Psychic abilities and phenomena: the scientific/skeptic analysis by chrisisall

CUnknown:
Its perfectly possible to say something in a polite manner and be insulting at the same time.
You said that your sure that the experiences listed in the other thread were false.
Maybe we should ignore the fact that this is your belief, so makes you no more objective nor logical than anyone else, and get down to the point.
You said (albeit in not so many words) that I am (along with everyone else who listed experiences) a liar.
Please tell me how you have more knowledge of my experiences than I do?
Are you psychic?

...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:52 AM

I don’t think there was anything insulting about what CUNKNOWN said in the other thread. He offered a perspective that was lacking from the other points of view in the thread. If it was intended that that thread be for purely speculative and anecdotal arguments, as the title suggested, then perhaps someone should have politely mentioned that to CUNKNOWN, but accusations of ignorance is a little like calling the kettle black. Although, if one cannot accept the fact that evidence for psychic abilities is miniscule and often more adequately explained with coincidence, then it draws one’s own observations and experiences into question, because it suggests that these observations and experiences are based on an irrational analysis. So I’m of the mind to believe that any discussion on psychic ability is basically trivial without the so-called “Scully” perspective to anchor it, or act as a control, as it were.

Obviously CUNKNOWN, by his own admission, was unaware that scientists have studied psychic abilities quite extensively. Many of the major universities in the US have or have had extensive psychic abilities research programs, and the CIA, NSA and DIA have funding some of these programs, particularly the one at Stanford I believe, rather lavishly. But clearly a similar unawarness existed among many others who claimed that scientists were afraid of researching psychic abilities, when in fact, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The reason scientists often avoid or dismiss the issue is because it has been studied, very extensively, and it has resulted in very little conclusive evidence, now that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true or that it should continue to be researched, but it does mean that most scientists will and should turn their attention to things that are more likely to provide results.

My own personal experiences are decidedly lacking in anecdotal evidence. Sure, I’ve turned on the tv to find a show that I wanted to watch or part of a movie that I hadn’t seen, but that was a coincidence or at best better explained by prior knowledge. Jumping to the conclusion that I had some psychic experience is probably a little rash. On the other hand, my grandmother might do the same thing and insist that the Lord Jesus brought her to the TV. How is that any different? One of the things that makes me very skeptical of the psychical ability argument is that many of the same people who would so passionately argue in favor of the psychic ability phenomena will as passionately discount the religious phenomena, which leads me to believe that most of the psychic abilities stuff is more ideological then rational. Conclusive evidence, or perhaps evidence, is lacking for both cases. I like to keep an open mind, though. I like to think that both could be true, but no rational argument would be complete without admitting that it is just as likely that neither is true. That’s the thing about speculative arguments; there just so speculative.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:10 AM

I agree, Ruxton was a little too harsh.
My point is that in CUnknown's original statement said, outright, even without evidence, that those of us who mentioned we had experienced psychic phonomena were lying.
Then he went on to say this is based on impartial logical and reasoned thinking, when, frankly it was CUnknown's opinion based on CUnknown's belief.

See, my problem was not with CUnknown's agreeing or disagreeing with me or anyone else. Quite frankly I know what I've experinced, I know it wasn't a coincidence, or any other argument some would consider 'rational', as those just do not fit.
Furthermore, and I really don't mean this to offend, I couldn't give a

whether you, Finn, CUnknown or anyone else believe me or not.
I know I am not lying.

What I take exception too is people parading their beliefs as established fact, and they're thinking as rational and logical. Especially when this is linked with an accusation that those who think differently are some how irrational, wrong, and lying.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:21 AM

SPINLAND

I'm blissfully ignorant of whatever actual research is being done/has been done in these areas; that's cool, because ideas and opinions are valuable, too--so long as they're not presented as fact.

What keeps me from dismissing the entire notion of "psychic abilities" as stuff and nonsense just from an intuitive level: I don't fully understand the physics behind how information can be recorded in magnetic media, then read and decoded with the proper mix of metals and electrons without even having to touch the media. That's pretty dang amazing, to me, as is the whole idea of broadcast radio and television. Someone out there knows how it all works to a fare-thee-well, but to me it might as well be magic.

So, what keeps the idea of matter recording imprints that can be read remotely, and information being broadcast invisibly, limited to the current ways in which they're being used? The idea does seem interesting, on the surface.

Just some musings from the ignorant-but-not-stupid.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to pronounce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:55 AM

Of course we already 'read' peoples 'thoughts' all the time...
EKG's anyone?
People have controlled computers making the cursor move using similar equipment, this isn't pyschic, of course, its technology...

So why can't another persons brain pick up these 'brainwaves' just like an EKG?
And wouldn't another humans brain be able to decode them, I mean surely we all use the same mechanisms and 'formats' to think?

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Furthermore, and I really don't mean this to offend, I couldn't give a whether you, Finn, CUnknown or anyone else believe me or not.
I know I am not lying.

I don’t think anyone accused you of lying. That sounds like a superfluous interpretation of mine and CUNKNOWN posts. CUKNOWN simply suggested that there were alternative explanations to some of this phenomenon, and that he personally didn’t believe in it. He may have been critical of your opinions, but that doesn't suggest the he thinks you're lying; just the he might think your interpretation is poor. And I see no reason why you should care whether we believe you or not, but if you don’t care, then what is your point?

What do you think of people like Jeanine Garofalo, for instance, who refer to Christianity as being a “crutch” for people who can’t accept her version of reality? How many times have you heard someone make some comment about Christians that suggested that they didn’t have a grasp on reality? Isn’t that the same thing, at least? If a Christian were to tell you that he or she prayed to God for some fortune and that fortune occurred so God made it happen, how would you respond to that? How do you think many of those who were criticizing CUNKNOWN, would respond to that? How would you respond to the scientific studies that suggest that prayer has the power to physically heal ailments, such as reducing the risk of heart attack? The studies are no more conclusive then those done with psychic abilities, but they have been done and they have demonstrated marginal success.

