Some offhand questions

[Rasmus]

Some folks have argued that the Challenge is unfair because the p-values and effect sizes called for are too extreme.

A clear sign of someone who doesn't understand the nature of the challenge.

These numbers make a statement about how likely someone would be to win the challenge by chance alone.

"I can walk on water!"
"Fine, prove it: Cross this lake, it's about 200m wide! If you get to the other side with your shirt till dry, I'll give you a million dollars."
"But that's unfair, nobody could hold their breath that long ..."

Have any applicants claimed to have paranormal abilities with only a small effect size?

I seem to recall one or two. (Wasn't there one who claimed he could make random debris appear near a train track or something?)

My first question usually is: If the effect is so small, then how come you know about it in the first place? How did you find out that it's not random chance and variance?

I usually suspect two possible answers:

"I am just trying to game the system and confuse everybody with the numbers to get a shot a lot of money." or "uhng, all those numbers confuse me, i do not understand what any of this is about, but i just *know* I am special."

 

[Hallam]

I am not convinced word would get out. If one were to spread one's play out over 90 Las Vegas casinos, then security will not really notice someone who walks out with 110% of one's stake every three months. Just don't join a players' club (which would allow the casino to easily track your winnings).

But even if you were completely certain that you would eventually get caught and blacklisted, why would that be a reason to not get a ten percent return on your bankroll once a day until you get caught?

When it has been tried the casinos have in fact caught the people and blacklisted them.

The basis for their better than average rate of success was distinctly non paranormal however. They had computers built into their boots and they were actually timing the ball as it moved which allowed them to get an estimate of the quadrant into which the ball would land with about 30% accuracy. That was enough to beat the house advantage and make a profit.

For example, the following:

There is a book about it, The Newtonian Casino.

 

[Lenoxus]

Huh, glad to see this thread is still going in one form or another. For a while, I've been interested in the Eudaemons (a nickname for the folks with the shoe calculators). I'm rather skeptical of the story for a couple reasons. One is the sparsity of sources about it (well, today was the first time I saw an actual photograph; maybe my assumption of little documentation will change).

Another reason involves something I'm unsure about: Do modern casinos pat people down for cell phones? Because even an "entry-level" smartphone should be capable of something leaps and bounds beyond that shoe calculator. A single well-designed app should be the downfall of all but the most luck-based casino games. Also, do the fanciest casinos provide free wi-fi? I would assume so, except that once again it could be an easy aid for cheating.

 

[xterra]

Do modern casinos pat people down for cell phones?

I was in Las Vegas last January, and passed through several casinos in three or four hotels. Many people were using cell phones, and many casino and hotel employees watched them do so. No one seemed in the least bit concerned.

xterra (who was in Las Vegas for reasons having nothing to do with gambling)

 

[IXP]

I am skeptical of that as well. If you have ever watched the chaotic nature of the ball after it hits the moving wheel, it seems highly unlikely that ANY amount of calculation could predict even the side of the wheel it would land on. And what data are they entering into it? You have only seconds after the ball is released to continue placing bets. To estimate even the speed of the wheel and of the ball accurately enough seems impossible to me.

IXP

 

[Max_mang]

When I've played roulette (maybe a dozen spins in my lifetime, but in several different casinos from Atlantic City to Vegas), you were not allowed to bet after the wheel was set in motion. I've placed bets down right when after they dropped the ball and my money was promptly handed back to me.

 

[Musibrique]

1. The challenge generally excludes anyone who could put themselves or others at harm if their claim is tested, for example, the breatharians who claim they can survive without food or water. I'm curious… have any applicants made claims which, if true, would put someone at risk, but would otherwise be harmless — and have these claims ever undergone the prelimary tests? For example, suppose someone claims that she can make flowers wither with her mind, but that some 10% of the time, the psychic beams go in the wrong direction and make the experimenter really sick. Dunno, this probably hasn't happened, but there is a pretty wide varity of claims.

I never heard such claims, so I would have to say no to your question.

