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

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
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.

How do you know it’s not true? Psychic powers? I think your comments are much more impolite.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
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.

Have you ever considered the possibility that scientists don’t accept these ideas because they have been determined to be scientifically invalid? CUNKNOWN is a rude know-it-all for asserting an opinion that differs from yours, but you seem to be asserting that you know more then evidently all the scientists, including Stephan Hawking, who is about as expert in the area of theoretical physics as you’re going to get.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
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?

That’s part of the reason why we have archeology. There is a lot of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence in history; that is true. That is also why historians and archeologists are very quick to label the information they present with an appropriate degree of confidence. You’re not likely to find many professional historians accusing another historian of being “insensitive” or “insulting” because that person refuses to accept an idea based on anecdotal evidence. The problem that I have with the whole psychic powers and mysticism stuff is not that I think it is impossible, but rather that what I often find is that people who support this kind of stuff, generally do so attributing way too much confidence to the information. Some of them become mired in a zealous depiction that compels them to insist that there experiences are true, even though they have no evidence, and if someone suggests that it is not true, then some will even become enraged. It is not really the idea of psychic powers that I have problem with, but the fanaticism displayed by some of its proponents. As I said before, you must be prepared to accept the fact that, regardless of how strongly you feel about a conclusion, it is just as possible that it is not true, if the only evidence that you have to support it cannot prejudice one conclusion over another. The same kind of reasoning exists in historical analyses. Ask a professional sub-Roman British historian what he thinks about King Arthur. Despite King Arthur being one of the most widely documented and popular figures in Early British history, the historical community will not accept King Arthur as historical fact, because the evidence is simply not conclusive enough.

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

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

Saturday, September 24, 2005 7:45 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
A SINGLE failure will disprove a hyothesis even in the face of billions of positive results...

Uh...no.

Science puts everything in context and interprets results with appropriate qualifiers and levels of confidence, especially a SINGLE result that is inconsistent with billions of other results.

Quote:
Science provides two answers - false and not yet false.

I believe that is an oversimplification, but ok, yes. We have no argument on this score. Yes, we can have a billion "not yet false" results, and then have one single "false" result that some can interpret as "disproving" the hypothesis.

If you would read my post more carefully (3rd paragraph, about what science can REALLY do...), you would see I DO understand how hypotheses testing works, and how they are not "proven," but "disproven"--though I would not use those terms myself.

But getting hung up on the word "proof" does nothing to advance this dialogue. So let's take it out. You said that in order to believe your friends, you had to reject scientific findings. My original comment was just because scientific findings couldn't find the paranormal yet, doesn't mean those findings conclude the paranormal doesn't exist. Therefore, you don't have to reject those findings in order to believe your friends.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
What sort of information do you give in your readings? I'm genuinely interested.

First of all, most of what I do amounts to councelling. Sadly, the number one question I've gotten over the years is "does he love me?" Don't need any psychic powers to know that if you have to ask the question... A lot of people crave control. They think knowing the future, or knowing how others feel about them will give them the edge they need in life.

Anyway, you want to know what kind of psychic info I give out. When I was working on a psychic phone line (I know, seemed like a good idea at the time) the info tended to be short and sweet--that toddler of yours, got an infection in his throat, yes I know he's had a bad cough for weeks now, take him to the doctor, no arguments! And your mother and you haven't spoken in over 3 years, you need to call her...

Towards the end of my stint with the psychic phone line I started getting pretty detailed info about my clients' bodies, liver problems, pinched nerves, sexual disfunction, diabetes. Usually my guides are pretty concerned with the client's relationships, children and parents; career stuff, life plan stuff.

On rare occasions I get visuals. I described the house a woman was gonna move into once. Brick house, single story, picturesque little iron gate on the side. She called me back to thank me when she moved into it.

I read people's pets. A friend of mine had a dog who was getting aggressive for no apparent reason and she asked me to read him. Animals tend to communicate in images and emotion. I saw in my minds eye a black lab and then for the first (and thankfully only) time in my whole life I started getting, ahem, sexually aroused by a dog. I asked my friend, "Is there a black labrador in the neighborhood? Well, she's in heat. Your boy's horny."

A woman called me back during the Lewinsky scandal, said she worked for the administration and wanted to know if she was gonna have a job in the near future. Don't often get to make predictions of national importance, so that was fun. I saw Hilary standing with a knife in her hand and was told that it was a matter of her choosing; if she stood by Bill he would be fine, looked like she was gonna stand firm. I told the caller that she had nothing to worry about, that this thing would blow over.

Guy called me about the same time telling me that he was the reincarnation of the Egyptian god Ra and furthermore that Bill Clinton was the reincarnation of Ra's enemy, the god Amen. Had to do a lot of councelling with this guy. The info was that this guy had been a priest of Ra in ancient Egypt and he was so devoted to his god that in this life he mistook himself for Ra. He was kinda crazy.

I know perfectly well that all of this could have happened by chance, by inference, "having a good imagination." I really don't need to be given clever mundane explanations for these stories. I'm sure I've thought of all of them already. You asked me what kind of info I got, so I told you.

And yes, a whole lot of folks, particularly the ones working the phones are big fakers. I can't tell you how many callers would say stuff like, "Well, the other psychic said I'd win a red convertible!" Seriously, red convertibles! I'd ask these people, "You enter any drawings for red convertibles lately? Then how you gonna win one? Do people do that?"

One example from my experience seems particularly appropriate for this thread in it's simplicity and straightforwardness. A young woman came into the shop where I was doing readings at the time. I'd certainly never seen her before. She was a bit solemn in her demeanor, but nothing too remarkable on the face of things and so we sat down to do the reading. I don't tend to ask my subjects for any information up front, and she didn't give me any. When reading someone in person I generally use tarot cards as a jumping off point; I find their symbols tend to clear my mind of prejudices and agendas, opening me to "the information." As I lay down the second card, I saw the abortion she had had recently. There was nothing rational in the perception, nothing remotely "abortionlike" about the image on the card, yet there it was. Also, this is the only time I've ever talked to a client about an abortion.

Now, in these situations I have many, many thoughts and images that cross my mind. I've come to speak of the psychic information as coming into my awareness "at a certain angle" which I can usually perceive. I think, "Now, that wasn't my thought, was it?"

When I told this woman that I saw her abortion she immediately began to cry. I could see the sudden relief in her face just from hearing me speak of it. The rest of the reading concerned the need to forgive herself and other matters which I don't recall (another characteristic of most of my psychic information is that the particulars tend to fade from my memory very soon after a reading). The rational observer in me latched onto the details of the abortion and the woman's tears as some kind of evidence that I wasn't crazy. No matter how many years I've been at this, my mind's first reaction to this kind of confirmation is the same, "Have I lost my mind?" In a Zen sense, I think the answer would be a resounding, "Yes!"

Bottom line: nobody's address, nobody's purse contents.

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 8:38 PM

CUNKNOWN

Thanks for standing up for me, Finn. I'm sort of insulted that they think I was being insulting.. I mean, I can do soo much better than that, if I was trying. It's tempting, too.

There probably isn't much point in responding to Ruxton anymore (if there ever was). He seems incapable of a calm discussion on this topic.

Cavalier, you seem to be relying on your own personal experience and nothing else to form your opinions. I think it's good to have a more balanced..uh.. truth-seeking strategy, I can't think of a way to put that better right now. The problem is, your personal experiences could be completely off-base, and you wouldn't realize it unless you use logic as a guide. How do you know you're not wrong, Cavalier, about your psychic abilities? You might say "I just know." But, that isn't good enough, is it? It's often the case that people are completely sure about something, and completely wrong at the same time.

I know a little something about irrationality from personal experience, heh. I used to do psychidelic drugs a lot, and I really got into just thinking and believing the things I'd think. Your mind just goes a mile a minute, and you think that everything is sort of coming to you from somewhere special (your inner self, or maybe God). And you certainly can have a lot of great thoughts that way. You can realize things that you'd never thought of before. But, a lot of the stuff that was in my brain was just junk. Totally worthless shit that I believed when it was brought out by this drug-induced mental state. I couldn't judge it for what it was. When I came out of it later and re-thought the same thoughts, I realized the nonsense I'd been carrying around with me for a while, and I cast it aside. So, it was a positive experience.

Among other things, it taught me that we're irrational creatures, and we need logic as a guide. Logic is also limiting, so you can't get too reliant on it, but it's there as a tool. With regards to psychic powers and drug-induced craziness, the tool tells you it's pretty much bogus. Not that it doesn't have some positive elements, but that it probably shouldn't be trusted.

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
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.

How do you know it’s not true? Psychic powers? I think your comments are much more impolite.

Interesting, how we don't need evidence to back things up if its you thats saying them, Finn.
Erm, Ruxton knows its not true because CUnkown said so.

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
Ruxton, your point was what, again? That I didn't know all the details about "Remote Viewing?" Well, thanks to your links...

Seems clear that until Ruxton gave CUnknown links, CUnknown knew next to nothing about remote viewing.
Anyway, is it particularly likely that CUnknown is a scientist working on paranormal phenomena? No, it isn't, so lets see some proof before we believe that CUnknown is this great eminent scientist shall we...
That would be your argument turned back on you, BTW Finn.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
That’s part of the reason why we have archeology. There is a lot of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence in history; that is true. That is also why historians and archeologists are very quick to label the information they present with an appropriate degree of confidence. You’re not likely to find many professional historians accusing another historian of being “insensitive” or “insulting” because that person refuses to accept an idea based on anecdotal evidence.

For crying out loud Finn, please! Yes, your right, but you won't find proffessional scientists calling each other illogical or making sweeping statements like "many psychics are millitant or charlatans ergo all are" either.
No one here has suggested that SimonWho or CantTakeSky are insulting or insensitive, and neither of those individuals have supported psychic phonomena. But they haven't said that those who do are inherintly flawed, illogical or irrational, which *IS* insulting, either.
No one has labeled you that, as you havent said anything downright insulting on the matter, even though you have been using the intellectual equivelent of poking a bee hive with a stick.

But we've made our thoughts on the subject of whether CUnkowns comments were insulting clear now, and we're all just repeating ourselves. So lets just drop it and get back on topic, shall we.

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
Thanks for standing up for me, Finn. I'm sort of insulted that they think I was being insulting.. I mean, I can do soo much better than that, if I was trying. It's tempting, too.

