New PSI forum

[Lothian]

I haven't been following all of Lucis posts, so I do not know precisely what has been claimed. .

posted by Luci
UFO's, poltergeist effects, 'ghosts', the drawing of '911' on the New York Lottery,

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So, Geoff, in what way does God posting messages on your computer NOT violate the laws of physics or logic?

I'm just curious, you know.

Hey Scribble!

Since I came back here you have attempted on at least ten occasions to draw me into a discussion about my own experiences, and on each occasion I have resisted the temptation to do so. I am going to resist temptation this time also. Your recollections and representations of what I said at the time are exactly that - yours. So for anybody else reading this - please do not assume that scribbles claims on my behalf match up with what I would claim myself. For example - according to how most Americans would define God, I do not believe that God exists, and therefore doesn't feature in any experiences I ever had.

I will explain again, scribble. This is a skeptic site which demands evidence to back up claims. I do not wish to make claims for which I can provide no evidence. I know you want me to, but I will once more respectfully decline the opportunity to do so.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Why is it logically impossible that Santa doesn't exist?

In order to be Santa, he has to visit every house in the world in one night. Unless he is capable of being at 100,000 different locations simultaneously this is logically impossible.

You point to physical laws, as a reason why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist, but how can people remote view, independent of time and distance?

I thought I explained that already. Remote viewing does not contradict any existing laws, it just isn't predicted or explained by any of them. Perpetual motion machines clearly break the laws of physics, remote viewing just seems unimaginable. No additional laws or discoveries could make a perpetual motion machine possible - we would have to modify Newtons Laws. The same is not true of RV or telepathy.

How can they dowse for water, claiming electromagnetic influence, yet these are not tracable?

If they are claiming EM influence, but no EM influence is recorded on devices designed to record EM then they are simply wrong.

How can they be abducted by aliens?

Very easily!

How can they talk to dead people?

Given that dead people no longer have brains, they can't.

Do you believe in something supernatural that is logical and physically possible?

I have avoided the word "supernatural". I think that many things which are considered to be "paranormal" are in fact natural, but not yet understood. Do I believe in paranormal phenomena which are logical and physically possible? Yes, I probably do. Maybe I could give an example of Tarot Cards. Contraversial enough? I don't think they neccesarily work the way many people think they do, but do they work? Yes, in some cases they do. They are just a tool, a previously agreed language. Fate does the rest, but only when a person has allowed this to happen by believing in the mechanism. The important word is "fate". There is cause and effect going on, but it is not physical cause and effect. The connection between cause and effect is hidden from us - it is metaphysical and ex-temporal. Here is an example of something paranormal, yet not contradicting science or logic.

 

[scribble]

Hey Scribble!

Hi, UcE!

Since I came back here you have attempted on at least ten occasions to draw me into a discussion about my own experiences,

Ten? Don't be so full of yourself. I count three, if you include this one. Quite spread out in time, too. Don't make it out like I'm stalking you. You're not that cool.

and on each occasion I have resisted the temptation to do so. I am going to resist temptation this time also.

Big surprise.

Your recollections and representations of what I said at the time are exactly that - yours. So for anybody else reading this - please do not assume that scribbles claims on my behalf match up with what I would claim myself.

We'll never know, since the posts have been deleted, and you refuse to talk about it anymore.

For example - according to how most Americans would define God, I do not believe that God exists, and therefore doesn't feature in any experiences I ever had.

I used "God" as shorthand for what you actually said. I think at the time you might have used the phrase "the Universe" but I dont' recall exactly. You definately did claim that some paranormal force posted a message to you on your computer that answered all of your questions about things.

And then you claimed you couldn't share it with us because you were concerned about copyright violations.

Remember that, UcE? I'm sure a lot of others here do besides me, don't make me drag someone else into this just to get you to admit it.

I will explain again, scribble. This is a skeptic site which demands evidence to back up claims. I do not wish to make claims for which I can provide no evidence.