2. Many psychics attach to their services the phrase "for entertainment purposes only" to avoid liability. Have any psychics, when challenged to take part in the Challenge, said "Hey, can't you read? What I do really is just for entertainment, like with a professional magician or a stand-up comic. Asking me to do this 'for real' is as dumb as asking someone at Weta Worshop to provide you with a 'real' orc." (Again, this probably hasn't happened, but it would be nice if it had.)

As far as I know it, all of the claimants who applied to the challenge nearly all the time claim they have paranormal powers. I never read a claim where a claimant was being challenged even though the claimant clearly said his/her work was for entertainment purposes only. I would have to say no again.

3. Some folks have argued that the Challenge is unfair because the p-values and effect sizes called for are too extreme. Have any applicants claimed to have paranormal abilities with only a small effect size? I understand that one of the ganzfeld parapsychologists had some discussions or something with Randi about doing a large-scale test, but it never reached the preliminary testing stage. Has anyone else made a "moderate" claim, ie, that they can dowse at a 15% success rate in a one-out-of-ten situation? Obviously, testing such a claim would be a bit more expensive, because you would need to have a lot more samples, and would probably have to tighten the controls a lot. I'm just curious if anyone's initial claim has even been, well, humble.

This one has a point. Generally, applicants who apply for the challenge are asked to get a p-value of 0.001 (1000 to 1) in the preliminary test and a p-value of 0.000001 (million to one) in the formal test. However, if the applicant reached a p-value between 0.05 and 0.001 or less in the preliminary test, the challenge may give the applicant a chance to proceed to the formal test. Of course moderate claims like the Ganzfeld would be expensive and time-consuming. However, I don't believe such claims should be dismissed. Unfortunately, the JREF is not responsible for purchasing the trials. It is up to the applicant to pay up the trials. If the JREF can't test the Ganzfeld simply because the JREF doesn't have enough samples, substantial statistical power, etc. then I see no reason why the Ganzfeld should even apply for the challenge.

 

[Ladewig]

When it has been tried the casinos have in fact caught the people and blacklisted them.

The basis for their better than average rate of success was distinctly non paranormal however. They had computers built into their boots and they were actually timing the ball as it moved which allowed them to get an estimate of the quadrant into which the ball would land with about 30% accuracy. That was enough to beat the house advantage and make a profit.

For example, the following:

[qimg]http://www.eyetap.org/wearcam/eudaemonic/eudaemonic_shoe_und.jpg[/qimg]

There is a book about it, The Newtonian Casino.

Yes. I read that book many years ago.

Just because some people who use computers get caught by casinos does not mean all of them do. In fact, it would be virtually impossible to estimate what percent of "device" players get caught.


I still maintain that if one walked into Bellagio, made a $1000 buy in at a blackjack table, played for 40 minutes and walked out with $1200, then no one in security is going to pay the least attention to you; especially if your play goes against the appropriate draws for card counters.

 

[EdG]

I still maintain that if one walked into Bellagio, made a $1000 buy in at a blackjack table, played for 40 minutes and walked out with $1200, then no one in security is going to pay the least attention to you; especially if your play goes against the appropriate draws for card counters.

That is probably true. Working 8 hour days just 200 days per year, a person with such capability could clear over 300 grand annually. But do such persons apply for The Challenge? Why would they want the notoriety?

 

[rjh01]

That is probably true. Working 8 hour days just 200 days per year, a person with such capability could clear over 300 grand annually. But do such persons apply for The Challenge? Why would they want the notoriety?

Worse the casinos would ban such players. They would have signs saying no psychics allowed. Yet they do not have such signs. Tattslotto prize money would be much smaller than would be expected. Yet it is not.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

That is probably true. Working 8 hour days just 200 days per year, a person with such capability could clear over 300 grand annually. But do such persons apply for The Challenge? Why would they want the notoriety?

Those persons may exist, they may not. Or they may. We just do not know. There simply is no evidence, rendering speculation pointless.