You just don't get it, do you CUnknown. You said psychic phonomena was hoaxed. So anyone who professes to experience it is lying, or a hoaxer of some kind? You then say that anyone who even believes the possibillity is irrational and illogical, which in itself is an irrational and illogical standpoint. Its like the man who refuses to believe elephants exist because he's never seen one.

Quote:
Among other things, it taught me that we're irrational creatures, and we need logic as a guide. Logic is also limiting, so you can't get too reliant on it, but it's there as a tool. With regards to psychic powers and drug-induced craziness, the tool tells you it's pretty much bogus. Not that it doesn't have some positive elements, but that it probably shouldn't be trusted.

We are irrational creatures, your right. And that goes for your good self as much as anyone. Your logical reasoning says that psychic Phenomena doesn't exist in any form, mine says otherwise. Notice how I don't say that makes you illogical or irrational, which is a label you placed on those of us who do believe in such things.
Lets get this out of the way right here and right now. You BELIEVE psychic Phenomena doesn't exist and I BELIEVE it does.
Unless your saying you have some divine providence into the workings of the universe saying that you know as fact that psychic/paranormal Phenomena is bogus is illogical. Note that I'm not calling you illogical, just your standpoint at some level.

I'll say too you what I said to Finn:
We are done with this discussion on whether or not you were being insulting. We have all stated our case and now we're just repeating ourselves. If you'd like to continue the discussion this thread was started for, do so, please. In fact I would like to hear your logical steps to dismissing psychic Phenomena in its entirety, I'm not being sarcastic, I am genuinly interested.

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

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:29 AM

SIMONWHO

There is no real way to dismiss all psychic phenomena in its entirety, mostly because as you've said, psychics don't want to be studied under scientific conditions. For example, your predictive dreams, you would have to write each one down every morning and then you'd also have the problem that you might not remember them all or that they were from dreams before you started writing them down.

The scientific explanation is merely that your brain has gotten its sense of timing wrong. There's a rather good article about it here:
http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i46/46a01201.htm

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 4:30 AM

Thanks for the interesting link.
I'd say that déjà vu and what I've experienced aren't the same thing at all, though. When the event occurs it's not a 'false' sense of "I've been here before". It's a very true sense of "I've experienced this event before", and so much so that when it takes place I could tell you what happens, is said, and what thoughts I'll have next.

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

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 6:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The nature of "belief" is that you hold an idea in absence of- or sometimes even in direct contradiction to- evidence. The vast majority of people do not experience reliable "psychic" phenomena. If they did, far fewer would die in tsunamis, mudslides, or in the many other sudden unexpected disasters that befall us. The vast majority of studies have not been able to provide evidence that "psychic" abilities exist. So either the phenomena is so rare and so inconsistent as to be buried in noise, or its due to chance.

For those who experience convincing psychic phenomena, I realize that it is strongly counterintuitive to think that it's merely chance. The strongly felt conclusion is that there MUST be a cause - similar to the rationale that leads to "intelligent design". But out of six billion people in the world, there will be those one-tenth-percenters - approximately six million people- who experience things that can't be explained in the normal scientific sense. Like the lady in Britain who has had seventeen electrical applicanes fail in the past few years.

I think I posted this idea before- one of the ways to possibly determine if physic phenomena are subjective, culture and chance-related phenomena or not is to see if the same phenomena persist throughout various cultures. For example, while in some European traditions "ghosts" may be helpful, and in many Asian cultures ancestors are helpful, in the Navajo culture ALL ghosts are evil. Do any Navajos experience helpful interactions with ghosts? Just curious.

Still- I gotta respect HK's profound intuitive grasp of things. Maybe the psychic phenomena is simply being open to ideas and nuances. BTW- if there is such a thing as an anti-reader- that's me. Thick like a brick and unintuitive in the extreme. I doubt I could even be "read".

Please don't think they give a shit.

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 1:42 PM

I've been practicing Kung-Fu and Karate since 1974, and in those years there have been moments where when sparring with an opponant, a real 'knowing' manifests itself- usually at a time when all thoughts cease, and every second lasts minutes. It's been my habit not to look at any particular spot, nor to think about any particular thing, nor to feel any particular emotion. And in those moments I've reacted in ways that might be considered unusually aware about what my opponant was about to do.
* It's due to my seeing his arms or legs move!
No, it's mostly a blur as I do not focus on any one point.
* It's automatic response due to rigerous repetition as to how to respond to specific attacks!
No, 'cause I've done it with people who's styles I was unfamiliar with, and with whom I hadn't trained before.

I am no Master, I've seen teachers blindfolded take down three and four students at a time this way, I'm not anywhere near that.

What I describe might be a psychic ability at it's simplist level: becoming sensitive to 'energy' and its motion and direction. And like HK states, when I try to do this to impress, it never works; my mind gets involved, and to tune into things beyond your immediate senses you need no-mind.

Chrisisall

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think I posted this idea before- one of the ways to possibly determine if physic phenomena are subjective, culture and chance-related phenomena or not is to see if the same phenomena persist throughout various cultures. For example, while in some European traditions "ghosts" may be helpful, and in many Asian cultures ancestors are helpful, in the Navajo culture ALL ghosts are evil. Do any Navajos experience helpful interactions with ghosts? Just curious.

I'm not sure I'd count Ghosts as necessarilly 'psychic' phenomena... but maybe the telling thing is that all cultures has such a thing...
My knowledge of native American Culture is sketchy at best, so correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't animal guides also be seen as ancestors or ghosts?

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

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
I've been practicing Kung-Fu and Karate since 1974, and in those years there have been moments where when sparring with an opponant, a real 'knowing' manifests itself- usually at a time when all thoughts cease, and every second lasts minutes. It's been my habit not to look at any particular spot, nor to think about any particular thing, nor to feel any particular emotion. And in those moments I've reacted in ways that might be considered unusually aware about what my opponant was about to do.

I too practice Martial Arts, and from my experience what the west calls 'Psychic' pervades eastern Martial Art philosophy.

I remember a particular lesson in Kaibudokahn when I was about 8 or 9, where we all sat at the edge of the mat, eyes closed and facing outward. Our master would come around with a Bokum and try and tap you on the shoulder. You had to move to the side when he did this, so dodge it. I did it, first time, but the strange thing is I could tell he was behind me, by the fact you could feel the foot steps on the mat, you know, but not everytime would he try and tag you. Only once did I feel the need to 'dodge' the Bokum and that was the only time he tried to tag me...

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

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 1:54 PM

I practice the art of posting, without double posting...

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

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:13 PM

[Apologies to all for lengthy post....]

Simonwho,
That occurrence of "psychic hearing" was about 40 years ago, and I'm not now exactly sure what her brother looked like, but the sister (my friend) was surely aghast. And that was by no means the only such occurrence between us. Another time as I was driving home I passed a crowd of people. My window was open, and I clearly heard someone speak my name. I scanned the crowd but saw no one paying particular attention to me, and no one waving. I arrived home a few minutes later and the phone rang. It was the same girlfriend, who had seen me drive by just as I got to the crowd, and had thought to cry out to me, but she was over a quarter-mile away. Yet I heard her as though she were in the car with me.

On another occasion we both saw the light of a train coming toward us in broad daylight. But there was no train....
--------------
You also asked, "Secondly, why did you repeat her question before answering it? Is that something you usually do? Third, was this some completely unrelated question to the topic you were previously discussing or did it follow naturally on?"

The question was, as I recall, largely unrelated and I sometimes did, and do, repeat questions to be able to address them according to the language or context in which they were spoken.
-----------
And,: "As you say, your dog can see you (albeit it badly) and you can't really be sure what her level of hearing/smell is like."

I didn't clarify this, but the dog is generally out of eye- and ear-shot of me when these things take place. We (the dog and I) have developed a system of hand signals that allow me to control her silently when we hunt together, so she would have to be out of eyeshot for me to have made a claim of psychic communication.

However, along the lines of your suggestion:
"Why not try an experiment like putting your dog in another room, telling her to stay, walking into another room (that the dog can still access but with a door separating you) and then mentally summoning her 52 minutes later (you can't pick the time, it has to be done by someone else)."

I actually did something very like this some years ago when I was in the habit of leaving home and returning at odd hours because of the type of work I did. My mother was visiting at the time, and I also had an old cat. The cat, as my mother repeatedly observed, knew when I was coming home,m though it was impossible for her to have anticipated it except through "psychic" means. The cat would go to her watching window and within 15 or 20 minutes I'd be home. The cat could not possibly hear nor see nor smell me coming that long before I arrived. My vehicle was only visible to the house, and within earshot, for a few seconds before I arrived. My mother saw this happen every day for well over a week, as long as she visited.

Even today, precious little of what I do is by any pattern. I do take the dog for walks, but I omitted those obvious signals in my consideration of the material I presented.

Another time, I had a girlfriend who was a "psychic" healer. Doubtful, eh???? She was an operating-room nurse and had ample opportunites to test her skills. When one gravely ill patient too many for her, whom she had "healed" before surgery, was opened up and the doctors found NOTHING wrong with them, she realized she might be doing the wrong thing. Yes, she healed me one time, and once you have experienced something like this, you'll be a believer for life, no matter what you may have thought in the past. Unless you're a blockhead, of course, or have done psychadelic drugs a lot.

Along those lines, those I know who have psychic abilities have an aversion to certain carnival rides, and cannot stand the blinking lights of most TV commercials, or strobe lights in bars. I wonder who is included here?

What really continues to gall me is that some people continue to deny what for some of us is part and parcel of our daily lives -- and could be part of theirs too if they wanted it. But to fight the existence of psychic phenomena is kind of like if I hit you in the face, and then swore to you I didn't do it. It's that obvious. I KNOW psychic phenomena exist, though many can't believe it. This is by no means as arcane as belief in an invisible God, it's something I have experienced and have thus proven to myself over many, many years.

Too often I see posters here grabbing onto a seemingly quesionable item and hashing it to death while ignoring others that clearly put the lie onto the doubter. How many of you doubters have walked in the wilderness with a wild fox? Do you have PHOTOS to prove it? I have, and I do. WHY has no one commented on the funding of science? Do you not understand how it all works? I have great insight into how funding affects what doctors are allowed and not allowed to do. Funding sources DICTATE to them.

CUNKNOWN, in all seriousness I suggest you investigate meditation. I suspect it might do a whole lot of good for you, and can surely not hurt. BTW, are you in fact HERO? Your attitudes are much the same, though you seem to be more peaceful.

