Chaos Magic

[carlitos]

I've had plenty of lucid dreams and I've had a handful of hypnagogic episodes in my life. Even during those episodes I was able to distinguish that the experience was a dream. Any non-lucid dreams I have had were easily identifiable as such upon waking, anyway. I can assure you that I was not asleep, nor was I falling asleep at the time the episode in question occurred. I was wide awake and completely lucid. I guess one could argue the notion that the dreaming and waking states are the same in some sense, but that does little in the way of explaining the experience I had or accounting for it's anomalous features.

Thanks for the answer. However...

Given that:

a - you are a human being
b - humans have fallible memory
c - human brains have been shown to be unable to distinguish awake / asleep, especially when near sleep (You were lying in bed at night and you "just held, caressed, and sang her to sleep" )
d - imagining things / hallucinating in near-sleep is common

I just cannot accept your "assurance" at face value. Nor do I accept your memory of this experience as "anomalous." I mean no disrespect.

Remember the law of large numbers? Somewhere, a million people are dreaming (or awake imagining, if you prefer) that their friend will die. Someday one of those friends will die the day after the dream. Years later, that person might "remember" not just dreaming the death, but the exact manner in which it happened and also remember having a "feeling that they should warn them." It happens. Human memory. No big deal.

Since (correct me if I'm wrong) you won't share what the specific personal information you received, that you "confirmed a couple of weeks later," I can't evaluate that part of the story at all. Based on my experience here at JREF, I suspect that there could be a logical explanation. We had a recent topic "hello from a non-skeptic" and he explained some vague statements as being psi and reincarnation, when in reality he was just imagining things and connecting dots after the fact. Human nature - ever read a horoscope?

I've considered a few hypotheses concerning the nature of my experience but, due to insufficient data on my end its not really possible to formulate a full on theory to account for all the features. What I am certain of is that the "voice" had enough intelligence to carry on a lucid conversation, even displaying a certain degree of wit. When it spoke it was not in the form of a thought but manifested as an audible sensation that seemed to be originating from "in my head" and not from the room itself.

My dreams and imagination have done things like this too, so my null hypothesis for your story is unchanged. Human brain behaving normally.

Judging from it's ability to also physically manipulate my body [the force feedback I described earlier] my guess is that whatever the entity was it could directly access and manipulate my nervous system.

Yes! Your brain has access to these systems!

The ability of the voice to provide specific personal information regarding another individual also lends credence to it not being an artifact of my own mind, but originating externally.

Lends credence? Not to me, but again, I have suggested you are operating from a position of incredulity. That's pretty common; there are like 5 billion religious people.

My guess is that whatever the "voice" was it's probably the same class of phenomena that shamans in indigenous cultures refer to when they speak of conversing with "spirits" [though in numerous accounts I've read, these contacts also occur in OBE states and the "voices" may also present themselves in visual form as well]. You may read the more detailed account I gave earlier to Zanders if you wish to help brainstorm over it

No, but again, thanks for sharing. Given that everything you said has a likely mundane, scientific explanation based on the human brain (heck, I've had similar experiences myself), there is no need to talk of shaman or spirits or whatever. (Unless you and Limbo want to swap stories )Your perception of the event is fine, but your interpretation seems a bit fanciful to me.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes! Your brain has access to these systems!

As unsolved mysteries go, having your brain take control of your own body seems relatively tame, yes.

Lends credence? Not to me, but again, I have suggested you are operating from a position of incredulity. That's pretty common; there are like 5 billion religious people.

Also, this is still just an assertion; we not only have no evidence that this is accurate, we have no real details at all.

My guess is that whatever the "voice" was it's probably the same class of phenomena that shamans in indigenous cultures refer to when they speak of conversing with "spirits"

We have entire libraries filled with such stories. Not once in human history has there been any verifiable evidence that these stories are any more than hallucination, confabulation, or, simply, stories.

