SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Mashuna]

Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.

As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.

Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

I think you end up making this same post in every thread.

If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there, this is your noumenal event. If you then tell someone what you saw there, and have no other way of getting that information, this is testing noumenal events by phenomenal means.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.
As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.
Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

1... I think you end up making this same post in every thread.
2... If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there, this is your noumenal event. If you then tell someone what you saw there, and have no other way of getting that information, this is testing noumenal events by phenomenal means.

1... I think you say the same things in every thread.
2... Verbally reporting it is not testing it and cannot be a proof. Although it may be convincing to some and acceptable as a reasonable inference of the event actually occurring, the one experiencing the event noumenally and reporting it phenomenally has not thereby proven the event occurred.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.
As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.
Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

1... I think you end up making this same post in every thread.
2... If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there, this is your noumenal event. If you then tell someone what you saw there, and have no other way of getting that information, this is testing noumenal events by phenomenal means.

1... I think you say the same things in every thread.
2... Verbally reporting it is not testing it and cannot be a proof. Although it may be convincing to some and acceptable as a reasonable inference of the event actually occurring, the one experiencing the event noumenally and reporting it phenomenally has not thereby proven the event occurred.

 

[Mashuna]

1... I think you say the same things in every thread.

I see the problem. You need to work on your phenomenal awareness.

 

[blutoski]

1... If it is true, and matches what skeptics claim, why does the MDC exist when it relies entirely on phenomenal procedures to test claimants. You are clearly missing something fundamental here.

The MDC exists because skeptics think that what psi advocates call supernatural are, in fact, natural phenomena, which can be revealed and explored through scientific means. Naturalism is the null hypothesis for any skeptical psi test.

Secondly, there is a litmus test popular among both skeptics and psi advocates that is used to identify psi phenomena: the rigorous exclusion of natural phenomena. In other words: psi is identified by exhausting natural explanations. The MDC team has frequently designed protocols for this purpose.

2... I am distinguishing between false skeptics like you and genuine skeptics who do not appear to be here.

I'd love to discuss this, but you need to this by inventing new terms instead of misusing existing terms. It aids in communication.

Really, it sounds more like you're throwing insults at this point. Going onto a skeptic forum and announcing that there are no skeptics there is pretty boilerplate troll behavior.

 

[fls]

At an acknowledged simplistic level, without sarcasm, are you saying that if you meet a friend or send me a message you cannot be sure you met your friend or sent me a message?

It depends upon what conclusions you are drawing about the nature of that interaction. What sorts of experiences are you concluding represent genuine psychic abilities?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

......Really, it sounds more like you're throwing insults at this point. Going onto a skeptic forum and announcing that there are no skeptics there is pretty boilerplate troll behavior.

You mean like this? :

......( blutoski - post 439 )......that you appear to have pulled out of your butt?

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
At an acknowledged simplistic level, without sarcasm, are you saying that if you meet a friend or send me a message you cannot be sure you met your friend or sent me a message?

It depends upon what conclusions you are drawing about the nature of that interaction. What sorts of experiences are you concluding represent genuine psychic abilities? Linda

Strictly noumenal events.

 

[blutoski]

You mean like this? :

No. That's not troll-like behavior.

That's an expression that means "...that you appear to have invented yourself without justification."

 

[blutoski]

Strictly noumenal events.

Could you be specific: the perfect day is noumenal. Is it psychic?

 

[blutoski]

Could you be specific: the perfect day is noumenal. Is it psychic?

Also: I'm not sure I truly understand your use of the word noumenal in this thread. I'm aware of different meanings, from philosophy.

The most common use is Schopenhauer's: to describe events that do not interact with things. Is this how you are using the term?

There are other uses that predate Schopenhauer's, but mostly if people are not discussing Schopenhauer's, they are discussing Kant's. Kant had both positive and negative noumena. If you're talking about Kantian noumena, are you talking about the positive or negative variety?

These are very different uses of the term and I want to avoide confusion. Once I get this square, I'll be able to continue considering your statments.

 

[fls]

Strictly noumenal events.

Can you give an example of a noumenal event that represents a psychic experience?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

......That's an expression that means "...that you appear to have invented yourself without justification."

And who invented you and with what justification?

 

[maatorc]

Can you give an example of a noumenal event that represents a psychic experience? Linda

Seeing or hearing at or from a distance.

