Chaos Magic

[Hellbound]

Those are all valid examples but I do not think they are sufficient to account for all cases.

Many people think that. The problem most of us have is that it has not been shown to be true. These accoutn for a lot of cases, and the "unaccountable" ones are also typically the unverifiable ones...anecdotes and stories that can easily be a result of our all-to-human brains altering or filling in detail. Much like UFO sightings...the ones always brought up witht he "you can't disprove it" argument are those for which there simply isn't any evidence to be examined. They can't be disproved for the same reason they can't be proved: there's not enough evidence for a determination oe way or the other.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Those are all valid examples but I do not think they are sufficient to account for all cases.

Many people think that. The problem most of us have is that it has not been shown to be true. These accoutn for a lot of cases, and the "unaccountable" ones are also typically the unverifiable ones...anecdotes and stories that can easily be a result of our all-to-human brains altering or filling in detail. Much like UFO sightings...the ones always brought up witht he "you can't disprove it" argument are those for which there simply isn't any evidence to be examined. They can't be disproved for the same reason they can't be proved: there's not enough evidence for a determination oe way or the other.

Everyone does not have equal access to direct evidence. You've presumably never been witness to instances where individuals acquire veridical information that, theoretically, they should not have had access to. Based upon your own experience, such accounts seem unlikely and all you have to go on are the claims of others with regard to them. However, your lack of first hand experience concerning such accounts does not render them invalid or untrue, it just means that you're stuck with your default position of doubt. I've experienced enough from my end to seriously question the null hypothesis, though.

 

[tsig]

Is this another one of those "I'm going to make a claim. Then I will feign outrage when you ask for evidence, and instead of discussing the topic at hand, I will instead do everything I can to insult everyone within range for anything." threads?

Yep.

 

[Hellbound]

Everyone does not have equal access to direct evidence. You've presumably never been witness to instances where individuals acquire veridical information that, theoretically, they should not have had access to. Based upon your own experience, such accounts seem unlikely and all you have to go on are the claims of others with regard to them. However, your lack of first hand experience concerning such accounts does not render them invalid or untrue, it just means that you're stuck with your default position of doubt. I've experienced enough from my end to seriously question the null hypothesis, though.

Don't presume my experiences, please.

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about the hubris of believers. You instantly assume that I can't have experienced anything like this because I disagree with you. The same attitude implies your complete trust in your own perception of the event. I don't believe this is intentional, but it's the factor in your thinking that most of us strongly disagree with.

I have experienced seemingly psychic episodes, including "prophetic" dreams, intense deja vu experiences, and even a ghost sighting (although that one was quickly explained because I took the time to investigate it as it happened). There are many other skeptics on this board who have had even more intense "paranormal" experiences.

But I realize that my own memeory and perception are suspect, and that it is enormously more likely that a seemingly inexplicable event that occurred which is only "proven" by my own recolelction is a product of some sort of error in thinking or perception, rather than that the entire scientific community has somehow "missed" a major aspect fo reality that would not only be new, but also directly contradict many principles that have proven sound through the years (as well as the bnegative results on test conducted to detect exactly this type of phenomena).

 

[tsig]

"I'm just giving enough rope for certain presumptuous ass-hats to hang themselves with. Those who are actually looking to have a real discussion with me will find it. Those out to "stomp trolls" and prop up their bruised egos will get the run around they're looking for."

I'm perfectly willing to have a sensible discussion, and a handful of responders here have actually bothered to engage me in such productive discussions [hat tip to Sceptic Tank, I Am The Scum, AkuLeLe, and Pure Argent -- apologies to any others I may have forgotten ]. Certain individuals that have given me reason to suspect that they're simply out for ego gratification will find the ******** they're looking for. So, in point of correction, I'm not just annoying for the sake of annoying. There's a method to my apparent madness.

Some might use rope to get themselves out of a hole, others chose shovels.

 

[tsig]

The current trend seems to be more like "I'll make a claim, then smugly insult everyone who questions it, and once this has gone on long enough, I will reveal that this was all a big social experiment, and you all failed". There is some interesting discussion scattered in between the trolling and the people banging their heads against a wall, though.

I see it as taking advantage of the respect one poster generally gives to another.