Cavalier and Rue, Can't explain this, but as young kid (before 10 perhaps) I KNEW religion didn't need a church, nor a preacher. I sure didn't have access to anything that taught me that. (As an aside, really not needing commentary, was that when -- again as a kid -- I was told that nothing could exceed the speed of light, I KNEW that was wrong.)

CITIZEN, good words. Thank you for your well-reasoned defenses of my rages.

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:22 PM

Chris,
Your comments about martial arts are exactly reflected by musicians, the best of whom have stated publically that the "little me" has to get out of the way so the "big me" (subconscious) can play through. I've seen this myself with intricate guitar work, which is easier to play whilst watching, say, a baseball game with the TV's sound turned off. I.e., I can play much better when I'm not trying.

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

Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:38 PM

Ruxton, when I finally got serious about Martial Arts, about mid-ninties (yeah, taking classes since '74 and limiting my understanding to encompass mere self-defence technique doesn't count as serious to me), I was looking for the mysticism in it. I studied many styles, had many teachers, and came out realizing that all I had been seeking, I already had. It was all a process of emptying, not aquiring.
I suppose it is the same for all things, the baseball player, the ice skater, heck, Einstein even. Tuning into that energy that puts you in touch with yourself, and lets all things become possible in the moment.
(Okay, I'm sounding like Master Po now, so I'll stop)

E=mc2Chrisisall

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 1:17 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I was thinking of the scientists themselves...
We all bring our own agendas to the table, no matter who we are.

Research design can control for the biases of the researchers themselves. Ever heard of the double-blind placebo study? Well, in a single blind study, the patients don't know if they've received a placebo or not. In a double-blind study, neither the patients nor the doctors measuring the outcomes know who got the placebos.

Yeah, there are a lot of confounders (variables that confuse the results) in psychological research. But psychologists are used to controlling for them. Just gotta have better design and methodology for these types of studies, and interpret the results more carefully.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 1:21 AM

Sure, and I know it could be done, but the people designing the test will have their own biases that may effect the design of the test and therefore the results...

And at the very least that could be the responce of anyone who doesn't want to recognise the results of the test...

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 2:12 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sure, and I know it could be done, but the people designing the test will have their own biases that may effect the design of the test and therefore the results...

Of course. That is why scientists don't jump to conclusions as the result of any single study. Theory develops after results are replicated, over and over again, by researchers from all places and all persuasions. When it comes to things one cannot control, big numbers and statistics are used to hopefully neutralize those variables.

I know science has limitations. But I also know that science, when practiced correctly, works. And in a lot more situations than people think. Science has the *ability* to investigate the paranormal, esp at this stage of our understanding of it. Now whether or not science should or will tackle it--well, those are different questions.

Science is not the end all and be all of knowledge. We know a lot of things that science has never verified, and doesn't need to. We know our parents or our spouses love us. We don't need science to tell us--we just know. Some of us believe in a deity, or a force, or spirituality bigger than our material selves. We don't need science to tell us--we just believe. We choose not to eat in a restaurant where someone came out vomiting. We don't need science to prove the restaurant caused the vomiting--we just don't want to eat there.

Yes, psychic and paranormal phenomena can be properly investigated by science. But in the meantime, lack of scientific study or findings does not negate or (ahem) "disprove" these experiences--not anymore than they negate experiences like love and faith and choice that have likewise never been under scientific scrutiny.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 2:21 AM

Thank you and well said...
See, to a degree thats the problem with Finn and CUnknowns arguments, lack of scientific study to them proves paranormal phenomena doesn't exist.
Frankly if such an attitude was prevelant within the scientific community we'd still be in the dark ages.

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Thank you and well said...
See, to a degree thats the problem with Finn and CUnknowns arguments, lack of scientific study to them proves paranormal phenomena doesn't exist.
Frankly if such an attitude was prevelant within the scientific community we'd still be in the dark ages.

I think your interpretation of what I’ve said is rather convenient, but probably not terribly representative of my posts, since I have never claimed that “lack of scientific study . . . proves paranormal phenomena doesn't exist.” In fact, my first post in this thread was to suggest that there has, indeed, been considerable scientific study.

You insist that you want to “see some proof before [[]you[]] believe that CUnknown is this great eminent scientist.” Even though, Cunknown never claimed to be any such “great eminent scientist.” Why is that? You don’t place the same restrictions on yourself. Why don’t you prove to us that your alleged experiences are real or at least why don’t you provide some proof that you are a credible source? Why should we believe you if you are unwilling to provide the same proof you demand from others?

A lack of evidence does not necessarily prove that something doesn’t exist. The problem, however, is that if you don’t have enough evidence to bias one conclusion in favor of others, then an open-minded, rational and dispassionate thinker should see that all conclusions not restricted by the evidence are therefore equally favored. What this means is that in the absence of evidence it is possible that psychic phenomena exists, however, it is equally possible that those who claim psychic ability exists are liars or mistaken or gremlins made them do it. It is not that I think that lack of evidence proves psychic ability doesn’t exist, but rather that I think that it doesn’t prove you’re right, and I have no reason to believe you or not to believe that psychic phenomena is real.

And this is of course all assuming that there IS a lack of evidence. In reality there is considerable scientific study on this issue which has resulted in nothing conclusive. That is evidence. There are considerable examples of frauds, con-artists and magicians demonstrating how easily people can be fooled. This is also evidence, perhaps circumstantial, but evidence. I don’t think that this demonstrates that psychic phenomena don’t exist, but I do think that it justifies a healthy skepticism for so called anecdotal evidence.

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
I think your interpretation of what I’ve said is rather convenient, but probably not terribly representative of my posts, since I have never claimed that “lack of scientific study . . . proves paranormal phenomena doesn't exist.” In fact, my first post in this thread was to suggest that there has, indeed, been considerable scientific study.

Sorry, Finn, I meant to say seems, and that comment was aimed more at CUnknown than yourself. In fact I was thinking of removing your name from that line before you replied.
There has been some public scientific study, to my knowledge little has been followed up on, if you have an sources I would be grateful if you could direct me.

Quote:
You insist that you want to “see some proof before [[]you[]] believe that CUnknown is this great eminent scientist.” Even though, Cunknown never claimed to be any such “great eminent scientist.” Why is that? You don’t place the same restrictions on yourself. Why don’t you prove to us that your alleged experiences are real or at least why don’t you provide some proof that you are a credible source? Why should we believe you if you are unwilling to provide the same proof you demand from others?

You asked how do you know its not true [[]that CUnknown knows more about science than any one else here[]]?
You are the one asking for proof of everything Finn. Yet when it supports your argument you seem to expect the rest of us to accept it at face value. As for providing proof, I'm more than willing, what would you accept/believe?
How would I prove to a blind man that the sky is blue?

Quote:
The problem, however, is that if you don’t have enough evidence to bias one conclusion in favor of others, then an open-minded, rational and dispassionate thinker should see that all conclusions not restricted by the evidence are therefore equally favored.

Is it really beyond your imagination to assume that maybe I do have evidence, but evidence that can not be imparted to you? Theres that rational issue again, since I think psychic phenomena exists I'm irrational? Maybe the evidence I have is more in favor of existence? I have said on a number of occassions that I would be on your side of this debate, if it wasn't for my own experiences.

Quote:
What this means is that in the absence of evidence it is possible that psychic phenomena exists, however, it is equally possible that those who claim psychic ability exists are liars or mistaken or gremlins made them do it.

Only to those who have not experienced them.

Quote:
This is also evidence, perhaps circumstantial, but evidence. I don’t think that this demonstrates that psychic phenomena don’t exist, but I do think that it justifies a healthy skepticism for so called anecdotal evidence.

For you, this is true. For me the evidence is far from anecdotal.

Finn I have not had one problem really with your rejection of what I or others here have said. I have a problem with your continued defense of CUnknown on the basis that (s)he was being insulting, when, frankly you have no right to comment, as no possible insult was aimed at you.
That is all.
I welcome your perspective, I really do, though I entirely disagree with it. If you check pretty much all my posts, any attack I have made on your position were relating to your defense of CUnKnown.

Though I make one addendum.
Can you not see that your perspective is as biased as anyone elses here?
And that sweeping statements that imply, though I recognise you haven't outright said it, that some professed Psychics are charlatans therefore most/all are, are not useful to the discussion?

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 10:25 AM

SIMONWHO

But that's the thing about "personal experiences". They really only have the meaning that you ascribe to them. For example...

I was going to someone else's house for Bridge one evening. It was dark and even though the house was open, there was no-one there. I was confused, wandered around looking for the guy or either one of the playing partners but it really was empty. About five minutes later, they all arrived at the front door, having been just across the road dropping something off. (This is all just context).

Now I'd been asked to invite either Mike or Nick along to make up the four and had phoned up Nick to invite him along. However, when the three came in, I saw our two regular players and Mike. I was horrified because Nick was about to turn up and someone would have to go home. They noticed my look of horror and I explained that I thought we might have too many. Mike looked concerned but said that he was fine with going back himself. I explained that I'd left a message for Nick to join us. Mike looked at me strangely. He said "I'm Nick."

And he was. Even though I had up until that very moment seen Mike in front of me, it was Nick who I was talking to.

What did it mean? Nothing. My brain being quirky for no apparent reason. However, if instead of me seeing Mike, I had seen a dead relative, I'd have been convinced I had seen a ghost. It felt 100% real and I doubtlessly would have sworn to it in court.

But it wasn't.

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Is it really beyond your imagination to assume that maybe I do have evidence, but evidence that can not be imparted to you? Theres that rational issue again, since I think psychic phenomena exists I'm irrational? Maybe the evidence I have is more in favor of existence? I have said on a number of occassions that I would be on your side of this debate, if it wasn't for my own experiences.

It’s not beyond my imagination. I can imagine a great many things, but I don’t necessarily hold it out as evidence, speculation maybe. Sometimes it can be beneficial to keep one’s imagination to one’s self. This is the crux of the whole matter. If I accept that you can hold your personal experiences as evidence, for which you have no corroboration and no one is allowed to criticize, then you have me at a disadvantage, do you not? Considering that this evidence exists purely in your head (as memories of said alleged experience or possibly mystical powers) then it seems that a logical consideration of said evidence is that you may not be telling the truth or may be mistaken. You’ve tied the validity of this evidence squarely to an assessment of your credibility, so outside of a purely authoritarian philosophy in which you are the Grand Poobah, I’m afraid corroborating evidence is needed.

