Chaos Magic

[Noztradamus]

Drop rocks from great height.

It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Resume]

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

This is one thing I never get. It's been my experience that paranormal believers, whether that belief is ghosts, psi, whatever, appear to almost never accept a natural explanation even when it's right there in front of them. They seem invested somehow in the paranormal explanation, yet accuse skeptics of being the close-minded ones.

Show me how it works, the evidence, and I'm helpless to believe. Making excuses puts me on guard.

 

[Zanders]

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.

Just be careful. If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.

I used to have a habit of entertaining every single idea and concept. Every single claim out there, but you have to have a criteria.

This does not mean giving up on paranormal concepts, just giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. It clutters up your mind and eventually becomes chaotic. It clouds your judgment and leaves you open to completely false claims if you take everything at face value, even if it is for "hypothetical assessment". You can't beleive every anecdote you hear, that's just not how it works. It doesn't work in law enforcement, and it doesn't work in science. Heck, it doesn't work in anything.

In fact, you were speculating earlier about medical conditions based on little real evidence. I know it was hypothetical, but be careful not to go to far to either side where you assume anything.

This is one thing I never get. It's been my experience that paranormal believers, whether that belief is ghosts, psi, whatever, appear to almost never accept a natural explanation even when it's right there in front of them. They seem invested somehow in the paranormal explanation, yet accuse skeptics of being the close-minded ones.

Show me how it works, the evidence, and I'm helpless to believe. Making excuses puts me on guard.

But that would be boring.

 

[Hokulele]

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?

Easy.

"The Near Death Experience is something that seems to have happened to many people. How do people describe the experience? Are scientists investigating this? What are the results so far?"

There are a few core elements of the NDE, as researchers call it: floating up above yourself, whooshing down a tunnel, moving toward a light, seeing dead loved ones who often tell you “it’s not your time.” The experience is pretty universal, though there’s often a unique cultural overlay: for instance, a man in China was told “there’s been a clerical error,” rather than “it’s not your time.” A truck driver sped down “a tailpipe” rather than a tunnel.

A team of cardiologists and psychiatrists at the University of Virginia are taking a simple, rather elegant approach to trying to find out whether people who have these experiences are hallucinating or are actually leaving their bodies. They’ve got a laptop computer taped, flat open, on top of the highest cardiac monitor in an operating room, such that the only way you could see what’s on the screen would be if you were floating up by the ceiling. You can’t see the image (one of several rotating images, randomly chosen) from down below. Patients are interviewed after they leave the OR, to see if they report having seen anything. So far, none of the patients has had an NDE, but the project had only just begun when I was there.

http://calitreview.com/79

The book she was promoting for this interview is quite a bit of fun, looking back at the whole idea of a potential afterlife.

 

[dafydd]

This is one thing I never get. It's been my experience that paranormal believers, whether that belief is ghosts, psi, whatever, appear to almost never accept a natural explanation even when it's right there in front of them. They seem invested somehow in the paranormal explanation, yet accuse skeptics of being the close-minded ones.

Show me how it works, the evidence, and I'm helpless to believe. Making excuses puts me on guard.

Very well put.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

AkuManiMani, what is it that you think meteors are?

 

[Zanders]

Its about cultures projecting their collective psyche into the unknown. The unknown then takes on the patterns and features of the psyche, and our psyche is reflected back at us. Including the archetypes and the psychic ability of the psyche.

As the frontiers of the known have grown, our projections have been gradually withdrawn.




Not proof, evidence. Proof is an elusive concept.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-insights-into-links-between-esp-and.html

This post isn't really being discussed now, but I felt like posting what came to my mind when remembering it.

How would we prove that magnetic fields tamper with psi?

1. Find a psychic or person that can use objects for psychic abilities
2. Prepare two rooms, one with a heavy magnetic field and another without one. Do not tell the person which room is magnetic and which one is not
3. Have the person demonstrate their psychic abilities in each room
4. Record the difference in their performance in each room and see if their is an increase or decrease in effectiveness.
5. Repeat step 4 a couple of more times to see if the results are consistent.
6. Receive proof that magnetic fields tamper with psychic abilities.
7. ????
8. Profit.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

TBH, I'm not really proposing any contravening explanations. I am, however, proposing that sufficient explanations would require an expansion of our current scientific understanding.

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.

