you've got something of substance to say, just spit it out. If not, would you mind going elsewhere with your vague hints and "Oooh! I've got Mysterious Knowledge but you are not worthy of it." postings.

[maatorc]

Who do you think you are-some sort of "Gamemaster"? If you've got something of substance to say, just spit it out. If not, would you mind going elsewhere with your vague hints and "Oooh! I've got Mysterious Knowledge but you are not worthy of it." postings.

Who do you think you are-some sort of "Gamemaster"? If you've got something of substance to say, just spit it out. If not, would you mind going elsewhere with your vague hints and "Oooh! I've got Mysterious Knowledge but you are not worthy of it."

[Czarcasm]

Thank you for showing us exactly what you've got for evidence.

Absolutely nothing.

[maatorc]

Thank you for showing us exactly what you've got for evidence. Absolutely nothing.

A great pleasure.
Do not hesitate to ask for more information on this topic.
Always happy to help.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have the power to project images into people's minds at a rate barely distinguishable from chance guessing. Such power must of course be concealed from the mass of humanity. They would fear it or seek to misuse it for evil, even though it's useless and I can't even prove it exists.

I only show this power in secret, to people carefully screened to make sure they are extraordinarily gullible spiritually advanced beings.

[Pup]

You are correct.
Such people, who are very few indeed, are driven exactly by what you say.
They have always been around.
They will always be around.
Nothing special happened in the 70's, nothing special is happening today, and nothing special will happen tomorrow.
They are hidden by the very nature of what they are and do.
They are beyond control and manipulation by any individual or group.
They respect you and when you are ready you will know who and what they are.

The obvious explanation seems to me that these people have a need to convince others and perhaps themselves that they have unique powers, and in order to accomplish that goal, they need a standard answer to the obvious question, "If you can do what you say, why don't you prove it?"

The most successful response is something like the above, which combines confidence, mystery, superiority, and is consistent with the persona they've adopted, and is apt to be accepted as a valid excuse by the same kinds of people who are most tempted to believe them in the first place.

[nathan]

Noumenal events cannot be measured by phenomenal means.
How is that relevant? We're not talking about Noumenal events, which *by definition* can have no impact upon us.

[steenkh]

Clearly you cannot know these people exist, you just said they are hidden.
He knows they are hidden because he cannot find any, and he know they must exist because, why else would they go in hiding? :)

[steenkh]

Noumenal events cannot be measured by phenomenal means.
You can talk about your noumenal experiences, and talk convey information.

How else can you know that noumenal events exist?

[petre]

Hidden from all those they choose to be hidden from.

If they don't want everyone to know about them, why would you talk about them on a public message board read by people around the world? That sounds like a pretty serious trust for you to betray.

[steenkh]

Hidden from all those they choose to be hidden from.
They certainly want to be hidden from those who will not take their claims at face value!

[Tirdun]

Noumenal events cannot be measured by phenomenal means.

Which is a roundabout way of saying "Noumental events do not exist".

[babbits]

maatorc says: "Because science does not currently know it is the practise to say everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is the practise because science does not know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist". "

It's not that cut and dried.

In 1896, Bequerel placed an unexposed photographic plate between two sheets of very thick black paper, in preparation for an experiment the next day. Also in the drawer was some phosphorescent mineral, and between the wrapped plate and the wrapped mineral, by accident a metal medal in the shape of a Maltese cross!

In the morning, when he retrieved the items, he found that the plate was fully developed, except where the image of the medal lay between the materials.

Let us contrast his reaction with what that of the psi/psychic/esp afficionado who had found the same image might have been.

I think that the psi-guy would have run for witnesses, and especially if he was a holy-psi-guy, intuitively decided it was a miracle. Thousands would have flocked to his door, bringing sickly relatives along to benefit from the miraculous powers of the holy-psi-guy. Even if not a religious-type psi-guy, he would have claimed that his own very special powers and 'energies' were at work; because this phenomenon had not been seen before. And because it had not been seen before, they would conclude the phenom. was supernatural.

But in contrast to this behavior, Bequerel hypothesized that there was some attribute naturally present in the material to cause the effect; and that the metal in the cross blocked the invisible energy which passed through the wrappings and caused a reaction on the emulsion on the plate.

He did a number of tests and when he found that he could consistently replicate the reaction, he wrote a paper for the Academy of Science. This allowed his peers to run tests to confirm or refute his conclusion. They couldn't. The results were always the same. He won a Nobel for the discovery of spontaneous radioactivity.

He said, "One must conclude from these experiments that the phosphorescent substance in question emits rays which pass through the opaque paper and reduces silver salts."

He DID NOT claim to have a spooky ability to create images on a photographic plate, and call it miraculous, paranormal or supernatural.

[maatorc]

1... If they don't want everyone to know about them,
2... ...why would you talk about them on a public message board read by people around the world?
3... That sounds like a pretty serious trust for you to betray.

1... They have no problem with people knowing about them.

2... It is the key to understanding the most advanced human knowledge about the psi-esp question.

3... Do not confuse 'knowing about' a thing with actually 'knowing' it.

[petre]

1... They have no problem with people knowing about them.

2... It is the key to understanding the most advanced human knowledge about the psi-esp question.

3... Do not confuse 'knowing about' a thing with actually 'knowing' it.

While your distinction is a valid point in the immidiate, it doesn't remove all culpability.

If you yourself simply know about, rather than know of, those with knowledge of psi-esp then indeed there is no one to betray.

So either
- You know of no one with knowledge of psi-esp
- You know of such a person or persons, and your interaction with them endangers their desired privacy
- You know of such person or persons, but have no contact with them, thus securing their desire for privacy

I'm really not sure how confident a person ought be about people they have no contact with, but I imagine you are comfortable with it.

[Tirdun]

1... They have no problem with people knowing about them.
2... It is the key to understanding the most advanced human knowledge about the psi-esp question.
3... Do not confuse 'knowing about' a thing with actually 'knowing' it.

Other than boasting about your secret knowledge of some clandestine order of psychics, what's the point of debating psi if it is undetectable, immeasurable and intentionally withheld?

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
1... They have no problem with people knowing about them.
2... It is the key to understanding the most advanced human knowledge about the psi-esp question.
3... Do not confuse 'knowing about' a thing with actually 'knowing' it.


1... - You know of no one with knowledge of psi-esp
2... - You know of such a person or persons,..
3... ... and your interaction with them endangers their desired privacy
4... - You know of such person or persons, but have no contact with them, thus securing their desire for privacy..........