What I find curious is that we tend to be very selective of the speculative phenomenology that we granted credence to.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:05 AM

Finn:
It was a thread where some members posted their paranormal experiences. In this thread CUnknown posted this:

Quote:
There is a famous example of psychic abilities being disproved back in the 1800's (I think). The guy's name was Mesmer and he had this whole cult of people following him--he was famous enough that a group of prominent scientists (including Benjamin Franklin, if I remember right) got interested in him and his "abilities." Using the scientific method, he was exposed as a hoax and his following eventually disapeared. I'm sure the same could be done for any paranormal or psychic phenomenon you care to name.

In the same breath as mentioning a hoax he/she mentions any paranormal phenomenon can be dismissed in the same way. Since this was a thread where I, amongst others, had posted my own experiences, how else should I take that sentence? I read it as saying my own experiences were a hoax, ergo I was a liar.
I really do not see any other interpretation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
And I see no reason why you should care whether we believe you or not, but if you don’t care, then what is your point?

I don't care whether you believe what I have to say or not. I care about the fact that I made my point as my opinion, CUnknown made his/her point as gospel fact, that a logical reasoned mind could not think differently to him/her.

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnkown:
The odds that the various psychic claims of people on this board (and elsewhere) are real should seem small to any rational, dispassionate person.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Isn’t that the same thing, at least? If a Christian were to tell you that he or she prayed to God for some fortune and that fortune occurred so God made it happen, how would you respond to that?

It depends what it was, and how it happened. Do you know my own personal experience, it really doesn't fit into the realm of coincidence. It is far more fanciful for my experiences to fit into the realm of coincidence IMO.

As for christianity, do I believe in it. No.
Do I believe christians are inherinatly wrong? Not really.
I can't believe in a god who is spoken of as infinitely forgiving and just, but at the same time has no problem murdering innocents when god doesn't get gods own way.
Christinaity holds a human coloured view of god, that doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, I find that your argument doesn't fit. I'm sorry if I missed your point.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:08 AM

There's a difference between saying somebody's mistaken or wrong and saying they're lying. Personally I think every example of "psychic" phenomena can be sorted neatly into "mistaken", "coincidence" and "fraud".

However, I'm well aware that trying to persuade those who believe they are "psychic" that they are not is about as likely to be successful as persuading someone that they do not have a sense of humour.

What does trouble me is how militant the psychics seem to have become over the last few years. Granted, this is generation X-Files and we are awash with conspiracy theories and unexplained occurences but even so, there seems to be this strange idea that the mainstream should accept the paranormal as fact.

It's like religion; you can believe whatever you want to believe but just don't expect the rest of us to swallow it. Not a drop. That's how it is. Jews don't see Christians in the street and sneer "Ha, you guys got had by a false prophet." They act like respectful adults to each other, even though they disagree with the fundamental beliefs of the other.

As should we all. This thread asked what I believed, I stated it. This doesn't mean I consider those who do believe to be liars or fools. Simply that we have different beliefs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
There's a difference between saying somebody's mistaken or wrong and saying they're lying.

Yes there is. Theres also a difference between saying someones mistaken or wrong and saying they're a fraud or a hoaxer.

Quote:
That's how it is. Jews don't see Christians in the street and sneer "Ha, you guys got had by a false prophet." They act like respectful adults to each other, even though they disagree with the fundamental beliefs of the other.

Been my point all along.

Quote:
This thread asked what I believed, I stated it. This doesn't mean I consider those who do believe to be liars or fools. Simply that we have different beliefs.

Thank You.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:30 AM

Science says:
The Earth is flat
The Earth is round.
Butter is bad for you.
Butter is good for you.
So-called psychic abilities have no grounds for a basis in actual fact.
So-called psychic ability is all around us all the time to different degrees. (this last one is yet to come....)

ChrisisallMuldar

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Science says:
The Earth is flat

Actually, I don’t think science, in general, ever really said this. The flat-earth thing was a parochial concept even during the Middle-ages, held almost solely by the uneducated masses, if at all. There certainly was no concerted mainstream belief that the earth was flat, going back as far as at least Aristotle. There were a few crackpots, but they were very rare and widely discredited. The whole flat earth concept actually emerged during the 19th century as an attack by Intellectuals on the Christian church, which means that it is really nothing more then anti-Christian propaganda. The fact that so many people unquestioningly accept that medieval Christians believed the earth to be flat is a testament to just how successful propaganda within academia can be. This is why people like Ward Churchill are so dangerous. Fruitcake academics who teach classes full of young impressionable people are capable of doing untold damage to society by melding their fruitcakey often viciously bigoted political issues into the popular belief that may propagate for centuries.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:04 PM

Skirt the point, why don't you, that was passes for truth in science today just might be disproven or radically adjusted tomorrow. In that way, science is like spirituality; once you stop and say "There. I've got it, I'm done now.", you destroy the process in favour of a belief, which leads to a belief-system, and then, my friend, you're lost.
Science (like logic) is the beginning of wisdom, and it's always in motion.

Did I sound profound there?

What do you expect, Sartre? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:16 PM

Not really.

You're confusing "science" with "popular belief". There really was no science before the scientific method came in over the last two hundred years. There was way too much blindly following the words of previous generations.

Nowadays for science to stand up, it has to be based on repeatable experiments. You say that what "passes for truth in science today just might be disproven or radically adjusted tomorrow." Can you point to any major scientific standpoint that has required such an adjustment over the last fifty years, say?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Skirt the point, why don't you, that was passes for truth in science today just might be disproven or radically adjusted tomorrow. In that way, science is like spirituality; once you stop and say "There. I've got it, I'm done now.", you destroy the process in favour of a belief, which leads to a belief-system, and then, my friend, you're lost.

