Chaos Magic

[AkuManiMani]

Lots of spontaneous events have been carefully documented and reliably and repeatably observed - meteors of course being one of them.

Give me an experimental protocol that will produce a meteor shower on demand.

 

[Zanders]

Give me an experimental protocol that will produce a meteor shower on demand.

An absolutely ignorant and goofy comparison. We can see meteor showers coming in advance and observe them when they happen.

What are you going on about? *mocking eye roll smiley*

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm reminded of a quote by the 19th century chemist Humphry Davy:

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human minds as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete, and that there are no new worlds to conquer."​

We didn't see evidence and then turn the evidence down saying it was impossible, there is simply no good evidence presented.

We asked for evidence, we aren't getting any actual evidence. If we find hard evidence, then people will be ignorant for turning it down purely based on what we think science is (whatever that even means).

Again, what kind of 'hard evidence' could there be for the kinds of internal experiences [like the one's recounted by me] of receiving veridical information if people's very recollections of the events are automatically discounted?

If one grants that even a few of the innumerable documented "psi" experiences are accurate [such as accounts involving OBEs] they demonstrate that common ways of viewing the world most certainly require some revision. Even disregarding personal accounts like mine, there is considerable experimental evidence that lends added credence:

Anecdotes about OBE's (which you give too much value to) are hardly enough. If you can obtain information you couldn't have known though an OBE, it would be easily testable. We can already put people and such states in a lab, and then we could see if they could report images shown while they were supposedly out of their bodies. See? Easily testable. Don't be ignorant.

There are numerous reports of just such occurrences -- particularly from patients who report having spontaneous NDEs. Are you automatically disqualifying every documented case?

Don't tell me there is an evil conspiracy among scientists to undermine the "paranormal".

Taboos don't require conspiracy.

Here are some interested links on lab induces OBEs. 1

2

I've already read numerous articles on lab induced "OBEs" and Michael Shermer's own writings on the subject. The induced sensations and the actual experiences, as reported, are not the same.

And on top of that, somebody could easily use their occult methods to astrally project under lab conditions and then tell the doctors what images they were holding up.

Don't know anything about "occult" methods. All I know is that there are numerous accounts of such experiences occurring spontaneously. A quick google search turned up a link to a site with a list of evidence for such experiences. Haven't had enough time to read thru all of it but, from the looks of it, it's worth checking out.

The American government poured tons of money in to such research and came out with very little of value. That is why they discontinues such research. Unless of course, you been mislead by the American government

Heh, wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Robin]

Because our current theoretical framework does not explain the mechanisms for how an OBE, or "spirit" contact with a subject's mind could provide veridical information they otherwise would not have access to. If it did such phenomena would not be classified as "supernatural" claims.

Our current theoretical framework explains OBE's just fine. Artifacts of the mind.

As for your own experience, I am not convinced that the mind is such a reliable entity that you can really be sure that you are not mistaken about this.

 

[Zanders]

Again, what kind of 'hard evidence' could there be for the kinds of internal experiences [like the one's recounted by me] of receiving veridical information if people's very recollections of the events are automatically discounted?



There are numerous reports of just such occurrences -- particularly from patients who report having spontaneous NDEs. Are you automatically disqualifying every documented case?



Taboos don't require conspiracy.



I've already read numerous articles on lab induced "OBEs" and Michael Shermer's own writings on the subject. The induced sensations and the actual experiences, as reported, are not the same.




Don't know anything about "occult" methods. All I know is that there are numerous accounts of such experiences occurring spontaneously. A quick google search turned up a link to a site with a list of evidence for such experiences. Haven't had enough time to read thru all of it but, from the looks of it, it's worth checking out.



Heh, wouldn't be the first time.

Anecdotes. I said that it could easily be tested, and it should.

Also, the site you linked to has a large article on Sylvia Browne, and how good of a psychic she is. I think I've already heard enough from that specific site.

You had tour own experiences, and I'm not saying that you never did. But when it comes to other paranormal claims you seem downright credulous and uncritical.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Give me an experimental protocol that will produce a meteor shower on demand.

An absolutely ignorant and goofy comparison. We can see meteor showers coming in advance and observe them when they happen.

