New PSI forum

[JPK]

Hello JPK

No, I am not saying that this is generally the case, but that you have to use particular judgements in particular situations. There some cases where it is reasonable to conclude that you may have been tricked, and other cases where you cannot reasonably reach the same conclusion.



And it could also have not been an hallucination.

So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure?

Both are written by people who think like I used to think. I am familiar with their contents. I know precisely how they come to the conclusions they do, because I spent most of my life thinking like they do and reaching precisely the same conclusions. The title of the first is a bit of a giveaway. Like most of the people in this thread, he simply does not believe that paranormal phenomena could be real, and so he writes a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things.", blissfully unaware of the fact that some of the people who believe weird things do so simply because weird things actually happen to them!

It doesn't sound like being "familiar with their contents" is good enough. After reading both of the above mentioned books several times, and others by both authors, I didn't come away with the opinion that Shermer and Sagan think that paranormal phenomena is impossible. Agreed, they both seem to have come to the conclusion that the evidence for what has been claimed so far seems weak at best and can be explained by rather normal phenonena.
Weird things happen to everyone. It's our individual interpritations of the weird thing that leads us down the path of rationality or irrationality. The danger of going down the irrational path seems to be that once you except the supernatural explanation for something weird, how and where can you draw the line as to what is real? Just because "I believe " something happened, doesn't mean it did.

JPK

 

[Lucianarchy]

I'm sorry if you, in the past, have not been able to refrain from this, but it doesn't change the fact that evidence has been shown. When someone lies, it is not dragging things in the gutter to point it out.

You cannot abuse the new rules to make your previous actions disappear.

I'm not trying to! Claus, it is just not on to call me "clearly insane" "fake" "fraud" "liar" etc,. If you have proof of something then provide it, don't make clearly uncivil insults.

 

[Upchurch]

However, I do object though, to be called "clearly insane". "liar" "fake" or "fraud".

I would too. Challenge his claims. If he can't prove it, it'll be plain for everyone to see.

(note: this is my personal opinion and doesn't reflect any official JREF ...yadda, yadda, yadda)

 

[UndercoverElephant]

At some point, you have to look at just one phenomenon and investigate it.

That is your only approach, Claus. Yes, at some point you need to visit all the different ways of looking at it. I have. I'm not sure you have. You have one tool only. If it is the wrong tool for the job it doesn't matter to you, because it is the only tool you are willing to use.

I see no reason to understand any philosophical issues - all we have to look at is the evidence. Where is it? After we have seen it, we can discuss the philosophical implications.

No, you don't need philosophy. You already know you have nothing to learn from philosophy. Good for you.

Spare me the condescending "I know more than you do" attitude.

The skeptics have done it to me all the way through this thread. The only way they have of conducting the conversation is on the basis that they are right and everybody else is wrong. As I said at the start, you are actually 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist and that anybody who believes in them is either mistaken or a liar. That is "I know more than you do". You think you know more than I do about my own experiences.

Yes, thank you, I'm aware of Wittgenstein. FWIW, I don't consider myself a prisoner of my language(s).

Neither do any of the others.

Stop right here. How do you know that they are not really speaking to dead people? Is it a belief of yours, or do you know it as a fact?

It is a strong belief, based on facts. I already said that for this to be possible then there must be some sort of preservation of a physical brain after the physical body has disintegrated. This is a case where it is difficult to see how it could be possible that the phenomena in question was true, for the above reason. Not all phenomena fall into this category, but this one does so quite clearly. We know for a fact that human thoughts are intimately united with human brains, and therefore it follows that when there is no brain then there is no human thoughts and hence no ability to communicate with the living.

If I want to feel very small very quickly, I simply go outside and look at the stars.

That may be a good place to start. Watch out for a shooting star next time you are out on a clear night. Maybe one has got your name on it.

Spoken like a true dopehead. You have fried your brain with all sorts of hard drugs, and you want us to believe that what you experienced was real?

I don't want you to believe anything at all. I think I may have said that about five times now. I don't want you to believe me. If I want anything at all, I want you to look more closely at your own belief system, but that isn't where you want this to go. That is why you keep going on and on about evidence, instead of listening to, thinking about, and responding to the comments I made about why this approach won't lead you anywhere. You aren't interested in finding any new destinations, you are only interested in defending the method which led you to your current destination. All you want is clear unambiguous evidence you know is never going to be presented. You do not want to examine your own belief system at all.

What, exactly, did you experience, that could not have been drugs?