 

[fls]

Seeing or hearing at or from a distance.

How do you distinguish that from normal cognitive function?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Seeing or hearing at or from a distance.

How do you distinguish that from normal cognitive function? Linda

It is quite 'normal', just not phenomenally based.

 

[fls]

It is quite 'normal', just not phenomenally based.

How do you distinguish it from non-psychic, non-phenomenally based cognition - e.g. someone who visualizes a remote scene?

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

nou·me·non (nm-nn)
n. pl. nou·me·na (-n)
In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[German, from Greek nooumenon, from neuter present passive participle of noein, to perceive by thought, from nous, mind.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

noumen·al (-m-nl) adj
Is this what you talking about? If so, I don't get it. How can a thing-in-itself, independent of the mind (whatever that is) be involved with "seeing or hearing at or from a distance".
I'm doing that right now, without any immaterial mind, just the same old brain.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Two aspects of my personality that I'm not proud of are I like being right, and I like winning an easy fight. Arguing with creationists, for example, is attractive to me because it's like shooting fish in a barrel. There are good reasons to combat irrational thinking and dishonesty, but assuaging my own ego is not one of them. So that's something I struggle with.

Uhg...How can you even stand that kind of argument?

I find arguing w/ "easy targets", like creationists, embarrassing and downright frustrating. Trying to have a rational debate with someone who is profoundly ignorant or obviously stupid/deluded makes me wanna take an impact drill to my temple. Oh, and folks who don't actually engage in a salient way to a debate (but seem intellectually capable) annoy me almost as much.

I prefer "hard" targets to the "softies". Its a good mental workout and challenges me to flesh out my own thinking in a more thorough manner.

 

[maatorc]

How do you distinguish it from non-psychic, non-phenomenally based cognition - e.g. someone who visualizes a remote scene? Linda

Am having a little problem with your exact meaning.
Visualizing can lead to psychic remote viewing.
You seem to be saying someone who visualizes and succeeds in remotely viewing a place is not experiencing a psychic event, whereas I would say they are; but I am uncertain of your meaning.

 

[zooterkin]

Am having a little problem with your exact meaning.
Visualizing can lead to psychic remote viewing.
You seem to be saying someone who visualizes and succeeds in remotely viewing a place is not experiencing a psychic event, whereas I would say they are; but I am uncertain of your meaning.

How do you establish that someone is remote viewing as opposed to simply visualising?

 

[Mashuna]

How do you establish that someone is remote viewing as opposed to simply visualising?

Ooh, let me have a try at remote viewing. I can see Maatorc at his computer. It's in the centre of an old-fashioned desk (not a computer table). There are a number of disks scattered around. Some contain computer data, others are CDs. There's a pad of paper to the left of the keyboard, leading me to think Maatorc is left handed.

How'd I do? If you could provide evidence for my success or failure without recourse to phenomenal data, that'd be great.

 

[fls]

Am having a little problem with your exact meaning.
Visualizing can lead to psychic remote viewing.
You seem to be saying someone who visualizes and succeeds in remotely viewing a place is not experiencing a psychic event, whereas I would say they are; but I am uncertain of your meaning.

As Zooterkin asked, how do you know that their visualizing represents "remotely viewing a place" and is not just visualizing?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

How do you establish that someone is remote viewing as opposed to simply visualising?

All my comments on remote viewing refer exclusively to the mystical tradition of 'psychic projection', not the military intelligence experiments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing, and many other links, which may be somewhat confusing to some vis-a-vis the subject of psychic reality generally.

In psychic projection the practitioner experiences the location seen as a place in which one is actually present.

It must be noted that this does not mean, and the mystical tradition does not claim, that the practitioner actually goes anywhere in space or time, but rather that the mind-consciousness of the practitioner attunes with the location or condition which is the focus of attention through visualization.

The traditional mystical explanation of this technique is that we have two bodies, a mental body unrestricted in its' functioning by time and space, and a physical vehicle subject to time and space in its' perceptions.

Naturally, there are huge variances in the power and realizations of novices and masters of this technique as is the case with all human practices and procedures.

As material-physical consciousness cannot measure exclusively mental events, the proof of psychic projection lies exclusively with those who have experienced it.

 

[fls]

All my comments on remote viewing refer exclusively to the mystical tradition of 'psychic projection', not the military intelligence experiments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing, and many other links, which may be somewhat confusing to some vis-a-vis the subject of psychic reality generally.