The point is that we do not have the ability to induce them to occur under controlled conditions. In the case of events like the ones I've reported, the situation is further aggravated by the fact that the experiences in question are "internal" rather than "public", so the only way to confirm them is thru the subject relaying veridical information they'd otherwise not have access to.

What are you going on about? *mocking eye roll smiley*

Oh-ho! I see wutchu did thar!

 

[AkuManiMani]

Anecdotes. I said that it could easily be tested, and it should.

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?

Also, the site you linked to has a large article on Sylvia Browne, and how good of a psychic she is. I think I've already heard enough from that specific site.

A quick term search of the page didn't turn up anything on Sylvia Browne. If you could link the exact article for me that would be helpful

 

[Zanders]

The point is that we do not have the ability to induce them to occur under controlled conditions. In the case of events like the ones I've reported, the situation is further aggravated by the fact that the experiences in question are "internal" rather than "public", so the only way to confirm them is thru the subject relaying veridical information they'd otherwise not have access to.



Oh-ho! I see wutchu did thar!

So, can we have people learn the signs of their arrival and prepare to observe them? If not, the comparison makes absolutely no sense.

A quick term search of the page didn't turn up anything on Sylvia Browne. If you could link the exact article for me that would be helpful

Really? That's odd. I am certain I read a page on her somewhere on that site. I read through a few of the pages on the site in the past when I was looking for stuff on Swedenborg and I'm pretty sure it had a page Sylvia Browne.

I will look through the site and find it tomorrow, since I should seriously be sleeping right now.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The point is that we do not have the ability to induce them to occur under controlled conditions. In the case of events like the ones I've reported, the situation is further aggravated by the fact that the experiences in question are "internal" rather than "public", so the only way to confirm them is thru the subject relaying veridical information they'd otherwise not have access to.

So, can we have people learn the signs of their arrival and prepare to observe them? If not, the comparison makes absolutely no sense.

Meh. I already explained in what sense they were analogous and why I used it as an example. Please don't start getting nitpicky on me x-P

 

[PixyMisa]

Give me an experimental protocol that will produce a meteor shower on demand.

Drop rocks from great height.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Because our current theoretical framework does not explain the mechanisms for how an OBE, or "spirit" contact with a subject's mind could provide veridical information they otherwise would not have access to. If it did such phenomena would not be classified as "supernatural" claims.

Our current theoretical framework explains OBE's just fine. Artifacts of the mind.

Depending upon what the exact nature of the mind turns out to be, that can mean a lot or very little.

As for your own experience, I am not convinced that the mind is such a reliable entity that you can really be sure that you are not mistaken about this.

Thats a possibility but, judging from the same criteria I use for my "mundane" experiences, it seems a bit remote. My recollections of the events are clear and consistent; I see no reason to attribute greater doubt to them merely because their contents seem extraordinary.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Drop rocks from great height.

I guess we ought to revise all reference materials to define "falling rocks" as "meteor shower"

 

[AkuManiMani]

You had your own experiences, and I'm not saying that you never did. But when it comes to other paranormal claims you seem downright credulous and uncritical.

I'm merely taking my own advice: suspending judgement and entertaining every possibility. I can only vouch for my own experiences with certainty. I don't have to believe every claim others make of their own experiences to tentatively accept them as true for hypothetical assessment.

 

[Robin]

Depending upon what the exact nature of the mind turns out to be, that can mean a lot or very little.

The point is that it needn't require an explanation that would contravene currently understood science any more than a dream does.

Thats a possibility but, judging from the same criteria I use for my "mundane" experiences, it seems a bit remote. My recollections of the events are clear and consistent; I see no reason to attribute greater doubt to them merely because their contents seem extraordinary.

Why not? I clearly recall a news report from the 1980's that the San Marco Bell Tower in Venice had collapsed overnight. I recall the colour footage of the rubble piled up in the piazza and the voice over - "One of the world's greatest architectural treasures - now just a pile of bricks".

There was nothing extraordinary about this news report except for the fact that the Bell Tower collapsed in 1902, was rebuilt in 1912 and has stayed up ever since.

From this I must conclude that I did not see a news report that it had collapsed overnight in the 1980's.

The truth of the matter - well I don't know. Maybe I fell asleep in front of the television and dreamed it. Maybe I am misremembering a documentary about the 1902 collapse.

Judging from the same criteria that I use for my "mundane" experiences - I definitely saw that news report.

