Chaos Magic

[Hellbound]

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?

Without further information, I can't say for sure, but I can say that similar instances have had natural explanations, from confabulation to mistaken memory to coincidence. Not to mention the fact that we remember the hits (how many times has a phone conversation NOT told you what you were dreaming about? How do you know there was no other access to this other persons experience?)

I keep seeing you make reference to the reported experiences of those who've claimed negative results and offhandedly discounting the experiences of those who with positive reports as being confabulated anecdotes. How is this not an example of your own confirmation bias?

Because what you fail to understand is that I regard ALL of the anecdotes as nothing but that...anecdotes. Not evidence. When these types of thigns are tested, with any sort of controls to prevent mundane information transfer, the positive results disappear to chance levels. It has nothign to do with confirmation bias; it has to do with accepting controlled, verifiable studies over personal stories.

The only reason I've provided, for example, my own personal experiences are because for every positive anecdote you can provide we can find a negative one. This shows that if anecdotes and personal experience are your guide, then it's a lousy way to determine truth. It can just as easily lead you in one direction or another, so how do you determine who is right when one's personal experience directly contradicts another's?

You control for variables and you study the situations, which has been done numerous times. And one trend stands out in all the parapsychology research: as controls tighten (in other words, as ways one could cheat, knowingly or unknowingly, are removed), the positive results go down.

And if, as it seems, you see no difference between an uncontrolled, unreplicated personal experience and a well-designed scientific test, then there's no point in continuing this conversation. You're a soliphist, whether you like the word or not.

 

[dlorde]

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"?

FFS give it a rest, it's getting old.

Quite a experienced few members who wouldn't usually bother are making an effort to explain to you why they think you're being a dick. The hole is deep enough. Please stop digging.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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.

I agree, and I don't begrudge anyone their skepticism regard such claims -- I've taken the very same position myself on numerous occasions. However, I think is prudent for one to recognize that being skeptical doesn't necessarily mean just doubting certain kinds of claims but being able suspend one's judgement concerning them.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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

I've had just as many dreams in my life as anyone else. II also indulge in daydreaming more than the average person. Its not on the basis of such experiences that I question the null hypothesis concerning "psi".

 

[carlitos]

I've had just as many dreams in my life as anyone else. II also indulge in daydreaming more than the average person. Its not on the basis of such experiences that I question the null hypothesis concerning "psi".

It's not? The only experience you have listed is some daydream / dream where you think that you got "accurate information" about another person which you think you wouldn't have known otherwise. You claim to have compared notes with the person 2 weeks' worth of plastic memory later. Your story is exactly what I was talking about, and even worse with the 2 week delay and the two of you both probably already being a little on the credulous side with this type of thing. You won't even give the details for evaluation for some reason.

Was there something else then?

 

[AkuManiMani]

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"?

FFS give it a rest, it's getting old.

Quite a experienced few members who wouldn't usually bother are making an effort to explain to you why they think you're being a dick. The hole is deep enough. Please stop digging.

Why aren't you telling others that? I'm "being a dick" by pointing out the poor behavior of others? Am I somehow at fault because I placed an "eyeroll" emote at the end of the statement? If you're not going to address the flagrant behavior of numerous other posters here GTF off my back already.

 

[AkuManiMani]

It's not? The only experience you have listed is some daydream / dream where you think that you got "accurate information" about another person which you think you wouldn't have known otherwise.

Carlitos, can you tell the difference between your daydreams, dreams, and hallucinations? Can you tell the difference between a thought and an auditory sensation? Can you tell if you're awake right now?

You claim to have compared notes with the person 2 weeks' worth of plastic memory later. Your story is exactly what I was talking about, and even worse with the 2 week delay and the two of you both probably already being a little on the credulous side with this type of thing. You won't even give the details for evaluation for some reason.

Was there something else then?

What if I were just recalling information gained from a "mundane" conversation I had two weeks ago? Would you recommend that I assume that my recollection of it is faulty and confabulated?