There is no point in me answering the question. The more extra-ordinary and bizarre the experience I describe, the more certain you will be that it was a hallucination. The less extra-ordinary and bizarre the description, the more certain you will be that it had a non-paranormal explanation. If it falls somewhere in between then you will consider it was a bit of both. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference how I answer this question, you will always have a way of dismissing what I tell you. Until you genuinely believe that what I telling you could be possible, there is no point in me telling you. Until you take an interest in philosophy, there is little chance of you being able to genuinely believe it is possible. That is why the philosophy has to come before the evidence.

I want some evidence....

Excuse me, but... :yawn:

, that's all. Is that so hard to understand?

No, it is easy to understand.

Why should I believe you, and not Sylvia Browne?

You should believe nobody. There is only one person whose personal experiences matter to you, and that is you, oddly enough.

But what "disciplines" are related? Since Quantum Mechanics are also included in parapsychological explanations, are you going to study at CERN as well?

You do not have to be a CERN physicist to understand the philsophical implications of QM. QM is one part of the picture. What is needed is not ever more detail of the bits you already know, whatever it is. What is needed is a broader and more inclusive view of all the related fields. You cannot be an expert in all of them, and you don't need to be. But you cannot ignore whole areas of academic knowledge, especially philosophy.

How have you determined what "disciplines" are related? Can you give me a complete list?

No. But I could give you a list of some of the things which were relevant to me.

No, I want to see some evidence. You want me to take your word for it, and I won't.

You aren't reading my posts properly. I do NOT want you to take my word for anything at all. I want you to think about your belief system.

It would certainly mean one of the most fundamental discoveries of mankind.

THE fundamental discovery. ***What could ever top it?***

But since I'm looking for evidence, I can't be all that scared, can I?

It does not take bravery to look for evidence which both you and I have acknowledged you will never find using the system you are using to find it. It takes bravery to examine your belief system and be genuinely prepared to change it.

I am brutally honest with you, there is no need to accuse me of dishonesty, just because I don't agree with you.

I am sorry if the accusation is false. I am sure you can understand why I might think your motive is to convince others that paranormal phenomena don't exist. It is the prime reason this site exists, and anyone who says otherwise is "mistaken".

And that is why I say that you are taking the back seat. If there is no substitute for direct personal experience, then you have no need for modern scientific advances. Go to a healer, he will cure you of cancer.

That is another straw man, CFL. I did not say you should abandon science. I said you might consider abandoning it as your exclusive tool. You wish to portray me as saying something I am not saying, so you can attack it. That is called a straw man.

But what is most likely, and in correspondance with what we know of the universe?

What WHO knows of the Universe, Claus?

Who is WE?

I will tell you - for YOU, "we" means scientists. It does not mean philosophers, or historians of religion, or psychologists and certainly not parapsychologists. After all, they are "woo-woo-ified" and come up with theories that "sound squirelly".

What is most likely, in correspondance to what you know about the Universe rather depends on what you happen to know about the Universe, doesn't it?

You choose the paranormal answer, because it fits with your beliefs. I choose the non-paranormal answer, because no evidence is there.

Ah, yes. I believe it because of my beliefs, but your beliefs play no part at all in coming to your conclusions!

I know it does not mean that I am correct, but I am pointing to the weakness of personal testimonials.

Yep, they are almost useless. They are only useful when considered all together as a body of evidence which can be analysed as a whole, and even then the answers can only ever be clues and not firm conclusions.

Why should we attach significance to these people, and not those who tell stories of other phenomena, which you don't believe in?

We shouldn't neccesarily. But we should also make sure we do not convict them by association, or try to discredit an entire field because some people in that field engage in similar activities which are fraudulent. Most politicians are liars. That does not mean I ignore everything each and every one of them says, and every now and then you come across an honest one.

That is the key question, which you skirt: Why you, Geoff?

It isn't just me, Claus. Why Lucianarchy? Why Franko? Or are they discounted for being mad? There is absolutely nothing unique about me.

What makes your experience so compelling, that we don't merely have to discard scientific discoveries, but also place our faith in you alone?

I haven't discarded ANY scientific discoveries. Where did you make that one up from? It's come from nowhere at all!

Why are you so special?

I am not.

That may be, but what does this have to do with dowsing, mediumship and healing?