Yes. In a way that was my point. Ideas can become mired and dogmatic, even within academia, and new ideas emerge to replace old ideas. Science is always alive and changing, which is why it is generally very questionable to speak in terms of a “scientific consensus” on anything but the most widely accepted ideas, and even those can be replaced with newer better ideas. Science should always be open to change and new ideas. That does not mean that science should necessarily embrace unfounded and inconclusive concepts, because new ideas and open-minded practices can be just as dogmatic. Science should be guided by the evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Science (like logic) is the beginning of wisdom, and it's always in motion.

Did I sound profound there?

Very Spockish. Late Spock, not early Spock.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Did I sound profound there? Very Spockish. Late Spock, not early Spock.

I am honoured, sir.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:56 PM

Ack! The dreaded double-post!!!!
Hobbes, get my eraser!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Can you point to any major scientific standpoint that has required such an adjustment over the last fifty years, say?

T-Rex was thought to stand more upright until relativly recently...

HEY! That's MAJOR!!! If we hadn't readjusted our understanding of that...JURASSIC PARK would have looked silly!!!!

Chrisisall, who may as well be a T-Rex; he has a mighty roar

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Science says:
The Earth is flat.
Actually, I don’t think science, in general, ever really said this.

Actually, I don't think science ever says anything.

Scientists say a lot. They blabber all the time. Science, not so much.

I reiterate that science is not a body of knowledge. It is a method, a system, a tool. The people who use this tool interpret, hypothesize, theorize, and conclude. The tool itself? Very quiet.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Did I sound profound there?

Actually, you did! Well done!

Thomas Kuhn wrote a classic on the nature of scientific revolutions. Scientists study a subject. A consensus develops. Scholars become invested in the consensus, professionally and ideologically. Anomalies, the stuff that don't fit within the paradigm of the consensus, get ignored, dismissed, or outright ridiculed.

Then some mavericks run out from the herd and poke around the anomalies. They find an alternative explanation and postulate a competing paradigm. They get booed. Or worse.

But eventually, enough people pay attention to the new paradigm for a revolution. Maybe new technology or a new mathematical solution gets discovered. Or maybe the mavericks find a charismatic champion. The old paradigm gets stored in the closet, and the new one becomes the consensus everyone is dogmatic about. Then someone notices an anomaly....

Thus, our scientific understanding of the universe is continuously in motion. Just like Chris said. No matter how hard we buckle down and refuse to budge.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Science is always alive and changing, which is why it is generally very questionable to speak in terms of a “scientific consensus” on anything but the most widely accepted ideas, and even those can be replaced with newer better ideas. Science should always be open to change and new ideas. That does not mean that science should necessarily embrace unfounded and inconclusive concepts, because new ideas and open-minded practices can be just as dogmatic. Science should be guided by the evidence.

I always enjoy your posts, Finn. You've made good points on all counts in this thread. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Science has a very rigorous system of rules for sorting out spurious reasoning. Evidence (anecdotal evidence is STILL evidence!) and critical thinking and parsimony (Acham's Razor) need to be taken into account, and not just dismissed because they don't fit in with our preconceived notions--whatever they may be. That is what distinguishes science from religion. Science is open to be proven wrong.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
You're confusing "science" with "popular belief". There really was no science before the scientific method came in over the last two hundred years. There was way too much blindly following the words of previous generations.

I take issue with that. Sir Issac Newton lived more than two hundred years ago, we're still using his science. Aristotle laid the foundations to the scientific method in the 300's BC.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
...Can you point to any major scientific standpoint that has required such an adjustment over the last fifty years, say?

Sir Issac Newton's laws of motion was the accepted theory of the movement of planetary bodies for what, two hundred years before Einstien's theory of special relativity came along.
First light traveled through ether, then it was a wave, then wave particle duallity came along...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 5:34 AM

Both of which were more than 50 years ago.

My question was can you name some major scientific standpoint from 1955 that has been dramatically uprooted since?

I still don't understand why you think attacking science for inconsistency gives your argument any weight at all. Science is constantly improving, like sanding down a square until you get a circle. We learn new things all the time (how many days pass without the newspapers commenting on a "scientific breakthrough"?)

Even religions evolve, adapt, change. Attitudes to everything from unbelievers to fish on fridays shift with the tides of time.

Science is like a clock. Sometimes it's a little fast, sometimes a little slow, sometimes dead right. Scientists constantly adjust this clock to try to improve the timing.

Belief in the paranormal is more like a broken clock. Yes, it's dead right, twice a day, everyday. But it's still broken. (IMO, obviously).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
My question was can you name some major scientific standpoint from 1955 that has been dramatically uprooted since?

I missunderstood the point of your question. I was trying to point out that just because a Theory stands for more than 50 years doesn't mean it is correct.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I still don't understand why you think attacking science for inconsistency gives your argument any weight at all. Science is constantly improving, like sanding down a square until you get a circle. We learn new things all the time (how many days pass without the newspapers commenting on a "scientific breakthrough"?)

I don't think I attacked Science at all, have I? I've certainly attacked peoples positions, and their interpretations of science, nothing more.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Belief in the paranormal is more like a broken clock. Yes, it's dead right, twice a day, everyday. But it's still broken. (IMO, obviously).

I think your wrong *shrugs*.
Trust me I'm not some irrational person who 'wants' to believe. If it wasn't for the fact I've experinced these things to the point where coincidence or any other explination doesn't work I'm sure I'd be arguing your point just as strongly.
All I can say is just because something doesn't lend itself to human scientific analysis, doesn't mean its not there.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 9:23 AM

I think everything falls within the purview of scientific analysis. They've already come up with very convincing explanations for out of body experiences and "alien abductions".