However, you've reason to doubt your recollection because of an easily recognized discrepancy; your memory of the experience is relatively clear but inconsistent. Whats more, via your own faculties, you were easily able to discern for yourself the problems with those particular memories.

My memories of the experiences in question are clear, self consistent, and congruent with the recollections of other parties that were involved. The only reason I'd have to seriously doubt them would be because they seem "extraordinary" given certain metaphysical assumptions. I trust my firsthand experience over ideological considerations.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

Just to be clear, I haven't ruled out explainations like the ones given earlier [e.g. hallucination, seizures, etc]. However, after years of consideration, I think that such explanations are not sufficient in themselves to account for all the features of the events I experienced. I've reached the conclusion that, even assuming the "natural" explanations given, there is more to them than meets the eye. In any case, I think the designations of "natural" and "supernatural" are superfluous anyway; either an event happens or it doesn't. Metaphysical designations are irrelevant.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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?

Easy.

"The Near Death Experience is something that seems to have happened to many people. How do people describe the experience? Are scientists investigating this? What are the results so far?"

There are a few core elements of the NDE, as researchers call it: floating up above yourself, whooshing down a tunnel, moving toward a light, seeing dead loved ones who often tell you “it’s not your time.” The experience is pretty universal, though there’s often a unique cultural overlay: for instance, a man in China was told “there’s been a clerical error,” rather than “it’s not your time.” A truck driver sped down “a tailpipe” rather than a tunnel.

A team of cardiologists and psychiatrists at the University of Virginia are taking a simple, rather elegant approach to trying to find out whether people who have these experiences are hallucinating or are actually leaving their bodies. They’ve got a laptop computer taped, flat open, on top of the highest cardiac monitor in an operating room, such that the only way you could see what’s on the screen would be if you were floating up by the ceiling. You can’t see the image (one of several rotating images, randomly chosen) from down below. Patients are interviewed after they leave the OR, to see if they report having seen anything. So far, none of the patients has had an NDE, but the project had only just begun when I was there.

http://calitreview.com/79

The book she was promoting for this interview is quite a bit of fun, looking back at the whole idea of a potential afterlife.

Good answer.

I'd recommend looking into reported cases where patients actually purport to have had OBE/NDEs with corroborating claims made my medical staff that were present. Such documented cases do exist and anyone who is genuinely curious can research on them at their leisure. Assuming even a fraction of them are accurate the implications are very interesting, to say the least

 

[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.

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

There are volumes of evidence for such events; anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but evidence none the less. In any case, the very nature of such reported experiences renders them only communicable via anecdote. The only "proof" one can have of such events would be to experience them firsthand.

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.

From what I've read, its been done before and there have been some reported positive results. The real question comes down to whether one chooses to consider such reports trustworthy.

 

[carlitos]

However, you've reason to doubt your recollection because of an easily recognized discrepancy; your memory of the experience is relatively clear but inconsistent. Whats more, via your own faculties, you were easily able to discern for yourself the problems with those particular memories.

My memories of the experiences in question are clear, self consistent, and congruent with the recollections of other parties that were involved. The only reason I'd have to seriously doubt them would be because they seem "extraordinary" given certain metaphysical assumptions. I trust my firsthand experience over ideological considerations.

I think the above is as good of a textbook case of special pleading as you'll find anywhere.

 

[Zanders]

There are volumes of evidence for such events; anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but evidence none the less. In any case, the very nature of such reported experiences renders them only communicable via anecdote. The only "proof" one can have of such events would be to experience them firsthand.



From what I've read, its been done before and there have been some reported positive results. The real question comes down to whether one chooses to consider such reports trustworthy.

I'll suspend my judgment until they can properly be tested. I can't say they don't happen, but I'm pretty sure OBEs and NDEs can be tested. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have.

I think that both saying they have no value and assuming they are all true is a bad mistake to make at the current time.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

TBH, I'm not really proposing any contravening explanations. I am, however, proposing that sufficient explanations would require an expansion of our current scientific understanding.

That is precisely where the bone of contention lies. "Expanding our current scientific understanding" is a call for a paradigm shift. Anecdotes do not rise to the level of extraordinary evidence to require or even suggest such a change because there are many potentially good explanations for anecdotes of subjective experiences.