When we receive another such story, we take several things into account:

Human memory is unreliable.
Hallucinations are relatively commonplace.
In a vast body of prior reports, not a single one has been verified as anything out of the ordinary.
Spirits, defined generally as conscious agents with no physical form or no traditional physical form, contradict established scientific knowledge.

The first two of these mark such a report as very low-grade evidence.
The latter two let us establish a prior probability for Bayesian analysis, and it is very close to zero.

So the appropriate response in purely scientific terms is a curt Don't waste our time.

That's not very educational though, and this is not the James Randi Curtness Foundation forum* so we try to discuss things in a little more depth.

* Though that would be cool - people could post whatever they wanted and we'd have a drop-down box to select from No., Evidence?, [Citation needed], Define, please, and Argument from incredulity and/or ignorance.

 

[aviolet4u]

I don't know where this convo has gone but I've heard a lot about black magic and people swearing that its really real. I walk home sometimes and see cracked eggs on the sidewalk in front of homes. Crazy people.

Another time a guy I know had nightmares and migraines all the time. He went up to his attic and found a pinned doll, got rid of it and the nightmares migraines were gone too.

 

[dlorde]

I'm actually curious as to why you feel the need to try and defend him on this point.

I'm not defending Pixy - he can look after himself - I was simply surprised by your interpretation - I interpreted quite differently.

 

[dlorde]

Like I said, that "mental construct"/hallucination/seizure truly had to be sumthin' else if it could carry on a lucid conversation and provide information I'd no previous knowledge of. Would you not agree that such a "mental construct" would very much fall within the category of 'extraordinary entity'? No?

A mental construct that provides you with information you truly had no way of knowing would be extraordinary, but we're suggesting that it's worth considering alternative possibilities, e.g. that you may not be remembering the episode as it happened, and/or you may have already been aware of the information without realising it, etc.

As far as I recall, no-one has said you're lying or that what you believe happened didn't actually happen that way - you've just been asked to consider alternatives that seem plausible to us than your interpretation, given what you posted. That's how we treat any unevidenced report that suggests extraordinary/paranormal events.

Your responses so far have been so negative that I get the feeling you feel threatened in some way by those suggestions. Is it really so bad just to consider that your memories may not be what you thought they were? We all know how fallible the brain is, so it's surely not a matter of embarrassment or pride - is it?

I guess thats a matter of opinion then.

It's not a matter of opinion, but of possible explanations - isn't that why you posted your anecdote - to sound out possible explanations?

Do you think the bare details of my story would even be challenged nearly as much [or at all] if I'd simply said I heard a voice and left it at that? Hows about if I gave an account of the errands I ran last week? Do you think I'd get dozens of responses trying to convince me that my memories of doing such routines were "assertion" and "confabulation"? People are really falling over themselves trying to airbrush this one story to suit their liking; it really makes one wonder what could be the motivation behind all this fuss...

Dude, you're starting to sound paranoid. You posted an interesting anecdote, and we, as sceptics, gave you some possible explanations for it. That's it. No need to get so defensive.

 

[dlorde]

Well, I think it is very fair to say that he misread some of your account and attributed things to you that you did not state -- such as that you were tired and stressed when you mentioned these things of your friend.

But I don't think that was intentional.

Kind of reinforces the point about how fallible memories of past experience are though, doesn't it?

 

[dlorde]

And yet we're still missing the elephant in the living room: Why is there such an impetus to discount, recast, and reinterpret someone's first hand account of their own experiences?

What elephant? This is a sceptic forum - any anecdotal account will be examined sceptically and explanations offered.

 

[dlorde]

I once had a temporary job that involved transcribing endless tapes. It was incredibly boring and I developed a strange habit of falling mostly asleep while my fingers continued to type. When I would "wake up" and check my transcription against the tape, it was pretty accurate. I would have expected (a) to simply stop typing or (b) if I didn't stop typing, to type gibberish. The whole experience was sort of bizarre.