You shoudl have thought about that *before* you made those claims, silly.

I know you want me to, but I will once more respectfully decline the opportunity to do so.

Nothing new there. Do you remember why I got so pissed off at you originally?

I'll give you a hint: it didn't have anything to do with your mathematical idiocy or finally admitting you didn't knwo jack ◊◊◊◊ about math.

It didn't have anything to do with zero or infinity.

It was because you claimed to have answers, and you refused to discuss them.

Remember when we first started talking? You are the first one who told me I was a materialist. You were wrong then, but I didn't know it for a long time, because materialism sounds all spiffy to me. But it's not what I believe fundamentally.

Remember our conversations about my quest for spirituality?

Or did you put the whole thing from your mind, like your delusions about God posting messages on your PC?

Well, I'm patient. If I have to wait 'till 2012 to prove to you what an idiot you are, then I will.

Yeah, remember that? Big things coming in 2012, right, UcE?

 

[CFLarsen]

In order to be Santa, he has to visit every house in the world in one night. Unless he is capable of being at 100,000 different locations simultaneously this is logically impossible.

Wrong. It isn't logically impossible. It is quite possible that Santa can zap from place to place - he doesn't have to stop for tea at each place, you know.

I thought I explained that already. Remote viewing does not contradict any existing laws, it just isn't predicted or explained by any of them. Perpetual motion machines clearly break the laws of physics, remote viewing just seems unimaginable. No additional laws or discoveries could make a perpetual motion machine possible - we would have to modify Newtons Laws. The same is not true of RV or telepathy.

Whoa, just a second: Why can people be in two different places at once - or perhaps zap back and forth very fast, while Santa cannot?

RV contradicts natural laws for exact the same reason you gave that Santa cannot exist.

Wanna try again?

If they are claiming EM influence, but no EM influence is recorded on devices designed to record EM then they are simply wrong.

Really? What if our equipment simply isn't sensitive enough, or we are simply measuring the wrong thing?

Very easily!

Come on, be serious. How can people be abducted by aliens?

Given that dead people no longer have brains, they can't.

You don't believe that we exist outside our brains, then. OK. How can people RV, then?

I have avoided the word "supernatural". I think that many things which are considered to be "paranormal" are in fact natural, but not yet understood. Do I believe in paranormal phenomena which are logical and physically possible? Yes, I probably do. Maybe I could give an example of Tarot Cards. Contraversial enough? I don't think they neccesarily work the way many people think they do, but do they work? Yes, in some cases they do. They are just a tool, a previously agreed language. Fate does the rest, but only when a person has allowed this to happen by believing in the mechanism. The important word is "fate". There is cause and effect going on, but it is not physical cause and effect. The connection between cause and effect is hidden from us - it is metaphysical and ex-temporal. Here is an example of something paranormal, yet not contradicting science or logic.

What, exactly, in Tarot, is paranormal, and cannot be explained by rational means, e.g. cold reading, self-fulfilling prophecies, telling people what they want to hear, selective memories, etc?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Wrong. It isn't logically impossible. It is quite possible that Santa can zap from place to place - he doesn't have to stop for tea at each place, you know.

Claus, one person cannot visit every house in the world in one night. It IS logically impossible. The only way it could happen is if that person can be in more than one place at the same time, or if they are capable of moving at speeds that would mean he would be in and out of your bedroom faster than your eye could register he was there. Neither of these things are possible.

Whoa, just a second: Why can people be in two different places at once - or perhaps zap back and forth very fast, while Santa cannot?

RV does not require that a person be physically located in more than one place. The person does not have to move, only the information has to move.

RV contradicts natural laws for exact the same reason you gave that Santa cannot exist.

Wanna try again?

I don't think I need to. I am happy to stand by the answers already provided.

Really? What if our equipment simply isn't sensitive enough, or we are simply measuring the wrong thing?