It is interesting that your implication is that I’m “blind.” Do you believe your argument is infallible? Therefore criticism of it necessarily implies that the critic is wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Though I make one addendum.
Can you not see that your perspective is as biased as anyone elses here?
And that sweeping statements that imply, though I recognise you haven't outright said it, that some professed Psychics are charlatans therefore most/all are, are not useful to the discussion?

Whatever biases I may bring to the discussion do not change the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence for psychic phenomenon. I could be a strong proponent of psychic ability or a disbeliever; it wouldn’t change my position on the matter. In fact, as I’ve already said, I like to keep an open mind; I like to believe that psychic phenomenon is real. Whatever biases I bring to this discussion are more likely in favor of psychic phenomenon, then against, but that doesn’t change the fact that extensive studies have failed to produce any conclusive evidence, or that fraud and chance probably play a very big role in the supposed evidence that does exist. Indeed it is possible that psychic phenomenon is a completely false premise and those who support it are either charlatans or gullible. Not only do I think that is a useful consideration, but I think it is a necessary one. If one’s only source of evidence of psychic ability is the alleged experiences of supposed psychics then one must pay careful attention to determining the reliability of those sources, which is at best a daunting task.

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
If I accept that you can hold your personal experiences as evidence, for which you have no corroboration and no one is allowed to criticize, then you have me at a disadvantage, do you not?

Criticism is fine Finn. I don't want to be called a liar, remember you have no evidence on which to base that, either. Far from expecting you to take my personal experiences as evidence I'm trying to tell you that they are evidence for me. That is where my blind man refrence comes in. I wasn't trying to say you were blind to evidence, or closed minded in anyway, mearly that somethings are impossible to explain without a common frame of refrence, which we do not have.

Quote:
I’m afraid corroborating evidence is needed.

What would you accept as corroborating evidence? I really will do my best to supply it, though without a dedicated scientific study it will be most difficult, I suspect.

Quote:
the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence for psychic phenomenon. ...
but that doesn’t change the fact that extensive studies have failed to produce any conclusive evidence,

I have come across studies that have quite compelling evidence, on tape, for all to see. You keep reiterating that point Finn, but seem unwilling to back it up, which is exactly what your asking of me. You aren't willing to believe what I have to say on my word, which is fair enough, but why should I believe there is no evidence based on your assertion alone?
Simply put there isn't as many studies, and certainly not impartial ones, as you seem to claim.

However, if I'm wrong could you please point me in the direction of these extensive studies?

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What would you accept as corroborating evidence? I really will do my best to supply it, though without a dedicated scientific study it will be most difficult, I suspect.

I agree. I don’t know that you can corroborate it. I wish you could. I don’t know of very many people who have claimed to have had what they would describe as psychic experiences, but I know of some who have claimed to have had experiences which they have attributed to god. I’m a very religions man, but I don’t know what to think of that either. I’m pretty sure some of them are making it up, but others might not be. I’ve never had any kind of experiences that I would categorize as supernatural. Some people have suggested to me that my skepticism of their experiences is a result of my envy of them having had such an experiences and me not. They could be right; I don’t know. I don’t psychoanalyze such things. Personally, I think my skepticism stems from a desire to understand it, because you can’t understand something if you don’t question it.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I have come across studies that have quite compelling evidence, on tape, for all to see. You keep reiterating that point Finn, but seem unwilling to back it up, which is exactly what your asking of me. You aren't willing to believe what I have to say on my word, which is fair enough, but why should I believe there is no evidence based on your assertion alone?
Simply put there isn't as many studies, and certainly not impartial ones, as you seem to claim.

There are considerable studies, at least one of which was mentioned in this thread by me. You only have yourself to blame if you believe what I say on my assertion alone. The studies that I’m talking about are documented and declassified, unlike your “personal experiences,” which I fear are difficult for me to look up. Of course I suppose if I had psychic powers I could just read your mind, but I dare say I’m hampered in this capacity.

This is the one of the more reliable papers on the research of psychic phenomenon, in my opinion. I’ve not read all the papers out there. Nor have I studied any of them extensively. This is the summation report of the decades long SAIC and Stanford Research Institute study lavishly funded by the DIA. This study was ongoing for more then half my natural life. I would call that extensive. This study is actually favorable, not skeptical, of psychic phenomena, yet its conclusions were so lacking in result despite the decades spent studying this subject that this paper actually resulted in the DIA withdrawing it’s funding from the project.

Journal of Parapsychology:
Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena
Hyman, Ray, Ph.D.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600

“... the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. Significant departures from the null hypothesis can occur for several reasons. Without a positive theory of anomalous cognition, we cannot say that these effects are due to a single cause, let alone claim they reflect anomalous cognition. We do not yet know how replicable these results will be, especially in terms of showing consistent relations to other variables. The investigators report findings that they believe show that the degree of anomalous cognition varies with target entropy and the `bandwidth' of the target set. These findings are preliminary and only suggestive at this time. Parapsychologists, in the past, have reported finding other correlates of psychic functioning such as extroversion, sheep/goats, altered states only to find that later studies could not replicate them.”

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

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

Monday, September 26, 2005 2:55 PM

CUNKNOWN

Citizen said:

Quote:
I welcome your perspective, I really do, though I entirely disagree with it. If you check pretty much all my posts, any attack I have made on your position were relating to your defense of CUnKnown.

Perhaps let me know which things I said that need defending? I'm sure people have previously, but I don't know what exactly is on your mind at the moment. I'd like a chance to defend -myself-.

Citizen also said:

Quote:
Criticism is fine Finn. I don't want to be called a liar

Honestly, I wasn't calling anyone a liar, ever. I know perhaps I insulted some people, but I didn't mean to. I'm not taking back anything I said, but please understand that I didn't intend to insult anyone. Hopefully, that will make people feel a little better--I think that maybe our viewpoints are so opposed that it is easy to have misunderstandings.

As far as my science credentials, I never claimed that I was a professor or anything. However, I have been in academia for a while and I know how scientists think, for the most part. I've taken Philosophy of Science classes, and I have a Master's in Biochemistry. I work as a lab technician at the moment. I think I can speak from the point of view of a typical scientist, at least as far as this discussion is concerned.

If psychic phenomena are brought up in conversation with a typcial scientist in a respected field, he/she will laugh at you. Yes, what I'm saying is that, even a priori, paranormal phenomena including psychics, ghosts, UFO's, etc. are completely dismissed by the vast majority of scientists in standard, "respectable" fields. Certainly scientists who actually study something like psychic phenomena will not be considered "respectable" or hardly even "real" scientists.

There are reasons for that. Psychic believers may say the reason is something like "scientists are close-minded!", and that would indeed be true for many scientists, regarding these sorts of things. But, even more open minded scientists like myself (hehe, yes, I am comparatively open minded, I know you don't believe that) will mostly discount stories of psychic abilities like those in the other thread. Why?

To have a real discussion, everyone should try to understand the other side, at least a little. So, here is the other side, please try to read on with as little rage as possible! Have a beer.

Why do even semi-open-minded scientists discount psychic phenomena that seem so real to those involved?

1) It's not because we feel scared/threated for ourselves, or for our system of thought (i.e. science). Most of science exists as fact for scientists. Call it the New Religion, call it blind faith, whatever. The point is that scientists have near 100% confidence in their system of thought/belief structure/whatever. Nothing can threaten it, at least that's what we believe. I am actually very borderline in my belief of science compared to some--I don't think that it will ever be able to fully understand many things, including the human mind.

1a) If scientists have 100% confidence in science, that's because it has been freaking reinforced over and over and over again over the past 200 years. People talk about holes in scientific thought, they talk about "oh, last century, scientists thought this, now they think the other--look how inconsistent it is!" These people don't understand how amazing the last century has been for science--how fields that seemed completely separate have come together, how fields that were fighting in the early 1900's, have come together to form a structure that is so strong that nothing can break it. If we think we've found truth, it's basically because, in many cases, we have.

***please do not be insulted by #2, I am only trying to bring the perspective of the typcial scientist into the discussion. No disrespect is meant, even though I do happen to agree with the following:

2) Why do scientists disbelieve psychic and other paranormal phenomena before even seeing the evidence (if there is any)?

Because these phenomena seem rediculous and totally bogus.

Is this a prejudice? Most certainly. But it's one that a rational person will hold on to, perhaps even in the face of personal experiences to the contrary. Although I would understand if you didn't.

People who have posted on this board in defense of psychic phenomena do not seem to understand how insane thoughts of such phenomena are to most scientists/skeptics. This is not a limitation of the skeptics. Please understand that your claims sound like pure fiction to people who have not experienced them or been exposed to the ideas in the past.

I'm sure even true believers laugh at times at claims that seem bogus to them. It's a perfectly natural thing to do. If I said that 10,000 monkeys flew out of my a$$ the other day, I bet you'd probably laugh at me. I'd get insulted, because I knew that it happened, I was there! You'd want to check me into psychiatric treatment. This seems like a valid analogy to claims of pychic powers to most scientists/skeptics. It is not meant to insult, but only to illustrate how far 'out there' these claims seem.

3) Why do scientists disbelieve psychic and other paranormal phenomena after seeing the evidence?

Because in most cases it's simply not there. Even when it is, most people absolutely do not understand what is required to prove something in science. I know I didn't when I started graduate school. To publish something in a scientific journal, you have to go through an amazing amount of what seems like bs work to prove whatever it is you're saying.

It's like: Do you believe me yet?
No.
Do you believe me now?
No.
Come on, I've been working on this for a freaking year!
Keep working.
How about now, I've done everthing!!!
You forgot this.
I did it, do you finally believe me??
Sort of, not completely. But, okay, we'll publish.

Unless your work is completely bada$$, that's what's going to happen to you. That's the way science works.

Throw in the fact that psychic experiments have to be done on human beings, and even worse, their -minds-, and you have a failure waiting to happen. God, even worse.. psychic powers being inconsistent? Not working under controlled conditions? You'll -never- prove them. But take consolation in that science isn't treating you any differently than they treat scientists themselves.

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:34 AM

I Apologise for a long post:

Finn:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
There are considerable studies, at least one of which was mentioned in this thread by me. You only have yourself to blame if you believe what I say on my assertion alone.

Yep, that particular paragraph was very strongly baiting (mine not yours)...
I don't recall a particular study being referenced by you. The only links on the subject I remember seeing were Ruxtons from another thread Re. remote viewing. If I missed anything I apologise.

Thanks for the link, I haven’t the time to read it right now but it'll be the first thing on my list tonight.