That's interesting - when commuting to and from work, I used to read the newspaper and would often drift off for a few seconds, then wake and realise that the last paragraph I thought I'd read was completely different from what was written, and nonsensical. Quite amusing. Friends of mine have described similar episodes when reading bedtime stories to their kids...

 

[AkuManiMani]

I've had plenty of lucid dreams and I've had a handful of hypnagogic episodes in my life. Even during those episodes I was able to distinguish that the experience was a dream. Any non-lucid dreams I have had were easily identifiable as such upon waking, anyway. I can assure you that I was not asleep, nor was I falling asleep at the time the episode in question occurred. I was wide awake and completely lucid. I guess one could argue the notion that the dreaming and waking states are the same in some sense, but that does little in the way of explaining the experience I had or accounting for it's anomalous features.

Thanks for the answer. However...

Given that:

a - you are a human being
b - humans have fallible memory
c - human brains have been shown to be unable to distinguish awake / asleep, especially when near sleep (You were lying in bed at night and you "just held, caressed, and sang her to sleep" )
d - imagining things / hallucinating in near-sleep is common

I just cannot accept your "assurance" at face value. Nor do I accept your memory of this experience as "anomalous." I mean no disrespect.

Remember the law of large numbers? Somewhere, a million people are dreaming (or awake imagining, if you prefer) that their friend will die. Someday one of those friends will die the day after the dream. Years later, that person might "remember" not just dreaming the death, but the exact manner in which it happened and also remember having a "feeling that they should warn them." It happens. Human memory. No big deal.

Since (correct me if I'm wrong) you won't share what the specific personal information you received, that you "confirmed a couple of weeks later," I can't evaluate that part of the story at all. Based on my experience here at JREF, I suspect that there could be a logical explanation. We had a recent topic "hello from a non-skeptic" and he explained some vague statements as being psi and reincarnation, when in reality he was just imagining things and connecting dots after the fact. Human nature - ever read a horoscope?

Yes, yes. I'm quite familiar with the personal bias effect of horoscope reading; a collection of broad statements which can apply to nearly anyone are interpreted as being specifically about one's self. Mr. Randi was a childhood hero of mine and I'm no stranger to skepticism or critical thinking. You don't need to lecture me about "the law of large numbers" or horoscopes, etc.

As far as the account goes, we were sitting upright on a couch and I watched her fall asleep. At no point during the episode did I fall asleep myself, nor was I even drowsy. I know for a fact that I was awake and lucid. Period. My memories concerning the event are as clear and consistent as any other I've had of my waking life so "confabulation" is not an issue here. I've also already mentioned that, among other topics, the "voice" alluded to my friend experiencing similar contacts. When I decided to ask her if she'd had any odd experiences [without giving her any information as to what I experienced] she gave an account of "voices" communicating with her, with many of the same accompanying phenomena, such as the high pitched ringing which immediately preceded each of the contacts. I'm failing to see how you believe "confabulation" and "the law of large numbers" accounts for this but you are the critical thinker here, after all

[And FYI, a logical explanation need not conform to your expectations of what constitutes the mundane.]

I've considered a few hypotheses concerning the nature of my experience but, due to insufficient data on my end its not really possible to formulate a full on theory to account for all the features. What I am certain of is that the "voice" had enough intelligence to carry on a lucid conversation, even displaying a certain degree of wit. When it spoke it was not in the form of a thought but manifested as an audible sensation that seemed to be originating from "in my head" and not from the room itself.

My dreams and imagination have done things like this too, so my null hypothesis for your story is unchanged. Human brain behaving normally.

How do you know you're not dreaming right now and that I'm not a figment of your expansive imagination?

Judging from it's ability to also physically manipulate my body [the force feedback I described earlier] my guess is that whatever the entity was it could directly access and manipulate my nervous system.

Yes! Your brain has access to these systems!

No kidding..?