1... No.
2... Yes.
3... No.
4... No.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
1... They have no problem with people knowing about them.
2... It is the key to understanding the most advanced human knowledge about the psi-esp question.
3... Do not confuse 'knowing about' a thing with actually 'knowing' it.
Other than boasting about your secret knowledge of some clandestine order of psychics, what's the point of debating psi if it is undetectable, immeasurable and intentionally withheld?

What secret knowledge?: It is public domain.
Nothing is withheld.

[nathan]

2... Yes.
How do you know of such person or persons? If, as you assert, psi-esp is a noumenon, how do you know they are psi-esp?

[maatorc]

How do you know of such person or persons? If, as you assert, psi-esp is a noumenon, how do you know they are psi-esp?

I do not understand your question.

[steenkh]

I do not understand your question.
If you meet them, how do you know that they are using psi-esp? According to your definition, this should be impossible to know?


And if you are yourself using psi-esp to determine if others are using psi-esp, you should per definition not be able to tell us about it, because that would bring about a testable condition.

[maatorc]

1... If you meet them, how do you know that they are using psi-esp? According to your definition, this should be impossible to know?
2... And if you are yourself using psi-esp to determine if others are using psi-esp, you should per definition not be able to tell us about it, because that would bring about a testable condition.

1... As a noumenal event, psi-esp is experientially knowable.

2... Why would one not be able to tell you about it, and how would you test it?

[steenkh]

1... As a noumenal event, psi-esp is experientially knowable.
For the person who can do psi-esp, but you cannot be certain without doing psi-esp yourself.

2... Why would one not be able to tell you about it, and how would you test it?
If he can tell me about it, I can test if what he tells is correct. If he can read another mind, and they can both tell me about it, I can compare what they say. If he can predict the drawing of cards, I can test that too. The only way I cannot test it, is if he cannot tell me about it, and if that is the case, you cannot tell me if you can do psi-esp.

But you are not just claiming that you know psychics, you also claim that you know that every single of them will not submit to a test. Either you know every true psychic in the world (which could be true if you are a psychic yourself), or you are just generalising from insufficient data. Which is it?

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
As a noumenal event, psi-esp is experientially knowable.
For the person who can do psi-esp, but you cannot be certain without doing psi-esp yourself.

This is what I have been telling you all along.

Quote:Why would one not be able to tell you about it, and how would you test it?
If he can tell me about it, I can test if what he tells is correct. If he can read another mind, and they can both tell me about it, I can compare what they say. If he can predict the drawing of cards, I can test that too. The only way I cannot test it, is if he cannot tell me about it, and if that is the case, you cannot tell me if you can do psi-esp.

This is not testing, merely inferring.

But you are not just claiming that you know psychics, you also claim that you know that every single of them will not submit to a test. Either you know every true psychic in the world (which could be true if you are a psychic yourself), or you are just generalising from insufficient data. Which is it?

It depends what you mean by 'psychic'.

[nathan]

I do not understand your question.
I asked two questions, both seemed pretty straight forward to me. But, I'll try again.

1) How do you know of such person or persons?
What has led you to the conclusion that a group of psi-esp persons exist?

2) If, as you assert, psi-esp is a noumenon, how do you know they are psi-esp?
You keep claiming that psi-esp is untestable -- it's a noumenon. If that's the case, how can you know the group you claim to exist is psi-esp?

[maatorc]

I asked two questions, both seemed pretty straight forward to me. But, I'll try again.
1) How do you know of such person or persons?
What has led you to the conclusion that a group of psi-esp persons exist?
2) If, as you assert, psi-esp is a noumenon, how do you know they are psi-esp?
You keep claiming that psi-esp is untestable -- it's a noumenon. If that's the case, how can you know the group you claim to exist is psi-esp?

You deny the possibility that what I say is true, AND you now expect me to do your research: Get real.

[steenkh]

This is what I have been telling you all along.
I know. I was using your own definitions.

This is not testing, merely inferring.
What is the difference? When physicists are shooting x-rays at crystals to find out their lattice arrangements, are they not inferring?

You did not answer the question of how you find out that other people may have experientally known noumena? Certainly you would not steep as low as infer that this is the case, hmm?

It depends what you mean by 'psychic'.
We are working with your definitions now: They experience noumena. How do you know the attitude towards testing of every noumena-experiencer in the world?

[nathan]

You deny the possibility that what I say is true, AND you now expect me to do your research: Get real.

I'm denying what you say is true because (a) you've offered no evidence and (b) AFAICT it conflicts with your own pronouncements about psi-esp's behaviour, and now (c) when asked to provide evidence that led you to your current postion, you do not produce any.

I'm trying to follow up an evidence trail, and the first obvious step in that research is to ask the one person who claims to know of psi-esp people -- that's you. You're the one who needs to get real. You're the one making the claim that psi-esp people exist. What is your evidence?

If you're unable or unwilling to provide evidence and or clarify the apparent conflict in your statements, then I can but conclude you have no evidence to support your position, and that your position is internally inconsistent.

[petre]

1... No.
2... Yes.
3... No.
4... No.

From this one could only conclude that you do not believe that as a vocal advocant for psi-esp understanding that your contact with persons that do not wish to be associated with such risks exposing them. Certainly there exist few means of contact where one could be so confident of clandestine communication.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Those are a fascinating bunch of claims, Maatorc.

Can you tell us how you came to believe them to be true?

[steenkh]

Psi-esp is a natural function of all human beings.
How do you know this?

Some few have perfected a certain faculty underlying this function.

How do you know this, I thought that it was not possible to have knowledge about noumenal experiences.

For most others it functions randomly.

Or more precisely: not at all. Or can you prove otherwise?

Some high profile 'psychics' have a higher than general unfoldment of it.
But as you have pointed out, because it is purely noumenal they cannot tell anybody else about it so that what they say can be compared for truthfulness. And even if they could, they would for some reason all of them refuse to have it tested. You have still not told us how you know all this.

Conscious denial of it will generally guarantee its suppression in the individual.
That is cheap. "You can do anything you want if you believe in it. It did not work? Well, obviously your belief was not strong enough!"

In the context of the MDC, it cannot be materially measured or proven.
What context of the MDC? The MDC is concerned if people who claim paranormal powers can perform as they claim. According to you, these people do not claim anything (because then it would be testable), so they fall out of the scope of the MDC.

The MDC is of no interest to those who have perfected this faculty.
It is not that they are opposed to it; it simply lies outside their interest.

And how do you know this?

The perfected faculty underlying 'psi-esp' events is an identifying characteristic of a group of personalities constituting the inner directorate of a number of more accessible outer organizations.
They are part of a secret society intent on dominating the world?