CUnknown:

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
Perhaps let me know which things I said that need defending? I'm sure people have previously, but I don't know what exactly is on your mind at the moment. I'd like a chance to defend -myself-.

It was Finn's assertion you didn't insult anyone. Specifically the comments that seemed to indicate those who professed to experiencing these things were Hoaxers, or irrational. I believe we've all now made our thoughts on that matter clear, and you yourself further on in your post clarify your intent. To my mind no further defence is needed.

Quote:
As far as my science credentials, I never claimed that I was a professor or anything. However, I have been in academia for a while and I know how scientists think, for the most part. I've taken Philosophy of Science classes, and I have a Master's in Biochemistry. I work as a lab technician at the moment. I think I can speak from the point of view of a typical scientist, at least as far as this discussion is concerned.

I myself hold a BSc in Computer Science, so would like to think of myself as at least understanding the scientific method, and having somewhat of an analytical mind.

Quote:
If psychic phenomena are brought up in conversation with a typical scientist in a respected field, he/she will laugh at you. Yes, what I'm saying is that, even a priori, paranormal phenomena including psychics, ghosts, UFO's, etc. are completely dismissed by the vast majority of scientists in standard, "respectable" fields. Certainly scientists who actually study something like psychic phenomena will not be considered "respectable" or hardly even "real" scientists.

We (were) talking more precisely about Psychic Phenomena. Psychic phenomena exclude paranormal phenomena such as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), reincarnation, spirits, ghosts, and a broad range of experiences that are more in the category of belief systems rather than mental experiences.
The rest of that paragraph seems to support the view that scientists are afraid of psychic phenomena, however. Let me clarify, you say 'respected' scientists in 'respected' fields don't believe in psychic phenomena. You go onto say that scientists who study psychic phenomena are not considered "respectable" or hardly even "real" scientists.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that would be a particularly good reason to be afraid of studying psychic phenomena, wouldn't it? Having your career and reputation pretty much destroyed, I mean?

Quote:
To have a real discussion, everyone should try to understand the other side, at least a little. So, here is the other side, please try to read on with as little rage as possible! Have a beer.

I indeed asked you to clarify your logical position. I am neither in a rage nor require a beer, but thanks anyway, I'll have a Kronenbourg

Quote:
Why do even semi-open-minded scientists discount psychic phenomena that seem so real to those involved?

Not all do...
We now know that what has been known as psychic phenomena and the religion of Spiritualism is in fact a branch of physics that should be called "subatomic phenomena". The first principal of Birmingham University, Sir Oliver Lodge15, said to the outstanding medium Bertha Harris, "Cut out the Spiritualist jargon." He then published his paper 'The Mode of Future Existence' linking the subject of survival after death with subatomic physics in The Queen's Hospital Annual in 1933 (Birmingham). This article can be read on the website www.cfpf.org.uk and is sent free of charge to every person who sends a stamped addressed envelope to Michael Roll at 28 Westerleigh Road, Downend, Bristol BS16 6AH.
http://www.rense.com/general51/socal.htm

Secondly, I do not accept the contention in the first sentence that '…skeptics and believers have been struggling for more than a 100 years to show whether or not psychic powers exist.' There are many empiricists AND scientists (including from earlier times Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir William Crookes et al and more recently Prof Gary Schwartz, Dr Dean Radin et al) whose attitude is - as mine is - that psi DOES exist and it is skeptics who have the problem of not accepting psi. The negatively minded expresses it as a 'struggle' - we empiricists do NOT.
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/newscientist.html

http://www.newtimes.org/issue/9710/97-10-scipsych.html

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
1a) If scientists have 100% confidence in science, that's because it has been freaking reinforced over and over and over again over the past 200 years.

As has psychic phenomena for me over the course of my life.

Quote:
People talk about holes in scientific thought, they talk about "oh, last century, scientists thought this, now they think the other--look how inconsistent it is!" These people don't understand how amazing the last century has been for science--how fields that seemed completely separate have come together, how fields that were fighting in the early 1900's, have come together to form a structure that is so strong that nothing can break it. If we think we've found truth, it's basically because, in many cases, we have.

I'm fully aware of what has happened over the last century. But to presume that we have found the final answer in anything is arrogance in the extreme. These fields form a structure so strong that nothing can break them YET.
As for inconsistent, no. What is accepted scientific theory today will be replaced tomorrow. This is one of the strengths of science, that sets it apart from religion, which will not accept new understanding. But to assume that even our best and most 'perfect' theories of today will not be replaced is very unscientific. Newton’s theories of motion stood for hundreds of years before Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, simply because it did such a good job of explaining observable phenomena. All new theories build on what came before, and present a better explanation than that which they replace.
Personally I see scientific study like a spaceship trying to reach the speed of light. You can accelerate forever, reducing your Tau to infinity, but you'll never hit the speed of light. You'll just get ever closer and closer. Thus it is with science, we'll come up with ever more elegant theories and solutions, that fit the real world ever more closely, but we will never reach 'Tau Zero'.

Quote:
Is this a prejudice? Most certainly. But it's one that a rational person will hold on to, perhaps even in the face of personal experiences to the contrary. Although I would understand if you didn't.

Am I an irrational person because I believe my own experiences over doctrine? I could make the argument that it is irrational to throw away such experiences based on prejudice and doctrine.

Quote:
People who have posted on this board in defence of psychic phenomena do not seem to understand how insane thoughts of such phenomena are to most scientists/skeptics. This is not a limitation of the skeptics. Please understand that your claims sound like pure fiction to people who have not experienced them or been exposed to the ideas in the past.

I understand that. Thing is they aren't as outrageous as some claims made by the scientific establishment... Quantum Physics, for instance, is pretty bloody weird at times.
As for not being a limitation of the sceptics, well, it depends on your stance on the matter. To me it is a limitation that requires disregarding evidence that is there, in favour of evidence that supports their preconceived notions. Something I realise may also apply to my self.
Consider Cold Fusion, which was entirely discredited based on a single hoax in the field. But some scientist persevered, despite the negativity, and indeed some interesting results that are currently in the process of being repeated in other labs, have come about.

Quote:
But take consolation in that science isn't treating you any differently than they treat scientists themselves.

But do they, though? Evidently psychic phenomena is almost a taboo subject, and Scientist bring their own prejudices to any data that may be submitted.

I wanted to say more, but I'll cut myself short, as my post is already ridiculously long.

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

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't recall a particular study being referenced by you. The only links on the subject I remember seeing were Ruxtons from another thread Re. remote viewing. If I missed anything I apologise.

I didn't reference anything; I just mentioned it.

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

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:59 AM

Ah, missed it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 7:55 AM

First of all, CUnknown, thanks for the shift in your rhetoric, it makes a huge difference to me. To me it's the difference between saying, "You guys are totally full of crap!" and "I have to say, given what I've seen, that what you're talking about sounds like crap to me!" May not seem like a big difference to you, but it is to me. Thanks for making the effort to connect.

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
Cavalier, you seem to be relying on your own personal experience and nothing else to form your opinions. I think it's good to have a more balanced..uh.. truth-seeking strategy, I can't think of a way to put that better right now. The problem is, your personal experiences could be completely off-base, and you wouldn't realize it unless you use logic as a guide. How do you know you're not wrong, Cavalier, about your psychic abilities? You might say "I just know." But, that isn't good enough, is it? It's often the case that people are completely sure about something, and completely wrong at the same time.

Answering your questions is very difficult, because the world I see and the world you see are like night and day; same world, only one of us sees much farther, with more clarity and in color and the other sees only the immediate surroundings in stark black and white. It's as if there is a sun up in the sky that you've never seen. You see things come out of the dark and recede again without knowing where they come from or where they go when they vanish, while I have seen the whole landscape and talked to the folks on the other side of the mountain. For you, any story you hear about the world beyond what you can prove is equally suspect, but not for me.

From where I sit, this truly is a sensory problem. They call it the "sixth sense" for a reason. Animals demonstrate this sense so constantly that people don't even notice. You ever try to walk silently through the woods? It's impossible, right? But animals do this all day long. In order to do it with only 5 senses the animal would have to make complex estimates of the oncoming terrain practically in the instant of contact with the earth. They certainly don't cogitate their way thru the underbrush. Is it echolocation? Do they have radar in their feet?

What sense is the deer using to move silently through the forest? Not sight, because she can't even see her back legs. Not sound, because hearing cannot predict what sound her hoof is about to make. Not touch, for the same reason. Which leaves smell and taste, which are as useless as sight. None of the five senses has the necessary predictive capacity. They are essentially passive and receptive.

Ever notice how superstitious professional athletes can be? Ever wonder why? They know they can't think their way to victory. At their level, the conscious mind is a real hindrance. So what power, sanctioned by science, do they use? They have to rely absolutely "on their own experiences." Up until 1954 it was the understanding of medical science that running a mile in under 4 minutes was physically impossible (shoot, missed the past 50 years by one!

)

Here's a fun interview with Rupert Sheldrake:
http://www.sheldrake.org/interviews/bark_interview.html

Quote:
Sheldrake: Yes, exactly. I think science is full of closet holists.

Bekoff: Absolutely. I was thinking about how the notion of holism is so daunting because scientists get paid to dissect things, whether they're animals or neutrons. Science aims to break things down, level by level by level. But then when scientists try to reassemble larger systems, they find they can't do it. I was really taken by your whole notion of the different levels of self-organization. You said that it was very difficult to really write about or demonstrate the evolution of these morphic fields, but I think that this is a very hot area. The way you bring this stuff home is by talking about animals such as cats and dogs and horses and cows, the animals with whom most people are familiar.

Read the whole article, it covers a lot of the same ground as this thread.

Like any sense, the sixth sense will atrophy if it is not used. As human beings created more and more all encompassing artificial environments, this sense atrophied in the species from lack of use. Now we surround ourselves with concrete and steel and don't realize that it's like putting a black bag over a condemned man's head. Now humans are almost completely dependent on technology for our connection with most of what we consider real, none more so than the average scientist. It is no surprise to me, therefore, that scientists would be disproportionately resistant to psychic phenomena.

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:36 PM

CUNKNOWN:
There is light in your post of 14:55, 26 Sep. However, the one glaring fact (which I have been pounding out for long and long now) is that you can't "publish" if your conclusions go against the establishment, which CANNOT have its base of operations THREATENED in any way. In other words, the ones whose base of information you challenge with new ideas are the very ones who are essentially PAID to laugh off anything that comes up against established thought. If something goes against the FUNDERS of scientific inquiry, it ain't going to get published.