Unfortunately scientific analysis looks for experiments with control groups, adjustable variables, repeatability, that sort of thing. Which of course most reported psychic phenomena do not supply.

Like I said, I have no problem with people believing in God, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or ghosts. I do object when they demand me to believe the same or insult, demean and attack those who do not share their beliefs. Obviously that has been the traditional role of religion (and still is in America) but lately those who believe in the paranormal are taking that role.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I think everything falls within the purview of scientific analysis

As do I, just not necessarilly human scientific analysis.

I unfortunatly don't have the words to explain, but I'll try within the context of my own experiences.
I have had dreams that come true, not like some metaphorical ambiguous nonsense, I mean if the dream happened after the event it would be a memory, but it happens months before.
Very vivid, from my own perspective as if I'm actually there.

How could I prove that in a scientific sense? Record all my dreams in minute detail, and see if any come true?
That wouldn't work since its only a small percentage of my dreams that are of this vivid pre-memory type, so the evidence would suggest a coincidence, wouldn't it?
How about if I only recorded those which I know will come true (and I do somehow know which will and which won't).
That doesn't work either, because anyone who wished to disprove it just needs to say that its a coincidence, as I can't record the full experience.
I can't see away that Scientific analysis could prove (or indeed disprove) my experiences.

If anyone can, I'm more than game.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I do object when they demand me to believe the same or insult, demean and attack those who do not share their beliefs. Obviously that has been the traditional role of religion (and still is in America) but lately those who believe in the paranormal are taking that role.

I think that may be overstating it, a bit. The sheer # of people who believe in major superstitions involving a 'God' originating from attempts to 'legendize' a simple, gentle, loving human that wanted nothing more than for us to see ourselves in others dwarves the # of strictly paranormal devotees.

If I offended anyone w/the above description of Christian/Jewish/Muslim religions....TOO BAD! Ha ha ha ha ha !
Get me back!
Make fun of Buddah! Go ahead, I can take it as well as I can dish it out! (Just don't make fun of Richard Gere, that would get me very angry- he's cool).

American Gigalo Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How could I prove that in a scientific sense? Record all my dreams in minute detail, and see if any come true?

That would be a very good start.

The first step of the scientific method is observation. That is something "naysayers" forget about science. We observe. We look for patterns and predictive variables. It is only after a great deal observation that we can hypothesize, and then experiment.

Imagine you were a marine biologist studying a new species of sulfur-farting crab you'd just discovered. Sulfur farts don't exist in crabs, your colleagues say, but here it is. You'd document how you sampled the farts and how they were tested for sulfur. You'd keep a log and journal, not only of its sulfur farts, but of all habits and functions. You'd write down all the questions (where does the sulfur come from?), and look for patterns that might reveal the answers (could it be from the shrimp it eats?).

So you'd do something like this with your dreams: observe the heck out of them. Write them all down in every detail you can, and not just the ones you think would come true. Also, write down other things that you did and felt that day. All your habits and functions. Then don't look at your descriptions again. When something happens from one of your dreams, write it down in every minute detail. Have someone else go back and match your real experience with your dream, and compare them point by point for accuracy. Get an accuracy rate. Find out what percentage of dreams come true. Find out what happened on days when your dreams came true. Ask questions and posit answers. Then you got yourself a hypothesis you can test.

Even then, it is just you studying yourself--so at best this is STILL in the observation stage. To do a pilot study, one would have to compare your dreams with those of a control, someone who doesn't have dreams that come true. Find out if some of his dreams "come true" just by chance. Then as this grows into a real study, you get more psychic dreamers to compare to non-psychic dreams. When you get a representative sample and a decent sample size of several hundred in each group, then you have a study where you can analyze results statistically.

Unfortunately, this sort of study doesn't happen. So all we have are preliminary observations. We think we've found a sulfur-farting crab, but we don't know for sure. Science is slow that way.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 5:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I guess I belong in Dante's hell for the trimmers. I neither accept nor reject the idea of paranormal experiences.

Mainly that's b/c while my experiences are few, I've known people who I respect as being honest, intelligent, perceptive, thoughthful and highly educated who have had multiple experiences they can only attribute to something not ordinary.

My choice is to reject their accounts (and to a large extent the people who give them) and conclude there is no such thing; or accept their accounts (while at the same time rejecting the studies that have failed to document these phenomena) and conclude there is such a thing.

Not being quite able to do either, I end up in the middle.

I do find people's own accounts of their experiences interesting, however.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...(while at the same time rejecting the studies that have failed to document these phenomena) and conclude there is such a thing.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Therefore, you don't have to reject one side in order to accept the other. A scientist has no need to jump to such conclusions.

That's the problem. People don't like to wait to come to a conclusion. They want to have closure, NOW. Some people have extraordinarily intuitive or coincidental experiences. They quickly conclude paranormal, psychic phenomena must exist. Some scientists find nothing extraordinary in the psychics they sampled and studied. They quickly conclude paranormal, psychic phenomena must not exist. In reality, neither conclusion is warranted. What is warranted is an open mind and more research.

The truth is, science is not the field to embrace if one has a strong need for closure. The need for the open mind and further research never ends.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 8:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence." This is a statement that ignores a basic assymetry of science: it can't prove anything, only disprove.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2005 9:07 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t think there was anything insulting about what CUNKNOWN said in the other thread. He offered a perspective that was lacking from the other points of view in the thread. If it was intended that that thread be for purely speculative and anecdotal arguments, as the title suggested, then perhaps someone should have politely mentioned that to CUNKNOWN, but accusations of ignorance is a little like calling the kettle black.

First of all what is and is not insulting is not objective reality, it is subjective. So your discounting the subjective reaction of several other people is not informative or even relevant really; it's just insensitive, Finn. However, feeling insulted has real social value and the appropriate thing to say when someone feels insulted is "I'm sorry." To not do so, is a further insult. You want to insult a body, go ahead; but to do it, even unknowingly, and then deny that you did it is just evasive and, as I said, insulting.

