Hello from a non-skeptic

[Ririon]

Carlitos, as others have done here, you are putting words into my mouth. Never said I wouldn't...

Please let us know if you do.

At least you learned a bit about human biology here. That may be useful at some point.

 

[Charles Boden]

To Pure Argent's (I'll get to yours in a minute, Garrette)

Have read your replies and looked at a couple of the links provided. Sounds like a he says/she says kind of situation. Tony Batters says one thing, Tony Lundy says another. We watch programs where police officers and relatives of a crime victim say they were aided by information from a psychic, you all say they were lying because they were after the bucks.

Not necessarily. They may simply have been wrong.

Naturally, likewise in the same manner so could you be...

You say the Ouija is the result of ideomotor effect, others like myself that it might not be.

The difference being that our explanation is backed by evidence.

And mine by personal experience. Likewise I might say that what I saw on video was also a "set up" made by skeptics.

Whichever way, whatever objectivity I may have desired in the discussion of the issue seems inevitably lost

How so?

I'll rephrase that. If I say that what was said to me was beyond any random chance, and you keep insisting that it was, we're just beating about the bush. I see no point in continuing repeating the same oer and over again.

In saying I would be willing to share more of the events I lived through, which despite your argumentations are still not so easily discarded

Why not?

Please read above. There is much more than what I have already shared.

We've been over this quite a lot, Charles. The unreliability of memory, the laws of probability, et cetera... what makes you think that your personal experiences are any more valid as evidence than anyone else's?

Perhaps because they are ones I underwent myself and hold validity to me beacause the explanations you have given for them do not account for what I experienced personally.

What I was in fact also hoping was that I might provide some data as to how it might be possible to find answers.

It is possible to find answers. That's the whole point of the million-dollar challenge, as well as the experiments suggested in this thread and the requests for concrete data that you have received.

Again I am having to repeat replies over and over again. I never said I had "concrete data", only personal experiences and what I consider "evidence to me personally"

 

[Loss Leader]

On the contrary, Loss Leader. And again you are putting words into my mouth. I cannot instantly discard my own personal experiences so easily, though.

However, you can acknowledge that questions you've asked have been answered.

You asked about whether the observation that collapses quantum duality could be an artifact of human consciousness. You were given a definitive answer of no ("observation" doesn't have anything to do with there actually being an observer). You never acknowledged this.

You asked what the odds of receiving the prophesy about the death of a royal was? You were answered that the chance of the prophesy being true was 1 in 200; the chance of receiving the prophesy was 1 in 1. You never acknowledged that.

You asked about the odds of receiving two prophesies (the death of the royal and your wife's pregnancy). You were answered definitively that the odds were unknowable without further information from you. You never provided that information.

Literally every question you've asked in this thread has been answered with references. Rarely, if ever, do you acknowledge an answer. You just move on or, frustratingly, insist that your questions have not been addressed.

So, when I say that you've learned nothing, I base that on the fact that you have not claimed to have learned anything. If you have, please accept my appologies - that is, unless you've learned something untrue like that we are accusing witnesses of lying for money. In that case, I maintain that you still have learned nothing.

 

[Charles Boden]

First, it's not. Second, if it is, then the default position is not "Oh, well, it must be paranormal."

Words put into my mouth again.

Yes, and Tony Lundy was the one in position to know whether or not Holohan helped; he was the one in charge. More importantly, if you checked the site I linked to you will find a copy of Batters' actual notes (redacted at his request to remove details too painful for the victim's family to see). Those notes of his interview with Holohan do not support his conclusion

.

I believe I have already agreed to that when I said I "stand corrected". Again I am having to repeat the same answers over and over again.

Yes, we do; then upon investigation we discover that the claims are unsupported. We also watch programs where people claim they make $100,000 per month using the real estate acquisition method outlined in so-and-so's book for only $39.95. Do you suggest that those are real?

Absolutely not, but what you are saying is that each and every case in unreal. Everyone who takes part in them is either lying, misguided, having memory problems or whatever. IMO you say so just because anything of such nature is contrary to your own beliefs. Forgive me if I can't agree without questioning.

No. Please do not change what we say or put words in our mouths. Some lie, most notably most of the self-professed psychics. Some are simply mistaken or deluded like some of the psychics and most/all of those who say they were helped. Batters is closer to the latter; i think I specifically said he is not lying.

But you all can put words in mine that I later need to correct and fire so many questions that it becomes impossible to reply?

Yes, and this is not in the slightest a matter of he said/she said. It is entirely a matter of scientifically demonstrated fact on the one side and repeatedly refuted claims on the other.

As I said I'll test myself... Have you?

I won't, but I will point out that most of your points have been satisfactorily explained while the others do not provide the evidence you think.

As I said, I could provide more, but it is clear that they would still be immediately rebuffed in the same manner as the ones I already have. Most unconvincingly to me who experienced them, I'm afraid.

And I appreciated yours. I'm far from a perfect poster and have gone over the line more than once, but I try not to.