ETA:

Carl Sagan, by the way, dealt with this issue very well in Contact. His main character has an experience that -- in the movie -- the audience shares. But other folks who could not have had the experience had no reason to believe that it occurred as reported -- except that there was corroborating evidence available. In the absence of strong corroborating evidence anecdotes simply will not do to support a fundamental paradigm shift.

 

[AkuManiMani]

[ETA: By the way, whats with you highlighting everything in black color font? Its pretty rendundant and makes replying to such a long post more tedious than necessary... -_- ]

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.

Epistemologically speaking, what makes the assessment of a third party more valid than the experience of firsthand observers?

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).

So, to put it simply, its more an issue of credulity than veracity.

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.

I never claimed the accounts of my experiences as proof of their reality. Whether a claim is accepted as fact is purely the personal prerogative of the third party hearing the claim, regardless of the value that party attributes to certain kinds of evidence. Without firsthand experience a claim [accepted or rejected, accurate or inaccurate] is not knowledge but a bare proposition that one may attribute a certain degree of trust or distrust.

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.

-Ofcourse- there will be variations between different observers' accounts of different events. Do you mean to suggest that such variation somehow nullifies the veracity of those experiences?

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.

The 'strength' of any evidence is relative to the credulity a given party is willing to extend. Even if one is presented with 'proof' of an event it is still their choice of whether to accept it or not. In either case, the veracity of an account is not dependent upon the degree of evidence available or the credulity of those hearing it.

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.

You gave examples. I asked for more relevant examples. You accused me of dishonesty in response to this request. Your underhanded conditional apology not withstanding, you were %100 at fault. Period.

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).

We've no clear model for how "coherent spiritual energy" should operate so its more than a little premature to speak of it's (im)plausibility.

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.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions on that just yet.

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

Vague argument from authority noted.

Hey, if you're right about my 'incomprehension' of the scientific process I've fooled the system well enough to progress in my major. Thats gotta count for somethin', right?

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.

I'm not recommending that standards should be lowered. What I am suggesting is that the methods may very well have to be modified to investigate certain phenomena. Even more "mundane" studies of consciousness require extensive "internal" introspective study as well as "external" observation. Whenever one is dealing with phenomena related to consciousness subjective factors must be taken into serious consideration.

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?

If you haven't noticed I've already given pages of details regarding my personal experiences. The more I've given, the more I've been accused of "self-aggrandizement" and claims that I must be mistaken or making things up. I'm then given lectures about standards of evidence and insistence that all the details I've given are insufficient evidence anyway, precisely because they're anecdotal. Again, what it comes down to really isn't an issue of the quantity or quality of the information I've provided, but of the willful incredulity of the parties involved. The details I've provided are more than sufficient to make an honest assessment. How much credence you choose to lend my accounts is not my problem or my responsibility. I don't intend to waste my own time playing the "prove it" game.

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.

If you're that curious start doing your own investigations. Arguing with me about it over a web forum isn't going to accomplish a damn thing in the way of advancing your own knowledge or understanding of the topic. In any case, you can read up on actual studies done on the subject [including those with positive and negative reports] till you're blue in the face, but until you have your own fisthand experience of such phenomena you'll not have any real proof. Even then it is still your choice whether to accept or reject it.

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?

Actually, the Wright brothers reference wasn't my example, but Katopale's. The example that I actually brought up was that of the controversy surrounding Ludwig Boltzmann's atomic theory and the professional persecution he [and like minded colleagues] faced on account of it. Either way, all you have to do is read up on the history of science yourself. Its not always pretty and the individuals involved do not always behave rationally -- even in the face of contravening evidence. The main point one can draw from this is that science is only as good as the people conducting it.

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.

I'm motivated enough to do my own reading on the subject and to form my own conclusions. From what I've read of history individual scientists [and communities of scientists] have behaved dogmatically and irrationally, scientific methodology not withstanding. Hindsight just makes the follies of the past more apparent, and we would be wise to learn from them.

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.

Theories and principles are not knowledge. 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.

And 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.

The only intellectual dishonesty you see is your own projection, dude. If anything, you're the one associating yourself with a cohort of group-thinking reactionaries looking to defend an established world-view. I've no "side" to score points for; I've my own views, unique to my own perspective, which are liable to be at odds with the opinions of just about everyone else -- "woo-woo" and "skeptic" alike. If you wanna make this some kind of ego shoving match I'll be more than willing to just aggravate the hell out of you. If you want a rational exchange with me quit getting your knickers inna bunch everytime I ask a question or make a point you don't feel comfortable with. Otherwise, we can just drop the issue and you can kill time in a manner you feel is less challenging. Its really your call.