Secondly, the subject of the thread was perfectly clear without explanation. What CUnknown did is called thread hijacking. To post on a thread simply to denounce everyone who has posted on it is straight-up trolling.

Thirdly, Ruxton did exactly what you suggested:

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
CUNKNOWN,

You seem to have major limitations in your background and/or experiences. Are you not aware of the use of remote viewing by many government's secret services? Are you not aware that it works for some folks?

You're a doubter and that's fine, but please don't put your limitations on those who know better. I don't mean to disparage your thoughts, but it's evident you are not capable of feeing things that others are, or you'd never have made your statements.

And that's about as kindly and polite as I've ever seen him, Finn. Course, when this polite suggestion was roundly ignored, Ruxton got a bit riled up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Although, if one cannot accept the fact that evidence for psychic abilities is miniscule and often more adequately explained with coincidence, then it draws one’s own observations and experiences into question, because it suggests that these observations and experiences are based on an irrational analysis. So I’m of the mind to believe that any discussion on psychic ability is basically trivial without the so-called “Scully” perspective to anchor it, or act as a control, as it were.

Evidence for psychic abilities is not "miniscule" to people who have personally experienced such things all their lives. For them, such evidence can be overwhelming. The concept of coincidence was made for your way of thinking by people who think as you do. In my view, there are no coincidences; nothing is a matter of mere chance. Everything has meaning. I can't always discern it, but that only describes my limitation, not reality's.

I have been a professional psychic reader at various times in my life and given countless accurate readings, all of which might have been lucky guesses, absolutely. From an objective standpoint, my guides could all be figments of my imagination and I'm just making stuff up. But if I am, I'm a very lucky guy--and quite a nutjob to boot! I've also been totally unable to read certain folks at all. I tend to be able to connect with most people I encounter in the world, but there are some people who are just blank to me. But that don't mean they're "meaningless."

Ironically, these folks don't tend to be the skeptics. Being a professional psychic means having to deal with a good many skeptics and people coming to challenge me. I'm generally pretty good at freaking these folks out.

I once won hundreds of thousands of dollars in play money playing roulette at a Microsoft Christmas party. I got the exact winning number five times and got next to the right number something like fifteen times. My bets would follow the winning number around the table, getting closer and closer until I'd get it. I really freaked out the woman working the wheel and attracted a small crowd. So why don't I go to Vegas and become a billionaire, right? Because personal desire absolutely short-circuits my psychic gift. If I want something badly enough, I can't see a thing about it. This is pretty standard with readers, axiomatic even: desire is the enemy of awareness. (After that party though, I was awfully tempted, but I've never had so much money that I wouldn't care if I won or lost. I'd be happy to risk someone else's money, if they'd like.

You could keep all the winnings, promise.) This is one of the reasons I don't go looking for a scientist to test my abilities; my desire to prove something would interfere with the results. Any practicing psychic is gonna have a pretty vested interest in proving something to the scientist, so their results are likely to be corrupted. Whenever I have interfered with the lives of others uninvited, tried to get them to let me read them, for instance, "'cause it would be good for 'em" it's turned out badly. Being a busy-body really gets in the way of my gift, so I don't do it. So I gotta wait for the scientists to knock on my door. So far, they haven't.

The other reason that psychic abilities do not respond well to scientific inquiry is that psychic awareness is a survival mechanism. All of the very gifted people I've met have suffered some kind of horrendous life-threatening trauma that triggered their gift (usually as children, though one teacher I had fell out of a five story building in his twenties and got several new "friends" when he landed); somehow the trauma brings on the awareness and because of the extremity of the event, the awareness sticks around. In most people, psychic "power" only kicks in in extreme life-threatening situations, like CTS's blizzard braving friend. How you gonnna scientifically evaluate that one? If you fake a blizzard, the psychic awareness won't kick in because it's not a real emergency. Psychic ability tends to happen "in the heat of the moment" like that. You can't simulate "life threatening" in the lab (not legally anyway; maybe down at Gitmo

).

Also, you can do as Ruxton did, and leave the human world and live among the non-human intelligences of the Earth, but lugging along a science crew on such an outing would kinda cheapen the experience.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Sure, I’ve turned on the tv to find a show that I wanted to watch or part of a movie that I hadn’t seen, but that was a coincidence or at best better explained by prior knowledge. Jumping to the conclusion that I had some psychic experience is probably a little rash.

Finn, Finn, Finn. Context is important, particularly on the internet, where it can be so easily lost. I didn't post that as evidence of psychic phenomena, I was sincerely asking if anyone had a psychic explaination for it. I have a "hunch" that there's something to it, but I haven't gotten any really compelling info about it as of yet. I would never expect to convince a skeptic of psychic phenomena based on that.

Quote:
On the other hand, my grandmother might do the same thing and insist that the Lord Jesus brought her to the TV. How is that any different?

It's not very different at all. There's nothing in the bible about Jesus and the t.v. so she didn't get it out of a book; so that counts in her favor as far as the likelyhood of it reflecting some kind of real experience. I'd say she is prolly aware of some kind of mechanism at work which she calls "Lord Jesus." The specific relationship between the t.v. sending and the biblical Jesus is hard to credit without more info.

Quote:
One of the things that makes me very skeptical of the psychical ability argument is that many of the same people who would so passionately argue in favor of the psychic ability phenomena will as passionately discount the religious phenomena, which leads me to believe that most of the psychic abilities stuff is more ideological then rational.