Nothing directly. They are side issues. By taking a greater interest in philosophy I am suggesting you may be taken in directions you were not actually expecting to be taken, and via a route that you currently cannot see you will find a new way of looking at those things. Philosophy does not provide direct answers. It improves your ability to find new answers for yourself by making fewer mistakes in your analysis of problems and mysteries of all sorts.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I would too. Challenge his claims. If he can't prove it, it'll be plain for everyone to see.

Does that mean that Claus is allowed to call people 'clearly insane, fake, fraud, liar' etc,.? Do I have to go and challenge every personlaly insulting and clearly uncivil claim he makes about me before he even provides any proof? If so, I really can't see what's to stop the whole thing sliding back to one hell of a name-calling flame-fest.

Things have been going well, it would be a shame for things to slide back. Uncivil behaviour does stifle debate.

 

[Upchurch]

Does that mean that Claus is allowed to call people 'clearly insane, fake, fraud, liar' etc,.?

Claus, can you back these claims or not? Otherwise, please retract them.



edited to add "please". This is not an official request, just my request.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure?

More than once, the experience was of a change in the physical Universe which remained changed. After the experience was finished, the change remained in place. I do not want to discuss my specific experiences. They are of no use to anyone but me.

Weird things happen to everyone. It's our individual interpritations of the weird thing that leads us down the path of rationality or irrationality.

It all does rather depend on the wierdness level, doesn't it? And that is always going to be a personal judgement. It can never be anything else. Put yourself in my position for a moment. Do I trust somebody-elses judgement of my own personal experiences, or do I trust my own judgement? The problem is that Shermer and Sagan definately never experienced any paranormal phenomena, so they have no experience to go on, do they? They are rationalising other peoples experiences according to their own beliefs and thought processes. That is all very fine, but it is only of passing interest to me.

The danger of going down the irrational path....

I'm not. What appears irrational to you may not be so. Lose logic, and you're lost. I am in the philosophy camp rather than the science camp. Logic is my best friend.

....seems to be that once you except the supernatural explanation for something weird, how and where can you draw the line as to what is real? Just because "I believe " something happened, doesn't mean it did.

"Where do you draw the line?" is typical of the sort of questions that need to be looked at closely. In the end it may turn out to be another case of not asking the right question.

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course, I personally, do not mind about dealing with confrontation. I have no problems about other people's beliefs or opinions, they are healthy. However, I do object though, to be called "clearly insane". "liar" "fake" or "fraud".

I have no problems acknowledging that it is my opinion that you are insane. It is not meant derogatory in any way; I say it, because I find it very hard to understand how a sane person can argue the way you do. It may be my limited understanding of the complexities of your arguments, but it doesn't strike me as though your arguments are getting through to all that many other people here.

However, it is beyond doubt that you are guilty of the last three. If you really want to see examples of this, challenge me. But when I do so - not if, but when - will you also acknowledge that I have shown evidence of it?

I ask, because you have made this request before, and it was duly met with evidence. That you now deny that such evidence has been produced is strongly indicative that you will, in the future, simply start all over again.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, can you back these claims or not? Otherwise, please retract them.

As for Lucianarchy being insane, I have explained the reason.

As for the rest, here is one thread, where Lucianarchy lies/cheats:

FORTEAN TIMES / JREF Provide evidence for RV/Telepathy/Psi. He claims that:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Session 1: "rooftops, chimneys, outline of buildings against night time background-" OK, it was 'overcast' not night, but the rest was there.

Here is what Lucianarchy guessed:

Dark (blue / puple), roof tops, chimneys, outline of buildings / roofs against poss night time background.
Strongest impression during session was an image of what appeared to be an eagle or an owl, with outstretched wings.
Dark blue to black background,

Here is how it was judged:

Lucianarchy appeared to describe the background of the image; chimneys and buildings which was of slight significance, but failed to pick up on the sign and it was not a night scene.
...
I didn’t feel we had any hits here. “Rooftops” is rather tenuous although there were buildings. Dark blue to black was not accurate, I felt the overwhelming colour was grey, typically British weather. Miss.

As for fraud, in the very same thread Lucianarchy has claimed to be tested by the Fortean Times, as well as in a "FT/JREF collaborative RV experiment". He was not. Neither the Fortean Times or the James Randi Educational Foundation was involved.

edited to add "please".

The magic word. It works miracles. Evidence asked, evidence provided.