If we are measuring the wrong thing then it isn't EM and the original claim was false. If our equipment isn't sensitive enough then we falsely debunked the original claim. We would have made a mistake in our testing.

Come on, be serious. How can people be abducted by aliens?

Aliens arrive, abduct people, and return them! I don't believe it either, but it isn't logically impossible.

You don't believe that we exist outside our brains, then. OK. How can people RV, then?

No - I believe that speech requires a brain. "Existence" is a whole other ball game. RV requires only a transfer of information from one place to another - all it requires is a concealed mechanism for that information to get around, a mechanism which only appears impossible to the materialists amongst us.

What, exactly, in Tarot, is paranormal, and cannot be explained by rational means, e.g. cold reading, self-fulfilling prophecies, telling people what they want to hear, selective memories, etc?

Let's simplify the scenario and take the example of a person carrying out a tarot reading on themselves. What would be paranormal is if the cards which appear in the reading are considerably more relevant to the person than would be predicted by chance alone, and that this happens on a continual basis. The skeptic can and will explain everything in terms of normal determinism, self-fulfilling prophecies and selective memory. But that does not mean the skeptic is correct. The tarot reader will claim that there are hidden metaphysical mechanisms which play a part while he or she is shuffling the cards - just like the RV, there has to be an unseen ("occulted") path of cause and effect. As he or she meditates on the cards as they are shuffled, this unseen cause/effect is ordering the cards in such a way as to produce a specific outcome that is not merely down to chance. Should such a hidden cause and effect exist then it would be classed as paranormal and mean that for some people, Tarot cards work. A similar sort of mechanism would lie behind some other sorts of paranormal phenomena, such as the creation of synchronicity.

There is plenty of scope for this provided by QM. As it stands, physics tells us that "God plays dice" - that a particle is everywhere at once until you look at it, at which point one of the potential outcomes manifests. I am suggesting it is possible that these outcomes are not random at all. But they are also NOT the result of normal physical determinism, rather they are the result of a cause-effect mechanism currently unknown (and maybe unknowable) to science. I do not believe anything is truly random. There is physical causality, which we are all familiar with, and there is metaphysical causality which is ex-temporal, hidden from view and takes advantage of the apparent randomness built into the laws of physics.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Big things coming in 2012, right, UcE?

Maybe, scribble. We shall see.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, one person cannot visit every house in the world in one night.

But that's not what Santa does. He visits those houses where there are people who believe in him. And he has a full 24 hours to do it.

We can do an estimate of just how fast he has to make each delivery, but it sure isn't logically impossible.

It IS logically impossible. The only way it could happen is if that person can be in more than one place at the same time, or if they are capable of moving at speeds that would mean he would be in and out of your bedroom faster than your eye could register he was there. Neither of these things are possible.

Santa doesn't have to be in more than one place at the time. And things can move faster than my eye can register.

RV does not require that a person be physically located in more than one place. The person does not have to move, only the information has to move.

Not correct: The astral body moves - or something has to move to another place to get that information. The information doesn't move by itself.

I don't think I need to. I am happy to stand by the answers already provided.

I think you need to. Unless you are happy to stand by the answers already provided.

If we are measuring the wrong thing then it isn't EM and the original claim was false. If our equipment isn't sensitive enough then we falsely debunked the original claim. We would have made a mistake in our testing.

But what about the effect - that they can find water? Sure, they were wrong about what causes it, but that doesn't make the effect go away.

Aliens arrive, abduct people, and return them! I don't believe it either, but it isn't logically impossible.

It is most certainly logically impossible: People are abducted through walls and closed doors.

Why don't you believe it, if it isn't logically impossible?

No - I believe that speech requires a brain. "Existence" is a whole other ball game. RV requires only a transfer of information from one place to another - all it requires is a concealed mechanism for that information to get around, a mechanism which only appears impossible to the materialists amongst us.

Psychics like John Edward claim that they get information not only by sound, but also by sight, emotions, etc. What about information that is shown to them by the spirits?