Judging from the evidence - I didn't.

 

[Robin]

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?

Do you have a particular occurence in mind?.

 

[Nonpareil]

Because our current theoretical framework does not explain the mechanisms for how an OBE, or "spirit" contact with a subject's mind could provide veridical information they otherwise would not have access to. If it did such phenomena would not be classified as "supernatural" claims.

However, there is no concrete evidence that OBEs can provide someone with information that they would not have access to.

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?

Ask for details. Perform a double-blind study. Find others who have had OBEs and question them. Check their stories against the stories of the doctors and whatever film of the situation is on hand.

It's not impossible.

 

[PixyMisa]

In fact, it's been done. The results have been negative.

Funny, that.

 

[Hellbound]

Wait, wait. How does that contradict what I just said? Are you suggesting that multiple observations of a particular event or phenomena is not an example of independent verification?

*sigh*

Your anecdote is not evidence that your anecdote is true. A thousand anecdotes are not evidence that your anecdote is true. However, reviewing numerous eyewitness accounts, finding both common and differential elements, and putting that together with other evidence as well as with the understanding of how perception can fail and issues with how the human brain works can help to limit the possibility space.

First of all, the veracity of an account has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how impactful a single person, or persons the world over, feel it to be. Either it happened or it did not. It doesn't matter whether the event was tea sipping or receiving information from "spirits".

Yes. But for mundane claims, that will change nothing important whether true or false, there simply isn’t a rational justification for extensive research. Cost-benefit analysis. A claim of a common, mundane event, that is known to occur regularly, is pretty much acceptable based on someone’s word (I had coffee this morning). As stakes are raised, it makes sense to require more evidence (I had coffee this morning, so I could not have been at the murder scene).

Second of all, the accounts I've given aren't just a couple of anomalous events, but one of countless others that have been reported. It just so happens that they are a class of reported experience you [and some others] consider suspect precisely because they run counter to your expectations of what is plausible/possible. As soon as you hear of such reports you automatically begin the process of downplaying and/or reinterpreting them to conform to your preset expectations to the point where your criteria for "evidence" becomes so steep that virtually nothing will convince you that they are valid. In other words, you have a strong cognitive bias toward discounting such events regardless of the evidence presented.

Thank you for making part of the next point. Yes, your account is one of countless others. Let’s take a close look at that, shall we?

Of those countless others, the majority remain unexplained. Mostly because, like yours, they are historical events and little if any effort is made to produce anything that would be remotely evidential when a similar event repeats. Of the ones that have been explained, they have been due to causes other than “interaction with an external intelligence”. Therefore, the countless other stories you mention, which have either no explanation or a mundane explanation, don’t support your contention that some sort of external intelligence communicated with you. Yes, I approach your interpretation with a bias, because history and previous research has shown that in all of these cases that have been explained, spirits is not the explanation. The bias is based on evidence, and you must rightfully overcome that evidence, that bias, to have your claim accepted as fact.

As a side note, how many of these “countless stories” are actually compatible with your account? How many are compatible with each other? You can’t claim any story of spirits as proof, when the details are as variable as the tellers in most cases.

There are many, many other documented accounts and studies like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo. If you agree that such reports are evidence what do you think they're evidence of, if not what they're reporting?

Evidence can be weak or strong. They are evidence, and documentation can provide more details (especially comparing documentation of an event made soon afterwards with later recollections, and similar things). Accounts typically have very little evidentiary value, but can suggest additional avenues of research. Also, don’t confuse evidence with proof. They are two separate concepts.

You gave a list of examples with little to or relevance to the topic at hand. I asked you for more relevant examples and, instead of simply providing such examples, you accuse me of trying to make you look stupid. Who's the one being dishonest here?

No, you made as if my examples were attempting to be specific, when it was obvious they weren’t. You didn’t ask for more relevant examples, except indirectly. If you really could not grasp that concept from my response, I apologize.

My point is that the claims being made here do not voilate what you know, but what you believe. In any case, what alleged knowledge do my accounts contradict? Be specific.

Conservation laws are violated, for one, if you assume some sort of coherent spiritual energy after death. An additional fundamental force, as none of the current ones have the ability to do what’s claimed nor have they been detected in these situations (when they’ve been tested). Telepathy violates several physical principles that have been well tested, because required energy levels would kill brain cells en masse. There are additional problems, but that’s a start.