These are historically associated with certain highly influential traditions in human affairs, such as the New Testament, the Troubadours, the Grail Legend, the Gothic Cathedral operation, and the Crusades.
More recently, another example is the Shakespeare-English renaissance.
In modern times a particularly successful and influential movement operated in the 20th. century, the true tradition of which continues semi-privately today.
Your knowledge of un-knowable things is really astounding. Could you please cite sources and evidence for these claims?

[maatorc]

How do you know this?
How do you know this, I thought that it was not possible to have knowledge about noumenal experiences.
Or more precisely: not at all. Or can you prove otherwise?
But as you have pointed out, because it is purely noumenal they cannot tell anybody else about it so that what they say can be compared for truthfulness. And even if they could, they would for some reason all of them refuse to have it tested. You have still not told us how you know all this.
That is cheap. "You can do anything you want if you believe in it. It did not work? Well, obviously your belief was not strong enough!"
What context of the MDC? The MDC is concerned if people who claim paranormal powers can perform as they claim. According to you, these people do not claim anything (because then it would be testable), so they fall out of the scope of the MDC.
And how do you know this?
They are part of a secret society intent on dominating the world?
Your knowledge of un-knowable things is really astounding. Could you please cite sources and evidence for these claims?

We have been through most of your questions several times.
There is an astonishing ignorance here about matters upon which some assume great authority.
Everything I have said is accessible to whoever wants to learn the facts and truth about the subject.
Your global conspiracy notion is trivia.
The general rule that operates here is that one who wants to know must be prepared to make a great effort to undertake a great work to attain a great art to discover a great secret: It is at the heart of the traditions I mentioned, and characterizes the purpose and nature of the outer organizations referred to.
As to who these outer organizations are, I am not prepared to subject them to ridicule here, but suffice to say you will find the one you need if you are sufficiently motivated.
If you do not want to know you need not do anything.
If you do want to know, you must undertake the necessary study, research, and 'work'.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Those are a fascinating bunch of claims, Maatorc.

Can you tell us how you came to believe them to be true?

[steenkh]

We have been through most of your questions several times.
Yes, and you have avoided answering every time. At best you try to throw some diversions in the way, just like you - again - avoid answering the questions in this post.

May I remind you that you need to answer how you know all this stuff, how you can speak for every single psi-esp practitioner in the whole world, and how you can know anything about something that is supposed to be noumenal, and cannot be communicated - or if it can be communicated, why it cannot be tested.

There is an astonishing ignorance here about matters upon which some assume great authority.
Which is not really an answer, is it?

Everything I have said is accessible to whoever wants to learn the facts and truth about the subject.
Where? We have repeatedly asked you how you know all this stuff, but you have never given us any sources.

Your global conspiracy notion is trivia.

That wasa - obviously - a joke, because you babbled about "the perfected faculty underlying 'psi-esp' events is an identifying characteristic of a group of personalities constituting the inner directorate of a number of more accessible outer organizations", characteristically for you without mentioning how you know all this.

The general rule that operates here is that one who wants to know must be prepared to make a great effort to undertake a great work to attain a great art to discover a great secret:
It does not seem to be a great secret when people write about is in public forums. Why should we make a great effort to discover a secret when you have already have done this and could tell us how you discovered it?

As to who these outer organizations are, I am not prepared to subject them to ridicule here, but suffice to say you will find the one you need if you are sufficiently motivated.
There we have it again, One can search all one likes, but if one comes up empty-handed, it is because of ome's own lack of motivation! Perhaps you have been a little too motivated yourself, and found something that is not there?

If you do want to know, you must undertake the necessary study, research, and 'work'.
Because you are certainly not going to be helpful?

[nathan]

I see you're unable to provide any evidence to support your claim about the existance of psi-esp people or clarify the apparent internal consistency in your position.

Instead you merely make the claim that everyone has psi-esp:
Psi-esp is a natural function of all human beings.
What ability does psi-esp bestow? What does psi-esp allow one to do that would not be otherwise possible?

[JoeEllison]

We have been through most of your questions several times.
There is an astonishing ignorance here about matters upon which some assume great authority.
Everything I have said is accessible to whoever wants to learn the facts and truth about the subject.
Your global conspiracy notion is trivia.
The general rule that operates here is that one who wants to know must be prepared to make a great effort to undertake a great work to attain a great art to discover a great secret: It is at the heart of the traditions I mentioned, and characterizes the purpose and nature of the outer organizations referred to.
As to who these outer organizations are, I am not prepared to subject them to ridicule here, but suffice to say you will find the one you need if you are sufficiently motivated.
If you do not want to know you need not do anything.
If you do want to know, you must undertake the necessary study, research, and 'work'.From a practical standpoint, how is what you have posted any different from my notion that you are making all of this up?

[petre]

From a practical standpoint, how is what you have posted any different from my notion that you are making all of this up?

That would be evidence, something maatorc's not in the business of providing. The idea is that with nothing more than his claim that great power (so great, in fact, that upon achieving it you will find yourself completely unwilling to ever demonstrate it) can be achieved if you randomly run off and search for it among the millions of paranormal claims, and then try really really hard. By not immidiately commiting the remainder of your life in this pursuit, despite lack of any credible evidence that such would be fruitful, you have proven yourself to be closed-minded and forever inadequate.

[maatorc]

Those are a fascinating bunch of claims, Maatorc.

Can you tell us how you came to believe them to be true?

See PM.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison View Post
From a practical standpoint, how is what you have posted any different from my notion that you are making all of this up?
That would be evidence, something maatorc's not in the business of providing. The idea is that with nothing more than his claim that great power (so great, in fact, that upon achieving it you will find yourself completely unwilling to ever demonstrate it) can be achieved if you randomly run off and search for it among the millions of paranormal claims, and then try really really hard. By not immidiately commiting the remainder of your life in this pursuit, despite lack of any credible evidence that such would be fruitful, you have proven yourself to be closed-minded and forever inadequate.

You are starting to sound like him.
He attacks everyone on the site.

[Kevin_Lowe]

See PM.

For the record, Maatorc has PMed me the title and ISBN number of a book which he says "might be of interest", but no further information about how he came to believe the things he believes.

Would you object to me making public the name and ISBN number of the book Maatorc?

[maatorc]

For the record, Maatorc has PMed me the title and ISBN number of a book which he says "might be of interest", but no further information about how he came to believe the things he believes.Would you object to me making public the name and ISBN number of the book Maatorc?

No objection.
The book, while not definitive, is suggestive, with parallel ideas.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

maatorc could you tell us, in your next post, everything you know about this (just the stuff we would not know already will be fine)....

or, at least, be more specific about why you can not, should not, or will not tell us?