Let's simplify the scenario and take the example of a person carrying out a tarot reading on themselves. What would be paranormal is if the cards which appear in the reading are considerably more relevant to the person than would be predicted by chance alone, and that this happens on a continual basis.

Can you point to any controlled experiment where this happens?

The skeptic can and will explain everything in terms of normal determinism, self-fulfilling prophecies and selective memory. But that does not mean the skeptic is correct. The tarot reader will claim that there are hidden metaphysical mechanisms which play a part while he or she is shuffling the cards - just like the RV, there has to be an unseen ("occulted") path of cause and effect. As he or she meditates on the cards as they are shuffled, this unseen cause/effect is ordering the cards in such a way as to produce a specific outcome that is not merely down to chance. Should such a hidden cause and effect exist then it would be classed as paranormal and mean that for some people, Tarot cards work. A similar sort of mechanism would lie behind some other sorts of paranormal phenomena, such as the creation of synchronicity.

But that person would have to produce statistics that shows that the cards do come up the way it is perceived - and remembered. Until that happens, we can point to natural and rational explanations like flawed/selective memory, wishful thinking, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc.

There is plenty of scope for this provided by QM. As it stands, physics tells us that "God plays dice" - that a particle is everywhere at once until you look at it, at which point one of the potential outcomes manifests. I am suggesting it is possible that these outcomes are not random at all. But they are also NOT the result of normal physical determinism, rather they are the result of a cause-effect mechanism currently unknown (and maybe unknowable) to science. I do not believe anything is truly random. There is physical causality, which we are all familiar with, and there is metaphysical causality which is ex-temporal, hidden from view and takes advantage of the apparent randomness built into the laws of physics.

For this explanation, you must provide the proper equations that show that QM can influence a macro-atomic object like a Tarot-card. Please do so.

What happens in the case where a Tarot reader is doing the interpretations for another person? How do you guarantee that we don't see cold reading, etc?

 

[steenkh]

I do not think Santa is possible, even given unlimited speed. He still needs to handle normal objects like chimneys, and if a fat man tries to squeeze down a chimney at near-light speeds, for a start, the chimney will explode in a cloud of dust. Besides, we all know that if, say, a little child wakes up and walks into the room while Santa is working, he (according to the legend that causes him to be real) will stop and say ho-ho-ho, and that will rob him of valuable time.

Many houses nowadays do not have a chimney, in which case Santa will have to make a break-in, and he will also have to clear up the mess so that nobody finds out. And finally, he needs to take off with his reindeers real slow so that believers can wave to him. He will also need to change clothes after each chimney in case he is observed at the next chimney.

I think Santa in the department store is much more plausible as an embodiment of the true spirit of Christmas than the lightning-speed Santa who delivers gifts a children's homes. I have sometimes seen one myself, although Occam's razor has told me that it is more likely to be an employee dressed up as Santa.

I do not know if you are aware that there is a festival of Santa Claus'es here in Copenhagen every summer. the trouble is to figure out who is the real Santa ...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But that's not what Santa does. He visits those houses where there are people who believe in him. And he has a full 24 hours to do it.

We can do an estimate of just how fast he has to make each delivery, but it sure isn't logically impossible.

Well, you make the estimate and we'll see how possible it is.

Santa doesn't have to be in more than one place at the time. And things can move faster than my eye can register.

Not humans though. We are limited to rather slower movement.

Not correct: The astral body moves - or something has to move to another place to get that information. The information doesn't move by itself.

Are you quoting new age literature at me?

No Claus, nothing physical has to move in order for the information to get from one place to another. You are still thinking like a materialist, which is fair enough, but I'm not one.

Think of entangled QM particles. Somehow they effect each other instantly, regardless of whether they happen to be on opposite sides of the galaxy. Nothing moves from one place to another. The "information moves by itself".

