My anecdotal claims

[dafydd]

A group of teenage girls, one of them pregnant. Doing ouija on a dark scary night. Well, I don't believe that a demon threatened her baby. But her fear for her baby was triggered somehow and the collective RSPK of the girls manifested. It did some classic stuff. It interfered with electrical and it tossed some house-hold items around. It took me a long time to calm the pregnant one down. She had nightmares for a long time.

Yea, right. Got any more Tales From The Crypt?

 

[ExMinister]

The ideomotor effect works just as well when you're by yourself. Why are you interested in Limbo's fantasies?

Well, I don't think they are fantasies or I wouldn't bother to ask. I do think Limbo is sincere.

So I'm curious about what he means when he says things were flying around. Literally flying through the air is different than thinking you see something moving out of the corner of your eye, or thinking you could swear you left keys over there and now look at them over here. Most stories of things flying around break down into something much more mundane when somebody bothers to flesh out the details. That doesn't necessarily mean Limbo's will, but it happens a lot.

So I'm just curious about stories like these.

As far as the ideomotor effect, it is the strangest thing to experience this with an Ouija board on your own. For me, the planchette would move from one letter to another with circular motions, swirling around and coming to a letter from underneath or above. Consciously I felt that the planchette should be moving in a straight line, so this defied my conscious expectations, and that in itself is a strange experience.

Also, at times the spelling would be atrocious with even very simple words that I have known how to spell correctly since grade school.

So it's an extremely odd thing. I think it would be interesting to hook someone like me up to an fMRI machine during this to see which parts of the brain are being activated just beyond the conscious awareness of the user.

Also because of this, I have read quite a bit in consciousness studies. I find it fascinating to read about split-brain studies and other phenomenon where the body moves without one's conscious awareness.

So maybe I am particularly interested in Limbo's experiences, and others like them, because I've had many similar kinds of experiences myself.

A group of teenage girls, one of them pregnant. Doing ouija on a dark scary night. Well, I don't believe that a literal "demon" threatened her baby. But her fear for her baby was triggered somehow and the collective RSPK of the girls manifested. It did some classic stuff. It interfered with electrical and it tossed some house-hold items around. It took us a while to straighten up the place. It took me longer to calm the pregnant one down. She had nightmares for a long time.

I would still wonder what kind of flying around. What kind of electrical activity? When you say dark scary night do you mean stormy? I guess my first thought is weather-related electrical activity.

Not to pick your experience apart. Just considering what you've said here.

 

[dafydd]

Well, I don't think they are fantasies or I wouldn't bother to ask. I do think Limbo is sincere.

So I'm curious about what he means when he says things were flying around. Literally flying through the air is different than thinking you see something moving out of the corner of your eye, or thinking you could swear you left keys over there and now look at them over here. Most stories of things flying around break down into something much more mundane when somebody bothers to flesh out the details. That doesn't necessarily mean Limbo's will, but it happens a lot.

So I'm just curious about stories like these.

As far as the ideomotor effect, it is the strangest thing to experience this with an Ouija board on your own. For me, the planchette would move from one letter to another with circular motions, swirling around and coming to a letter from underneath or above. Consciously I felt that the planchette should be moving in a straight line, so this defied my conscious expectations, and that in itself is a strange experience.

Also, at times the spelling would be atrocious with even very simple words that I have known how to spell correctly since grade school.

So it's an extremely odd thing. I think it would be interesting to hook someone like me up to an fMRI machine during this to see which parts of the brain are being activated just beyond the conscious awareness of the user.

Also because of this, I have read quite a bit in consciousness studies. I find it fascinating to read about split-brain studies and other phenomenon where the body moves without one's conscious awareness.

So maybe I am particularly interested in Limbo's experiences, and others like them, because I've had many similar kinds of experiences myself.



I would still wonder what kind of flying around. What kind of electrical activity? When you say dark scary night do you mean stormy? I guess my first thought is weather-related electrical activity.

Not to pick your experience apart. Just considering what you've said here.

I don't if Limbo really believes what he posts, but I believe that it didn't happen. He also claims that he is god and that a goddess once led him off a mountain. I don't believe anything he says. Story is the operative word.

 

[Limbo]

I would still wonder what kind of flying around. What kind of electrical activity? When you say dark scary night do you mean stormy? I guess my first thought is weather-related electrical activity.

Not to pick your experience apart. Just considering what you've said here.

No it wasn't stormy that night. I actually did see lights behave abnormally and I actually did see items fly around as if tossed. It was sublime. It felt as if a field was enveloping the apartment.

 

[Resume]

No it wasn't stormy that night. I actually did see lights behave abnormally and I actually did see items fly around. It was sublime.

Did you see who threw them?

 

[ExMinister]

I don't if Limbo really believes what he posts, but I believe that it didn't happen. He also claims that he is god and that a goddess once led him off a mountain. I don't believe anything he says. Story is the operative word.