 

[Lucianarchy]

OK, Upchurch. Thanks for your time here, but Claus' evidence is certainly not proof of anything for which he claims. If the new guidelines allow for Claus to continue with his insults based on that standard of evidence as his proof, then as I said, it just opens the doors for anyone to make uncivil claims about anyone else, which would be a terrible step backwards. So can you make a decision on this so we know where we stand for the future of civility in this forum.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I have no problems acknowledging that it is my opinion that you are insane. It is not meant derogatory in any way;

Good. Will you please have the deceny to edit your post where you claim that I am "clearly insane", either that or give permission for one of the mods to do it for you.

 

[CFLarsen]

I ask, because you have made this request before, and it was duly met with evidence. That you now deny that such evidence has been produced is strongly indicative that you will, in the future, simply start all over again.

OK, Upchurch. Thanks for your time here, but Claus' evidence is certainly not proof of anything for which he claims. If the new guidelines allow for Claus to continue with his insults based on that standard of evidence as his proof, then as I said, it just opens the doors for anyone to make uncivil claims about anyone else, which would be a terrible step backwards. So can you make a decision on this so we know where we stand for the future of civility in this forum.

I hate being right all the time...

Good. Will you please have the deceny to edit your post where you claim that I am "clearly insane", either that or give permission for one of the mods to do it for you.

No. It is my opinion that you are not at your full mental capacity. It is not meant derogatory, therefore there are no reasons to remove it.

You will not succeed in censoring other people's opinions, either. I had a feeling it would come to this: First, you want evidence to go away, and now, you want to control what people say. You try to abuse the new forum for your desires for censorship.

It won't work.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

RE : Personal testimony.

People keep asking me for personal testimony and then in the next sentence explaining why personal testimony is no use to them. The reason I am reluctant to give personal testimony is because it almost useless to anybody but me.

I say "almost useless". I am currently slowly reading a book which is considered an classic in American philosophy and is read by anyone seriously studying the philosophy of religion or the history of psychology. The book is called "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and it is written by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. This book contains an analysis of a large collection of religious experiences. It is precisely the sort of book that skeptics would discount before they even started, because they believe they know everything they need to know about what causes these experiences, and their nature. They do not seem to have any interest in finding out why the book is considered to be a classic, and 100 years after publication is still being read. I am reading this book because the author is the fiercely opposed to the position I am most comfortable with philosophically - which is German Idealism. James describes the experiences of Schopenhaeur and Nietzche as "like the squealing of a pair of dying rats", and refuses to even accept them as coming under the scope of his discussion. I do not agree with everything James writes, but I am still reading his book because I am learning from it and because it is making me think critically about what I believe. When I suggest that people look outside of science it is this sort of thing I am talking about. It is not a worthless book, just because I don't agree with it. It is deservedly a classic, and I want to be able to talk about it having actually read it, instead of making my mind up it contains no useful information without reading it.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is your only approach, Claus. Yes, at some point you need to visit all the different ways of looking at it. I have. I'm not sure you have. You have one tool only. If it is the wrong tool for the job it doesn't matter to you, because it is the only tool you are willing to use.

I assume you are talking about science? Science has proved itself to be fantastically suited to explain phenomena happening in nature. How can you ever know anything about a phenomenon, unless you investigate it? Sure, you believe that something happened to you, but are you really going to work from that alone?

No, you don't need philosophy. You already know you have nothing to learn from philosophy. Good for you.

I didn't say that. I said I don't need philosophy to investigate a phenomenon. It's either there or it is not.

The skeptics have done it to me all the way through this thread. The only way they have of conducting the conversation is on the basis that they are right and everybody else is wrong. As I said at the start, you are actually 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist and that anybody who believes in them is either mistaken or a liar. That is "I know more than you do". You think you know more than I do about my own experiences.

Even if "the skeptics" (unnamed, of course) have done it (and I don't think anybody has), does that justify you doing the same?

It would be nice if you could refrain from stating that skeptics are 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I don't know any who says this. What skeptics are saying is that there is no evidence. There is a difference.

It is a strong belief, based on facts. I already said that for this to be possible then there must be some sort of preservation of a physical brain after the physical body has disintegrated. This is a case where it is difficult to see how it could be possible that the phenomena in question was true, for the above reason. Not all phenomena fall into this category, but this one does so quite clearly. We know for a fact that human thoughts are intimately united with human brains, and therefore it follows that when there is no brain then there is no human thoughts and hence no ability to communicate with the living.

How do you know it wasn't a human (OK, an ex-human!) who tried to communicate with you, in some post-life manner?

That may be a good place to start. Watch out for a shooting star next time you are out on a clear night. Maybe one has got your name on it.