In psychic projection the practitioner experiences the location seen as a place in which one is actually present.

It must be noted that this does not mean, and the mystical tradition does not claim, that the practitioner actually goes anywhere in space or time, but rather that the mind-consciousness of the practitioner attunes with the location or condition which is the focus of attention through visualization.

The traditional mystical explanation of this technique is that we have two bodies, a mental body unrestricted in its' functioning by time and space, and a physical vehicle subject to time and space in its' perceptions.

Naturally, there are huge variances in the power and realizations of novices and masters of this technique as is the case with all human practices and procedures.

As material-physical consciousness cannot measure exclusively mental events, the proof of psychic projection lies exclusively with those who have experienced it.

How do you decide which particular mental states are called psychic experiences and which are not? For example, do you call hypnagogic hallucinations 'psychic'? If not, why not? If you do, what additional information does the use of the word 'psychic' impart to the description?

Linda

 

[zooterkin]

In psychic projection the practitioner experiences the location seen as a place in which one is actually present.

Right. And how do you tell the difference between this remote viewing, or psychic projection, or whatever you want to call it, and just imagining you are there?

 

[Limbo]

As Zooterkin asked, how do you know that their visualizing represents "remotely viewing a place" and is not just visualizing?

Linda

http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai-presents-dr-harold-hal-puthoff

 

[fls]

http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai-presents-dr-harold-hal-puthoff

Maatorc specifically stated he was not talking about the military intelligence experiments.

Linda

 

[Limbo]

Maatorc specifically stated he was not talking about the military intelligence experiments.

Linda

So? Watch the damn thing anyway.

 

[zooterkin]

So? Watch the damn thing anyway.

Sorry, can't watch the damn thing.


"The video you are trying to view cannot be watched from your current location or country."

How about you summarise what it's about, and why it's relevant?

 

[Ersby]

It's probably damn Harold Putoff talking about the damn early days at SRI.

 

[fls]

So? Watch the damn thing anyway.

I can't watch it here, but I'm not avoiding it or anything. I am already familiar with the SRI stuff (assuming that's what it's about).

I'm just saying that it doesn't answer my question, even though you posted it as though it would be a response to my question. And I'm sincerely trying to understand what Maatorc is saying, so I didn't want you to sidetrack that particular discussion (although I realize that you are the Boss of this thread).

Linda

 

[fls]

So? Watch the damn thing anyway.

Also, maatorc specifically denies that the SRI experiments serve as evidence of psychic experiences.

Linda

 

[blutoski]

Seeing or hearing at or from a distance.

That is not an example by any definition of noumenal of which I am aware. Specifically because it appears to be an interaction with real-world sound.

This falls under the category referred by psi researchers a "psi-k": interaction with the physical world, and I don't consider this is noumenal at all.

 

[blutoski]

And who invented you and with what justification?

I'm really not getting the impression that you're interested in an actual discussion at this point. I really feel like you're deliberately wasting our time, and have decided to stop.

 

[AkuManiMani]

So? Watch the damn thing anyway.

Limbo, I've noticed that the majority of your posts here have been very grumpy and combative. Granted, this is your thread. But don't you think it that in light of your OP the hostile posture you've taken is a bit counter productive?

 

[Jeff Corey]

It is , in fact, not his thread. In no way does he own it. You are allowed to point out his silly assertions at any time. As other posters have pointed out "pseudo skeptics" are just people who don't swallow his BS.

 

[maatorc]

Right. And how do you tell the difference between this remote viewing, or psychic projection, or whatever you want to call it, and just imagining you are there?

If you are just imagining you are there and you are conscious you are just imagining it you will also be conscious that you are not mentally actually there because you are not mentally experiencing the place as you would if you actually were mentally there, even allowing for the fact you do not actually 'go' anywhere.

 

[Jeff Corey]

You want Italian, French or Ranch dressing with that word salad? Bleu cheese will cost extra,

 

[AkuManiMani]

If you are just imagining you are there and you are conscious you are just imagining it you will also be conscious that you are not mentally actually there because you are not mentally experiencing the place as you would if you actually were mentally there, even allowing for the fact you do not actually 'go' anywhere.

Erm..'Torc, could you, maybe, rephrase that a lil?