Chaos Magic

[AkuManiMani]

I'm actually still skimming over the thread ExMinister linked earlier in the discussion. Along with details of his own experience, the OP provides a link to a 20/20 documentary on schizophrenic children. Based upon my experiences, and what I'm seeing of the accounts of others, these entities appear to have intelligences of their own, distinct from the consciousness of the person who hears/sees them. Atleast in the instance of me and my friend's experience, they are also capable of knowing things that the person with whom they're interacting may not even be aware of. The suggest that they are entities distinct from the mind of the subject(s) in question. I really don't know exactly what these entities are but its fairly clear to me that they aren't just "random misfirings of the brain".

Why? What evidence do you have to support this contention?

As I've already repeated numerous times, the "hallucinations" in question appear quite capable of carrying on lucid conversation -- indicative that even if they ARE products of the subject's brain they are not the product of random activity. This coupled with the fact that, at least in my first hand instance, they appear capable of having knowledge the subject has no access to strongly suggests that they are separate entities.

 

[Nonpareil]

What are your thoughts on whats constitutes the "paranormal"?

I define "paranormal" as "outside the normal" - that is, something which not only is not but cannot be explained through normal means.

How is an observation a strawman?

I explained this in my last post. We aren't trying to disprove anything. There's nothing to disprove. We are offering possible explanations. If you present any actual evidence, then we will try to disprove it. As of yet, you haven't established a case to disprove, and the "explanations" we've given are pro bono. We're giving you explanations which may or may not be correct for something that may or may not have happened.

 

[AkuManiMani]

No. You are still missing the point. We are saying that, if it happened, it could have been X, Y, or Z. We do not, and have never, said that we know it happened, or that we know that it was X, Y, or Z.

What about this is unclear?

Drop the "we" and simply speak for yourself, please.

 

[Nonpareil]

As I've already repeated numerous times, the "hallucinations" in question appear quite capable of carrying on lucid conversation -- indicative that even if they ARE products of the subject's brain they are not the product of random activity.

No one argued that the hallucinations are entirely the result of random activity. They are the result of aberrant brain activity.

This coupled with the fact that, at least in my first hand instance, they appear capable of having knowledge the subject has no access to strongly suggests that they are separate entities.

And what evidence of this do you see in the other cases? You do not know these children. You cannot know what they can or cannot know.

 

[Nonpareil]

Drop the "we" and simply speak for yourself, please.

I'll speak for the others when I know for a fact that they share my position. In this thread, it is painfully obvious that they do. I really don't understand why you think they are saying anything else.

Anyone who thinks I have incorrectly summarized your position, let me know.

 

[AkuManiMani]

That doesn't make resorting to insults right.

In this case I'd say that doing so is probably ill advised, but I still think they're well deserved, none the less.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Good, grief. You still don't get it, do you? How do you even know I wasn't just making up the whole story to begin with?

There are so many people here eagerly and confidently proclaiming that my experience was REALLY X, Y, & Z, when the fact of the matter is they haven't a clue what happened, how it happened, or even IF it happened at all.

General trolliness aside, there actually is a good point hidden here.

Usually, when a woo comes to these forums proclaiming a paranormal experience, after the initial polite disbelief, the woo in question will start demanding another explanation for the experience. And, being the kind skeptics they are, many members will provide some.

The trouble is, by this point we've already fallen into the trap.

The thing about anecdotes over the internet is that they're just that; anecdotes over the internet. They certainly don't prove psi, or any other supernatural thing; there simply isn't enough information. However, that lack of information also means we can't really make any informed hypotheses about what actually happened. Any explanation, mundane or paranormal, is in effect a just-so story, possibly theoretically feasible, but entirely untestable.

What I'm saying is that finding a scientifically feasible explanation for an anecdote is the wrong way to go about things. Just because we can come up with one proves nothing; there are always several more possible theories. What we should focus on is the fact that we cannot know what really happened - not without more information, more experiments, more control. It's this fact that shows the paranormal explanation is unwarranted - there isn't enough information, so such an explanation is nothing but a just-so story that also happens to violate some laws of nature. But a feasible, likely explanation isn't really worth any more.

All that said, I'm not saying there's no value in pointing out more mundane explanations. They certainly could make a reasonable person consider they may not have had a paranormal experience after all. But generally, when discussing anecdotes, I think it's important to keep in mind that we don't know that what happened was something mundane - we just don't know what happened, at all. That's why we don't evoke paranormal explanations. There's no reason to.