 

[AkuManiMani]

TBH, I'm not really proposing any contravening explanations. I am, however, proposing that sufficient explanations would require an expansion of our current scientific understanding.

That is precisely where the bone of contention lies. "Expanding our current scientific understanding" is a call for a paradigm shift. Anecdotes do not rise to the level of extraordinary evidence to require or even suggest such a change because there are many potentially good explanations for anecdotes of subjective experiences.


ETA:

Carl Sagan, by the way, dealt with this issue very well in Contact. His main character has an experience that -- in the movie -- the audience shares. But other folks who could not have had the experience had no reason to believe that it occurred as reported -- except that there was corroborating evidence available. In the absence of strong corroborating evidence anecdotes simply will not do to support a fundamental paradigm shift.

In other words, people have to have such experiences for themselves; especially if they've strong biases toward discounting their possibility. Even then, paradigm shifts tend to be based upon institutional politics and public opinion as much as actual evidence -- if not more so. In any case, there are many other accounts even more anomalous than my own. If even a small fraction of them are accurate then they are, at the very least, highly suggestive that the paradigm in common currency now needs to be updated. Like I said before, I've never harbored any illusions that merely discussing my experiences here was evidence enough to 'prove' their veracity. However, I do think that such accounts open the door to a discussion on epistemology and metaphysical speculation which are both, IMO, fun pastimes

 

[AkuManiMani]

AkuManiMani, what is it that you think meteors are?

"a solid object moving in interplanetary space, of a size considerably smaller than an asteroid and considerably larger than an atom"

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'll suspend my judgment until they can properly be tested. I can't say they don't happen, but I'm pretty sure OBEs and NDEs can be tested. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have.

I think that both saying they have no value and assuming they are all true is a bad mistake to make at the current time.

Only one of them has to be true to disprove the null hypothesis. Theres a lot of bullets to dodge... >:}

 

[Robin]

My memories of the experiences in question are clear, self consistent, and congruent with the recollections of other parties that were involved.

Who else was involved with the actual experience? I understood that the only other person in the room was asleep.

What you have said is that you were given information by that voice and that you independently verified the information and that you could not have known that information at the time of the experience.

That key part of the evidence is of course unavailable to us since it is of a personal nature.

But my point is that memory is not always reliable. You say that you did not have the information at the time - how can you be sure? Are you sure you are remembering the events correctly?

I spent a large part of my life taking it for granted that the San Marco Bell Tower had collapsed in the mid 80's.

So from where I am sitting there appear two ways I could interpret your description of your experience.

1. Intelligent supernatural communicating with you
2. Hallucination or dream coupled with imperfect recollection.

Since the second is a well attested phenomenon and there has never been any reliable evidence for the first I would naturally look at the second as being the more reasonable interpretation of the events.

And I don't rule out, as I never do, that I could be wrong.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In other words, people have to have such experiences for themselves; especially if they've strong biases toward discounting their possibility. Even then, paradigm shifts tend to be based upon institutional politics and public opinion as much as actual evidence -- if not more so. In any case, there are many other accounts even more anomalous than my own. If even a small fraction of them are accurate then they are, at the very least, highly suggestive that the paradigm in common currency now needs to be updated. Like I said before, I've never harbored any illusions that merely discussing my experiences here was evidence enough to 'prove' their veracity. However, I do think that such accounts open the door to a discussion on epistemology and metaphysical speculation which are both, IMO, fun pastimes

It's fine to speculate, but speculations should be labelled as such, especially when they tend toward the 'wild side'.

This is not an issue of other people experiencing the same thing. All of our subjective experiences are prone to misinterpretation in certain situations, so we must be on guard.

The character 'Ellie' in Contact needed to have that experience within the story frame to bring her closer to her religious friend/paramour. The whole point of staging that scenario was to show a semi-religious subjective experience from a scientific perspective, not to argue that what we all need is to have similar subjective experiences in order to prove another reality. The viewer/reader is still left with a central problem -- did it happen? The only way to resolve the issue is with the strong corroboration -- a physical change that is best explained by Ellie having experienced something for a certain period of time.

If you think that other people just need to experience the same thing, then I am afraid that you are missing the point.