[maatorc]

maatorc could you tell us, in your next post, everything you know about this (just the stuff we would not know already will be fine)....or, at least, be more specific about why you can not, should not, or will not tell us?

What do you know, and what do you not know?

[sinclairmcevoy]

I don't believe that the person, maatorc, knows any more about this nonsense than anyone else here. He - she seems to know how to say a whole lot o' nothin' and still get responses? You won't get a real answer, this is just a grab for attention, it's working.

[DrewD]

No objection.
The book, while not definitive, is suggestive, with parallel ideas.

If you have no objections then why did you not just post it in the thread? Just another attempt to be mysterious???

[maatorc]

I don't believe that the person, maatorc, knows any more about this nonsense than anyone else here. He - she seems to know how to say a whole lot o' nothin' and still get responses? You won't get a real answer, this is just a grab for attention, it's working.

I don't believe that the person, sinclairmcevoy, knows any more about this nonsense than anyone else here. He - she seems to know how to say a whole lot o' nothin' and still get responses? You won't get a real answer, this is just a grab for attention, it's working.

[maatorc]

If you have no objections then why did you not just post it in the thread? Just another attempt to be mysterious???

Would you mind explaining that again.
What is the real meaning of the mysterious objection you are referring to.
Or do you actually mean a mysterious thread?
Or perhaps a mysterious post?

[Kevin_Lowe]

The book in question is The People of the Secret by Ernest Scott, ISBN 0 863040 381.

Maatorc, DrewD was asking you why you PMed me the title and ISBN number of the book rather than posting it in this thread, since you do not object to me posting it for you. He suggested that PMing me the title was just a pointless attempt to act mysterious.

I do wish you would stop this dancing about and just explain clearly in this thread exactly how you came to believe this stuff.

[steenkh]

Maatorc has a hard time answering questions because if he did, he would expose how inconsistent and empty his position is.

Specifically, the answers I would like form maatorc is:
Can noumenal experiences be communicated to others?
How can maatorc know that psi-esp exists if noumenal experiences cannot be communicated?
Why can't noumenal experiences not be tested if they can be communicated?
How can maatorc know that every single psi-esp practitioner in the entire world would resist testing for a million dollars?

These questions have been asked many times, and maatorc has always chosen to ignore them.

[JoeEllison]

You are starting to sound like him.
He attacks everyone on the site.

Here's an idea: ANSWER THE QUESTION.

How can I, an outside observer, determine the difference between your claims being true, and your claims being a bunch of nonsense you made up in order to get attention to fill some gaping hole in your life. Point me towards the solid, convincing, unimpeachable evidence that shows that you aren't making all of this up.

[maatorc]

How can I, an outside observer, determine the difference between your claims being true, and your claims being a bunch of nonsense you made up in order to get attention to fill some gaping hole in your life. Point me towards the solid, convincing, unimpeachable evidence that shows that you aren't making all of this up.


How can one know your posts are not nonsense you make up in order to get attention to fill some gaping hole in your life?

[JoeEllison]

How can one know your posts are not nonsense you make up in order to get attention to fill some gaping hole in your life?
Because, when addressed to you, I don't get any sort of answer, or fulfillment. :D

So. Stop dodging the question. Stand up for your position, for once.


How can I, an outside observer, determine the difference between your claims being true, and your claims being a bunch of nonsense you made up?

[maatorc]

1... Can noumenal experiences be communicated to others?
2... How can maatorc know that psi-esp exists if noumenal experiences cannot be communicated?
3... Why can't noumenal experiences (not ?) be tested if they can be communicated?
4... How can maatorc know that every single psi-esp practitioner in the entire world would resist testing for a million dollars?[/list]

1... Yes.
2... See (1).
3... Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.
4... There is a vast difference between learners who publicly claim and experts who privately practice. It is the latter I refer to.

[JoeEllison]

3... Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.
How does one differentiate between unmeasurable, non-existent, and imaginary "events"?

[maatorc]

How can I, an outside observer, determine the difference between your claims being true, and your claims being a bunch of nonsense you made up?

How can one know your posts are not nonsense you make up in order to get attention to fill some gaping hole in your life?

[maatorc]

How does one differentiate between unmeasurable, non-existent, and imaginary "events"?

In the usual manner.

[JoeEllison]

Are you afraid to answer questions, or is it that you can't answer questions?

You've already lost. BTW... I'm just bored. I already know you're making it all up. Honest people answer questions. You don't.

[PBTree]

Thank you maatorc.

For years now I have known that there were 'people' out there. Those special 'people' who are stark raving bonkers. I knew they knew I knew they were there but they wouldn't let me contact them and nobody would believe me. Finally you have proven it and now that my pschiatrist understands, I can finally get off the medication and go back to my life. Thank you again.

:(
sigh!

[OnlyTellsTruths]

maatorc could you tell us, in your next post, everything you know about this (just the stuff we would not know already will be fine)....or, at least, be more specific about why you can not, should not, or will not tell us?


What do you know, and what do you not know?

Wait, I thought you were the one that knew something we didn't. Wouldn't that mean you know the answer to that question? Are you suggesting I list the entire contents of my brain? Also, you should note, I said tell us just the stuff we WOULD not know. I didn't say tell us just the stuff we DO not know. You are clearly literate so you must have just misread?

[JoeEllison]

Wait, I thought you were the one that knew something we didn't. Wouldn't that mean you know the answer to that question? Are you suggesting I list the entire contents of my brain?

Not just the contents of your brain... apparently, you must also list all the knowledge that you don't have as well, hence the "what do you not know?" question.


It is, at the end, all distraction from the fact that he has staked out the worst position possible, and he knows it.

[steenkh]

Thank you, maatorc, for at least trying to answer the outstanding questions. Unfortunately, some of the answers look more like evasions:


Can noumenal experiences be communicated to others?1... Yes.
Good, that makes the next question not applicable.

Why can't noumenal experiences be tested if they can be communicated?3... Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.
That was not the question. But we can narrow down the question to avoid such misunderstandings: Why can't evidence be produced that noumenal events exist when they can be communicated?

How can maatorc know that every single psi-esp practitioner in the entire world would resist testing for a million dollars?4... There is a vast difference between learners who publicly claim and experts who privately practice. It is the latter I refer to.
That does not answer the question at all. How can you know that every single privately practising expert in psi-esp in the whole world would resist testing for a million dollars?

[nathan]

In the usual manner.
Ok, that'll be the 'they're indistinguishable' manner then.