I sure hope not. Those suckers are fast! (And how do we know this? Science or belief? )

I don't want you to believe anything at all. I think I may have said that about five times now. I don't want you to believe me. If I want anything at all, I want you to look more closely at your own belief system, but that isn't where you want this to go. That is why you keep going on and on about evidence, instead of listening to, thinking about, and responding to the comments I made about why this approach won't lead you anywhere. You aren't interested in finding any new destinations, you are only interested in defending the method which led you to your current destination. All you want is clear unambiguous evidence you know is never going to be presented. You do not want to examine your own belief system at all.

I have invited you to point out the flaws of skepticism. In a separate thread, preferably.

There is no point in me answering the question. The more extra-ordinary and bizarre the experience I describe, the more certain you will be that it was a hallucination. The less extra-ordinary and bizarre the description, the more certain you will be that it had a non-paranormal explanation. If it falls somewhere in between then you will consider it was a bit of both. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference how I answer this question, you will always have a way of dismissing what I tell you. Until you genuinely believe that what I telling you could be possible, there is no point in me telling you. Until you take an interest in philosophy, there is little chance of you being able to genuinely believe it is possible. That is why the philosophy has to come before the evidence.

I don't know how I would describe it, since you haven't told me what it was. Why are you so reluctant to let us know? It is rather difficult to discuss your experience, when you are the only one who knows what happened.

You're not scared, are you?

Incidentally, did you come to your belief before or after you looked at the scientific explanations?

Excuse me, but... :yawn:

Excuse me, but that is how we determine whether a phenomenon is real or not.

You should believe nobody. There is only one person whose personal experiences matter to you, and that is you, oddly enough.

So, where does that leave us? Your experience is something you want to keep secret, and you won't accept rational explanations.

You do not have to be a CERN physicist to understand the philsophical implications of QM. QM is one part of the picture. What is needed is not ever more detail of the bits you already know, whatever it is. What is needed is a broader and more inclusive view of all the related fields. You cannot be an expert in all of them, and you don't need to be. But you cannot ignore whole areas of academic knowledge, especially philosophy.

But surely, you must have a solid grasp of QM to understand the philosophical implications? How can you be sure that you understand it at all, then?

No. But I could give you a list of some of the things which were relevant to me.

That would be helpful, but it wouldn't solve the problem you have just created for yourself: If you cannot determine what disciplines are related, how can you even begin to understand anything? What if you leave out some crucial discipline?

It seems more to me that you have already made up your mind about what these disciplines are, and you then try to find a solution based on them.

You aren't reading my posts properly. I do NOT want you to take my word for anything at all. I want you to think about your belief system.

We can do that in a different thread. We are discussing your experience, and why you think it is paranormal.

THE fundamental discovery. ***What could ever top it?***

For once, we may actually agree on something. Perhaps life outside this planet is a contendah...

It does not take bravery to look for evidence which both you and I have acknowledged you will never find using the system you are using to find it. It takes bravery to examine your belief system and be genuinely prepared to change it.

I have not said that we will never find evidence using science. I have just said that we have not found any - yet.

I am sorry if the accusation is false. I am sure you can understand why I might think your motive is to convince others that paranormal phenomena don't exist. It is the prime reason this site exists, and anyone who says otherwise is "mistaken".

Try again. The JREF's goals are:

• Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
• Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
• Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
• Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

Source

I don't see any indication that paranormal phenomena don't exist.

That is another straw man, CFL. I did not say you should abandon science. I said you might consider abandoning it as your exclusive tool. You wish to portray me as saying something I am not saying, so you can attack it. That is called a straw man.

But this will be the consequence if you are right: People actually claim to be cured by healers - it is not only their beliefs, it is also their experiences. Who are you to discard other peoples' experiences?

What WHO knows of the Universe, Claus?

Who is WE?

Mankind. The English language should invent more specific words for "you".

I will tell you - for YOU, "we" means scientists. It does not mean philosophers, or historians of religion, or psychologists and certainly not parapsychologists. After all, they are "woo-woo-ified" and come up with theories that "sound squirelly".

Who is now erecting strawmen?

What is most likely, in correspondance to what you know about the Universe rather depends on what you happen to know about the Universe, doesn't it?

Indeed. However, it is based on empirical evidence and one heck of a sound scientific method. Science is not tautology.

Ah, yes. I believe it because of my beliefs, but your beliefs play no part at all in coming to your conclusions!