The ability of the voice to provide specific personal information regarding another individual also lends credence to it not being an artifact of my own mind, but originating externally.

Lends credence? Not to me, but again, I have suggested you are operating from a position of incredulity. That's pretty common; there are like 5 billion religious people.

All I'm getting from -you- are arguments of incredulity from your position of ignorance concerning what I have first hand knowledge of. You're quite literally telling me that your beliefs about my experience trump my direct knowledge concerning it, to the point where you're even arguing that my senses and faculties must be faulty. Your behavior is reminiscent of a believer defending a preconceived world view and presenting explanations that are congruent with it. You point out that "there are like 5 billion religious people". The fact of the matter is: you're one of them.

My guess is that whatever the "voice" was it's probably the same class of phenomena that shamans in indigenous cultures refer to when they speak of conversing with "spirits" [though in numerous accounts I've read, these contacts also occur in OBE states and the "voices" may also present themselves in visual form as well]. You may read the more detailed account I gave earlier to Zanders if you wish to help brainstorm over it

No, but again, thanks for sharing. Given that everything you said has a likely mundane, scientific explanation based on the human brain (heck, I've had similar experiences myself), there is no need to talk of shaman or spirits or whatever. (Unless you and Limbo want to swap stories )Your perception of the event is fine, but your interpretation seems a bit fanciful to me.

Like I pointed out already: If one interprets the event as being a product of my own mind/brain then that simply leaves one with the logical conclusion that I'm somehow clairvoyant, as I gained specific information from the experience that I had no previous knowledge of. It doesn't really matter what interpretive spin one puts on the bare facts of the experience, there still remain anomalous features to it that require further explanation.

Ironically enough, the opinions you've expressed are all arguments of incredulity based upon what you believe constitutes a "mundane"/"logical"/"scientific" explanation. At no point have you expressed even the slightest bit of doubt concerning your interpretations of my account or second guessed your own assumptions. However, you have been very eager to express doubts, not only of the veracity of my first-hand account, but even my ability to accurately recall it -- and all from your position of as an ignorant third party without firsthand knowledge of what happened. It seems your doubt and skepticism are only applied to things you don't believe and not to the beliefs you already hold. Do you really have so much faith that you're more willing to doubt the senses and faculties of another before you doubt your own beliefs and assumptions?

 

[AkuManiMani]

What elephant? This is a sceptic forum - any anecdotal account will be examined sceptically and explanations offered.

Okay.

 

[AkuManiMani]

We have entire libraries filled with such stories.

Lets add your story. What were the contents of your hallucinations?

 

[dlorde]

However, you have been very eager to express doubts, not only of the veracity of my first-hand account, but even my ability to accurately recall it -- and all from your position of as an ignorant third party without firsthand knowledge of what happened. It seems your doubt and skepticism are only applied to things you don't believe and not to the beliefs you already hold. Do you really have so much faith that you're more willing to doubt the senses and faculties of another before you doubt your own beliefs and assumptions?

Of course, we can only respond to what you posted, which makes the responsibility for our ignorance of the stuff you didn't tell us... yours

So why did you post that story?

 

[Zanders]

AkuManiMani, why don't you give more details of you experience to help remove doubts and make it harder to find simple explanations for?

 

[Sledge]

AkuManiMani, why don't you give more details of you experience to help remove doubts and make it harder to find simple explanations for?

Because then his experience could be more easily explained as something other than magic, and he wouldn't get to feel special anymore. I realise this is putting it bluntly, but I see little point in continuing to dance around the point.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, yes. I'm quite familiar with the personal bias effect of horoscope reading; a collection of broad statements which can apply to nearly anyone are interpreted as being specifically about one's self. Mr. Randi was a childhood hero of mine and I'm no stranger to skepticism or critical thinking. You don't need to lecture me about "the law of large numbers" or horoscopes, etc.

So you get the generic concept...