Well, when I read that type of thing from Limbo, I am assuming he is talking about visionary type experiences, in which case I can understand how it is possible to relate something that sounds so unlikely in all sincerity.

Of course on an internet forum one never knows, but I have had experiences like that, too - not involving myself being a god, or goddess for that matter - but visionary experiences that seemed very real. I know there are other skeptics here who have had similar experiences (I have talked with some of them via PM over the past few years).

It's not the same thing as making up a story. It may all boil down to the same thing in the end - a story that, no matter how real it seemed, didn't actually happen - but in this case, the person really believes that on some spiritual plane of consciousness these things actually did happen.

 

[dafydd]

Did you see who threw them?

And who slipped the acid into the Kool-Aid?

 

[dafydd]

Well, when I read that type of thing from Limbo, I am assuming he is talking about visionary type experiences, in which case I can understand how it is possible to relate something that sounds so unlikely in all sincerity.

Of course on an internet forum one never knows, but I have had experiences like that, too - not involving myself being a god, or goddess for that matter - but visionary experiences that seemed very real. I know there are other skeptics here who have had similar experiences (I have talked with some of them via PM over the past few years).

It's not the same thing as making up a story. It may all boil down to the same thing in the end - a story that, no matter how real it seemed, didn't actually happen - but in this case, the person really believes that on some spiritual plane of consciousness these things actually did happen.

Delusions happen.

 

[Limbo]

He also claims that he is god and that a goddess once led him off a mountain.

OUT of a mountain, not off a mountain. It was a mountain in the Sangre De Cristo wilderness. I got off it on my own. It wasn't easy.

And I also claim that you are God too. It's just that you suck at it.

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? -John 10:34

 

[slingblade]

OUT of a mountain, not off a mountain. It was a mountain in the Sangre De Cristo wilderness. I got off it on my own. It wasn't easy.

And I also claim that you are God too. It's just that you suck at it.

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? -John 10:34

Yeah, we don't believe those stories, either. Pretty much for the same reason.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Limbo, for someone who claims to spend a lot of time in places we can't understand, you do seem to find the frequent occasion to post here, my friend.

 

[Limbo]

Limbo, for someone who claims to spend a lot of time in places we can't understand, you do seem to find the frequent occasion to post here, my friend.

Occasions come and go. Any day now my posting will slow to a trickle. But don't worry, I won't let the door hit me in the ass on the way out.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Since I am the one who has actually put in the time and effort to understand trickster theory, I guess it's up to me to decide for myself if there is a problem with taking such a position. And based on my studies of comparative mythology, parapsychology and UFology, which I also put time and effort into, I decide there is no problem. Based on my personal experiences I decide no, there is no problem.

The problem is your belief-system bub.

My sweet chickadee, the basis of trickster "theory" as you describe it, is rather familiar to me. I would call it a "post hoc rationalization". This is something familiar to sceptics as it is a tactic that many proponents of unsupported claims resort to as a way to avoid admitting the failure of their belief system.

Don't you see the problem with holding an otherwise falsifiable belief by resorting post hoc rationalizations or preemptive failure avoiders like "my work in all conditions but those of rigorous scrutiny". How would you ever know that you were wrong?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Theory, lol.

I am hearing Inigo Montoya.

 

[Limbo]

My sweet chickadee, the basis of trickster "theory" as you describe it, is rather familiar to me. I would call it a "post hoc rationalization". This is something familiar to sceptics as it is a tactic that many proponents of unsupported claims resort to as a way to avoid admitting the failure of their belief system.

Don't you see the problem with holding an otherwise falsifiable belief by resorting post hoc rationalizations or preemptive failure avoiders like "my work in all conditions but those of rigorous scrutiny". How would you ever know that you were wrong?

It's kinda hard to be wrong about seeing massive UFOs up close, and seeing psi in your face again and again, and seeing visions of the future and dream after dream after dream come true for years and years. Among other things.

Skeptic: "but human perception is flawed herp derp"
Me: "that's a lame cop-out"

 

[slingblade]

It's kinda hard to be wrong about seeing massive UFOs up close, and seeing psi in your face again and again, and seeing visions of the future and dream after dream after dream come true for years and years. Among other things.

Skeptic: "but human perception is flawed herp derp"
Me: "that's a lame cop-out"

"None of your stories ever happened. To anyone."


Oh, and herp derp.

 

[Donn]

It's kinda hard to be wrong about seeing massive UFOs up close

Sure, anything flying past your face that you can't identify is gonna make an impression. Next.

and seeing psi in your face again and again

Tell Psi to get out of your face. I mean, unless you like him being in your face. Next.

and seeing visions of the future and dream after dream after dream come true for years and years.