Birds may be great bakers. Or not. We have no evidence. It is that simple. Unless a dove surprises me with a fresh bee sting cake one day, I conclude they are not.

 

[EdG]

There simply is no evidence, rendering speculation pointless.

It is a very good thing you were not a confidant of Albert Einstein. You might have convinced him to give up his pointless speculation about relativity.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

It is a very good thing you were not a confidant of Albert Einstein. You might have convinced him to give up his pointless speculation about relativity.

A personal attack - albeit a rather mild one - is not the greatest way to get one's ideas across. A weak argument, some distortion on the side, spiced up with name dropping, meh.

I will end with this: If you want to Don Quixote your single-fare trip on this strange rock, go right ahead.

 

[EdG]

A personal attack - albeit a rather mild one - is not the greatest way to get one's ideas across.

And I propose that the dogmatic prohibition issued by you upon a topic I wished to explore is not the greatest way, either. Unless I missed something and you have been appointed by the forum as the arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed? If so, then my apology is tendered.

 

[Ladewig]

Worse the casinos would ban such players. They would have signs saying no psychics allowed. Yet they do not have such signs. Tattslotto prize money would be much smaller than would be expected. Yet it is not.

I agree that this is all academic. In fact maybe it doesn't even rise to the level of being academic. Mere fantasy and speculation.

That being said, I maintain that if someone won the JREF prize for demonstrating a power such as precognition (or remote viewing), the casinos might fear such people but would not likely spot them. There are so many bad players who sometimes get lucky that the security staff, would not be able to spot someone after 30 or 40 minutes of play - especially if the psychic lost a few hands on purpose or had some confederates.

 

[Ladewig]

Also, if I had such psychic powers, I would bring a six-sided die to the blackjack table and roll it before asking for a card or standing. Security would write me off as a chucklehead and ascribe my winnings to luck.

 

[serpentine]

Pixel42: "The person being arrogant here is you, insisting that you are not subject to the same unconscious biases and faulty perceptions as the rest of humanity. Claims of the paranormal, whenever testing of them has been possible, have always been shown to be the result of the cognitive biases which are built into the way in which our brains work. Always. So unless you have evidence which demonstrates that there is some other explanation in your particular case I am completely justified in assuming that that is also the explanation of your experiences. You, of course, can believe whatever you like, but you have given no good reason why you or anyone else should believe that your perception that your premonitions are more accurate than would be expected by chance is correct. If you have such reasons by all means share them."

Not at all...I do not assume I am exempt from anything experienced in humanity. Sure we all have biases, but it's very clear to me also, that people have, over time, had all kinds of 'paranormal' experiences, and that is just a reality too. Doesn't mean people can't misinterpret things, and unfortunately we do all the time, but it shows a deep ignorance, and arrogance when strangers completely dismiss the reality of someone's experience. Sometimes there are clear relationships going on, and one doesn't need some 'test' to prove it. Tests, won't be able to 'prove' many experiences anyway, and like I have stated, YOU need the proof for yourself, I don't. I know what my experiences have been, and it's simply a matter of ignorance of experience that strangers dismiss these real aspects of being human. I can't help it if others are bent on maintaining a very limited belief system, and understanding of these things. It's understandable, but still ignorant.

Czarcasm: Actually, if seems as if your satisfaction depends on your beliefs not being tested. You may hope there is a million dollars in the sealed box in front of you. You may believe there is a million dollars in the sealed box in front of you. You may brag to others about the million dollars in the sealed box in front of you. But until it is opened and the contents are examined...all you've got is a box."

No, 'satisfaction' and 'hope' have nothing to do with what I am trying to convey here.

William Smith: "What you have described here is an excellent opportunity for a test: Let the person who claims a premonition write it down concisely and precisely and compare the results.
It is one of the many, many measures you can take to avoid fooling yourself."

SkepticScott: "I think you also need a control. Get a bunch of premonitions that failed but could still apply and have a third party evaluate all the premonitions without knowing which are the controls. After a while you can analyze the results and detect any statistically significant difference. It's amazing how easily a vague prediction can be made to fit the facts."