Ouch. My first reaction to this was, "What kind of self-serving strawman has Finn cooked up here?" but then I remembered: New Agers. A whole bunch of New Agers are ex-Christians, extremely so. Unlike your grandma, they have a serious axe to grind against Lord Jesus. Sadly, this stuff is vastly more ideological than rational. In my early twenties I was that way. I fell in with a lot of witches and we were pretty mad at Christians for the Inquisition et al. Later on, as my study of clairvoyant history deepened (clairvoyant history: a lot like remote viewing, only the subject is remote in time as well as space) I was shocked with extensive evidence of the crucifixion; apparently, 2000 years ago, something pretty major happened on a planetary level centering in Jerusalem having to do with a guy named Jesus who died on a cross. My ideology had to bow to contrary evidence. I've tried to steer clear of ideology ever since. And I'm a lot nicer to Christians.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CantTakeMySky:
Imagine you were a marine biologist studying a new species of sulfur-farting crab you'd just discovered. Sulfur farts don't exist in crabs, your colleagues say, but here it is. You'd document how you sampled the farts and how they were tested for sulfur. You'd keep a log and journal, not only of its sulfur farts, but of all habits and functions. You'd write down all the questions (where does the sulfur come from?), and look for patterns that might reveal the answers (could it be from the shrimp it eats?).

What if this 'sulphur fart' was very rare, only once in a hundred normal 'farts', and their was no discernable reason prior (like eating some shrimp) that caused it.
But it happened, occasionally.
Now move that premise into something more intangibile, something harder to define and impossible for an outside party to observe.

HK:
As ever your posts are Insightful and elequent.

Quote:
Origianlly posted by HKCavalier:
First of all what is and is not insulting is not objective reality, it is subjective. So your discounting the subjective reaction of several other people is not informative or even relevant really; it's just insensitive, Finn. However, feeling insulted has real social value and the appropriate thing to say when someone feels insulted is "I'm sorry." To not do so, is a further insult. You want to insult a body, go ahead; but to do it, even unknowingly, and then deny that you did it is just evasive and, as I said, insulting.

Basically what I've been trying (and failing) to say for the last few posts...

Your points lower down about scientific study were more or less what I was trying to get at.

Quote:
Being a professional psychic means having to deal with a good many skeptics and people coming to challenge me. I'm generally pretty good at freaking these folks out.

But they probably weren't persuaded, went away thinking coincidence?
I mean no one is going to be able to persuade me that these things don't exist, anymore than I am likely to convince someone that they do.
I mentioned earlier that I am a fairly rational, scientifically minded person. I believe what I see and what I've experinced, and what seems reasonable based off of that.
Thus I believe in psychic/paranormal experiences I've seen them, they are as tangible as a rock to me.
But how do you prove to the majority of people who haven't expereinced such things that they exist?
I have no doubt that if I hadn't experienced such things that I would be on the otherside of the argument, but I have, and I'm not.
To butcher a (you'll like this Chrisisall) Spock quote:
"It would be impossible to explain without a common frame of refrence."

Quote:
I was shocked with extensive evidence of the crucifixion; apparently, 2000 years ago, something pretty major happened on a planetary level centering in Jerusalem having to do with a guy named Jesus who died on a cross. My ideology had to bow to contrary evidence. I've tried to steer clear of ideology ever since. And I'm a lot nicer to Christians.

I think theres extensive records and evidence of a man named Jesus Christ being executed by crucifixtion. My problem with christianity is, and always has been Gods 'human' portrayl, and whether or not Christ was infact the son of God.
To give an alternate view though, Christs death has had a profound effect on the world. One man dying has litterally changed every persons life since, christian or not. Whether he was the son of God is unimportant, the belief was there, so the followers took up the flag and marched.
And they did a lot, some good, some bad, in his name.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence." This is a statement that ignores a basic assymetry of science: it can't prove anything, only disprove.

First of all, my statement was simply a catchy way of saying, just because you haven't found it yet doesn't prove it doesn't exist. It is a point of logic, not a dismissal of your so-called assymetry. If you want to get technical, the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as proof of absence.

Secondly, you got it backwards. In terms of existence, science can only prove, not disprove. It can only prove that giraffes exist. It can't disprove the existence of unicorns.

Thirdly, the only thing science can REALLY do is tell you whether your hypothesis was able to predict your results, or not. If it was able to predict your results, it means your model is worth investigating further. If it wasn't able to predict your results, it means your model was not a good predictor. You can choose to extrapolate this as science cannot prove a model, only disprove it. But that's not really accurate. The way science works is actually a lot more limited and precise than that.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 4:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What if this 'sulphur fart' was very rare, only once in a hundred normal 'farts', and their was no discernable reason prior (like eating some shrimp) that caused it.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. That is why this subject is so hard to study, and why people can't come to any definite conclusions from the few studies that do exist.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 5:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Because personal desire absolutely short-circuits my psychic gift....The other reason that psychic abilities do not respond well to scientific inquiry is that psychic awareness is a survival mechanism. All of the very gifted people I've met have suffered some kind of horrendous life-threatening trauma that triggered their gift

That actually describes my friend very well. But see, these are precisely the patterns that can lend themselves to scientific study. It would be hard to study, but with a good design and enough volunteers, it can be done.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 6:01 AM

Thats the problem...
You want to disprove it, you'll do exactly that.
You want to prove it, then hell, you'll do that too.
This isn't like most things, our subjective beliefs and desires can effect our results more than in other experiments/observations.

So the side that believes says it came out false cause thats what you wanted, and the disbelievers turn around and say the exact same thing.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:05 AM

Yeah, there is a neat little paradox in that if a genuine psychic wanted to prove his powers and yet self-interest deactivates them, he'd be unable to do so. The only option I can see is having scientists find a supposed psychic who is trying to conceal his powers, abduct him, run tests on him that punish him for failing to be psychic until they get some readings one way or the other.