Thank you.

 

[Pixel42]

You cannot say what is required to change your mind, your mind is closed, shut tighter than a box with no lid, your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it bacause you cannot tell us what it will take to change it. I can tell you what it takes to change mine, most of the people here will happily tell you what it will take to change theirs, you cannot tell us what will change yours, therefore, while I admire those who try to use logic to convince you, I'm not going to join in as your mind is not subject to change.

Looks like this was an accurate assessment of Mr Boden. What a shame.

 

[Charles Boden]

In that case, I maintain that you still have learned nothing.

From my POV, neither have you... But again, I have. Does not mean I agree with all your points of view entirely.

 

[Charles Boden]

You cannot say what is required to change your mind, your mind is closed, shut tighter than a box with no lid, your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it bacause you cannot tell us what it will take to change it. I can tell you what it takes to change mine, most of the people here will happily tell you what it will take to change theirs, you cannot tell us what will change yours, therefore, while I admire those who try to use logic to convince you, I'm not going to join in as your mind is not subject to change.
Looks like this was an accurate assessment of Mr Boden. What a shame.

Again: I could say the same about you... What a shame.

 

[Dunstan]

I'll rephrase that. If I say that what was aid to me was beyond any random chance, and you keep insisting that it was, we're just beating about the bush. I see no point in continuing repeating the same oer and over again.

Unless, of course, we can agree on how to determine whether something is random chance or not.

Absolutely not, but what you are saying is that each and every case in unreal. Everyone who takes part in them is either lying, misguided, having memory problems or whatever.

Not "having memory problems." Having a normal, fallible human memory.

 

[Loss Leader]

the explanations you have given for them do not account for what I experienced personally.

One of my explanations was that at least 200 people have heard prophesies about the death of a royal, and that you just happened to be the one person in 200 that heard a prophesy that sort of came true.

How does this explanation not account for what you experienced personally?

I take it as a given that your story was true. I take it as a given that your memory of it is correct. I even take it as a given that Princess Di's death was a "hit." Everything you experienced has been taken into account.

So, in what way have I failed to account for your personal experience?

Have I failed to fully appreciate the wonder of seeing a prophesy come true?

Perhaps you have heard of this very old con: At the start of the football season, a con man sends out 2,400 letters predicting the Colts' first game. In 1,200 letters, he predicts they win; in 1,200, he predicts they lose.

The Colts win. The con man throws out the 1,200 addresses where he predicted a loss. To the remaining 1,200, he sends out 600 letters saying the Colts will win game 2 and 600 letters saying they will lose.

The Colts lose. He takes the 600 addresses in which he predicted a loss and sends 300 letters saying they'll win game 3 and 300 saying they'll lose. They win.

The con man now takes those 300 addresses and sends them a letter saying, "You have just seen me correctly predict 3 games in a row. Send me $100.00 and I will subscribe you to my weekly predictions for the rest of the season."

Each person receiving that letter has had the personal,individual and undeniable experience of seeing 3 correct football picks in a row. And remember, I just stopped at 3 because I got tired of typing. You could send out 4,000,000 emails, pick all 12 games and end up with a thousand people who think you can predict an entire football season. Then you can ask each of them for $1,000.00 for your Superbowl pick.

Those people sending you $1,000.00 each think they saw you do very close to the impossible. What they don't realize is that for each one of them, there are 3,999 other people who saw you fail and threw your letter away.

The fact that you experienced a correct prediction doesn't mean that anyone beat any odds.

So, exactly what is it about your personal experience that you think I missed?

 

[Pixel42]

Again: I could say the same about you... What a shame.

As 3Point14 said I know exactly the kind of evidence that would be required to change my mind, and I am willing to examine that evidence as objectively as I can manage if someone ever produces it. Until you can say the same, you don't get to accuse anyone who can of being close-minded. Sorry.

 

[carlitos]

Again: I could say the same about you... What a shame.

Charles, several others told you what would persuade them about the paranormal. You are being dishonest with this response.

What would change my mind? Someone working a Ouija board with the controls suggest earlier here. Every time someone claims paranormal ability, they fail simple tests. Why?

 

[Gao]

Have read your replies and looked at a couple of the links provided. Sounds like a he says/she says kind of situation. Tony Batters says one thing, Tony Lundy says another. We watch programs where police officers and relatives of a crime victim say they were aided by information from a psychic, you all say they were lying because they were after the bucks. You say the Ouija is the result of ideomotor effect, others like myself that it might not be. Whichever way, whatever objectivity I may have desired in the discussion of the issue seems inevitably lost, so it seems senseless and just "beating about the bush" to continue it at this moment

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the problem here is that you seem to be acting as if, when presented with two possible explanations, we should act like they're similarly probable unless one is proven right or wrong. This is a rather poor methodology. For instance, suppose you see me blow out a candle, but I then immediately insist that an elf appeared, blew it out himself, then hypnotized you to think that I did it. Would you believe me or think that my claim was evidence that such a thing may have happened? Probably not. While it technically could have happened, the same evidence you have is just as compatible with the idea that I blew it out and made up a silly story, and that's a far more mundane and likely explanation. I'm not saying that your claims are as absurd as this example, but everything you've given us really is completely compatible with mundane explanation. A combination of the ideomotor effect and exaggerated memories (not a specific criticism of you, as it's something that happens to everyone) really is a more likely explanation here than any spirits, and the law of large numbers is a perfectly reasonable explanation for two predictions from a medium, particularly given how one wasn't quite right. If you want us to think your explanations are at all probable, you are going to have to give us some good reasons as to why our explanations don't work or why yours are particularly likely. You have yet to do this, only giving us data that is compatible with mundane explanation.