[sinclairmcevoy]

I don't believe that the person, sinclairmcevoy, knows any more about this nonsense than anyone else here. He - she seems to know how to say a whole lot o' nothin' and still get responses? You won't get a real answer, this is just a grab for attention, it's working.
You are exactly right.:D

[petre]

In the usual manner.

Have you come up with an example yet that exists but is unmeasurable?

[maatorc]

1... Why can't evidence be produced that noumenal events exist when they can be communicated?
2... How can you know that every single privately practicing expert in psi-esp in the whole world would resist testing for a million dollars?

1... Because the communication process is noumenal which is not phenomenally measurable.
2... It is known and accepted in their circles as contrary to their ethical position vis-a-vis the true nature and purpose of the faculty they have perfected which underlies their conscious control and direction of psychic events.

[JoeEllison]

1... Because the communication process is noumenal which is not phenomenally measurable.
2... It is known and accepted in their circles as contrary to their ethical position vis-a-vis the true nature and purpose of the faculty they have perfected which underlies their conscious control and direction of psychic events.

1) How can that be distinguished from imagination or delusion?
2) How do you have complete knowledge of these possibly imaginary people, who apparently hide their existence from everyone but you?

[steenkh]

1... Because the communication process is noumenal which is not phenomenally measurable.
The communication process is noumenal? You mean they cannot speak or write?

2... It is known and accepted in their circles as contrary to their ethical position vis-a-vis the true nature and purpose of the faculty they have perfected which underlies their conscious control and direction of psychic events.
So they all know each other and those you have spoken to or read about are able to speak for every single psi-esp capable expert in the world? Including those in Kirghiztan, India, or Zimbabwe?

[Tirdun]

1... Because the communication process is noumenal which is not phenomenally measurable.
See, I'm still not understanding how this is possible. In order for communication to exist the idea, the message has to go from point A to point B, regardless of the medium or the method.

If Psi Sender can get a message to a receiver, any message any receiver, and the Receiver can then speak/identify the word sent, then it becomes a measurable event. Otherwise there's no difference between this and fantasy.

2... It is known and accepted in their circles as contrary to their ethical position vis-a-vis the true nature and purpose of the faculty they have perfected which underlies their conscious control and direction of psychic events.

:bs: Words, words, words. Either it can be done or it can't. Either it exists in this world or it is fantasy.

[petre]

Have you come up with an example yet that exists but is unmeasurable?

Yeah, I thought not.

[petre]

Yeah, I thought not.

It seems your purpose is mearly to spout off in popular forums, rather than discuss the matter in an appropriate and productive format.

[babbits]

DMG originally asked: “If the supernatural is found to be possible then doesn't it automatically become natural? IOW a "supernatural event" and a "natural event that we cannot yet explain or understand" are the same thing?”

Then maatorc introduced the term noumenal a.o.t. phenomenal, and that is causing some confusion.

Maatorc says: ”Psi-esp is just a name for sensing beyond the phenomenal range, that we call psychic.”

This statement contains a contradiction. We cannot “sense beyond” phenomena. Phenomena are what we sense (or infer from sense data).

We might say ”Psi-esp is just a name for believing beyond the phenomenal range, that we call psychic.”

So if psi-esp ‘believes’ beyond the phenomenal range, one must ask, “Upon what evidence does one believe?”

We have to go to Kant, who introduced the distinction between noumena and phenomena into modern thought. A phenomenon is [I]a thing that appears, or is perceived or observed, applied chiefly to a fact or occurrence[I]. A noumenon is a purely intellectual intuition, and is without any phenomenal attributes. Kant defined it: "It is not an object of sensuous intuition; so it is unknowable."

So if we have an idea of a purple cow, it is not a noumenon. It is a sensuous image. Noumena are not ‘beyond the phenomenal range’; they are independent of phenomena.

Maatorc also said, “Psi-esp is noumenal reality.” This seems to be saying “an abstract idea is real.” If that is what maatorc means, I won’t argue, because we have anecdotal evidence that other people have abstract ideas. And I have, for example, an abstract idea of justice.

But my concession is problematic. I cannot describe my abstract idea of justice without referring to phenomena: the courts, lawmakers, the teachings of prominent figures in ethics and law.

So I would say that most abstract ideas are distillations and imaginings based on the phenomena of our experience.

But if maatorc means that there is any counterpart for a noumenon in physical reality outside of our thoughts, he is wrong. A noumenon exists only as a thought. There is no external counterpart.

[GzuzKryzt]

:popcorn1

[maatorc]

1... DMG originally asked: “If the supernatural is found to be possible then doesn't it automatically become natural? IOW a "supernatural event" and a "natural event that we cannot yet explain or understand" are the same thing?” ..........
2... ...Maatorc says: ”Psi-esp is just a name for sensing beyond the phenomenal range, that we call psychic.” This statement contains a contradiction. We cannot “sense beyond” phenomena. Phenomena are what we sense (or infer from sense data)......


1... There is nothing super or possible beyond the natural. Some realizations are phenomenal events and other realizations are noumenal events.

2... Phenomena are what we sense with our standard physical senses. We sense beyond phenomena when we experience an exclusively mental event which does not rely on our standard physical senses, such as in remote viewing or thought reception and transmission.

Discussions on phenomena and noumena sometimes get confused with questions of actuality and reality, as is the case on this site.

[Michael C]

1... There is nothing super or possible beyond the natural. Some realizations are phenomenal events and other realizations are noumenal events.

2... Phenomena are what we sense with our standard physical senses. We sense beyond phenomena when we experience an exclusively mental event which does not rely on our standard physical senses, such as in remote viewing or thought reception and transmission.

Phenomena are not "what we sense with our standard physical senses". Phenomena are simply "what we sense". Noumena are the "things in themselves", which are by Kant's definition outside the realms of our experience. Kant makes no difference between experience from our "standard" senses and experience from any other possible sense not yet discovered.

Discussions on phenomena and noumena sometimes get confused with questions of actuality and reality, as is the case on this site.

What we have here is not a discussion on phenomena and noumena that has got confused by "questions of actuality and reality": it's a discussion about the possibility of winning the MDC that is constantly confused by your incorrect usage of the terms "noumena" and "phenomena".

If you wish to continue discussing the meanings of the terms "noumena" and "phenomena", please start a thread on this topic in the "Religion and Philosophy" section of the forum.

[nathan]

As I said on the other thread. It would help significantly if maatorc could come up with some (hypothetical) example of psi-esp to show why it has no phenomena.

[maatorc]

.............Phenomena are simply "what we sense". Noumena are the "things in themselves", .............