A claim is made and posters try to respond to the claim, the claim gets more and more vague then, as there is less and less squirming room, the claimant laughs at all the other posters for responding.

 

[tsig]

</shrug>

The good humor truck doesn't come down your street does it?

 

[AkuManiMani]

Don't presume my experiences, please.

This is what I'm referring to when I talk about the hubris of believers. You instantly assume that I can't have experienced anything like this because I disagree with you. The same attitude implies your complete trust in your own perception of the event. I don't believe this is intentional, but it's the factor in your thinking that most of us strongly disagree with.

I have experienced seemingly psychic episodes, including "prophetic" dreams, intense deja vu experiences, and even a ghost sighting (although that one was quickly explained because I took the time to investigate it as it happened). There are many other skeptics on this board who have had even more intense "paranormal" experiences.

But I realize that my own memeory and perception are suspect, and that it is enormously more likely that a seemingly inexplicable event that occurred which is only "proven" by my own recolelction is a product of some sort of error in thinking or perception, rather than that the entire scientific community has somehow "missed" a major aspect fo reality that would not only be new, but also directly contradict many principles that have proven sound through the years (as well as the bnegative results on test conducted to detect exactly this type of phenomena).

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you'd be more willing to doubt the validity of your own firsthand experience than to doubt the say-so of presumed authorities. It's ironic that you would speak of the presumptions of "believers" yet not recognize that you've discounted your own direct observations based upon faith you've placed in the opinions of others. If your senses strongly or consistently contradict a theoretical model [even one held by a large community of professionals] then that is indicative that there is a flaw with the assumed model, regardless of the degree of useful applicability it has shown in certain scenarios.

 

[tsig]

There are plenty of people here who question my experiences and I've no problem with them whatsoever. Like I already said, it isn't about whether or not someone agrees with me but in how they approach me for discussion. If you think its petty for me to treat petty people in like manner, thats fine, but don't try to pigeonhole me into the role of some mean fellow who just pokes fun at people for merely disagreeing.

[ETA: I'd very much prefer to sling direct insults but forum guidelines restrict all such behavior to the "passvie-agressive" snide remark variety. If it were up to me I'd much rather punch a mug in the mug and get it over with.]

If you're treating petty people in a petty manner how is an objective observer tell you apart?

 

[AkuManiMani]

If you're treating petty people in a petty manner how is an objective observer tell you apart?

Observe the behavior of both parties outside the context of the exchange.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Observe the behavior of both parties outside the context of the exchange.

We do, and most of us have concluded you are in the wrong.

 

[Hellbound]

If your senses strongly or consistently contradict a theoretical model [even one held by a large community of professionals] then that is indicative that there is a flaw with the assumed model, regardless of the degree of useful applicability it has shown in certain scenarios.

But that isn't the case.

We're talking about one's own senses strongly or consistently contradicting the senses of others, not a theoretical model.

The reasoning your following here essentially discounts the concept of a shared, external reality. I don't see how this isn't soliphism under a different form.

It's more than the "say-so of presumed authority", which seems to be where you're reasoning differs. It's the combined experienced of a large community of individuals who are each using their sense to test these types of ideas, and all independently coming up with negative results. The entire idea behind science is that ANY individual viewpoint, even our own, is supect and not to be counted on it's own. Shared reality is examined by looking at the combined observations of a multitude of independent viewpoints, each performing the same experiments to see if they agree.

The entire basis of science, and scientific method, is that the subjective viewpoint of any individual is suspect, and susceptible to biases, prejudices, and errors in thinking and perception. Research provides evidence that this is the case. The scientific consensus is not just the opinions of a group of professionals, but it is the combined result of numerous experiments, each conducted (ideally) in a way to minimize the effects of bias, and repeated by different people under varying circumstances to remove other possible sources of error.

This goes all the way back to my example of alcohol making you feel warmer. Your subjective experience is directly contradictory to reality, in that situation. We have known, undeniable examples to show that your direct, first hand experience can be wrong, and in some cases dangerously so.