But what about the effect - that they can find water? Sure, they were wrong about what causes it, but that doesn't make the effect go away.

No, but something else can make the effect go away. It all comes back to the "belief" factor we were talking about before. Although I'd rather keep dowsing out of this, because I am opinionless on it. I'm not sure whether I believe it is possible or not.

It is most certainly logically impossible: People are abducted through walls and closed doors.

Well, then that is impossible. Not everybody who was abducted had to pass through a closed door, though, were they Claus? You have managed to erect an entire army of straw men to shoot down during this thread. RV is impossible because PK breaks Newtons laws. Alien abductions are impossible because they occur through closed doors. Come on CFLarsen.....why do you keep manufacturing easier targets than the ones actually put in front of you?

Why don't you believe it, if it isn't logically impossible?

Because I haven't seen it, and because I have other reasons for believing life in this Universe is centred on planet Earth. For aesthetic reasons I suppose. Just because I believe some things that you don't, it doesn't follow that I have to believe in every claim that isn't ruled out by logic, does it?

Psychics like John Edward claim that they get information not only by sound, but also by sight, emotions, etc. What about information that is shown to them by the spirits?

I don't really want to speak for JE. I don't know very much about him. I don't see it as impossible that he could receive some sort of paranormal communication, but it isn't coming from dead humans with no brains.

Can you point to any controlled experiment where this happens?

No. But why would I want to do so? I have already repeated as infinitum that I have no interest in proving this to you, and I have already explained that the phenomena can only manifest in the presence of people who have granted it existence by believing it. Therefore : (a) I have no reasons to point to controlled experiments and (b) those experiments would yield a negative result for reasons already discussed.

You asked me what I believed. You did not ask me what I could prove. I'm not like you. I am prepared to believe things based on personal experience and information gleaned from outside the realm of science. You aren't. That is just the way it is. Why should everyone share the same beliefs of the same epistemology? I do not want to live in a uniform world.

But that person would have to produce statistics that shows that the cards do come up the way it is perceived - and remembered. Until that happens, we can point to natural and rational explanations like flawed/selective memory, wishful thinking, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc.

That person does not have to do any such thing. They would only have to do that if they wanted to prove to the skeptics that these phenomena exist. If all they were doing was following their own path by their own rules, then they have no need to produce any statistics. You will always be able to provide an argument as to why you don't believe it, and they will always have the option of believing differently based upon their own personal experiences.

For this explanation, you must provide the proper equations that show that QM can influence a macro-atomic object like a Tarot-card. Please do so.

No, CFL, I do not have to. You asked me what I believed, and why it does not contradict science. There is a huge difference between something being compatible with scientific knowledge and something being scientifically demonstrable. Let us remind ourselves how we got into this discussion :

You asked me :"Do you believe in something supernatural that is logical and physically possible?"

I replied with this example about tarot cards, and in response you have switched the context of the original question. I have provided an example of something I believe in which is paranormal, yet also logically and physically possible. You DID NOT ask me to provide an example of something supernatural that I could scientifically demonstrate, indeed I have repeatedly told you I cannot do so.

What happens in the case where a Tarot reader is doing the interpretations for another person? How do you guarantee that we don't see cold reading, etc?

We don't guarantee that. If money is changing hands, we certainly can't guarantee that. I do tarot readings for people, on the occasions that they are requested. I don't charge.

I have actually done a tarot reading on a skeptic from this site. Remember "Q-Source"? Perhaps I can convince her to comment on that reading.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Many houses nowadays do not have a chimney...

Funny we should be talking about this. As we are speaking, there is actually a man on my roof re-seating my genuine 1868 chimney pots!

 

[Lucianarchy]

Funny we should be talking about this. As we are speaking, there is actually a man on my roof re-seating my genuine 1868 chimney pots!

Give him a mince pie!

W hy are we talking about Father Chrismans anyway?

I think this is getting a little derailed.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Is it possible for one particle to be in two places at once?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, you make the estimate and we'll see how possible it is.