Thats interesting. My teachers don't seem to think so.

Vague argument from authority noted.

Again, not all scientific studies follow experimental protocols and real phenomena are not necessarily replicable under controlled conditions. In the social sciences in particular, much of the data collected involves recording individual accounts of subjects lives and their experiences may be unique to them. In the case of accounts like the ones I've just given, if we are in fact dealing with autonomous intelligences experimental replicability would be extremely problematic, to say the least.

Yes, and this is something I went into. Yet you seem to think this means that a single personal account of a single event is somehow just as meaningful as a physics experiment. Just because it’s harder to meet the level of scientific rigor required does not mean we should lower the standards.

Right. Unless I'm able to reenact an event to the tee it never happened

And this is a definite straw man. Not to mention, again, a deliberate mis-interpretation of my statements, unless you are more ignorant than I previously thought. My statement meant can you gives us the details? You seem very reluctant to say much of anything, other than deliberate, vague statements. So how could anyone even begin to compare your experience with others, or to attempt to replicate the conditions and possibly the results?

Are you suggesting that if I had such experiences more frequently they would be more real/valid? In any case, you still haven't addressed how -- via web forum -- one would provide non-anecdotal evidence for the types of experiences being discussed here.

I’m suggesting that being able to re-create an experience allows for the collection of more data. Just because it’s hard to do does not mean you are suddenly awarded the status of “truth” without the same level of rigor and examination expected in every other aspect of scientific study.

Okay. How can we experimentally test what I experienced on this web forum?

*sigh*

Again, you attempt to ask the stupid question. It’s a historical event, we can’t. We can, however, get as much detail as possible and attempt to recreate your experience. We can look at others who have attempted the same. We can look at studies that examine this statistically, or studies that look at it under controlled conditions.

I just gave an example on page 28. Heck, just read up on the history of science yourself. Do I have to list every historical example of scientists rejecting new theories/findings/ideas merely on the basis of established dogma?

Actually, your page 28 example is a poor one, and that’s the reason I asked.. Numerous scientists around the world were experimenting on heavier than air flight at the time, and the Wright Brothers were the first by a rather short amount of time. Also, the opinion that “heavier than air flight” was impossible was, very much so, a minority opinion. Some thought the current technology would not do it, but very, very few thought it impossible. In any case, none of this was theory…it was opinion. Science had NO theory claiming that flight, or heavier than air flight, was impossible. After all, any scientist could look outside the window and see birds doing it all day long. IT was opinion.

Do you have any example where something revolutionary was thought to be wrong, but was accepted? Or, more specifically, where any established scientific theory was fundamentally wrong?

I would suggest you study scientific history, as well. And if the ones who taught you scientific history are related to the teachers you mentioned above, I’d find a new place to learn.

That I never claimed that the majority of our scientific knowledge is wrong.

Not explicitly, but implicitly you have. The consequences of your account would disprove a large portion of current scientific theory and principles. That you don’t understand this is not my failure.

Wow, dude...Just...Wow. I hardly know where to begin. I'd definitely like to engage you in discussion but, being as how the above doesn't even begin to address the points I'm actually making I don't see how that is possible. Straw-maning, indeed...

If you’d like to engage me in discussion, then do so. The missing of obvious points and the continuous special pleading for your case (“but evidence is hard!”) get old, especially when you try so hard to promote the idea that you’re here to discuss.

An you’re correct, I wasn’t addressing your points, but rather the intellectual dishonesty you display. You aren’t here to discuss, you’re here to score points for your side.

Good idea. That was probably one of the most breathtaking pieces of irrational ranting I've ever seen on these boards. You definitely need a break from this discussion, dude.

And this is the reason I returned. Ranting, yes. Irrational? No, I believe the basic viewpoints, while they could have been stated better, are based on the evidence of your posts here.

 

[tsig]

I'm merely taking my own advice: suspending judgement and entertaining every possibility. I can only vouch for my own experiences with certainty. I don't have to believe every claim others make of their own experiences to tentatively accept them as true for hypothetical assessment.

No, you are not. You have completely ruled out and natural explanations.

 

[tsig]

I guess we ought to revise all reference materials to define "falling rocks" as "meteor shower"

"Falling rocks" is the general category while meteors are a set of that category.