 

[Zanders]

I define "paranormal" as "outside the normal" - that is, something which not only is not but cannot be explained through normal means.



I explained this in my last post. We aren't trying to disprove anything. There's nothing to disprove. We are offering possible explanations. If you present any actual evidence, then we will try to disprove it. As of yet, you haven't established a case to disprove, and the "explanations" we've given are pro bono. We're giving you explanations which may or may not be correct for something that may or may not have happened.

What if his friend confirmed that she herself did in fact have the strange experience he mentioned and it really was that similar without either of them mentioning details to the other?

AkuManiMani, how is it saying you "chose her well" anything special?

 

[Nonpareil]

General trolliness aside, there actually is a good point hidden here.
<snip>

What I'm saying is that finding a scientifically feasible explanation for an anecdote is the wrong way to go about things. Just because we can come up with one proves nothing; there are always several more possible theories. What we should focus on is the fact that we cannot know what really happened - not without more information, more experiments, more control. It's this fact that shows the paranormal explanation is unwarranted - there isn't enough information, so such an explanation is nothing but a just-so story that also happens to violate some laws of nature. But a feasible, likely explanation isn't really worth any more.

All that said, I'm not saying there's no value in pointing out more mundane explanations. They certainly could make a reasonable person consider they may not have had a paranormal experience after all. But generally, when discussing anecdotes, I think it's important to keep in mind that we don't know that what happened was something mundane - we just don't know what happened, at all. That's why we don't evoke paranormal explanations. There's no reason to.

Everyone does keep that in mind. Many posters in this thread have mentioned this repeatedly - including AkuManiMani himself.

 

[AkuManiMani]

As I've already repeated numerous times, the "hallucinations" in question appear quite capable of carrying on lucid conversation -- indicative that even if they ARE products of the subject's brain they are not the product of random activity.

No one argued that the hallucinations are entirely the result of random activity. They are the result of aberrant brain activity.

I'd say that the "abberant brain" activty is probably the result of the entites, rather than vis versa.

This coupled with the fact that, at least in my first hand instance, they appear capable of having knowledge the subject has no access to strongly suggests that they are separate entities.

And what evidence of this do you see in the other cases? You do not know these children. You cannot know what they can or cannot know.

Please read the highlighted portion. I get the impression that you're rushing to respond and rebut before actually taking in what is being said.

 

[Nonpareil]

What if his friend confirmed that she herself did in fact have the strange experience he mentioned and it really was that similar without either of them mentioning details to the other?

What about it? Aside from the fact that we can't confirm her story over the internet, all that proves is that two people had a weird experience. It doesn't prove the paranormal.

 

[Nonpareil]

I'd say that the "abberant brain" activty is probably the result of the entites, rather than vis versa.

Your evidence for this being...?

Please read the highlighted portion. I get the impression that you're rushing to respond and rebut before actually taking in what is being said.

No. I read what you said. You said at least. That usually implies that there is something more. And there hardly seems to be any point in mentioning that your own experience included "outside knowledge" when talking about the experiences of some kids on 20/20.

 

[Zanders]

AkuManiMani, coincidences can get pretty amazing without any extraordinary cause.

http://www.oddee.com/item_82923.aspx

 

[AkuManiMani]

Good, grief. You still don't get it, do you? How do you even know I wasn't just making up the whole story to begin with?

There are so many people here eagerly and confidently proclaiming that my experience was REALLY X, Y, & Z, when the fact of the matter is they haven't a clue what happened, how it happened, or even IF it happened at all.

General trolliness aside, there actually is a good point hidden here.

Usually, when a woo comes to these forums proclaiming a paranormal experience, after the initial polite disbelief, the woo in question will start demanding another explanation for the experience. And, being the kind skeptics they are, many members will provide some.

The trouble is, by this point we've already fallen into the trap.

The thing about anecdotes over the internet is that they're just that; anecdotes over the internet. They certainly don't prove psi, or any other supernatural thing; there simply isn't enough information. However, that lack of information also means we can't really make any informed hypotheses about what actually happened. Any explanation, mundane or paranormal, is in effect a just-so story, possibly theoretically feasible, but entirely untestable.

What I'm saying is that finding a scientifically feasible explanation for an anecdote is the wrong way to go about things. Just because we can come up with one proves nothing; there are always several more possible theories. What we should focus on is the fact that we cannot know what really happened - not without more information, more experiments, more control. It's this fact that shows the paranormal explanation is unwarranted - there isn't enough information, so such an explanation is nothing but a just-so story that also happens to violate some laws of nature. But a feasible, likely explanation isn't really worth any more.