Okay, seems we are going to end up going in circles here. There are all kinds of various 'paranormal' experiences that are just part of our human make-up, and I don't know if it's possible to test for many of these.

What I am writing about is deeply personal, and it's not like some voice booms out, and gives you notice in your head that states you are going to have, or are having some premonition. It's relational, and it's your own experience, eventhough others may have had similar.

I'm also going to add here, that I know of one quite dramatic 'paranormal' experience a child had. I heard it from their grandmother, and yes, I believe it happened. This experience helped a great deal in helping the child go on with their life after becoming an orphan. I figure skeptics might dismiss it as being 'just' the childs imagination, or whatever - and that is quite sad, and somewhat cruel - that so many adults forget what the possibilities in life are. We can't always understand logically how something happens, and that is sometimes a okay.

I hadn't heard of this Professor (Jeffrey Kripal) before I heard him interviewed, but in his interview on Public Radio he states why these experiences cannot be tested. You just can't replicate these experiences again. That's what I've been trying to state here.
I'm assuming you could find the interview on the net.

http://www.amazon.com/Authors-Impossible-The-Paranormal-Sacred/dp/0226453863

 

[Pixel42]

it shows a deep ignorance, and arrogance when strangers completely dismiss the reality of someone's experience.

No-one is dismissing such experiences, we're simply pointing out that it isn't necessary to invoke the paranormal to explain them. When non-paranormal causes are carefully excluded, such experiences simply cease to occur. That doesn't completely rule out the possibility that at least a few such experiences are paranormal, but it does mean that these sort of reported experiences are not in themselves sufficient reason to assume the existence of the paranormal.

I wonder how many months it will be before serpentine bothers to return and read the responses to his/her latest post this time.

 

[serpentine]

Pixel: "No-one is dismissing such experiences, we're simply pointing out that it isn't necessary to invoke the paranormal to explain them. When non-paranormal causes are carefully excluded, such experiences simply cease to occur. That doesn't completely rule out the possibility that at least a few such experiences are paranormal, but it does mean that these sort of reported experiences are not in themselves sufficient reason to assume the existence of the paranormal."

Not sure how you are defining 'paranormal' here. These experiences still exist, how-ever one chooses to define it is their business.

"I wonder how many months it will be before serpentine bothers to return and read the responses to his/her latest post this time."

Don't know why one would bother to bring this up...?...There are other things in life I do need to get done, and do get pre-occupied with......

 

[Pixel42]

Not sure how you are defining 'paranormal' here.

This is the MDC subforum. The MDC FAQ uses Webster's dictionary definition:

2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge?

Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”

For example you have claimed to have had premonitions of future events. That is a paranormal claim.

These experiences still exist, how-ever one chooses to define it is their business.

No-one denies that they exist, what's in dispute is their explanation. For example the non-paranormal explanation of premonitions is a combination of luck and intelligent guesswork for the ones that come true, and confirmation bias for the perception that they come true more often than would be expected as a result of luck and intelligent guesswork.

Don't know why one would bother to bring this up

It's unusual, and somewhat disconcerting.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Doesn't mean people can't misinterpret things, and unfortunately we do all the time, but it shows a deep ignorance, and arrogance when strangers completely dismiss the reality of someone's experience. Sometimes there are clear relationships going on, and one doesn't need some 'test' to prove it.

I don’t dismiss the reality of their experience. I’m more than willing to agree that there was a genuine experience (at least in many cases, in some cases people just lie). What I’m not ready to accept without some kind of evidence is that there is anything other than normal coincidence, cognitive bias, misperception, etc., happening. Since those have been the causes in every case where it’s been possible to determine, why in the world would I think there was anything else going on without more evidence?