The link to which you pointed seems to be one person's dismissing the clear-cut conclusions of another person, who derived clear-cut conclusions from a GOVERNMENT-controlled series of tests. The tests were funded largely by the government, which has a long-proven history of lying and hiding truths it does not want the great unwashed to know about. Prime example: free energy. So that was not the best example of the failure of science to prove psi; quite the opposite. Try again...?

CAVALIER, so eloquent, so open, so clear. Your wonderful commentary with the deer as an example puts all the "scientists'" b/s to shame. One pities the hide-bound limitiations of those who cannot SEE, in the full sense of the word. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:10 PM

I think one problem here is that many people dismiss their own 'flashes' of psychic ability- knowing who's gonna call you, 'cause their thinking about you is 'picked up'. "Oh, that's just coincidence" is the common review of the situation.
But the evidence is everywhere! People are so brainwashed against it's existence...they want PROOF that someone can melt you with their brain or something, and they miss all the simple and subtle indications. Psychic ability can manifest itself in something as small as believing a person telling the truth to you when common sense tells you not to, then finding out later (with hard evidence) they were indeed not lying, or in something as big as psychic healing and beyond.
To varying degrees it's all around us much of, if not all of the time, but minds with hardened opinions need to poo-poo it.
Just my two credit's worth...

Chrisisall, who looks into the future to see Serenity making Joss look very good to Hollywood....

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Answering your questions is very difficult, because the world I see and the world you see are like night and day; same world, only one of us sees much farther, with more clarity and in color and the other sees only the immediate surroundings in stark black and white. It's as if there is a sun up in the sky that you've never seen. You see things come out of the dark and recede again without knowing where they come from or where they go when they vanish, while I have seen the whole landscape and talked to the folks on the other side of the mountain. For you, any story you hear about the world beyond what you can prove is equally suspect, but not for me.

This is some hokey stuff, man. I wonder how common it is for supposed psychics to view themselves as having a superior perspective on the world. A person who believes that they are ‘all knowing and all seeing’ may be inclined to view a purely chance event as validation of their self-described omnipotence.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
In order to do it with only 5 senses the animal would have to make complex estimates of the oncoming terrain practically in the instant of contact with the earth. They certainly don't cogitate their way thru the underbrush. Is it echolocation? Do they have radar in their feet?

How do you know they don’t cogitate their way through the underbrush? I would think that is exactly what they do. I don’t think we need to invent some elaborate ESP explanation to explain how animals can walk in the woods. And incidentally deer aren’t magically silent. I’ve heard underbrush break under a deer’s foot just like it breaks under mine. Deer appear to be silent in the woods because they have a much stronger sense of hearing and smell. Deer can hear and/or smell you long before you’ll know they are there, and as such they can keep a safe distance from you, unless you are familiar with the wilderness and can use things like wind direction to mask your scent. There’s no mysterious sixth sense needed to explain this.

Athletes often report achieving a high mental state where perfection and resilience become easier. Colloquially this is sometimes referred to as “being in the zone.” Chris mentioned this with regard to his kungfuing. But there is no elaborate explanation needed for this, either. It is well documented that under high degrees of stress (or when the body has been appropriately trained) the body reacts by releasing endorphins, adrenalins and other biochemicals that enhances physical and mental ability and suppress pain and increase resilience. Furthermore psychologists often speak of the human brain having inherently more perceptive ability or faster reasoning then is typically found under common use. That’s not extrasensory or psychic ability; it’s just regular ability.

There are studies that show that expert shooters enter a state of calm just before they pull the trigger. Under normal conditions the human arm is not strong enough to hold a 30-06 Remington rifle still enough to make consistent shots from long range; nor is the human eye perceptive enough to identify a target from the distances that many expert shooters can bull’s eye. Yet they do it, because the brain has been trained to suspend other reasoning faculties briefly and concentrate intensely on the target. When this intense concentration begins, an expert’s hand is steadied so that he can hold the riffle nearly perfectly still and his sense of vision is improved and concentrated in such a way that many shooters report seeing nothing but the target in the instant before the triggers is pulled. As a sharpshooter, I can attest to this intense concentration. It is real and uncanny the way the human brain can be trained to such high degrees of perception and physical control, but it is not magical or extrasensory. Humans, all humans not just those who seem to think they have some magical insight on the world, can train their minds to be “in the zone” for some reason or another. It takes practice and patience, not ESP.

This desire to redefine psychic ability to some flowery peter-pan bologna is as disingenuous, from a scientific perspective, as asserting that such ability exists contrary to the evidence. Psychic ability is an extrasensory or anomalous cognitive capacity. A deer prancing through the woods or Sammy Sosa hitting a home run is not psychic ability. There is nothing extrasensory or anomalous about the human body’s capacity to achieve an extraordinary degree of physical and mental competence when properly trained. If psychic ability exists, then I want evidence of real extrasensory ability. So yes, I want proof that someone can melt me with their brain.

“Oh, how convenient, a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope. Get back to work!” – Monk
Futurama.

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

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 7:50 PM

FINN, you're doing it again. You are dismissing what you can't comprehend, much as you and the other naysayers on this thread commonly dismiss the clear-cut and widespread evidence that the current U.S. administration is a lying bunch of crooks worthy of tar and feathers, not respect. (Anyone else notice the similarities between this discussion and political discussions as to who takes which "side"?)

You have dissed HKCavalier's thoughts as "hokey" (a grave insult and uncalled for) because it looks like you've never been to the places in the mind he has. Are you not aware that to approach a game animal, once spotted, you must NEVER look at it? It's the same as watching someone's back in a roomful of people. They will sense you and turn around. The deer and other wild animals feel that a hundredfold.

As I suggested to another poster in this (LONG but very interesting) thread, give meditation a chance. Are you aware that NASA directed its astronauts to meditate? It heightens the senses and helps you on the path to recovering the lost (as Cavalier so aptly pointed out) "sixth" sense. You have it; it's really submerged, though.

Finn, do you think animals are capable of reasoning? I would really like to know your thoughts on this simple question.

Is Sammy Sosa still using a "cork" bat? I'd swear that Michael Jordan can fly, because I've seen it, but it's not psychic.

I'm not sure you and the Cavalier are talking about exactly the same things. I can't disagree with your examples of shooters or athletes being "in the zone," and the concept of a musician or martial artist being able to play better by getting outside himself might not be psychic abilities. But the ability of a musician to be able to conjure up new stuff on the fly, that he has never played before; or a martial artist KNOWING what his new opponent is going to do before he does it; or the ability of the deer to know you're there. and know you intend to do it harm are all psychic. I've gone walking (long ago and far away) among a group of ptarmigan with no firearm, and could easily walk up to them. But when I picked up a rifle to kill one of them, I could no more approach them than I can fly. They KNEW, and you cannot dismiss that as saying they knew the rifle meant them harm, because these were "unsophisticated" birds that had never heard a rifle. I could approach them carrying a stick that LOOKED like a rifle, but was not. This is the stuff that Cavalier's post discussed, which you overlooked.

To verify your sharpshooting statement, I killed a caribou in Alaska with an elephant rifle, iron sights, at about 250 yards range. I had, as you noted, a perfect sight picture on the animal, though my eyesight was even then not "young." The rifle, which is extremely loud, was a pleasant pop to my unprotected ears, and the normally horrendous recoil was entirely unnoticeable. There was absolutely nothing psychic about that shot. The fact that I knew the unseen animal was there before I left the cabin with my rifle, which I didn't normally carry anywhere, was indeed psychic. I KNEW I'd eat well that night BEFORE I LEFT THE CABIN.

It's things like that you and others so easily dismiss. I wonder why. There is no coincidence to them.

The deer uses ALL SIX (at least) of its senses to move silently when it NEEDS to. If a whitetail knows you're there, you'll never hear it unless it's running blindly from you. It uses its senses to move absolutely silently. So does the elephant, the Cape buffalo, and most particularly the leopard, all of which I've seen in the wild, all of them absolutely silent movers when need be.

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 8:05 PM

How about me and Finn and Citizen and the Cavalier and Cunknown and one or two others write a book? Any subject. Man can we crank out the words, or what!

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:01 AM

Finn:
If 'ESP' was everyday for everybody, it would be mundane, taken for granted, normal. Maybe the zone is just a form of 'psychic phenomena' where the mind over comes the material body/world, of course, thats just conjecture.

Ruxton:

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
(Anyone else notice the similarities between this discussion and political discussions as to who takes which "side"?)

heh, you and I see that one way...
I'm guessing others would see it totally different...

Problem with psychic phenomena is it requires you to experience it. In no small way it would be like trying to explain to Aliens with no sense of sight what its like to see. They likely wouldn't believe you, its ridiculous they'd say, show us proof you can 'see'.
To creatures that have never experienced sight its existence would seem ridiculous, but to us, its taken for granted.
My point is that you experience it, its real, you can't dismiss it with out dismissing the experience. It's as tangible as a rock. If you haven't experienced it though, then it will sound fanciful.

Quote:
It's things like that you and others so easily dismiss. I wonder why. There is no coincidence to them.

Coincidence, is one of the very few tools people have to dismiss these things. Or maybe your crazy, making it up (for what reason escapes me), or you know, just plain wrong.
The thing I love the most is often coincidence will be sited as reason when its ridiculous to do so, and thourghly against the postulate of Occam's Razor.
All the arguments levied upon those who profess to have had scientific expereinces can be turned around. Scientists say:
"Prove you did it, or we'll assume its coincidence/your nuts/lying etc..."
Well prove I'm nuts, prove I'm lying, prove its coincidence...
Of course, you can't.

The blind don't dismiss eye-sight, and they have no direct evidence that others can see, beyond the fact other people find it easier to get around. One wonders why others do...

Quote:
How about me and Finn and Citizen and the Cavalier and Cunknown and one or two others write a book? Any subject. Man can we crank out the words, or what!

Yep, I vote for:
Psychics, The Supernatural and the Bush administration, are they all for real?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

This desire to redefine psychic ability to some flowery peter-pan bologna is as disingenuous, from a scientific perspective, as asserting that such ability exists contrary to the evidence.

Finn, I would consider this to be highly offensive, except that since we're not talking life or death here, it'd be pretty darn hard to offend me.
Nothing in you post about the deer, shooting, or athletics was in error, I just don't see that it also rules out a 'sixth sense' which works on an un-quantifiable level (at the moment). What if when shooting your gun, you also unconsiously tap into energies that augment your awareness in ways that you aren't totally aware of? What if supreme concentration like you describe naturally engenders a natural, simple psychic level of thought and understanding?
Heh, you know where I'm going with this, don't you?
I accuse you, FINN, of having and unknowingly using PSYCHIC ABILITY!!!! Yeah, that's right, I said it!!!!!!