 

[tsig]

While I'd much prefer the productive conversations many have provided here, atleast as many are just looking to play "stomp the woo-woo". As far as I can tell from their general posting history and their conduct in this thread, the people I've focused my mockery on are nothing but cowardly bullies deserving of ill treatment. IMO, if they are going to attempt to waste my time in pretending they're looking for an honest discussion the least I can do is derive some amusement from them. Besides, like I mentioned earlier, no one can get trolled without their willing participation.




Depends. Do you consider genuine outrage and contempt at the poor character and behavior of another to be a petty motivation?

Have mockery, will travel.

Say Paladin I got some cowardly mockers hanging around my birdbath what's your daily rate?

 

[tsig]

Observe the behavior of both parties outside the context of the exchange.

I see so on one hand we have a poster who believes in the reality of voices in his head, admits to treating fellow posters as lab rats and is petty versus many others who have tried to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon and are petty.

That's a hard one.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If your senses strongly or consistently contradict a theoretical model [even one held by a large community of professionals] then that is indicative that there is a flaw with the assumed model, regardless of the degree of useful applicability it has shown in certain scenarios.

But that isn't the case.

We're talking about one's own senses strongly or consistently contradicting the senses of others, not a theoretical model.

The reasoning your following here essentially discounts the concept of a shared, external reality. I don't see how this isn't soliphism under a different form.

It's more than the "say-so of presumed authority", which seems to be where you're reasoning differs. It's the combined experienced of a large community of individuals who are each using their sense to test these types of ideas, and all independently coming up with negative results. The entire idea behind science is that ANY individual viewpoint, even our own, is supect and not to be counted on it's own. Shared reality is examined by looking at the combined observations of a multitude of independent viewpoints, each performing the same experiments to see if they agree.

The entire basis of science, and scientific method, is that the subjective viewpoint of any individual is suspect, and susceptible to biases, prejudices, and errors in thinking and perception. Research provides evidence that this is the case. The scientific consensus is not just the opinions of a group of professionals, but it is the combined result of numerous experiments, each conducted (ideally) in a way to minimize the effects of bias, and repeated by different people under varying circumstances to remove other possible sources of error.

A synesthete scientist will, in all likelihood, experience different observational results than a non-synesthetic colleague. The synesthete's differing observations do not invalidate, nor are they necessarily invalidated by, the differing perceptions -- especially if those perceptions result in them gaining information not readily available to the senses of their colleagues. The situation becomes even more complicated if one allows for the possibility of individuals having perceptions with unknown modalities.

The subjective POV of any given subject is part and parcel of reality though, generally speaking, they are not shared aspects of reality. Cases of subjects consistently purporting the experience(s) of communicating with intelligent entities or visiting contiguous alternate realities should not be automatically discounted. This is especially true if such experiences result in them obtaining veridical information they would otherwise not have access to. Instances of shared hallucinatory experiences also suggest that individuals can have real-time common experiences not necessarily derived via their "external" senses.

IMO, the impetus to reinterpret one's anomalous experiences to be in accordance with scientific theories in common currency is itself a form of cognitive bias. The rationale appears to be along the lines of:

"I've had an experience that seems to contradict the theoretical expectations the scientific community, therefore my senses/faculties must be wrong in some way."

This goes all the way back to my example of alcohol making you feel warmer. Your subjective experience is directly contradictory to reality, in that situation. We have known, undeniable examples to show that your direct, first hand experience can be wrong, and in some cases dangerously so.

Drinking alcohol does, in fact, make one feel warmer. While this feeling of warmth is at odds with their actual body temperature, the experience IAOI is quite real.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I see so on one hand we have a poster who believes in the reality of voices in his head, admits to treating fellow posters as lab rats and is petty versus many others who have tried to provide a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon and are petty.

That's a hard one.

Right. So the mocking and jeering you indulged in even prior to my participation in this discussion where just honest attempts to "provide a reasonable explanation"?

 

[Hellbound]

Drinking alcohol does, in fact, make one feel warmer. While this feeling of warmth is at odds with their actual body temperature, the experience IAOI is quite real.

Yes, it makes you feel warmer. It affects your subjective experience. Yet in reality, one is becoming colder.

And no one is arguing that peopel don't feel the experience of talking with an external intelligence. But that doesn't mean there is an external intelligence.