The reason why I'm not hugely impressed by people who claim to be psychic is partly due to Derren Brown, who regularly does "psychic" events, only to immediately show how he did it and how easily you can pick up on things by instinct/training. In fact, his show is basically an excellent guide to the fact that beneath our layers of intelligence, consciousness and humanity, there's a very dumb animal underneath that can be fooled any which way.

For those of you who haven't seen him, Derren Brown is a magician/illusionist/psychologist/conman (his own description) who does lots of things you'd get from your average psychic like picking out someone's name, address, their first girlfriend's name, what object they'd pick out in a room of 150 objects, what path someone will take in a supermarket to buy a particular item that he's put into their subconscious.

I'd urge anyone who has witnessed an apparently inexplicable phenomenon to watch his shows (he's apparently even better live) and see whether the feats he performs are even more baffling.

Of course, there's now a movement that claims he actually is a psychic and his real con is persuading people that he isn't...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:39 AM

I've seen Derren Brown on many occassions, I like his show a lot. In fact a friend/neighbour/work colleague of mine met him in London not long ago. Apparently it was a bit of a funny experience, he met him on the street by the metropol building, which is across the road from Victoria gardens.
So he says Derren Brown kind looked right into him when as they spoke (guess thats kind part of his whole pyschology thing), and a very approachable person to boot.

As for the guy being psychic, nope, at least no more than any of the rest of us, just knows the human animal really well.

And yeah, there is a lot of charlatans out there, but theres a lot in every walk of life, don't mean that everyones a charlatan.

I remember a run in I had with a faith healer who told me she could cure my headache. When it didn't work it was my fault for not believing she could cure me.
But surely if me believing she could cure me was the deciding factor, at the end of the day the person doing the healing would have been me, through the placebo effect...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:27 AM

RUXTON

CUNKNOWN
No, clown boy, you were NOT polite, which is why I called you out. Your opening statements here again clearly show you believe you know more about science than anyone posting. That's NOT polite, it's bloody RUDE, and also not true.

I showed you a tiny fraction of what you'd need to look at if you wanted to learn anything, but clearly you can't be bothered to look stuff up. Therefore I will attempt to show you nothing whatsoever. Your ignorance is indeed profound, and glaringly obvious in light of your not being able to decipher what exactly I was pointing out to you. It's a pity you don't understand your comments add NOTHING to the discussion.

FINN, you made good points. However, science in fact does ignore that which goes against its long-established tenets, because to buck such facts and go where no one has gone before is to negatively affect FUNDING. Therefore science does not have a truly free agenda. It must follow the direction those who fund it want it to pursue. A century ago some physicists/mathematicians simplified some equations about electromagnetics to eliminate non-symmetry. In so doing, EVERY "scientist" since then has ignored what is essentially free energy. Tesla knew about it, and today so does Col. Tom Bearden, who has a patent on a working model of a free-energy device (MEG). Do other scientists of today embrace these concepts? No, not even Stephen Hawking, because to do so would be to essentially put themselves out of business through cut funding.

Yes, "science" is indeed very much afraid of accepting new or barely understood items. And for the record, the DOD/CIA funded that Stanford research for OVER 20 YEARS. The fact that it ceased does not necessarily imply that it didn't work, but equally implies they no longer wanted people to know just how well it works. The stated conclusions support the latter.

And finally, What the hell are people afraid of? Why do non-believers insist they can't pick up radio or TV signals without a radio? Clearly the signals are out there, and clearly some people have the ability to tune in to them without a radio or TV. As I posted a long time ago, on two separate occasions I heard a question posed to me by another party, even though no words were spoken. Here's one: I was sitting on a couch next to a friend. Her brother was in the room, in conversation with us. At one point my friend asked me a question, as I was looking away from her. I repeated her question verbatim, using her odd phrasing, and answered it. I then looked at her and her brother, both of whom were staring at me with a stunned look on their faces. When I asked what was the problem, my friend said she had intended to ask the question but had not done so. I told her I clearly heard her, in her exact manner of speaking. Her brother confirmed she had not said a word.

If that is not a psychic phenomena I would very much like to know what it was. Ditto my conversations with a wild fox in Alaska, who perfectly understood my every unspoken thought, and ACTED on them. My old dog is deaf and has lost much of her ability to smell, and her vision is extremely poor. Yet she knows when I'm thinking of her and ACTS on it, much as an old cat I had did. There can be no hidden agenda, no precognition, no "it's time for this or that," because NOTHING here is done by a set schedule. Ditto with the old cat. And I also KNOW without a doubt when they have problems that need my attention, though no SIGNALS are given, It''s totally what we call "psychic" phenomena.

To conclude, those who dismiss psychic phenomena are very limited individuals with closed minds and with miniscule world experiences. I will not share one more thought with any of them. To attempt to explain myself further to those who don't have the mental capacity to recognize that things happen that THEY can't possibly understand, is to suffer fools. I don't suffer fools.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
This isn't like most things, our subjective beliefs and desires can effect our results more than in other experiments/observations.

I respectfully disagree. Psychologists study these sorts of things, where behavior is highly influenced or obstructed by subjective desire, all the time. It is hard, but not impossible. You have to design an experiment where your subject is conned into thinking something else. Well, psychics might be harder to con than others, but that itself would be an interesting result to analyze.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I respectfully disagree. Psychologists study these sorts of things, where behavior is highly influenced or obstructed by subjective desire, all the time. It is hard, but not impossible. You have to design an experiment where your subject is conned into thinking something else. Well, psychics might be harder to con than others, but that itself would be an interesting result to analyze.

I was thinking of the scientists themselves...
We all bring our own agendas to the table, no matter who we are.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Yes, "science" is indeed very much afraid of accepting new or barely understood items.

Please do not judge "science" because scientists are flawed, self-interested human beings. I know it is commonplace to use science and scientists synonymously. In this case, there really is a distinction.