Prove that you don't!!!!!

now...uh, do we , like, see if you float.....?

Quote:
So yes, I want proof that someone can melt me with their brain.

Have you watched Firestarter lately?

ChrisisallabouttheBDM

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, I would consider this to be highly offensive, except that since we're not talking life or death here, it'd be pretty darn hard to offend me.

Highly offensive wasn’t what I was going for at all. I was going for brassy and politically incorrect sort of offensive. But maybe I overstated it; I thought the Futurama quote would point people in my direction, though I fear I may be the last Futurama fan alive. In any event, I don’t think I agree with myself completely, with regard to the above quote. I’m not sure it is necessarily disingenuous to attempt to redefine psychic ability to something insignificant. It may be a quite genuine attempt to make the theory fit the evidence. Since the evidence is a basically nonexistent, a definition to suit this may seem appropriate. But if psychic ability is negligible or indistinguishable from normal mental ability then it begs the question: what’s the point? It seems that if this is the case then psychic functioning can be more simply described with normal psychology and there is no need for parapsychology or a definition of psychic ability at all. Effectively anomalous cognation doesn’t exist since, by definition, there would seem to be nothing anomalous about it.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Heh, you know where I'm going with this, don't you?
I accuse you, FINN, of having and unknowingly using PSYCHIC ABILITY!!!! Yeah, that's right, I said it!!!!!!

If psychic ability is nothing more then normal mental functioning, then I’d have to admit to being one hell of Miss Cleo since I do a lot of normal mental functioning.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Have you watched Firestarter lately?

If I had a daughter that could do that I would make her sit at my desk while I worked and keep my tea hot all day.

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

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:10 PM

Quote:
But if psychic ability is negligible or indistinguishable from normal mental ability then it begs the question: what’s the point? It seems that if this is the case then psychic functioning can be more simply described with normal psychology and there is no need for parapsychology or a definition of psychic ability at all.

When you turn to look at someone who's staring at you, I would consider that a 'normal' use of psychic ability, and as such, would probably not even merit a connection to the term para-psychology.
But when I watch an olympic event to see someone do the seemingly almost impossible with their bodies, the term para-physicallity comes to mind....
if ya see what I'm sayin' here....
nudge, nudge

Exactly 48 hours now....Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:11 PM

CUNKNOWN

Citizen said:

Quote:
...Correct me if I'm wrong but that would be a particularly good reason to be afraid of studying psychic phenomena, wouldn't it? Having your career and reputation pretty much destroyed, I mean?

Remember, this would be like saying that scientists are scared of studying the 10,000 monkeys that flew out of my ass because their career might suffer. Now, their career would definitely suffer if they quit their real work and starting detailing the habits of imaginary ass monkeys. But it doesn't mean they're scared to do it. Well maybe a little scared just because it was -my- ass. Let's say it was Jessica Alba's ass. The point is that scientists are laughing about psychic abilities if they mention them at all.

Quote:
Evidently psychic phenomena is almost a taboo subject ...

The same idea above applies to this. It's not that it's a taboo subject, it's that its a joke.

Quote:
These fields form a structure so strong that nothing can break them YET.
As for inconsistent, no. What is accepted scientific theory today will be replaced tomorrow.

No, I think this is mostly wrong. Take for example Darwin's theory of natural selection which will never be "replaced" by anything. Other scientists may add to his work, but an anti-Darwin revolution in the field of evolution is impossible.

Quote:
Newton’s theories of motion stood for hundreds of years before Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, simply because it did such a good job of explaining observable phenomena.

Einstein did not "replace" Newton's theories. It's not like they don't teach Newton anymore, or that Newton's theories aren't useful anymore. I believe Newton's Laws of Motion are still as valid now as they ever were.

Quote:
Am I an irrational person because I believe my own experiences over doctrine?

No, you're being irrational because you believe your own experience over what your reason tells you is true. Your experience can easily decieve you--there can't be any argument on that point (e.g. optical illusions, memory degradation, hallucinations, etc.).

HKCavilier: Finn's depiction of your post is pretty much on-target. You're resorting to flowery nonsense because you don't have an argument.

Ruxton said:

Quote:
is that you can't "publish" if your conclusions go against the establishment, which CANNOT have its base of operations THREATENED in any way. ... If something goes against the FUNDERS of scientific inquiry, it ain't going to get published.

This isn't true, right? Apparently there are actual journals of psychic research, so the work is in fact being published.

Quote:
Prime example: free energy.

Of what, your lack of science education?

Quote:
One pities the hide-bound limitiations of those who cannot SEE, in the full sense of the word.

But how much more do you pity people who think they see things that aren't real? Especially people who should know better (like intellegent Firefly fans).

Citizen said:

Quote:
All the arguments levied upon those who profess to have had scientific expereinces can be turned around. Scientists say:
"Prove you did it, or we'll assume its coincidence/your nuts/lying etc..."
Well prove I'm nuts, prove I'm lying, prove its coincidence...

Sure it can be turned around, but the burden of proof is on the people making the claims, not the other way around. Especially if these claims are fantasical/implausible.

Ruxton said:

Quote:
... the current U.S. administration is a lying bunch of crooks worthy of tar and feathers, not respect. (Anyone else notice the similarities between this discussion and political discussions as to who takes which "side"?)

I don't notice any such similarity. I am a hard-core liberal, I didn't vote for Kerry because he's not liberal enough for me. I voted for Nader, thank you very much. If there's something we can agree on, I think it's our hatred of the Bush administration.

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

Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
Remember, this would be like saying that scientists are scared of studying the 10,000 monkeys that flew out of my ass because their career might suffer. Now, their career would definitely suffer if they quit their real work and starting detailing the habits of imaginary ass monkeys. But it doesn't mean they're scared to do it. Well maybe a little scared just because it was -my- ass. Let's say it was Jessica Alba's ass. The point is that scientists are laughing about psychic abilities if they mention them at all...
The same idea above applies to this. It's not that it's a taboo subject, it's that its a joke.

Firstly your monkey analogy is completely fallacious and draws no parallels what so ever.
Why, well all we need to do to prove the existence of your ass monkeys is to look at them, or not, as the case may be.
We can both come up with ridiculous analogies.
Of course scientists are superhuman, not open to those human failings such as irrational emotion, incapable of fear. Incapable of irrationality and always objective, even in the face of things that will change their world view. That fits the evidence, right?

Quote:
Dean Radin, PhD.:
In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In stage 1, sceptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last for years or for centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In stage 2, sceptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible but that it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes not only that the idea is important but that its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who previously disavowed any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no on remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

I'm not holding the above passage up as proof of psychic phenomena btw. I am hoping that you'll open your mind to the possibility and read up a bit on the subject before automatically refuting it as a joke as a knee jerk reaction to your pre-programmed prejudices.
And Science does make knee jerk reactions:

Quote:
Few examples are more striking than this one. For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists. Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without troubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

http://www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm
I suggest you read through that article.

As for scientist not being afraid of these subjects:

Quote:
* Eric Laithwaite became a 'non-person' after he addressed the Royal Society on anti-gravity.
* Forrest Mims lost his Scientific American job after telling the editor he didn't believe in Darwinism.
* Jacques Benveniste was dismissed by his Institute for investigating homeopathy.
* Warwick Collins's biology career ended when be publicly identified a flaw in Darwinist theory.
* Robert Jahn was demoted by Princeton for investigating paranormal phenomena in the lab.
* The Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned an article criticising Darwinism but censored it following intervention by Richard Dawkins.

Seems there’s a lot to be afraid of if you don’t tow the line…

Quote:
No, I think this is mostly wrong. Take for example Darwin's theory of natural selection which will never be "replaced" by anything. Other scientists may add to his work, but an anti-Darwin revolution in the field of evolution is impossible.

So, that missing link you've found, you going to tell us all about it?
How about lung fish? The evolutionary line is that pools in which these fish live dried up and they gradually developed working lungs and the ability to hibernate while the water was at its lowest. Darwinian evolution tells us how these air breathing fish would survive over the fish that filtered water to breath. What I'm hazy on is how the lung-less fish that were flapping about suffocating in the mud survived long enough to develop their lungs.
Darwinian evolution is full of holes, I'm not saying there’s not some truth to it, just that there's more too evolution than Darwin, much, much more. At some point we'll learn more about it and Darwinian style evolution will be replaced by x's theory of evolution. It may take aspects of Darwinian evolution, as most good theories do, but it will replace Darwin.

Quote:
Einstein did not "replace" Newton's theories. It's not like they don't teach Newton anymore or that Newton's theories aren't useful anymore. I believe Newton's Laws of Motion are still as valid now as they ever were.

Thanks for pointing that out. Well, all my physics books that cite Einstein’s theory of relativity as 'replacing' Newton's 'clockwork' model of the universe are obviously wrong. I'll just go throw them away.

Some of Newton's theories are still in use, some of his mathematics are useful for simplified models. His theories are still taught for historical perspective.

Quote:
No, you're being irrational because you believe your own experience over what your reason tells you is true. Your experience can easily decieve you--there can't be any argument on that point (e.g. optical illusions, memory degradation, hallucinations, etc.).

Why should I be bound by your narrow depiction of reason? Sometime you really must explain to me how my experiences can fall under the purview of optical illusion, memory degradation, hallucinations etc.
BTW your experiences can lie to you too, as can your reason.

Quote:
Sure it can be turned around, but the burden of proof is on the people making the claims, not the other way around. Especially if these claims are fantasical/implausible.

But scientists are also making claims, and are unwilling to back them up, by your own admission, with scientific study.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

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

Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
This is some hokey stuff, man. I wonder how common it is for supposed psychics to view themselves as having a superior perspective on the world. A person who believes that they are ‘all knowing and all seeing’ may be inclined to view a purely chance event as validation of their self-described omnipotence.

Quote:
Originally posted by CUnknown:
HKCavilier: Finn's depiction of your post is pretty much on-target. You're resorting to flowery nonsense because you don't have an argument.

Hrmmm. Well. Fellas, we all could have just given up on the communication thing here and called it quits long ago. I appreciate you're continued commitment to the discussion.