Tests, won't be able to 'prove' many experiences anyway,

Why not?

and like I have stated, YOU need the proof for yourself, I don't. I know what my experiences have been, and it's simply a matter of ignorance of experience that strangers dismiss these real aspects of being human. I can't help it if others are bent on maintaining a very limited belief system, and understanding of these things. It's understandable, but still ignorant.

It’s not a limited belief system. It’s quite reasonable to say that say that without evidence I won’t blindly accept a fantastical story.

A narrow world view is saying that even though I know that people tend to see patterns where none exist, I know that bias makes people think things are happening more often than they are, I know that people misperceive, misremember, and misattribute cause, and I know the last 500 stories of this type you’ve heard were caused by something perfectly prosaic , that *my* stories are obviously different and should be taken at face value, even though they sound just the same.

We don’t need proof. You need some actual evidence if you want to be taken seriously by anyone but the credulous when you say you have experiences that are caused by or are evidence for the paranormal. Otherwise you’re just the 501st (or 5,001st, or 50,001st) person to come here and say they had a vision and were moved by the experience. No new information, nothing to think about on our end.

Okay, seems we are going to end up going in circles here. There are all kinds of various 'paranormal' experiences that are just part of our human make-up, and I don't know if it's possible to test for many of these.

Precognition and the like are tricky to test, certainly. But not necessarily impossible. A few suggestions by others earlier in the thread give some possibilities. But if you don’t want to even think of the possibility of being mistaken, that’s your prerogative.

I'm also going to add here, that I know of one quite dramatic 'paranormal' experience a child had. I heard it from their grandmother, and yes, I believe it happened. This experience helped a great deal in helping the child go on with their life after becoming an orphan. I figure skeptics might dismiss it as being 'just' the childs imagination, or whatever - and that is quite sad, and somewhat cruel - that so many adults forget what the possibilities in life are. We can't always understand logically how something happens, and that is sometimes a okay.

I don’t think it’s sad, cruel, or anything like that. I think it’s perfectly reasonable. On the contrary, I think it’s sad that many people seem to think that unless you believe in magic that you think the world isn’t an amazingly cool place filled with all kinds of possibilities.

But I have a very sincere question: Why do you believe the story? Why do you dismiss so quickly the possibilities of imagination, misperception, coincidence, bias, etc., playing a part?

 

[Pixel42]

On the contrary, I think it’s sad that many people seem to think that unless you believe in magic that you think the world isn’t an amazingly cool place filled with all kinds of possibilities.

The idea that it's the emotionally mature who can accept reality as it is (and see that it is marvellous) who are sad, and those who need to make up silly stories about magic to get through life who aren't, really is the saddest idea of all.

It may be understandable, even something to be encouraged, in a child going through a traumatic experience, but in a mature adult it's just, well, sad.

 

[xterra]

<snip>

I don’t think it’s sad, cruel, or anything like that. I think it’s perfectly reasonable. On the contrary, I think it’s sad that many people seem to think that unless you believe in magic that you think the world isn’t an amazingly cool place filled with all kinds of possibilities.

It's terrible that the child had a cruel experience. Making the experience "bearable" by invoking supernatural help ... doesn't help. Not being able to understand something doesn't make the something magic. (Sturgeon's rule notwithstanding.) I can't understand calculus. So? Must be supernatural, right?

Some years ago, I was standing on bluff overlooking a beach on the western coast of Oregon, watching the Pacific Ocean waves roll in, an absolutely regular and unceasing progression. A woman who was also watching them said to me, rather out of the blue, "It is impossible to watch this and not believe in God."

I replied, "Actually, it's perfectly possible."

She turned around and walked away, rather angrily.

Ah well.

The idea that it's the emotionally mature who can accept reality as it is (and see that it is marvellous) who are sad, and those who need to make up silly stories about magic to get through life who aren't, really is the saddest idea of all.

It may be understandable, even something to be encouraged, in a child going through a traumatic experience, but in a mature adult it's just, well, sad.

Pixel42,

I usually agree with you, learn a great deal from your posts, admire your conclusions -- and occasionally plagiarize them in discussions away from this forum.