Certain 'vibrations' are sensed as 'sound'.
Does this mean the 'noumena' of 'sound' is 'vibration'?

[nathan]

Certain 'vibrations' are sensed as 'sound'.
Does this mean the 'noumena' of 'sound' is 'vibration'?
What has this to do with psi-esp? Can you provide a (hypothetical) example of psi-esp to show why it has no phenomena?

[petre]

Certain 'vibrations' are sensed as 'sound'.
Does this mean the 'noumena' of 'sound' is 'vibration'?

I have little problem accepting that viewpoint. Did you wish to argue that such a viewpoint is incorrect?

[Persiflage]

1... As a noumenal event, psi-esp is experientially knowable.

2... Why would one not be able to tell you about it, and how would you test it?

Er... what? A noumenal event - which by itself is something of a contradiction in terms - is by definition not "experientially knowable". The point at which a noumenon (if such a thing exists outside of the context of a philosophical limiting construct for the boundaries of knowledge) is experienced is the point at which it becomes a phenomenon. That's practically the textbook difference between the two.

So, what are you going on about?

An event that is experienced entirely internally is still a phenomenon. I'm getting pretty baffled here :confused:

[babbits]

maatorc says "Certain 'vibrations' are sensed as 'sound'. Does this mean the 'noumena' of 'sound' is 'vibration'?

Good lord. There is no 'noumena' of sound. Sound is sensed with the organs of hearing.

You seem to think as someone previously mentioned that 'noumena' is like Platos 'forms'. (Or was it Socrates? I forget.) The 'form', to them, was the ideal or perfect object, of which the earthly object is just a poor copy.

Disabuse yourself of that notion.

If you can't grasp what 'noumena' means, why don't you just say what you mean? Using other words?

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
1... As a noumenal event, psi-esp is experientially knowable.
2... Why would one not be able to tell you about it, and how would you test it?

1... A noumenal event ... is something of a contradiction in terms
2... - is by definition not "experientially knowable".
3... The point at which a noumenon ...... is experienced is the point at which it becomes a phenomenon.
4... That's practically the textbook difference between the two.
5... So, what are you going on about?

1... How is it a contradiction?
2... A noumenon is cognizant: How can it not be experientially knowable.
3... Are you saying a phenomenon is an aspect of a noumenon?
4... It depends on the text you are reading: The whole literature on this is argumentative and undecided, even as to Kant's meanings, and even whether he is right or wrong.
5... ... "So, what are you going on about?".

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Certain 'vibrations' are sensed as 'sound'.
Does this mean the 'noumena' of 'sound' is 'vibration'?
QUOTE=petre;3083896]I have little problem accepting that viewpoint. Did you wish to argue that such a viewpoint is incorrect?[/QUOTE]

Yes: It speaks to the question of actuality and reality, as distinct from noumena and phenomena.
In the case of what we sense-interpret as 'sound': The 'sound' is a reality and the 'vibrations' we interpret as sound are an actuality which exists in nature whether we 'hear' them or not.

[nathan]

Maatorc,
do you have an example of psi-esp that you can use to show why it has no phenomena?

[petre]

QUOTE=petre;3083896]I have little problem accepting that viewpoint. Did you wish to argue that such a viewpoint is incorrect?

Yes: It speaks to the question of actuality and reality, as distinct from noumena and phenomena.
In the case of what we sense-interpret as 'sound': The 'sound' is a reality and the 'vibrations' we interpret as sound are an actuality which exists in nature whether we 'hear' them or not.[/QUOTE]

Very well then, you may comense your argument anytime now. Noting a distinction between synonyms (actuality, reality) indicates you intend differentiation between them, and not describing this intended distinction between them is disingenuous at best.

[maatorc]

maatorc...Yes: It speaks to the question of actuality and reality, as distinct from noumena and phenomena.
In the case of what we sense-interpret as 'sound': The 'sound' is a reality and the 'vibrations' we interpret as sound are an actuality which exists in nature whether we 'hear' them or not.
Very well then, you may commence your argument anytime now. Noting a distinction between synonyms (actuality, reality) indicates you intend differentiation between them, and not describing this intended distinction between them is disingenuous at best.

Actuality and reality, although loosely so used, are not strictly speaking synonyms. Your above quoted comment from my post clearly distinguishes their respective meanings.

[babbits]

Persiflage has asked maatorc:

"A noumenal event ... is something of a contradiction in terms"
2... - is by definition not "experientially knowable".
3... The point at which a noumenon ...... is experienced is the point at which it becomes a phenomenon.
4... That's practically the textbook difference between the two.
5... So, what are you going on about?


maatorc has replied:

How is it a contradiction?

maatorc, when you continue to use a term you don't understand, it gets in the way of the discussion. A number of people have tried to explain to you what noumenon means, but then you ask a question such as:

"Does this mean the 'noumena' of 'sound' is 'vibration'?"

Please try to answer nathan's question, so we can get this thread back on track. Please don't use the word 'noumena', since you evidently can't understand it. nathan's question was do you have an example of psi-esp that you can use to show why it has no phenomena?

[maatorc]

Persiflage has asked maatorc:
"A noumenal event ... is something of a contradiction in terms"
2... - is by definition not "experientially knowable".
3... The point at which a noumenon ...... is experienced is the point at which it becomes a phenomenon.
4... That's practically the textbook difference between the two.
5... So, what are you going on about?
maatorc has replied:
How is it a contradiction?
maatorc, when you continue to use a term you don't understand, it gets in the way of the discussion. A number of people have tried to explain to you what noumenon means, but then you ask a question such as:
"Does this mean the 'noumena' of 'sound' is 'vibration'?"
Please try to answer nathan's question, so we can get this thread back on track. Please don't use the word 'noumena', since you evidently can't understand it. nathan's question was do you have an example of psi-esp that you can use to show why it has no phenomena?

When you continue to use a term you don't understand, it gets in the way of the discussion.

[ben m]

nathan's question was do you have an example of psi-esp that you can use to show why it has no phenomena?


When you continue to use a term you don't understand, it gets in the way of the discussion.

Paging Doctor Grice, Doctor Paul Grice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maxims): please report to Thread #95962 to treat to treat a catostrophic failure of communication. Chronic condition may have gone terminal.

[nathan]

maatorc, any progress with an example?

[maatorc]

maatorc, any progress with an example?

It has already been given.
Read the thread.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by babbits View Post ......do you have an example of psi-esp that you can use to show why it has no phenomena?
When you continue to use a term you don't understand, it gets in the way of the discussion.