I am passionate about science. I was trained as a scientist. My husband is professional research scientist. We talk about science all the time, because we love it. I don't want "science" to get a bad rap because its practioners are sometimes short-sighted fools.

So let me say this once and for all:
1) Science is not afraid of studying anomalies like psychic phenomena.
2) Science is absolutely capable of studying complex, subjective human behaviors like psychic phenomena.

The reason psychic phenomena isn't studied more extensively has nothing to do with the limitations of *science*, but of the *scientists*. Please, let's not confuse the two. Thank you.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 12:38 PM

RUXTON

Cavalier,
Your words ring true. I've been involved with psychic phenomena and its study and application for about 40 years, more than many of our posters have been alive. I've found no doubt whatsoever to all the manifestations of what we call psychic phenomena, so much so that I can easily dismiss those who fail to be able to see the obvious "fish in the punch bowl."

As stated, I won't discuss all the things I've seen and made happen in my life, but will state for your edification they include my home, job, skills, and everything good (and bad!) in my life. I have brought them, each and all, here through the application of what most would label "psychic phenomena." (My early experiences with influencing the actions of other persons not in close contact with me scared me so much that I quit those experiments entirely.) Most of what I have would be the envy of many a person; I don't mean to brag, just make a point. The fact that I am still alive is due entirely to psychic phenomena, but I will never be able to discuss that. Suffice to say I agree wholeheartedly with all your well-chosen words on this most arcane subject.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 12:46 PM

RUXTON

CTS, You are correct, of course. What we commonly call "science" is in fact the accepted theories of scientists. I stand corrected. And it is of course these scientists who are in danger of losing their jobs if they buck the status quo with any overt intent of altering it to a significant degree without the okay from their supporters.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 1:11 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Yeah, there is a neat little paradox in that if a genuine psychic wanted to prove his powers and yet self-interest deactivates them, he'd be unable to do so. The only option I can see is having scientists find a supposed psychic who is trying to conceal his powers, abduct him, run tests on him that punish him for failing to be psychic until they get some readings one way or the other.

That's why I suggested Gitmo as the place to start that study. Or you could put it on t.v. as the next generation of Fear Factor. I'm fairly certain the Nazis carried out experiments exactly as you describe.

My spidey sense detects a note of sarcasm with the "neat little paradox" line. Y'see, when you encounter the non-human intellegences you are confronted with practicalities which from our human perspective look like ethics and morality. In a very real sense Love really does make the world go round.

BTW, if anyone wants to make a study of me, I won't stop them.

Quote:
Derren Brown is a magician/illusionist/psychologist/conman (his own description) who does lots of things you'd get from your average psychic like picking out someone's name, address, their first girlfriend's name, what object they'd pick out in a room of 150 objects, what path someone will take in a supermarket to buy a particular item that he's put into their subconscious.

I've been doing psychic readings for over 20 years and I've never done any of that crap (well, I have known a very few clients names just from looking at them, but there were special circumstances, but addresses? What about the next winning lottery numbers and did you know you'll be winning a red convertible very soon?). That stuff is proof of charlatanry, pure and simple. Parlor tricks. If you go to a psychic for that kind of crap information, you need more help than you think.

Quote:
I'd urge anyone who has witnessed an apparently inexplicable phenomenon to watch his shows (he's apparently even better live) and see whether the feats he performs are even more baffling.

Stage magic is pretty, but that kind of misdirection stuff rarely ever works on me. There is a huge difference between that and the real thing. Seriously. You ever read Flatland? The stuff you're talking about is like a two dimentional simulation of a sphere. To someone who can see an actual sphere, that stuff is just silly.

Quote:
Of course, there's now a movement that claims he actually is a psychic and his real con is persuading people that he isn't...

Thing is, at some point he's prolly used genuine intuition to get information, prolly many times, 'cause we all have it in us, but just as he's willing to abuse and confuse the intuitive faculty in others, he surely dismisses his own experiences as dumb luck and "gee, I'm better at this than I thought!"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:31 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But they probably weren't persuaded, went away thinking coincidence?

Not all of them, and those who did, not entirely. Consciously perhaps, but conscious reality represents just the tiniest speck of who we really are. The truth resonates throughout the person whether they like it or not. It invades their dreams and makes everything seem just a little more possible than before.

Quote:
I think theres extensive records and evidence of a man named Jesus Christ being executed by crucifixtion. My problem with christianity is, and always has been Gods 'human' portrayl, and whether or not Christ was infact the son of God.

Back when I was researching this stuff, I recall discovering that the great majority of recorded history of the man Jesus comes to us by way of the Christian scribes who copied the original Greek and Latin manuscripts. These guys were big into interpolating little details like the presence of their Lord and Savior into the works they were copying.

I remember a persian document that non-Christian scholars accept, but that's about it.

BTW, you folks who are big into scientific analysis, what do you make of most of history, seeing as it's mostly anecdotal and neither double blind nor repeatable?

As for Christ's divine nature as God's "only begotten Son," thank the Gospel of St. John. None of the synoptic gospels, Luke, Mark & Matthew have anything conclusive to say on the subject of Jesus's divinity. Synoptic means "seeing with the same eyes" and these three books give pretty much the same story in pretty much the same order. John's gospel is very different. All that "first there was the Word and the Word was" stuff is pure John. "Only begotten son?" Only John. John's gospel was the most popular with the early Christian power brokers because it reflected a pleasingly heirarchical pyramid of divinity. Several non-canonical gospels, most notably Thomas's, presented a very human Christ who preached that divinity dwelled in every human heart; that the way to God was an inner journey, which effectively cut out the middle man, a.k.a. the priest class. So in the first few hundred years of the Faith, the priest class had those versions excised.

One of my favorite verses in all of Christian literature is this from the Gospel of Thomas on the subject of who's in charge:

Quote:
Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and you are poverty."

Gotta love that last sentence!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2005 3:37 PM