However, in this case, I believe you are incorrect: "sad" is the wrong word. "Unfortunate, or "regretful" (in the non-emotional sense) seem a better fit.

I will concede that the word is accurate, only if you mean that you personall are saddened by their inability to perceive reality.*


*(And that takes us back to the threads in MDC about confirmation bias, magic, etc. And the circle continues.)

 

[serpentine]

"It's not a limited belief system. It’s quite reasonable to say that say that without evidence I won’t blindly accept a fantastical story."

For you it's not a 'limited' belief system, for me it is. And I don't expect people to automatically except a 'fantastical' story of a stranger.

I also will not deny the reality of my own true experiences, and the possiblity of anothers, just because someone else can't fathom them, thinks they are 'delusional' or 'impossible', or whatever.

"A narrow world view is saying that even though I know that people tend to see patterns where none exist, I know that bias makes people think things are happening more often than they are, I know that people misperceive, misremember, and misattribute cause, and I know the last 500 stories of this type you’ve heard were caused by something perfectly prosaic , that *my* stories are obviously different and should be taken at face value, even though they sound just the same."Again...

If recognizing that I have had true experiences that did change my life, and broadened life for me, is 'arrogant' to some...Then so be it, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.
Acknowledging such experiences does not mean that I do not think I am beyond misinterpreting things...But, certain experiences are very clearly related, and it is not arrogance at all to acknowledge these experiences, how they have changed one's life, broadened one's persepective, and possibilities of life.

"Precognition and the like are tricky to test, certainly. But not necessarily impossible. A few suggestions by others earlier in the thread give some possibilities. But if you don’t want to even think of the possibility of being mistaken, that’s your prerogative."

Like I have stated earlier, it's not like I haven't contemplated a lot about certain experiences that are considered out of the ordinary. I'm quite aware of misperception, and simple coincidences, and quite aware of specific incidences that I know were precognitive. It's quite clear to me. They already happened, and are not 'testable'...There is nothing I can do about that either.

"It's terrible that the child had a cruel experience. Making the experience "bearable" by invoking supernatural help ... doesn't help. Not being able to understand something doesn't make the something magic. (Sturgeon's rule notwithstanding.) I can't understand calculus. So? Must be supernatural, right?"

I guess it never occured to you that the child himself may not have invoked this? In the case I'm refering to, I don't think the child 'invoked' anything. These experiences often come of their own accord, when you aren't looking for them, or even expecting them. I know that's been true in my own case, and I think that's what happened in the case of this child.

The child's experience very much helped him. Maybe you would like the child to deny what his experience was, because you can't fathom anything beyond your own experience, and thought patterns? So, is it more important for you to feel comfortable in your own belief system than attempt be open to a child that has suffered, and is being honest about an amazing experience he has had? That is part of my point - this is where the cruelty begins. To deny these sometimes very powerful experiences that people actually do have, does our human relationships, and sometimes the best in our humanity no good.

[COLOR="Blue[I]"]"Pixel: However, in this case, I believe you are incorrect: "sad" is the wrong word. "Unfortunate, or "regretful" (in the non-emotional sense) seem a better fit."[/[/I]COLOR]"

* "I will concede that the word is accurate, only if you mean that you personall are saddened by their inability to perceive reality."

*(And that takes us back to the threads in MDC about confirmation bias, magic, etc. And the circle continues.)

Ah, sorry, but 'Reality' itself is not limited at all to our very limited perceptions of it - neither yours, nor mine, nor anyones.

In having certain experiences, one just realizes that our perceptions, belief of reality are often quite limited. Once one has certain experiences, it's like that old saying goes - 'there's no going back'.
What we are taught, and so often conditioned in this world to believe is so very, very limited, and if we want to evolve in a more healthy direction, it does us absolutely no good to be shut down to the greater possibilites of life, to the greater awarenesses that sometimes come through our consciousness.

-------

Yes, it took me ahwile to get back to some statements here...I read them soon after they were posted...But, it's been a very stressful time, and it takes me awhile to get back to the postings...