Sure it does, but I base my "beliefs" on evidence. Verifiable facts. What do you have, besides a drug-fried brain and a deep desire to believe?

Yep, they are almost useless. They are only useful when considered all together as a body of evidence which can be analysed as a whole, and even then the answers can only ever be clues and not firm conclusions.

Now we are back to Santa again. Or elves. Or fairies. Or alien abductions.

We shouldn't neccesarily. But we should also make sure we do not convict them by association, or try to discredit an entire field because some people in that field engage in similar activities which are fraudulent. Most politicians are liars. That does not mean I ignore everything each and every one of them says, and every now and then you come across an honest one.

Fine. How do we distinguish between the frauds and the real ones, if all we have is personal testimonials?

It isn't just me, Claus. Why Lucianarchy? Why Franko? Or are they discounted for being mad? There is absolutely nothing unique about me.

But you argue that your experience was a real phenomenon, and not a hallucination. How do we know that you are right?

I haven't discarded ANY scientific discoveries. Where did you make that one up from? It's come from nowhere at all!

It is a consequence of your argumentation: If previous scientific observations cannot be trusted (because they could be either genuine observations, hallucinations, or paranormal phenomena), then everything collapses.

Nothing directly. They are side issues. By taking a greater interest in philosophy I am suggesting you may be taken in directions you were not actually expecting to be taken, and via a route that you currently cannot see you will find a new way of looking at those things. Philosophy does not provide direct answers. It improves your ability to find new answers for yourself by making fewer mistakes in your analysis of problems and mysteries of all sorts.

Answers? All I have seen from you is wishful thinking and a fanatic belief. I'm sorry, but there it is: I have not seen any answer from you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

If you don't mind too much I am just going to concentrate on the points you have made that I don't think have already been sufficiently address. I see an opportunity to move this forward rather than repeating myself.

Sure, you believe that something happened to you, but are you really going to work from that alone?

I have never stopped refering to science. I cannot work from personal experience alone any more than I can work from science alone.

It would be nice if you could refrain from stating that skeptics are 100% certain that paranormal phenomena do not exist. I don't know any who says this. What skeptics are saying is that there is no evidence. There is a difference.

I know what the skeptics are saying. I am refering to what they actually believe.

How do you know it wasn't a human (OK, an ex-human!) who tried to communicate with you, in some post-life manner?

That the origin of the communication was another (living) human is among the possibilities I have considered. Living humans have working brains, dead ones don't.

I sure hope not. Those suckers are fast! (And how do we know this? Science or belief? )

If it happens, then you will have to evaluate the experience for yourself. Without science.

I have invited you to point out the flaws of skepticism. In a separate thread, preferably.

Actually, it is the flaws in certain peoples version of skepticism. In some ways, I have to be even more skeptical than you are, strange as that may sound.

I don't know how I would describe it, since you haven't told me what it was. Why are you so reluctant to let us know?

Because it will be next to meaningless to you. I have no way of communicating the full context, and no words to describe some aspects of the experience.

It is rather difficult to discuss your experience, when you are the only one who knows what happened.

You're not scared, are you?

No. But I have been posting on this board for a long time now, and I think I have learned from previous misjudgements.

Incidentally, did you come to your belief before or after you looked at the scientific explanations?

First of all I had to reassess somethings I thought about the basis of my scientific worldview, I had to ask myself some new questions. After that I was open to new sources of information, and only after my views about many things started to shift did anything happen to me that comes into the category we are talking about here. As for scientific explanations, they still play a very important part in what I believe. For example, if I try to get rid of Darwinism and adopt instantaneous creationism, which is possible in idealism, then there is a clash. Darwinism is still an integral part of my understanding, as is the whole of physics. They are important because they serve as a benchmark against which any new proposed theories cannot be in unresolvable conflict with.

But surely, you must have a solid grasp of QM to understand the philosophical implications? How can you be sure that you understand it at all, then?

Because it is not difficult to understand the problems QM causes to people with a Newtonian-Einsteinian view of the Universe. The problem is actually very clear. It is an agreed solution to the problem which seems so hard to arrive at. The problem with QM is that it implies things which are outside the reach of science, but can never do anything more than imply them. Schroedinger has already set out the problem with his rather wonderful cat experiment. I can suggest two books that illustrate the situation. One is "In search of Schroedingers Cat" by John Gribben, which sets out the mystery and makes quite clear that the story is not yet finished. The second, which should be read second, is "Quantum Questions", an anthology of the writings and thoughts of eight of the physicists who gave us QM. It is their thoughts on the relevance of QM, and I think you would find the book very interesting indeed.