As far as the account goes, we were sitting upright on a couch and I watched her fall asleep. At no point during the episode did I fall asleep myself, nor was I even drowsy. I know for a fact that I was awake and lucid. Period. My memories concerning the event are as clear and consistent as any other I've had of my waking life so "confabulation" is not an issue here. I've also already mentioned that, among other topics, the "voice" alluded to my friend experiencing similar contacts. When I decided to ask her if she'd had any odd experiences [without giving her any information as to what I experienced] she gave an account of "voices" communicating with her, with many of the same accompanying phenomena, such as the high pitched ringing which immediately preceded each of the contacts. I'm failing to see how you believe "confabulation" and "the law of large numbers" accounts for this but you are the critical thinker here, after all

...you just don't think it could possibly apply to you.

[And FYI, a logical explanation need not conform to your expectations of what constitutes the mundane.]

OK.

How do you know you're not dreaming right now and that I'm not a figment of your expansive imagination?

I suppose, in the broadest sense, I don't.

All I'm getting from -you- are arguments of incredulity from your position of ignorance concerning what I have first hand knowledge of. You're quite literally telling me that your beliefs about my experience trump my direct knowledge concerning it, to the point where you're even arguing that my senses and faculties must be faulty. Your behavior is reminiscent of a believer defending a preconceived world view and presenting explanations that are congruent with it. You point out that "there are like 5 billion religious people". The fact of the matter is: you're one of them.

Wait a minute. You won't share details of your story, therefore I am in a position of ignorance concerning what you claim to have firsthand knowledge of. My experience trumps your claims of firsthand knowledge of what, exactly?

As to my "beliefs about your experience," they contain the accumulated knowledge of civilization, at least to the point such knowledge is accessible by internet, books and other media. Such knowledge provides zero evidence of shaman / spirit communication, but much evidence of near-sleep dreamy stuff and faulty memory. Your story just isn't that special. Sorry.

Ironically enough, the opinions you've expressed are all arguments of incredulity based upon what you believe constitutes a "mundane"/"logical"/"scientific" explanation. At no point have you expressed even the slightest bit of doubt concerning your interpretations of my account or second guessed your own assumptions. However, you have been very eager to express doubts, not only of the veracity of my first-hand account, but even my ability to accurately recall it -- and all from your position of as an ignorant third party without firsthand knowledge of what happened. It seems your doubt and skepticism are only applied to things you don't believe and not to the beliefs you already hold. Do you really have so much faith that you're more willing to doubt the senses and faculties of another before you doubt your own beliefs and assumptions?

Let's see:
- entire history of mankind = no evidence of "shaman talking to spirits"
- your story = nothing special, lots of mundane explanations for exactly what you are describing and you won't even share details about the special bits

One reason I am an ignorant third party is that you won't share the details that you "confirmed about two weeks later." That's your fault.

Like I pointed out already: If one interprets the event as being a product of my own mind/brain then that simply leaves one with the logical conclusion that I'm somehow clairvoyant, as I gained specific information from the experience that I had no previous knowledge of. It doesn't really matter what interpretive spin one puts on the bare facts of the experience, there still remain anomalous features to it that require further explanation.

No. Your mind/brain is fallible, just like mine. You are capable of mis-remembering the entire thing, and your focus on the event as being significant is increasing the variables to which your memory of the event is subjected. You won't say what bits prove your clairvoyance. In any case, so it seems to be a theosophist-type "nyah, nyah, nyah, I'm special and I can't tell you why." Your arguments aren't unique; they just aren't convincing.

ETA - I'm watching football and screwed up the formatting, but this part deserves two responses anyway. Sledge is right, and using less words, which is admirable.

Ironically enough, the opinions you've expressed are all arguments of incredulity based upon what you believe constitutes a "mundane"/"logical"/"scientific" explanation. At no point have you expressed even the slightest bit of doubt concerning your interpretations of my account or second guessed your own assumptions. However, you have been very eager to express doubts, not only of the veracity of my first-hand account, but even my ability to accurately recall it -- and all from your position of as an ignorant third party without firsthand knowledge of what happened. It seems your doubt and skepticism are only applied to things you don't believe and not to the beliefs you already hold. Do you really have so much faith that you're more willing to doubt the senses and faculties of another before you doubt your own beliefs and assumptions?