So what?...

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

For you it's not a 'limited' belief system, for me it is. And I don't expect people to automatically except a 'fantastical' story of a stranger.

And yet, just because they don’t believe your fantastical story with no evidence, you automatically judge them and say they have a “limited” belief system compared to yours.

I also will not deny the reality of my own true experiences, and the possiblity of anothers, just because someone else can't fathom them, thinks they are 'delusional' or 'impossible', or whatever.

I didn’t say you were deluded, or that your experiences were impossible. I said there were very common reasons that many people have had extremely similar experiences, and that in every case where there was enough evidence for a cause to be determined it was something perfectly ordinary. And based on that it would be foolish of me to accept your experiences at face value without additional evidence. If you don’t want to provide it, no problem, that’s certainly your prerogative. But don’t expect to be taken seriously without it.

If recognizing that I have had true experiences that did change my life, and broadened life for me, is 'arrogant' to some...Then so be it, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.
Acknowledging such experiences does not mean that I do not think I am beyond misinterpreting things...But, certain experiences are very clearly related, and it is not arrogance at all to acknowledge these experiences, how they have changed one's life, broadened one's persepective, and possibilities of life.

Again, I didn’t say you were arrogant, I said you had a narrow world view. This seems borne out by the fact that even though you say you aren’t beyond misinterpreting things you absolutely refuse to even consider that you may have, in fact, misinterpreted something. To refuse to consider a possible explanation is the very definition of narrow minded, and completely the opposite of a broadening of perspective or widening of your world view.

The child's experience very much helped him. Maybe you would like the child to deny what his experience was, because you can't fathom anything beyond your own experience, and thought patterns? So, is it more important for you to feel comfortable in your own belief system than attempt be open to a child that has suffered, and is being honest about an amazing experience he has had? That is part of my point - this is where the cruelty begins. To deny these sometimes very powerful experiences that people actually do have, does our human relationships, and sometimes the best in our humanity no good.

First, why do you assume that we cannot fathom these things, or that we would rather a child suffer rather than disturb our comfort, or that our thought patterns are somehow restricted? Second, I don’t deny people have “powerful” experiences. I may question the basis for the experiences, or question the details, etc. And how does getting to the truth of an experience do any harm? Shouldn’t we be honest with ourselves, above all?

Ah, sorry, but 'Reality' itself is not limited at all to our very limited perceptions of it - neither yours, nor mine, nor anyones.

But you’re not talking about something that is beyond our perception. On the contrary you are talking about events that you specifically did perceive, and that a young child perceived, and that you apparently think many people perceive. So if we can perceive them, they are a part of our reality. And given that, why should we not ask the same questions and expect some of the same answers we would about any experience?

In having certain experiences, one just realizes that our perceptions, belief of reality are often quite limited. Once one has certain experiences, it's like that old saying goes - 'there's no going back'.
What we are taught, and so often conditioned in this world to believe is so very, very limited, and if we want to evolve in a more healthy direction, it does us absolutely no good to be shut down to the greater possibilites of life, to the greater awarenesses that sometimes come through our consciousness.

And again, why do you assume that unless I believe in magic, I don’t believe in greater possibilities? The universe, the real universe, the one we know about through science, is an incredibly big, complicated, wondrous, and amazing place. Don’t let your own narrow world view blind you to it.

 

[Ladewig]

If recognizing that I have had true experiences that did change my life, and broadened life for me, is 'arrogant' to some...Then so be it, there is absolutely nothing I can do about that.
Acknowledging such experiences does not mean that I do not think I am beyond misinterpreting things...But, certain experiences are very clearly related, and it is not arrogance at all to acknowledge these experiences, how they have changed one's life, broadened one's perspective, and possibilities of life.

No one is denying the profoundness of your experience. But it is important to note that misinterpretations of specific events can change lives, broaden experiences, and open possibilities just as easily as correct interpretations of events can - real events and seemingly-real events can both dramatically change lives for the better.