That would be helpful....

1) QM.
2) The history of religion, especially the religion you are most familiar with (Christianity).
3) Metaphysics.
4) Psychological factors, especially regarding the experience and nature of time.

, but it wouldn't solve the problem you have just created for yourself: If you cannot determine what disciplines are related, how can you even begin to understand anything? What if you leave out some crucial discipline?

You keep looking for faults in your current beliefs and you keep searching in new places for new answers. You allow your knowledge and beliefs to evolve, just like you allow your knowledge of science to evolve now.

We can do that in a different thread. We are discussing your experience, and why you think it is paranormal.

I don't think that's going to get us anywhere.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
THE fundamental discovery. ***What could ever top it?***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For once, we may actually agree on something.

Good, because it is one very important thing to consider. I am glad you believe it is true. What you do not believe is that it could possibly have any relevance to this discussion. Nothing could top it. How would that change life on earth? Please consider the question for more than a fraction of a second before answering. I think it is the most important question I have asked you so far.

Who are you to discard other peoples' experiences?

Why not? I am telling you to discard mine, aren't I? My experiences are no use to you, and theirs are no use to me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
What WHO knows of the Universe, Claus?

Who is WE?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mankind. The English language should invent more specific words for "you".

And who are you to determine what "mankind" knows about the Universe?

Who made you the judge?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
What is most likely, in correspondance to what you know about the Universe rather depends on what you happen to know about the Universe, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. However, it is based on empirical evidence and one heck of a sound scientific method. Science is not tautology.

It is also not a Panacea.

Fine. How do we distinguish between the frauds and the real ones, if all we have is personal testimonials?

You can't. That is why you cannot rely on anyone elses experiences.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
It isn't just me, Claus. Why Lucianarchy? Why Franko? Or are they discounted for being mad? There is absolutely nothing unique about me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But you argue that your experience was a real phenomenon, and not a hallucination. How do we know that you are right?

You don't, Claus.

It is a consequence of your argumentation: If previous scientific observations cannot be trusted (because they could be either genuine observations, hallucinations, or paranormal phenomena), then everything collapses.

Another strawman, and a revealing one. Now the argument is that if you accept a single genuine example of PSI, it invalidates the entire existing body of scientific knowledge. It is revealing because it clearly implies that you believe any instance of paranormal phenomena would leave you completely bereft of logic and rationalism. Hardly an appealling thought, which is why it is a good job it's not true. But if you think it is true, you will resist it at all costs, and so would I if I believe that.

 

[JPK]

RE : Personal testimony.

People keep asking me for personal testimony and then in the next sentence explaining why personal testimony is no use to them. The reason I am reluctant to give personal testimony is because it almost useless to anybody but me.

I hope I'm not coming across as someone who disscounts your experience. I beleive, that you beleive, something paranormal happened. Further then that I can't go because I know little to nothing about your claim. Although I do agree that personal testimony is "almost" useless.


QUOTE]Originally posted by JPK


So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure? [/QUOTE]

More than once, the experience was of a change in the physical Universe which remained changed. After the experience was finished, the change remained in place. I do not want to discuss my specific experiences. They are of no use to anyone but me [/B]

So a change in the physical universe was observed by someone other then yourself, that can't be explained by anything other then paranormal means and you don't want to talk about it? OK.
Since I have not noticed any paranormal occurances in my life, I can't be certain as to how I would react. I would like to think that I would look to outside help to explain my experience. It might help me sleep better at night.
I have a friend who claims to have been abducted by "something". She has described to me in great detail the event. This is a belief she has had for over 20 years. I have given her several books, and accounts of other peoples experiences that are almost exactly the same, practicly word for word , her description of what happened to her. She simply refuses to even open these books or look at any reports. My only reason for tring to point out some alternative views is because how frightening the event was to her. To perhaps comfort her a bit.