TBQH, my memory is pretty reliable -- in most of my classes I take no notes at all and I rarely study yet I manage to get "A"s and "B"s on my exams. Heck, I even accurately recall the details of conversations I've had on this forum two years ago. Are you seriously arguing that I should question the accuracy of my memories of these particular experiences because they run counter to what -you- think should be possible? I'm sorry, Carlitos, but I'm not buying it.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos, can you tell the difference between your daydreams, dreams, and hallucinations? Can you tell the difference between a thought and an auditory sensation? Can you tell if you're awake right now?

None of this matters. If my brain delivers me information, whether awake, sleeping, hallucinating, seeing, hearing does not matter. That information is known to be faulty. Moreover, I'm not claiming to have had a psychic experience here. I'm just saying that if I daydream that the Bears win the Super Bowl, and then they do win the Super Bowl, it's nothing special. If I had an auditory hallucination and it told me your mom's name was Ellen, and it turned out I was right, it's likely a random hit. Since a million other auditory hallucinations turn out wrong or don't reveal personal information. Some of them tell schizophrenics to kill people. Or lots of things that are never checked afterwards!

What if I were just recalling information gained from a "mundane" conversation I had two weeks ago? Would you recommend that I assume that my recollection of it is faulty and confabulated?

If your mundane conversation violated the physical laws, yes. For instance, you had a mundane conversation and some dude "read your mind" would probably have been a hot or cold reading. If you later claimed it to be evidence that mind-reading was possible, I wouldn't agree with you.

• Your memory is fallible, just like mine, your pride notwithstanding.
• Your memory of the event contains one clear hallmark of a seizure.
• Your memory takes place in a situation reminiscent of near-sleep, despite your claim of your memory of the event. Hallucinations are common during near-sleep.
• Your memory of the event was not recorded at the time, thus how it has evolved over time cannot be evaluated today.
• You refuse to share the "details" so they cannot be evaluated.
• You refuse to have the other person post, so her version cannot be evaluated.
• Mundane explanations exist for everything you claim to experienced, anyway.
• Psi has never, ever been proven scientifically.
• You have yet to pose a coherent hypothesis for the event, at points claiming that you just posted some social experiment asshat test and at other points talking about shaman and spirits.

You have shared a story. You want to attach some importance to it, for reasons I cannot understand. You claim that you aren't trying to convince me of anything, so I don't know why my dismissal of your interpretation would bother you.

 

[tsig]

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"?

The reasonable explanation is that events have a cause rooted in reality. Once that is rejected then a little humor seems appropriate.

Feel free to post any posts of mine that you think are objectionable.

 

[Zanders]

I decided to ask a few people I have talked to online in the past who claim they have had contact with non human entities what it felt and sounded like, and I also looked up some cases I remembered reading about a while back. Their experiences differed quite a bit.

Woops, I didn't mean "non-human enteties", I just mean hearing or talking to disembodied voices that they thought were paranormal.

I asked another person about their experiences (case#46cw39, from this forum) and it again sounded completely different. These cases are not very consistent.

I'm sorry AkuManiMani, but you have revealed yourself to be rather fantasy prone with how you jump to conclusions, assume and speculate so often about other people's experiences such as conditions like multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia (shall I add a mocking smiley? ). Also, you might should have a look at this thread.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Carlitos, can you tell the difference between your daydreams, dreams, and hallucinations? Can you tell the difference between a thought and an auditory sensation? Can you tell if you're awake right now?

None of this matters. If my brain delivers me information,

This is a serious question: What are "you"?

whether awake, sleeping, hallucinating, seeing, hearing does not matter. That information is known to be faulty. Moreover, I'm not claiming to have had a psychic experience here.

Never claimed that my experiences were "psychic", just said that they were bizarre and required better explanations than you seem able to provide. Would simply admitting that you don't know be so difficult? If, based upon my accounts as given, you want to designate them as "psychic" or "paranormal" thats up to you; but just remember that these are labels you're ascribing to my experiences -- not I.