Noumena and phenomena are by definition incommensurable.
You came in very late.
You will find I started this whole discussion on phenomena and noumena on this site, where it is clear no-one had the slightest clue about it.
It is a nice try to derail and discredit the idea but you do not seem to know too much about it either.
Kant's ideas are not gospel on this subject and are even questioned at the highest academic level as to their credibility.

[nathan]

It has already been given.
Read the thread.
no, it has not been given, I have read the thread. If you disagree, please cite the message where you gave such an example and showed why it had no phenomena.

1) You are continuing to be evasive.

2) You are using words in ways that appear to either differ from regular accepted use, or have subtle different meanings that you decline to elaborate on. It would help if you defined your terms -- the most recent example is your assertion that 'reality' and 'actuality' are different. It's certainly possible that they have different meanings in any particular argument (because they are different words), but without actually defining what that difference is any distinction is meaningless.

3) You introduced the term 'psi-esp' because you (apparently) were uncomfortable with other terms. However you did not define what you actually meant by 'psi-esp' beyond some nebulous nuomena without phenomena. It's apparent you mean something different to what most other posters, and certainly me, understand the term to mean.

So, I ask again:

Please provide an example (hypothetical or otherwise) of psi-esp in order that you can show why it has no phenomena.

[maatorc]

......Please provide an example (hypothetical or otherwise) of psi-esp in order that you can show why it has no phenomena.

For "psi-esp' read
JREF-MDC ....evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. as required in the challenge, and which describes 'noumena', which the JREF MDC is unable to decide, determine, or measure by any 'phenomenal' means.

Phenomena and noumena are not 'things'.
They are forms of consciousness.
They are incommensurable: There is no common means of measure.

[ben m]

For "psi-esp' read
as required in the challenge, and which describes 'noumena', which the JREF MDC is unable to decide, determine, or measure by any 'phenomenal' means.

Phenomena and noumena are not 'things'.
They are forms of consciousness.
They are incommensurable: There is no common means of measure.

Those are not examples; those are, once again, extremely abstract definitions, using words for which (as several people have pointed out) no one is clear on your usage. If we weren't capable of understanding your previous definition, what makes you think we'll understand this one?

Here, just for an example, is a post I'd like to see from you. If you were to adhere to the following list, I expect the result would be an informative post which many of us would understand.


Do not use the words "phenomena" or "noumena". Think up some synonyms. If you can't find one perfect synonym, try a whole heap of approximate ones.
Fill the following sentence: "Supposing that someone could _____; this would be 'psi-esp' because _____. The key point is to contrast it with, e.g., someone who could ________ which would be ordinary-esp because _______."
Complete the following sentence: "I think psi-esp occurs/could occur because I observe _______ empirically and I believe ________ philosophically. I am aware that other people do not thing psi-esp occurs, because such people observe __________ and believe ____________."
List several things which JREF posters have suggested as examples of psi-esp, but which you think are not psi-esp. Explain each.
List several things which JREF posters have suggested as examples of "non-paranormal events" or "thoughts", but which you think are actually psi-esp. Explain each. Compare and contrast with the previous list.
Do not use the words "commensurable" or "incommensurable".
Do not refer us to other posts, nor cut and paste from such posts. There's nothing wrong with repeating yourself, and many people (me, for example) have read your other posts and still don't "get it".


On the other hand, if you reply "This has been covered. See previous.", or "that's not how it works. You don't get it", I will (a) learn nothing about psi-esp and (b) be convinced that you don't get it either. Have you ever seen someone interview the Time Cube guy and ask for more detail on his "four days" thing? He obviously barely understands it himself; he has an incoherent visual picture and a few words. If you don't understand his initial pitch, he just repeats it---can't "zoom in" on his mental model and figure out what needs clarification. That's a good sign that his mental model isn't too detailed.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
......Phenomena and noumena are not 'things'.
They are forms of consciousness.
They are incommensurable: There is no common means of measure.

Those are not examples; those are, once again, extremely abstract definitions, using words for which (as several people have pointed out) no one is clear on your usage. If we weren't capable of understanding your previous definition, what makes you think we'll understand this one?

If you physically visit a location and take in the view, it is a conscious phenomenal realization, just as we all normally experience through our physical-material senses.

If you 'remote view', or 'psychically project to' the same location and again consciously take in the same view, it is a conscious noumenal realization.

[ben m]

If you physically visit a location and take in the view, it is a conscious phenomenal realization, just as we all normally experience through our physical-material senses.

If you 'remote view', or 'psychically project to' the same location and again consciously take in the same view, it is a conscious noumenal realization.

Thank you, that is much clearer. The thing you call "remote viewing" would seem, to me, to have one of two properties: either (a) it consists of re-seeing in your head exactly what you've seen before, and is therefore indistinguishable from "memory", or (b) it consists of seeing in your head an accurate view of the location, in which case you could, in principle, "remote view" a faraway room where James Randi is rolling a die, and based on your remote viewing you could report what numbers you noumenally "saw" on the die, and this could serve as a perfectly ordinary test.

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
If you physically visit a location and take in the view, it is a conscious phenomenal realization, just as we all normally experience through our physical-material senses.
If you 'remote view', or 'psychically project to' the same location and again consciously take in the same view, it is a conscious noumenal realization.
Thank you, that is much clearer.
1... The thing you call "remote viewing" would seem, to me, to have one of two properties: either (a) it consists of re-seeing in your head exactly what you've seen before, and is therefore indistinguishable from "memory", or (b) it consists of seeing in your head an accurate view of the location,
2... ... ,in which case you could, in principle, "remote view" a faraway room where James Randi is rolling a die, and based on your remote viewing you could report what numbers you noumenally "saw" on the die, and this could serve as a perfectly ordinary test.

1... Remote viewing is a conscious 'now' as distinct from a memory 'then', and it can if required be done before actually physically visiting the location.

2... It could serve as a test that infers psi-esp, but, even if it correctly identifies the details, it does not actually prove, beyond the personal realization of the practitioner, that the noumenal event actually occurred.
This is what is meant by incommensurability: It is the inbuilt limitation when attempting to decide noumenal events by phenomenal means.

[steenkh]

It could serve as a test that infers psi-esp, but, even if it correctly identifies the details, it does not actually prove, beyond the personal realization of the practitioner, that the noumenal event actually occurred.
What do you understand by "proof"? No human has ever seen an atom, and yet, through a number of tests and sophisticated equipment, we have "proof" that atoms exist. But is it not actually inference in the same way that we would accept as a "proof" that psi-esp exists if a remote viewer can "see" that dice that James Randi is rolling in a far-away location? Why do you think that only the practitioner would get the realization that psi-esp exists?