Good Lord. Are you suggesting that your senses and faculties aren't worthy of doubt? Seriously? That is breathtakingly arrogant.

 

[PixyMisa]

At no point have you expressed even the slightest bit of doubt concerning your interpretations of my account or second guessed your own assumptions.

Your story contradicts reality. The have a fight. Reality wins.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Because then his experience could be more easily explained as something other than magic, and he wouldn't get to feel special anymore. I realise this is putting it bluntly, but I see little point in continuing to dance around the point.

I suppose I should also assume that you have ulterior motives for not sharing intimate details of your personal life on a public web forum? Really dude, you can seriously KMA.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, yes. I'm quite familiar with the personal bias effect of horoscope reading; a collection of broad statements which can apply to nearly anyone are interpreted as being specifically about one's self. Mr. Randi was a childhood hero of mine and I'm no stranger to skepticism or critical thinking. You don't need to lecture me about "the law of large numbers" or horoscopes, etc.

So you get the generic concept...

As far as the account goes, we were sitting upright on a couch and I watched her fall asleep. At no point during the episode did I fall asleep myself, nor was I even drowsy. I know for a fact that I was awake and lucid. Period. My memories concerning the event are as clear and consistent as any other I've had of my waking life so "confabulation" is not an issue here. I've also already mentioned that, among other topics, the "voice" alluded to my friend experiencing similar contacts. When I decided to ask her if she'd had any odd experiences [without giving her any information as to what I experienced] she gave an account of "voices" communicating with her, with many of the same accompanying phenomena, such as the high pitched ringing which immediately preceded each of the contacts. I'm failing to see how you believe "confabulation" and "the law of large numbers" accounts for this but you are the critical thinker here, after all

...you just don't think it could possibly apply to you.

You've yet to plausibly establish that it even remotely applies to this scenario. At this point you're just hand-waving and you know it.

How do you know you're not dreaming right now and that I'm not a figment of your expansive imagination?

I suppose, in the broadest sense, I don't.

What, in your opinion, would constitute a valid reason to assume that you are dreaming and that I'm a figment of your imagination?

All I'm getting from -you- are arguments of incredulity from your position of ignorance concerning what I have first hand knowledge of. You're quite literally telling me that your beliefs about my experience trump my direct knowledge concerning it, to the point where you're even arguing that my senses and faculties must be faulty. Your behavior is reminiscent of a believer defending a preconceived world view and presenting explanations that are congruent with it. You point out that "there are like 5 billion religious people". The fact of the matter is: you're one of them.

Wait a minute. You won't share details of your story, therefore I am in a position of ignorance concerning what you claim to have firsthand knowledge of. My experience trumps your claims of firsthand knowledge of what, exactly?

As to my "beliefs about your experience," they contain the accumulated knowledge of civilization, at least to the point such knowledge is accessible by internet, books and other media. Such knowledge provides zero evidence of shaman / spirit communication, but much evidence of near-sleep dreamy stuff and faulty memory. Your story just isn't that special. Sorry.

What you refer to as "the accumulated knowledge of civilization" are a collection of propositions and interpretations based off of the experiences of individuals other than yourself. They are essentially a large body of stories that you've personally selected as worthy of investing a certain degree of faith in. Among the milieu of accumulated human stories are innumerable accounts of "spirit communication", or whatever one wants to call it. The fact of the matter is that those are just a selection of stories that you have not chosen to accept as evidence.

You have a belief structure already in place that does not accommodate a certain range of propositions so you automatically filter them out as irrelevant or false. In the face of contravening claims or evidence you automatically re-interpret them to be consistent with your belief structure. The fact of the matter is that one's personal experience is the extent of their knowledge; all else beyond are hypotheticals that one uses to interpret those experiences.