I'm just saying that if I daydream that the Bears win the Super Bowl, and then they do win the Super Bowl, it's nothing special. If I had an auditory hallucination and it told me your mom's name was Ellen, and it turned out I was right, it's likely a random hit. Since a million other auditory hallucinations turn out wrong or don't reveal personal information. Some of them tell schizophrenics to kill people. Or lots of things that are never checked afterwards!

On these occasions they were checked. In one instance a person, over the phone, gave my family details of what I was experiencing in a dreamlike state; in the other, a conversant "voice", while I was awake and lucid, gave me information concerning another individual that checked out. If you wanna attribute that all to random chance, thats fine, but I find that unconvincing.

What if I were just recalling information gained from a "mundane" conversation I had two weeks ago? Would you recommend that I assume that my recollection of it is faulty and confabulated?

If your mundane conversation violated the physical laws, yes.

Tell me: Is it that you KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, that the accounts I've given are not physically possible, or is it that you merely BELIEVE that is the case? Can you tell the difference?

Your memory is fallible, just like mine, your pride notwithstanding.

Sure, memory is fallible. However I see no reason to doubt my own clear consistent memories of the aforementioned experiences, your pride notwithstanding.

Your memory of the event contains one clear hallmark of a seizure.

So?

Your memory takes place in a situation reminiscent of near-sleep, despite your claim of your memory of the event. Hallucinations are common during near-sleep.

Wheres the part you tell me something I don't know?

Your memory of the event was not recorded at the time, thus how it has evolved over time cannot be evaluated today.

It was recorded in my memory and those present. Don't pretend that your credulity regarding the accounts rests upon whether someone took notes of it.

You refuse to share the "details" so they cannot be evaluated.

I've shared plenty of details -- pages of details. The more I provide, the more I'm accused of things like "self-aggrandizement". Truth be told, you're not so much concerned with discerning the truth of experiences as you are in trying to find some feature of the story that will provide an "easy out" explanation. Stop kidding yourself.

You refuse to have the other person post, so her version cannot be evaluated.

Who said anything about me refusing? Even if I did get her to post and she presented the exact same story you could still claim that she was prompted or that shes otherwise unreliable. Again, quit pretending that you're interested in honest inquiry.

Mundane explanations exist for everything you claim to experienced, anyway.

Correction: you've ready-made interpretations that are congruent with your world view. You really don't know what happened, nor do I think you really care what the truth is so long as you can get the story to conform to your expectations.

Psi has never, ever been proven scientifically.

Yea, and?

You have yet to pose a coherent hypothesis for the event, at points claiming that you just posted some social experiment asshat test and at other points talking about shaman and spirits.

Correction: I've yet to propose any complete hypothesis for the events that are congruent with what you believe should be possible. Unlike you, I don't presume to have all the answers to the point where I can confidently assert what a stranger over the internet -must- have experienced. You being an asshat is incidental.

You have shared a story. You want to attach some importance to it, for reasons I cannot understand. You claim that you aren't trying to convince me of anything, so I don't know why my dismissal of your interpretation would bother you.

First of all, if you don't consider the stories to be of any significance why would you spend so many pages trying your damndest to prove that they're insignificant? Simply shrug and move on. Second of all, there are plenty of other people here that have expressed serious doubts regarding the veracity and nature of my reported experiences and I've no problem with their stance. It's not your dismissal that irks me; it's your presumption of knowledge that you don't have is what irks me. Whats more, you're so intent on trying to convince me of this knowledge that you're insisting that it is more reliable than my own firsthand recollection of the events. Then you have the nerve to prattle on about "religious believers" and my "breathtaking arrogance" at not uncritically accepting every hand-waving explanation you shovel me. No, its not your doubt that irks me -- its your -lack- of doubt.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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"?

The reasonable explanation is that events have a cause rooted in reality.

Translation: "The reasonable explanation is that all events must conform to my expectations of reality"

Once that is rejected then a little humor seems appropriate.