0.23 milliseconds/visit. Yes, it is fast, but it is not impossible.

Not humans though. We are limited to rather slower movement.

Who said that Santa is human? Try again.

Are you quoting new age literature at me?

I am telling you what the claims are.

No Claus, nothing physical has to move in order for the information to get from one place to another. You are still thinking like a materialist, which is fair enough, but I'm not one.

Think of entangled QM particles. Somehow they effect each other instantly, regardless of whether they happen to be on opposite sides of the galaxy. Nothing moves from one place to another. The "information moves by itself".

But we are not talking about QM particles. We are talking about information, stored in our brains.

No, but something else can make the effect go away. It all comes back to the "belief" factor we were talking about before. Although I'd rather keep dowsing out of this, because I am opinionless on it. I'm not sure whether I believe it is possible or not.

No, it does not come down to belief, if we can point to an effect. Whether you believe it or nor, could you address this eventuality?

Well, then that is impossible. Not everybody who was abducted had to pass through a closed door, though, were they Claus? You have managed to erect an entire army of straw men to shoot down during this thread. RV is impossible because PK breaks Newtons laws. Alien abductions are impossible because they occur through closed doors. Come on CFLarsen.....why do you keep manufacturing easier targets than the ones actually put in front of you?

I am not erecting any straw men, I am pointing to examples that show you are wrong.

Because I haven't seen it, and because I have other reasons for believing life in this Universe is centred on planet Earth. For aesthetic reasons I suppose. Just because I believe some things that you don't, it doesn't follow that I have to believe in every claim that isn't ruled out by logic, does it?

Absolutely not. But you are talking around the issue, instead of addressing it: You now point to something having to be self-experienced, and not logical. You keep piling on explanations, you know...

I don't really want to speak for JE. I don't know very much about him. I don't see it as impossible that he could receive some sort of paranormal communication, but it isn't coming from dead humans with no brains.

I am not asking you to speak for him, I am asking you to address the fact that he claims to be shown things. If he sees something, and the sitters validates that as spirit communication (and Edward also claims that it comes from that..other...side), then what makes you claim that it can't be dead people? You haven't experienced it (I take it), but Edward has - why do you brush his experience aside?

No. But why would I want to do so? I have already repeated as infinitum that I have no interest in proving this to you, and I have already explained that the phenomena can only manifest in the presence of people who have granted it existence by believing it. Therefore : (a) I have no reasons to point to controlled experiments and (b) those experiments would yield a negative result for reasons already discussed.

If you are not prepared to provide evidence of such a claim (or rather, argument), then your argument is nothing but an idea, completely unsubstantiated by any facts at all. A fantasy, based on wishful thinking.

You asked me what I believed. You did not ask me what I could prove. I'm not like you. I am prepared to believe things based on personal experience and information gleaned from outside the realm of science. You aren't.

Indeed. But be also prepared to have your points examined.

That is just the way it is. Why should everyone share the same beliefs of the same epistemology? I do not want to live in a uniform world.

Where have skeptics claimed that everyone should share the same beliefs of the same epistemology? That is a straw man, if there ever was one!

That person does not have to do any such thing. They would only have to do that if they wanted to prove to the skeptics that these phenomena exist. If all they were doing was following their own path by their own rules, then they have no need to produce any statistics. You will always be able to provide an argument as to why you don't believe it, and they will always have the option of believing differently based upon their own personal experiences.

Indeed. However, we must strive to find answers to the phenomena around us. If we took your approach, we would never have left the caves.

No, CFL, I do not have to. You asked me what I believed, and why it does not contradict science. There is a huge difference between something being compatible with scientific knowledge and something being scientifically demonstrable.

Yes, you have to, because otherwise, you merely throw out a term like "QM" and point to something that is completely irrelevant to how Tarot cards are dealt. It's like I ask you "What colors are there in the Danish flag?", and you answer "Tuesday".

