Chaos Magic

[tsig]

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.

You're branding yourself a liar?

Actually I think that possibility was brought up but we asshats we too polite to pursue it that line very hard.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

Real in what sense? At least from my end, there is no doubt THAT there was the experience of a conversant voice. Its the exact ontological status of said voice thats in question.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You're branding yourself a liar?

No. Simply pointing out that all that can be discussed here is, by definition, anecdotal and that theres no basis upon which to make any conclusions about the the story beyond considering hypothetically. Asking for "evidence" or "proof" regarding details of an account given over the internet is also a vain pursuit. One has to be able to step back and logically examine the details of such an account, as given, without committing to any conclusions regarding it's veracity.

 

[tsig]

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.

How do you know you weren't experiencing telepathy?

 

[AkuManiMani]

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

I can see how that would be a valid concern but such an explanation seems more than a little contrived if the information given is specific.

 

[PixyMisa]

Your evidence for this being...?

Magic elves!

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.

He is rather like a cat trying to cover up on linoleum.

AkuManiMani, your posts are still there.

 

[Zanders]

I can see how that would be a valid concern but such an explanation seems more than a little contrived if the information given is specific.

But you said that it just said that she had talked to it before and that you chose her well. That doesn't seem like anything too impressive. Especially if you are remembering it more accurate than it was.

 

[Zanders]

How do you know you weren't experiencing telepathy?

And instead of it being a spirit being, what if it was intelligent life from another planet?

Best not to just to theories like "spirits" or "souls", which are very problematic.

 

[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. 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.

How do you know you weren't experiencing telepathy?

Being as how the phenomenon in question manifested as an audible "voice" in my mind, rather than as a sound coming externally from the room, I suppose one could argue that it was a kind of "telepathic" contact. The entity in question was also able to produce force feedback and elicit physical sensations. It seems fairly certain that, at least in this case, such entities interface with a subject's nervous system. The issue really boils down to whether or not they are artifacts -of- a given subject' nervous system. At this point, I'm not so sure they are.

 

[tsig]

Real in what sense? At least from my end, there is no doubt THAT there was the experience of a conversant voice. Its the exact ontological status of said voice thats in question.

And you accuse us of being stuck in our beliefs?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Magic elves!

So what did your "magic elves" have to say during your hallucinatory episodes?

 

[Zanders]

I'm actually curious as to how the people here would like to see something like this tested. What would be a good way to test spontaneous experiences such as these? And what would produce good enough evidence?

 

[tsig]

No. Simply pointing out that all that can be discussed here is, by definition, anecdotal and that theres no basis upon which to make any conclusions about the the story beyond considering hypothetically. Asking for "evidence" or "proof" regarding details of an account given over the internet is also a vain pursuit. One has to be able to step back and logically examine the details of such an account, as given, without committing to any conclusions regarding it's veracity.

So asking for details is a vain pursuit but we should logically examine the details?

You may want to rethink that position.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Real in what sense? At least from my end, there is no doubt THAT there was the experience of a conversant voice. Its the exact ontological status of said voice thats in question.

And you accuse us of being stuck in our beliefs?

Eh? What one experiences directly is not a matter of belief -- it is direct knowledge. If a subject has a hot iron dropped on their hand their experience of pain is there regardless of their belief.

 

[AkuManiMani]

No. Simply pointing out that all that can be discussed here is, by definition, anecdotal and that theres no basis upon which to make any conclusions about the the story beyond considering hypothetically. Asking for "evidence" or "proof" regarding details of an account given over the internet is also a vain pursuit. One has to be able to step back and logically examine the details of such an account, as given, without committing to any conclusions regarding it's veracity.

So asking for details is a vain pursuit but we should logically examine the details?

You may want to rethink that position.

I think you should re-read as you missed what my actual position is. I'm saying that asking for evidence with regard to the details given is a vain pursuit because the only evidence that can be given on a web forum is anecdotal. You're awfully hasty in your attempts to rebut -- I suggest you slow down a bit.

 

[tsig]

I'm actually curious as to how the people here would like to see something like this tested. What would be a good way to test spontaneous experiences such as these? And what would produce good enough evidence?

having seen far to many "psychic tests" I would walk across the street to avoid another.


Check out the VisionFromFeeling threads.

 

[tsig]

Eh? What one experiences directly is not a matter of belief -- it is direct knowledge. If a subject has a hot iron dropped on their hand their experience of pain is there regardless of their belief.

Hearing a voice in your head =/= a hot iron on the hand. If someone else touches the iron they'll get burned but no one else hears your voice.

 

[Zanders]

having seen far to many "psychic tests" I would walk across the street to avoid another.


Check out the VisionFromFeeling threads.

I'm not talking about psychics, I'm talking about interaction with non-human or discriminate entities.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm actually curious as to how the people here would like to see something like this tested. What would be a good way to test spontaneous experiences such as these?

Ask for evidence.

And what would produce good enough evidence?

Any evidence at all would be a start.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not talking about psychics, I'm talking about interaction with non-human or discriminate entities.

Many psychics claim exactly that.