And finally, the pooint I've been making (and that numerous others have made numerous times on this thread) is that no one is discounting this out of hand. These types of events have been studied, extensively, and have never been shown to have anything but mundane explanations (when there is enough information/evidence that an explanation can be concluded). The same with shared hallucinations...there is communication (or a common trigger) for most of these events, nothing to sugegst some sort of paranormal communication (and regardless of your usage, paranormal is a correct descriptor: outside the known realm of the natural).

I agree, that if we can rule out other means of information, we can rule out hallucination or a mental aberance, and show that information the subject had no other way to know was provided, then it should be considered.

But all we get are stories from people who claim that this is how is was, but no evidence. Can't be replicated under controlled conditions. NO instances where some information was definatively shared before a predicted event (except for vague prophecies such as Nostradamus, that can be re-interpreted after-the-fact to fit a wide variety of events). No "psychics" or "shamans" or "mediums" that can prove any communication or access to inforamtion that is not obtainable through mundane means. Continual tests of psychics, spiritualists, and mystics that show nothing more than confirmation biases, delusions, and cold reading techniques.

Could there be something to it? Sure, there could. But there's more solid evidence that the moon will suddenly quantum tunnel to the other side of the Earth. That event, while extremely unlikely, is at least possible in theory.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, it makes you feel warmer. It affects your subjective experience. Yet in reality, one is becoming colder.

And no one is arguing that peopel don't feel the experience of talking with an external intelligence. But that doesn't mean there is an external intelligence.

And finally, the pooint I've been making (and that numerous others have made numerous times on this thread) is that no one is discounting this out of hand. These types of events have been studied, extensively, and have never been shown to have anything but mundane explanations (when there is enough information/evidence that an explanation can be concluded). The same with shared hallucinations...there is communication (or a common trigger) for most of these events, nothing to sugegst some sort of paranormal communication (and regardless of your usage, paranormal is a correct descriptor: outside the known realm of the natural).

I agree, that if we can rule out other means of information, we can rule out hallucination or a mental aberance, and show that information the subject had no other way to know was provided, then it should be considered.

But all we get are stories from people who claim that this is how is was, but no evidence. Can't be replicated under controlled conditions. NO instances where some information was definatively shared before a predicted event (except for vague prophecies such as Nostradamus, that can be re-interpreted after-the-fact to fit a wide variety of events). No "psychics" or "shamans" or "mediums" that can prove any communication or access to inforamtion that is not obtainable through mundane means. Continual tests of psychics, spiritualists, and mystics that show nothing more than confirmation biases, delusions, and cold reading techniques.

Could there be something to it? Sure, there could. But there's more solid evidence that the moon will suddenly quantum tunnel to the other side of the Earth. That event, while extremely unlikely, is at least possible in theory.

So would you say that there is a "natural" explanation for how someone can provide details of what another is experiencing in a dream from over the phone? Or how a figment of one's imagination can provide personal information regarding the experiences of another? I keep seeing you make reference to the reported experiences of those who've claimed negative results and offhandedly discounting the experiences of those with positive reports as being confabulated anecdotes. How is this not an example of your own confirmation bias?

 

[Robin]

One of the furphies raised in this thread is that we are skeptical of the paranormal is because we want to defend a belief system to which we are emotionally attached.

That is nonsense.

We are skeptical of the paranormal because it is a field that has never produced hard evidence and has, to date, been filled with charlatans and wishful thinkers.

Perhaps Akumanimani's experiences were real but I think that even he has to accept that there are real and compelling reasons to be skeptical about any given claim of paranormal experiences.

 

[carlitos]

AkuManiMani,

I stopped responding directly a while ago, due to your incredulous hand-waving, but I'll give it another shot.

Ignoring the 99.9% of dreams that don't give accurate information and focusing on the one or two coincidences that were right is a form of confirmation bias. There is a thing called the rule of large numbers. 6 billion people are dreaming or daydreaming right now. Some of these dreams / daydreams will come true. Most of them won't. This is not remarkable. Also, many superstitious people will mis-remember the dream / daydream itself due to confirmation bias and memory plasticity, much like their horoscope, cold reading, etc.

None of this is evidence of paranormal activity.

Confabulated anecdotes = lots of evidence
Psi = zero evidence