Translation: "If someone rejects my conception of reality a little humor at their expense seems appropriate."

Feel free to post any posts of mine that you think are objectionable.

Oh, no -- you're perfectly justified in all your conduct. You're an unassailable paragon of maturity and reason.

 

[Sledge]

I hope you don't work for the UN, 'cos your translations are terrible.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I hope you don't work for the UN, 'cos your translations are terrible.

Unflattering -- my translations are unflattering. Get it strait

 

[carlitos]

AkuManiMani, you have a simple argument from incredulity. There is something you cannot explain, so you are ascribing paranormal explanation(s). As I said earlier, this isn't unusual. Lots of people believe in those things. It's not arrogance or disbelief on my part; as I stated earlier, it's the entire history of research into these things via the scientific method^WP. I'm sorry that you won't use this method to evaluate your story, but that's your loss.

There is no evidence for the paranormal, other than anecdotes like yours. That you arrogantly presume to be immune to memory fallibility and confabulation, two things I have experienced with 100% certainty, is just that - arrogance. This trait is common with people whose stories make them feel special; I have seen myriad posters act just like you - King of the Americas and Limbo among them. If your story makes you feel special, fine. Just don't expect critical thinkers to draw "paranormal" from anecdotes, and don't act offended when they don't.

However, now that you are calling me names, that's enough for me.

By the way, unless you have offshore WiFi in Gibraltar, Sumatra, Taiwan or maybe Vancouver Island, the word that you have been seeking throughout these pages is straight. You are welcome.

 

[Zanders]

"Maybe this happened"
"No, it didn't".
"Well, maybe this is the explanation and you are mistaken".
"I am not mistaken".
"I think you are".
"No. I am not."
"Fine"
"Fine"
"But I am not mistaken"
"Yes you are"
"No I'm not"
"I think you are"
"Nope"
"Nope"
"Well, I don't need you to beleive it anyway, but it happened"
"We can't prove that it didn't, but I doubt it. I think you are mistaken"
"No, it certainly wasn't a mistake. You are simplifying it"
"Well, I doubt it. I think you are mistaken".
"No, I am not"
*repeat*

See, this is really pointless.

 

[PixyMisa]

Translation: "The reasonable explanation is that all events must conform to my expectations of reality"

Translation: "If someone rejects my conception of reality a little humor at their expense seems appropriate."

It's not "conception" or "expectations" of reality, AkuManiMani. It's reality. As tested, observed, verified, but millions of scientists over hundreds of years, amounting to an immense mountain of fantastically successful knowledge that says that your interpretation of your experience is pure fancy.

No, you did not talk to some non-corporeal mind. There's simply no such thing. There's no telepathy or clairvoyance or anything like that.

Your (uninformed) interpretation of your (unreliable) memory of your (unremarkable) experience does not overturn fact.

These phrases you keep using are just your way of collapsing the argument from ignorance, argument from personal incredulity, and special pleading into one little nugget of fractal wrongness. If you don't understand that, you need to take a step back and try to look at your argument from the position of someone who doesn't already believe what you believe.

If you do understand this, then your argument is deeply dishonest.

As for the mockery? We are mocking the argument in question. When the argument in question is hopelessly confused, this is entirely appropriate:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

You, on the other hand, abuse the person of those who disagree with you. This is a logical fallacy if taken as part of your argument, a dishonest act if not, and a breach of your membership agreement in any case.

Oh, no -- you're perfectly justified in all your conduct. You're an unassailable paragon of maturity and reason.

We are, and I'm glad you understand that. We only wish we could say the same for you.

 

[PixyMisa]

See, this is really pointless.

Any game is pointless if only one side plays by the rules.

 

[Sledge]

Unflattering -- my translations are unflattering. Get it strait

Nope. I'm prepared to accept "incorrect" in place of "terrible."

 

[Zanders]

Any game is pointless if only one side plays by the rules.

Have you ever wondered if debating and arguing with him like this might be what he wants? Remember, he does enjoy "intelligent debate"