Ironically enough, the opinions you've expressed are all arguments of incredulity based upon what you believe constitutes a "mundane"/"logical"/"scientific" explanation. At no point have you expressed even the slightest bit of doubt concerning your interpretations of my account or second guessed your own assumptions. However, you have been very eager to express doubts, not only of the veracity of my first-hand account, but even my ability to accurately recall it -- and all from your position of as an ignorant third party without firsthand knowledge of what happened. It seems your doubt and skepticism are only applied to things you don't believe and not to the beliefs you already hold. Do you really have so much faith that you're more willing to doubt the senses and faculties of another before you doubt your own beliefs and assumptions?

Let's see:
- entire history of mankind = no evidence of "shaman talking to spirits"
- your story = nothing special, lots of mundane explanations for exactly what you are describing and you won't even share details about the special bits

One reason I am an ignorant third party is that you won't share the details that you "confirmed about two weeks later." That's your fault.

I've shared all the relevant details of the experience in question short of divulging personal information. The details, as given, are more than adequate to give an accurate accounting of what happened. The truth is, it really isn't a matter of the quality or quantity of information I've provided so much as it is a matter of your credulity. You really don't know and have know way of knowing for certain what really happened, regardless of what or how much I tell you of the account. Like I mentioned already, I've no need to convince you either way of the veracity of my personal account. Would you like to guess why I bothered to share it?

Like I pointed out already: If one interprets the event as being a product of my own mind/brain then that simply leaves one with the logical conclusion that I'm somehow clairvoyant, as I gained specific information from the experience that I had no previous knowledge of. It doesn't really matter what interpretive spin one puts on the bare facts of the experience, there still remain anomalous features to it that require further explanation.

No. Your mind/brain is fallible, just like mine. You are capable of mis-remembering the entire thing, and your focus on the event as being significant is increasing the variables to which your memory of the event is subjected. You won't say what bits prove your clairvoyance. In any case, so it seems to be a theosophist-type "nyah, nyah, nyah, I'm special and I can't tell you why." Your arguments aren't unique; they just aren't convincing.

Ask yourself this: If I were simply giving an account that you categorize as "mundane" would you even bother trying to convince me of how faulty my senses and faculties are?

Ironically enough, the opinions you've expressed are all arguments of incredulity based upon what you believe constitutes a "mundane"/"logical"/"scientific" explanation. At no point have you expressed even the slightest bit of doubt concerning your interpretations of my account or second guessed your own assumptions. However, you have been very eager to express doubts, not only of the veracity of my first-hand account, but even my ability to accurately recall it -- and all from your position of as an ignorant third party without firsthand knowledge of what happened. It seems your doubt and skepticism are only applied to things you don't believe and not to the beliefs you already hold. Do you really have so much faith that you're more willing to doubt the senses and faculties of another before you doubt your own beliefs and assumptions?

Good Lord. Are you suggesting that your senses and faculties aren't worthy of doubt? Seriously? That is breathtakingly arrogant.

Again, under what circumstances do you consider it justified to question your own senses and faculties? Do you pinch yourself every time you think you've woken up in the morning? When a friend mentions what they had for lunch that day, do you ask them if they're sure and insist on a number of other things you think they must have eaten? If they reply that they are absolutely sure of what they ate, do you accuse them of arrogantly presuming the infallibility of their senses?

 

[AkuManiMani]

AkuManiMani, why don't you give more details of you experience to help remove doubts and make it harder to find simple explanations for?

There's no point in providing more details; doing so would not do anything in the way of removing doubts. In any case, removing doubt is not my goal

 

[Zanders]

There's no point in providing more details; doing so would not do anything in the way of removing doubts. In any case, removing doubt is not my goal

It might make the situation seem even more unusual if you mention the odd things you told me about, but it is up to you if you don't want to.