At any rate, I still do not understand why you claim that the MDC is trying to prove anything, when it has been made quite clear to you that the MDC is not about proving anything.

[nathan]

Maatorc, thanks for providing an example.

ben_m and steenkh have asked my follow up questions.

I'm puzzled why maatorc believes bricks can be proved to exist but remote viewing could not be proved to exist. It seems to me that maatorc's world view is such that the only things an individual can prove to exist to themselves are those that they experience personally.

Maatorc, do you believe atoms exist?

[ben m]

2... It could serve as a test that infers psi-esp, but, even if it correctly identifies the details, it does not actually prove, beyond the personal realization of the practitioner, that the noumenal event actually occurred.

Sorry, Maatorc---this test would prove that something paranormal had occurred (with the standard experimental caveat of "... to the degree of confidence allowed by the statistics"). When the test subject says "I see that Randi has rolled a 5, a 6, a 1, and then three 2s in a row ...", he has produced an ordinary piece of data---I think you'd call it a phenomenal event---which is inconsistent with the null hypothesis. (The null hypothesis, remember, is that people can sense light hitting their eyes, pressure waves hitting the ears, etc., and can remember and reprocess such inputs, but have no other sources of information.)

Data inconsistent with the null hypothesis is exactly what scientists do, it's exactly what the MDC requires, it's exactly what most people would call "a demonstration of ESP".

Some things would be left unproven after a remote-viewing test; the answers to questions like "What exactly did you do to view those dice? What did it feel like? Was it the same subjective experience as ordinary eye-based vision? In what point-of-view were you situated?" These questions would probably be unanswerable.

[Pup]

2... It could serve as a test that infers psi-esp, but, even if it correctly identifies the details, it does not actually prove, beyond the personal realization of the practitioner, that the noumenal event actually occurred.
This is what is meant by incommensurability: It is the inbuilt limitation when attempting to decide noumenal events by phenomenal means.

Seems to me that applies to everything, though. How can I prove a table's there? I could look at it, but that just stimulates my vision the same way a good hologram would. I could touch it, but that just stimulates the nerves in my fingertips. I could ask someone else if they can see and touch it too, but all they're doing is relating, accurately or not, their own internal sensations. We could photograph it with no one in the room, so the image doesn't depend on a human viewer's experience, but a human still needs to look at the photograph to see if it shows a table, and we're back to internal stimulus again.

So there's no way to prove the table is actually there, independent of our internal subjective experiences. We just have to agree that a particular "table" is a real thing if it causes a certain set of predictable internal experiences, and we can generally function pretty well by relying on that, but it's still not absolute positive "proof" that the table actually exists.

So what's the difference between that, and agreeing that remote viewing "exists" if one person can describe what another person is seeing at a distance, when all other possible explanations have been eliminated? It's no more nor less "proof" than a table exists when all other explanations have been eliminated (holograms, hallucinations, lying, etc.)

[maatorc]

Seems to me that applies to everything, though. How can I prove a table's there? I could look at it, but that just stimulates my vision the same way a good hologram would. I could touch it, but that just stimulates the nerves in my fingertips. I could ask someone else if they can see and touch it too, but all they're doing is relating, accurately or not, their own internal sensations. We could photograph it with no one in the room, so the image doesn't depend on a human viewer's experience, but a human still needs to look at the photograph to see if it shows a table, and we're back to internal stimulus again.
So there's no way to prove the table is actually there, independent of our internal subjective experiences. We just have to agree that a particular "table" is a real thing if it causes a certain set of predictable internal experiences, and we can generally function pretty well by relying on that, but it's still not absolute positive "proof" that the table actually exists.
So what's the difference between that, and agreeing that remote viewing "exists" if one person can describe what another person is seeing at a distance, when all other possible explanations have been eliminated? It's no more nor less "proof" than a table exists when all other explanations have been eliminated (holograms, hallucinations, lying, etc.)

I agree: The 'table' in itself is not the same as our 'perception' of it.
The table is an 'actual' condition in nature: An 'actuality'.
Our perception-realization of it is 'real' to us: a 'reality'.
The table actually exists whether we realize it or not.
Phenomena are time-space-dependent material-physical perceptions.
Noumena are time-space-independent strictly mental perceptions.
Noumena and phenomena are incommensurable.

[nathan]

maatorc, what is your belief about the existance of atoms?

[nathan]

Noumena are time-space-independent strictly mental perceptions.
So it's just a fancy way of saying 'imagination'?

[steenkh]

The table actually exists whether we realize it or not.
Can you prove that?

Noumena and phenomena are incommensurable.
If the person who experiences the noumena of remote-viewing communicates this experience to others, his noumena can be proven to exist with the same certainty that tables and atoms can be proven to exist.

[petre]

Can you prove that?


If the person who experiences the noumena of remote-viewing communicates this experience to others, his noumena can be proven to exist with the same certainty that tables and atoms can be proven to exist.

While your statement is true, I'll add that the MDC would not provide a rigorous enough protocol to demonstrate that. Incommensurability is unimportant to JREF (though some parsings of its mission statement might lead one to believe that it would be).

[babbits]

Maatorc says: "2... It could serve as a test that infers psi-esp, but, even if it correctly identifies the details, it does not actually prove, beyond the personal realization of the practitioner, that the noumenal event actually occurred."

Certainly it can be proved. Just by the confirmation of the data. If the practitioner says the dice are coming up according to a specific sequence, and if an observer confirms that this is so, and records the correct predictions (and the incorrect ones, if any) we can calculate what is the likelihood that this could happen by chance.

The good predictor of the turn of the dice will have a perfect or near-perfect prediction if he/she can actually 'see' the event, remotely. Just as if he/she were physically present where the dice are rolled.

The same standards of assessment would be used to tell whether someone physically present can 'read' the dice.

Suppose it were a test of the physically-present reader's eyesight.

If he/she could call out each turn of the die, and if this could be confirmed by observers, we would say that the reader's eyesight was good. We could even rate it on a scale, just us we rate vision tested using a standard eye chart.

But if the result could be produced by random guesses, then we would conclude that the 'reader' could not read an eye chart.

And the reader has either not the gift of sight, or not the knowledge of the names of the letters of the alphabet.

So the noumena, the seer's purely ideatic perception, without any sense data, would have phenomenal support in the form of the recorded score of correct 'calls' of the dice.

So you see your statement "This is what is meant by incommensurability: It is the inbuilt limitation when attempting to decide noumenal events by phenomenal means" is quite incorrect.

[nathan]

it seems maatorc has left this building (he's still just as confused on the other thread though)