Yawn. Document them before they happen. You know the drill. Next.

Skeptic: "but human perception is flawed herp derp"
Me: "that's a lame cop-out"

What's your evidence that it's a lame cop-out ?





For an expert who is trying to help us understand you sure sound like a troll who is trying to mess with us.

 

[R.A.F.]

It's kinda hard to be wrong about seeing massive UFOs up close...

Why should we believe such garbage?

I simply refuse to believe before examining the evidence, and since you don't have any evidence to examine, tell me again why we're supposed to blindly believe you???

 

[Sideroxylon]

It's kinda hard to be wrong about seeing massive UFOs up close, and seeing psi in your face again and again, and seeing visions of the future and dream after dream after dream come true for years and years. Among other things.

Skeptic: "but human perception is flawed herp derp"
Me: "that's a lame cop-out"

People have frequently been wrong about what they think they see in the sky, even when a massive alien craft passes over their heads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

People are frequently wrong about what they attribute to psychic phenomena.

That human perception is flawed is a trivial fact. That the mind plays an active role in shaping our perception has long been known. A wealth of fascinating psychological experiments are a testimony to this truth.

 

[Brian-M]

The key is achieving an altered state of consciousness in which the mystic "hears" the sound of one hand clapping. Gods hand. It "sounds" like this. Aum.

There's a lot of information of "Om" (or "Aum") in the Wikipedia article, but no description of it being the sound of one hand clapping. Can you provide any reasoning to support the assertion that your answer is correct?

Once you have achieved an altered state of consciousness, how can you be sure that you are hearing the same thing as another mystic? "Zoom" could be an equally correct answer by your logic.

But doing some research, you haven't even asked the question correctly. The traditional form of the question is: Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?

Which is distinctly different in meaning than your version, which seems to have been taken from popular culture rather than studies into actual mysticism.

But here is an answer to the question from someone knowledgeable on the subject...

"...in the beginning a monk first thinks a kōan is an inert object upon which to focus attention; after a long period of consecutive repetition, one realizes that the kōan is also a dynamic activity, the very activity of seeking an answer to the kōan. The kōan is both the object being sought and the relentless seeking itself. In a kōan, the self sees the self not directly but under the guise of the kōan... When one realizes ("makes real") this identity, then two hands have become one. The practitioner becomes the kōan that he or she is trying to understand. That is the sound of one hand." — G. Victor Sogen Hori, Translating the Zen Phrase Book

This would seem to be at odds with your explanation. The sound of one hand would appear to be a metaphor for an epiphany resulting in mystic understanding, not the sound of God clapping one hand as you assert.

They are useful as mantras.

So you sit around endlessly repeating these riddles over and over again? Exactly which mystic tradition uses riddles for mantras?

And don't answer "Zen". Their kōans are not intended as riddles, and are not meant to be used as mantras.

Why should you believe a subject that you know nothing about is complete nonsense in the first place?

If I knew literally nothing about the subject, I wouldn't be assuming it to be complete nonsense in the first place, because I would lack the necessary information to make a judgment either way. If someone asked me what my thoughts were on the subject of Thransionalism, I'd have to inform them that I have no opinion on the subject because I have no knowledge about it.

I admit that I know very little about the subject of mysticism, but what little I do know is more than enough for me to conclude that the subject is nonsense, and there's no point in researching the subject any further except for the sake of idle curiosity.

If you were to provide me with further information that would lead me to conclude that my current opinion of the subject is wrong, then I might be more inclined to look into it further.

Because some debunker says so? Because some religious fundamentalist pissed you off or disappointed you in the past? Because some atheist scientist mistakenly thinks his scientific expertise qualifies him to understand religion? Because your culture programmed you to?

Because *I* say so. Not because some authority figure told me that it's nonsense, but because I have concluded that it's nonsense on my own.

I have developed an understanding of how the universe works (as have most people). From observation, textbooks, education, documentaries, the application of logic and researching further into areas that don't seem to make sense.

There have been times where I have realized that aspects of my understanding have been wrong, and I have corrected my view of the universe to incorporate this new understanding.

I am fully aware that my understanding is incomplete, and possibly in some ways flawed, but I'm very sure that the underlying framework of my understanding is sound.

The few details I do know about mysticism, and of the events you claim to have experienced, are profoundly incompatible with my understanding of the universe.

So either my understanding of the universe is completely and fundamentally flawed, or the mystical understanding of the universe is completely and fundamentally flawed.

So how do I decide which one is more likely to be accurate? I simply ask "What is the basis of this understanding?"

For my understanding of the universe, the information used ultimately derives from reasoning and information derived from reliable and independently verifiable sources.

For the mystical understanding of the universe, the information used ultimately derives from bold assertion and information derived from uncertain and unverifiable sources.

Given this, it seems obvious to me that the mystical understanding of the universe has little merit.