Exactly. For the record, I wan't just trolling for trolling's sake. I'm a bit disappointed that you're only the second participant in this thread to even recognize this point.

All that said, I'm not saying there's no value in pointing out more mundane explanations. They certainly could make a reasonable person consider they may not have had a paranormal experience after all. But generally, when discussing anecdotes, I think it's important to keep in mind that we don't know that what happened was something mundane - we just don't know what happened, at all. That's why we don't evoke paranormal explanations. There's no reason to.

I'm not sure how much of this discussion you've been following but I'd say it's ill advised to automatically assume a "mundane" or "paranormal" explanation. Like I mentioned earlier, if scientists 200 years ago were exposed to some 21^st century technology without any explanation as to how it worked, it's mechanics' would seem "supernatural" relative to their understanding of nature.

 

[Nonpareil]

Exactly. For the record, I wan't just trolling for trolling's sake. I'm a bit disappointed that you're only the second participant in this thread to even recognize this point.

Everyone has recognized it. That you fail to realize this doesn't alter it.

Everyone in this thread - myself, PixyMisa, Zanders, all the rest - have all known that we can't actually prove your experience to be mundane or paranormal. We can't even prove that you actually had an experience. On the latter, however, we are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and on the former, we can at least toss some ideas around about what it might have been.

 

[Mirrorglass]

As I've already repeated numerous times, the "hallucinations" in question appear quite capable of carrying on lucid conversation -- indicative that even if they ARE products of the subject's brain they are not the product of random activity. This coupled with the fact that, at least in my first hand instance, they appear capable of having knowledge the subject has no access to strongly suggests that they are separate entities.

By the way, since I just remembered you asking whether or not people with auditory hallucinations, schizophrenics in particular, receive information they would not have access to; the belief of receiving such information is quite common. However, there has never been a documented case where anyone but the person in question could verify that there in fact was any new information gained.

Everyone does keep that in mind. Many posters in this thread have mentioned this repeatedly - including AkuManiMani himself.

Everyone does? Well shoot, I guess I wasted my time.

To be fair, perhaps I did sound like I was implying that everyone here has forgotten my point. That wasn't my intention, but I did get the feeling that Aku had managed to drag the discussion to pointless just-so stories a few times.

 

[tsig]

For starters, "paranormal" is just a relative term. The fact that so many of you go to such lengths, and waste so much time, trying to "disprove" and argue against it demonstrates what pretentious hand-waving asshats you really are. Many of you are so up your own behinds with what you -think- you know that you can't even distinguish between your beliefs about reality from reality itself. Its a strange sort of 'skeptic' who doubts everything but their own beliefs -- and make no mistake, you're loaded to the brim with unrecognized beliefs.

How do you distinguish between your beliefs and reality?

You came here tying to convince us that the voice you heard in your head was real.

 

[Zanders]

By the way, since I just remembered you asking whether or not people with auditory hallucinations, schizophrenics in particular, receive information they would not have access to; the belief of receiving such information is quite common. However, there has never been a documented case where anyone but the person in question could verify that there in fact was any new information gained.

Like I said, the "information they would not have access to" could possibly be confirmation bias.

 

[tsig]

She never specified and was very evasive and cryptic about answering certain questions.

So you're channeling the voice?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'd say that the "abberant brain" activty is probably the result of the entites, rather than vis versa.

Your evidence for this being...?

This kinda ties in with my thoughts on the relation between consciousness and the brain and this is probably a topic fit for a different thread. The short answer is that the brain [and, by extension, the other organ systems] is shaped by the conscious will of the subject as much as, if not more than, it shapes the consciousness of said subject.

Please read the highlighted portion. I get the impression that you're rushing to respond and rebut before actually taking in what is being said.

No. I read what you said. You said at least. That usually implies that there is something more. And there hardly seems to be any point in mentioning that your own experience included "outside knowledge" when talking about the experiences of some kids on 20/20.

My bad, about the lack of clarification.

In any case, I'm going with the hypothesis that "hallucinations" experienced by schizophrenic patients, spontaneous "contacts" with individuals with no history of psychiatric conditions, and the entities reported by subjects under the effects of certain hallucinogenic compounds [like DMT] are actually intelligences distinct from the consciousness [possibly even the brains] of the subjects who interact with them.

How would one go about testing such a hypothesis? Not sure. However, if its correct it would probably require the willing cooperation of whatever these "voices"/"hallucinations" may be.