Without the proper equations, your explanation is irrelevant. It's that simple.

I replied with this example about tarot cards, and in response you have switched the context of the original question. I have provided an example of something I believe in which is paranormal, yet also logically and physically impossible. You DID NOT ask me to provide an example of something supernatural that I could scientifically demonstrate, indeed I have repeatedly told you I cannot do so.

I have not asked you to. All I pointed out was that, for your points to be valid, evidence must be produced. Otherwise, why should we believe the person?

We don't guarantee that. If money is changing hands, we certainly can't guarantee that. I do tarot readings for people, on the occasions that they are requested. I don't charge.

Fine, no money is changing hands. Then, what? Can you guarantee that what we see isn't cold-reading, etc.?

I have actually done a tarot reading on a skeptic from this site. Remember "Q-Source"? Perhaps I can convince her to comment on that reading.

Perhaps you can do a reading for people? An experiment?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Ah, I see it is possible. Cool!

http://higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm

 

[Lucianarchy]

0.23 milliseconds/visit. Yes, it is fast, but it is not impossible.

Hmm, I am sceptical. All those mince pies would give one hell of a digestion problem.

How many poos would Santa need to do on an average nights work?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

If somebody wants a tarot reading, then I am happy to give them a tarot reading, but there is never going to be any conclusive proof of any of these phenomena. They arrive only when invited in, because everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality. Anyway...it's been nice chatting.

Geoff

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

If somebody wants a tarot reading, then I am happy to give them a tarot reading, but there is never going to be any conclusive proof of any of these phenomena. They arrive only when invited in, because everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality. Anyway...it's been nice chatting.

Geoff

Too bad. We were actually getting somewhere. Apparently, that was not your goal.

Too bad indeed.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Too bad. We were actually getting somewhere. Apparently, that was not your goal.

Too bad indeed.

Is it so bad to have no goal? You will probably remember I was once a bit like lifegazer, desperate to change peoples views, and trying to change the world. I would like to think I was never quite as bad as he is, but I was pretty bad. Maybe the difference is that LG is desperately unhappy, and looking for the world to change rather than changing himself (he being perfect already) whereas people like Franko and the more recent incarnation of myself are actually quite happy and relaxed about the world, just the way it is.

For you "getting somewhere" can only mean "convincing the believers they are wrong". I am glad there are people like you to discredit Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller and alienrockwherediditcomefromgiveusfivedollars.com. They deserve to be discredited. But when it comes to people like me, is it so bad if I am allowed to go on believing stuff which different to what you believe? Do you think I am hurting anyone? I am certainly not hurting myself, because I have never been happier.

 

[CFLarsen]

Is it so bad to have no goal? You will probably remember I was once a bit like lifegazer, desperate to change peoples views, and trying to change the world. I would like to think I was never quite as bad as he is, but I was pretty bad. Maybe the difference is that LG is desperately unhappy, and looking for the world to change rather than changing himself (he being perfect already) whereas people like Franko and the more recent incarnation of myself are actually quite happy and relaxed about the world, just the way it is.

I am not talking about changing peoples views, but I am talking about finding answers to questions. We can learn so much, if these paranormal claims are true. You, it seems, are content with sitting back and dream about it. I want to know, if possible.

For you "getting somewhere" can only mean "convincing the believers they are wrong". I am glad there are people like you to discredit Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller and alienrockwherediditcomefromgiveusfivedollars.com. They deserve to be discredited. But when it comes to people like me, is it so bad if I am allowed to go on believing stuff which different to what you believe? Do you think I am hurting anyone? I am certainly not hurting myself, because I have never been happier.

Well, good for you, but you are wrong about my intentions. I am not out to convince believers that they are wrong - I have learned that it is close to impossible. However, as I said, I am out to find answers. We can learn something here, something that will help a lot of people immensely, and I want to know what it is.

You may sit back, but I won't.