Finn, despite my all knowing all seeing nature, I'm stumped as to how you reached the conclusion from my post that I was claiming omnipotence (hopefully you don't agree with yourself completely). I see a larger world than you do. I can say that because I see all the things science has shown us plus a whole bunch of other stuff that you don't believe in but I've seen. Science has not adequately disproven the things I have seen innumerable times with my own eyes; things others have seen, sometimes simultaneously; things of which I've read corroborating accounts in books many, many times. I don't disregard the scientific establishment, but I don't run my life by its limited vision. How we get from my having a larger view of reality than you, to my being omnipotent I hope was just you trying to be funny.

So I'm confused, but CUnknown thinks you're "on-target." It occurs to me, finally, that you may think I'm an irrational egomaniac posting whatever lunacy comes into my head. LOL Well, sometimes, I'm a little slow. LOL Now that I think of it, it's pretty obvious.

Hey, CU, is there still no insulting goin' on at your end? I'm just curious. LOL

I'm reminded of that old 80's show Beauty and the Beast. Here was this half man/half lion who's amazing super powers amount to--drum roll, please--empathy. Vincent feels her pain! LOL That show was such a surreal experience for me because this guy was doing what I totally took for granted. It's like watching a show with a super hero who can walk through doors! See through windows! Penetrate the mysteries of conversation!

The thing is, either of you could see this world I see if you wanted. Ruxton is right. Do some meditating (at least a year's worth, doesn't have to be every day, but at least a half hour 5 days a week); go live in the wild for a year or two. What these things do is open you to what the world has to say for itself. You'll begin dealing with the world on the world's terms. You'll begin to see the cracks in your certainty and start to understand your deeper intuitive selves. This is very simple shit, guys, sorry if it sounds like omnipotence to you.

Logic and reason and science have become like the walls around the world for you; they create a controlled environment, where intuition is unneeded and gets lost. Radio waves, certain electromagnetic frequencies absolutely destroy psychic awareness. And we're surrounded by them in the human world.

Then how come science hasn't proven any of this? Because the science you're talking about, the science of the last 100 years or so, is very very young and men who move out to the wild for years at a time or meditate every day lose interest in your kind of science. Well, they do. 'Cause they realize that mainstream science don't know jack about half of anything and they find much better things to do with their time! LOL Or they don't and go back into the lab to do all kinds of experiments and get published and laughed at--whoopee!

http://www.sheldrake.org
http://www.jeffreymasson.com

Here's a thing. I take care of people's pets from time to time (house sitting, pet sitting) and the pets' owners are always full of information about their pets' idiosyncrasies and temperaments and bad habits. When I come over and before their owners leave on their trips and such, the animals will demonstrate what their owners have told me repeatedly. Their owners tend not to miss a single instance of these performances and give me at least a "see what I mean?" look.

Then the owners leave. Now, as I've said, I tend to take the world on the world's terms and generally put no stock in the owners' assessments. Owners tend to see what they want to see, and their loving pets universally try to gratify their owners' expectations. But I have no expectations of these animals, so they quit the act. The aggressive dog, the cat who never likes people, the dog who never stops barking or can't sit still, the cat who won't let any of the others eat without asserting dominance, drop their façades and for as long as we're alone, settle down. Soon as the owners' come up the drive, however, they're back to their old tricks.

The entire natural world to some extent behaves exactly this way with the human race. The non-human world loves us, loves our illusions; because that's where our creativity comes from. Before humans, the evolution of consciousness took millions of years to change even the tiniest bit, since we've been on the scene consciousness has expanded by leaps and bounds. If science wants an inanimate world, the world is more than happy to "play dead" for us. But the world longs for a more intimate relationship with us, the non-human world longs to finally, truly be seen.

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

Thursday, September 29, 2005 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As for scientist not being afraid of these subjects:
. . .
Seems there’s a lot to be afraid of if you don’t tow the line…

I don’t think these are examples of science being afraid of a subject, but rather examples of science mired in ideology. Unfortunately, while some scientists will often view science as an infallibly rational methodology, it can be and is subject to political and ideological pressures, often to the determent of scientific study. But this only further warrants the need for rational analysis and careful labeling of the confidence of information.

Science isn’t afraid to study new or untested ideas. The very existence of parapsychology should be enough to assert this, and we should give credit where credit is due. But Citizen makes some good points. There is inertia to science that can sometimes make it cumbersome and slow to accept new ideas, especially when there are political pressures to maintaining certain points of view. The theory of Evolution is a good example of this. While there are many facets of Evolution theory that is well founded the basic premise that new lifeforms emerge from old lifeforms has never been demonstrated and remains a speculative proposition. The idea that the theory of Evolution will never be replaced is shortsighted given the fact that the principle concept of this theory is not only unfounded, but entirely untestable, since it is unlikely that any human will live long enough to view a complex new lifeform supposedly emerging in the way that the Evolution theorizes.

Citizen also points out several good examples of the cracks in Evolution’s somewhat gilded façade. Yet at every corner I hear people, sometimes even other scientists, insisting that Evolution is essentially a fact, despite the questions and the flimsy foundation of Evolution’s larger premise. Evolution isn’t the only area where scientists often jump to conclusions without adequate support, often following a supposed “consensus” or ideology.

Science is not a perfect tool, because it is a tool used and created by imperfect beings. Science should never seek to dismiss novel and untested ideas, but it should always strive to label the concepts it uses with rational, unbiased and appropriate degrees of confidence. And this must be the case, not only for the untried ideas, but also and perhaps even more importantly, the mainstreams ideas as well.

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

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

Friday, September 30, 2005 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Finn, despite my all knowing all seeing nature, I'm stumped as to how you reached the conclusion from my post that I was claiming omnipotence (hopefully you don't agree with yourself completely). I see a larger world than you do. I can say that because I see all the things science has shown us plus a whole bunch of other stuff that you don't believe in but I've seen. Science has not adequately disproven the things I have seen innumerable times with my own eyes; things others have seen, sometimes simultaneously; things of which I've read corroborating accounts in books many, many times. I don't disregard the scientific establishment, but I don't run my life by its limited vision. How we get from my having a larger view of reality than you, to my being omnipotent I hope was just you trying to be funny.

Well there was a twinge of humor. I’ll admit after reading your post I was reminded of Inignot, the Mooninite. But there was also a serious question. I don’t doubt that you believe that you have some privileged world insight or that you think I’m some kind of dimwit for demanding evidence; I’m just not very confident that your supposed privileged depth of vision is necessarily real. And I think your post raises a valid question: a person who believes they “see a larger world” then everyone else may be inclined to view entirely coincidental events as justification for this supposed omnipotence. Sort of the chicken and the egg kind of thing. Is your claim that you can “see a larger world” a product of actually have seen said larger world or instead is your interpretation of coincidental events a product of believing you “see a larger world.”

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Finn, do you think animals are capable of reasoning? I would really like to know your thoughts on this simple question.

I don’t doubt that some animals are capable of some degree of reasoning.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
It's things like that you and others so easily dismiss. I wonder why. There is no coincidence to them.

There’s no evidence either.

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

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

Friday, September 30, 2005 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t doubt that you believe that you have some privileged world insight or that you think I’m some kind of dimwit for demanding evidence; I’m just not very confident that your supposed privileged depth of vision is necessarily real.

Why should you be? Our perception is only as good as the last time we were wrong and had to adjust. Back in kung fu class, my instructor used to talk about a man on a tight rope. To the observer, the man is maintaining his balance, but to the tight rope walker balance is defined by his constant awareness of his tendency to lose his balance.

Quote:
And I think your post raises a valid question: a person who believes they “see a larger world” then everyone else may be inclined to view entirely coincidental events as justification for this supposed omnipotence.

Now, now, don't marginalize my point of view more than it already is. A man thinks he knows better than "everyone else" is a monster of self-deceit. There are a whole lot of people who see as much of the world as me and more--just check out the thread that spawned this one!

You and CUnknown have repeatedly gotten the wrong idea about where I get validation for my views. You seem to think that merely including my own intuitive faculty (tested almost daily, btw) invalidates my perception. For the record, my views are a synthesis of various sources, including (but not necessarily limited to) my intuition and "guides," friends, fellow psychics, books, the news paper, even some scientists. Your chicken/egg duality only works if I have no point of reference beyond my whimsical brain-pan. But I do.

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

Friday, September 30, 2005 11:38 AM

HK, if you really are omnipotent like Finn says, could you please change reality so that Firefly was never canceled?

And make Rue the president?

Chrisisall, who bows to the Omnipotent One

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

Saturday, October 1, 2005 12:43 AM

The doctor said I was omnipotent once, but I think he got the tests mixed up because I have no problems in that particular area thank you very much!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

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

Saturday, October 1, 2005 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Why should you be? Our perception is only as good as the last time we were wrong and had to adjust. Back in kung fu class, my instructor used to talk about a man on a tight rope. To the observer, the man is maintaining his balance, but to the tight rope walker balance is defined by his constant awareness of his tendency to lose his balance.

It’s interesting that you say that. When was the last time you were wrong? It seems to me that one of the problems with the whole psychic ability stuff is that it is essentially infallible. There does not seem to be any impartial criteria by which you could ever define when you are wrong. As such the tendency is towards absolute belief in the righteousness of the “viewer.” In other words, omniscience. (I said omnipotence earlier but that was a mistake; I typed one thing and thought something else.) What is your criterion for determining when you are wrong? Or do you just think that there is no such thing as a coincidence, and if so how so you know you’re not wrong about that?

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Now, now, don't marginalize my point of view more than it already is. A man thinks he knows better than "everyone else" is a monster of self-deceit. There are a whole lot of people who see as much of the world as me and more--just check out the thread that spawned this one!

Another thread of unsubstantiated “experiences,” none of which demonstrates that any of these people see any further then their own ideologies, imagination or personal beliefs with regard to psychic ability.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You and CUnknown have repeatedly gotten the wrong idea about where I get validation for my views. You seem to think that merely including my own intuitive faculty (tested almost daily, btw) invalidates my perception. For the record, my views are a synthesis of various sources, including (but not necessarily limited to) my intuition and "guides," friends, fellow psychics, books, the news paper, even some scientists. Your chicken/egg duality only works if I have no point of reference beyond my whimsical brain-pan. But I do.

And how do you know that? Regardless of what you may think, none of your sources necessarily constitute any degree of validation. I would argue that the chicken and the egg analogy is spot on. How do you know that your perception of the world isn’t due completely to your own misguided interpretations of purely coincidental events?

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

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

Friday, August 25, 2006 10:20 AM