 

[Charles Boden]

As 3Point14 said I know exactly the kind of evidence that would be required to change my mind, and I am willing to examine that evidence as objectively as I can manage if someone ever produces it. Until you can say the same, you don't get to accuse anyone who can of being close-minded. Sorry.

Words put into my mouth again. Can you please point out where I said this here?

 

[Robert Oz]

Perhaps you have heard of this very old con: At the start of the football season, a con man sends out 2,400 letters predicting the Colts' first game. In 1,200 letters, he predicts they win; in 1,200, he predicts they lose.

The Colts win. The con man throws out the 1,200 addresses where he predicted a loss. To the remaining 1,200, he sends out 600 letters saying the Colts will win game 2 and 600 letters saying they will lose.

The Colts lose. He takes the 600 addresses in which he predicted a loss and sends 300 letters saying they'll win game 3 and 300 saying they'll lose. They win.

The con man now takes those 300 addresses and sends them a letter saying, "You have just seen me correctly predict 3 games in a row. Send me $100.00 and I will subscribe you to my weekly predictions for the rest of the season."

Each person receiving that letter has had the personal,individual and undeniable experience of seeing 3 correct football picks in a row. And remember, I just stopped at 3 because I got tired of typing. You could send out 4,000,000 emails, pick all 12 games and end up with a thousand people who think you can predict an entire football season. Then you can ask each of them for $1,000.00 for your Superbowl pick.

Copies. Pastes. Twirls mustache. Laughs maniacally.

 

[Charles Boden]

Look, I am only one person (and with a faulty keyboard at that). It is humanly impossible to reply to 500 people at once. Sorry.

 

[Loss Leader]

but what you are saying is that each and every case in unreal.

No One Has Said That.

What we have said is that no case has yet been shown to be true.

Lots of things have yet to be true. Until a little while ago, we'd never had a black President, but I think most people would agree that the one we have now is real.

 

[carlitos]

Uh-oh, you're opening up a can of worms with that one...

 

[Nonpareil]

Not necessarily. They may simply have been wrong.

Naturally, likewise in the same manner so could you be...

Did I ever say otherwise?

The issue is that, while I very well could be wrong (as could everyone else here), so could you - and the facts seem to support the doubters rather than the believers.

The difference being that our explanation is backed by evidence.

And mine by personal experience.

Which is not evidence. We have explained why it is not multiple times. Why do you still think that it is?

Likewise I might say that what I saw on video was also a "set up" made by skeptics.

You could indeed say that, but without evidence it would have no merit.

How so?

I'll rephrase that. If I say that what was said to me was beyond any random chance, and you keep insisting that it was, we're just beating about the bush. I see no point in continuing repeating the same oer and over again.

Neither do we. But we have already provided evidence that what you were told was not beyond chance. If you do not accept our explanation, why not?

Why not?

Please read above. There is much more than what I have already shared.

And why is any of it valid?

We've been over this quite a lot, Charles. The unreliability of memory, the laws of probability, et cetera... what makes you think that your personal experiences are any more valid as evidence than anyone else's?

Perhaps because they are ones I underwent myself and hold validity to me

But this is what I was asking you to explain. Why do they hold validity to you? We have given many explanations, shown you why it is not impossible, and so on and so forth, but you still maintain that they provide you with a good reason to believe. Why?

beacause the explanations you have given for them do not account for what I experienced personally.

Why not?

It is possible to find answers. That's the whole point of the million-dollar challenge, as well as the experiments suggested in this thread and the requests for concrete data that you have received.

Again I am having to repeat replies over and over again. I never said I had "concrete data", only personal experiences and what I consider "evidence to me personally"

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was merely pointing out that no one here has ever disagreed with you that finding answers is possible. We simply disagree with your methods - you think that your personal experiences are valid proof, at least to you, when they are actually quite likely not.

 

[Agatha]

There isn't a time limit on answering posts, Charles; nobody is demanding an instant response. Take as much time as you need.

 

[SumDood]

Since we're touching on what it would take to change our minds, i want to revisit the question i first posted back on page 5.

Regarding the pregnancy prophecy, if someone admitted and had video documentation of them secretly taking a blood sample from your wife, determining she was pregnant and telling the psychic about it, would that convince you that you did not experience something supernatural in this specific case?