I say "almost useless". I am currently slowly reading a book which is considered an classic in American philosophy and is read by anyone seriously studying the philosophy of religion or the history of psychology. The book is called "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and it is written by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. This book contains an analysis of a large collection of religious experiences. It is precisely the sort of book that skeptics would discount before they even started, because they believe they know everything they need to know about what causes these experiences, and their nature. They do not seem to have any interest in finding out why the book is considered to be a classic, and 100 years after publication is still being read. I am reading this book because the author is the fiercely opposed to the position I am most comfortable with philosophically - which is German Idealism. James describes the experiences of Schopenhaeur and Nietzche as "like the squealing of a pair of dying rats", and refuses to even accept them as coming under the scope of his discussion. I do not agree with everything James writes, but I am still reading his book because I am learning from it and because it is making me think critically about what I believe. When I suggest that people look outside of science it is this sort of thing I am talking about. It is not a worthless book, just because I don't agree with it. It is deservedly a classic, and I want to be able to talk about it having actually read it, instead of making my mind up it contains no useful information without reading it. [/B]

I find it very helpfull to read books of an opposite view point of my own. It certainly makes it easier to disscuss the topic with someone of that viewpoint.

JPK

Someday I will figure out how to use this quote thing properly

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I hope I'm not coming across as someone who disscounts your experience. I beleive, that you beleive, something paranormal happened.

I have only just met you and have not had any time to find out. Some of these others here I have been talking to for years.

So there was some kind of physical evidance that went beyond the "event" that was observable by someone other then yourself? If not, how can you be sure?

Yes. But it continues to be observed by others. What they did not observe was the change itself, from the point of view of the transition. Other people see the outcome, just like I do, but mostly they did not see the change occur. There is nothing so extra-ordinary about the outcome. What made it unusual was the way it happened.

So a change in the physical universe was observed by someone other then yourself, that can't be explained by anything other then paranormal means and you don't want to talk about it? OK.

I am talking about it. I am just trying to generalise what happened instead of speaking in specifics.

Since I have not noticed any paranormal occurances in my life, I can't be certain as to how I would react. I would like to think that I would look to outside help to explain my experience. It might help me sleep better at night.

I did, and it did help to some extent. But in the end I had to deal with it myself.

I have a friend who claims to have been abducted by "something". She has described to me in great detail the event. This is a belief she has had for over 20 years. I have given her several books, and accounts of other peoples experiences that are almost exactly the same, practicly word for word , her description of what happened to her. She simply refuses to even open these books or look at any reports. My only reason for tring to point out some alternative views is because how frightening the event was to her. To perhaps comfort her a bit.

If she was frightened then that was probably a good things to do. But no kind words can shield you from your own conscience.

I find it very helpfull to read books of an opposite view point of my own. It certainly makes it easier to disscuss the topic with someone of that viewpoint.

Sure does.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you don't mind too much I am just going to concentrate on the points you have made that I don't think have already been sufficiently address. I see an opportunity to move this forward rather than repeating myself.

No problem.

I have never stopped refering to science. I cannot work from personal experience alone any more than I can work from science alone.

But you have abandoned the possibility of your experience being a rational one? As in not-explainable-by-science?

I know what the skeptics are saying. I am refering to what they actually believe.

Perhaps you could point to actual examples to support this statement?

That the origin of the communication was another (living) human is among the possibilities I have considered. Living humans have working brains, dead ones don't.

So, what conclusion did you reach, and why?

If it happens, then you will have to evaluate the experience for yourself. Without science.

Not at all: It will be because of science.

Actually, it is the flaws in certain peoples version of skepticism. In some ways, I have to be even more skeptical than you are, strange as that may sound.

Which is why I ask for examples. Are you going to address this issue in a new thread? (To keep this one on track)

Because it will be next to meaningless to you. I have no way of communicating the full context, and no words to describe some aspects of the experience.

Then I hope you understand why nobody can take your experience for anything else than an untold anecdote. You argue from a personal experience that nobody is allowed to see.

If you don't mind me saying so, that is not the strongest starting point in a discussion....

No. But I have been posting on this board for a long time now, and I think I have learned from previous misjudgements.

But that was not the reason you just gave: That nobody but you could explain the full context. So, you are afraid...

First of all I had to reassess somethings I thought about the basis of my scientific worldview, I had to ask myself some new questions. After that I was open to new sources of information, and only after my views about many things started to shift did anything happen to me that comes into the category we are talking about here. As for scientific explanations, they still play a very important part in what I believe. For example, if I try to get rid of Darwinism and adopt instantaneous creationism, which is possible in idealism, then there is a clash. Darwinism is still an integral part of my understanding, as is the whole of physics. They are important because they serve as a benchmark against which any new proposed theories cannot be in unresolvable conflict with.

Before, then. Do you think it is possible that this reassessment has in any way influenced your experience?

Because it is not difficult to understand the problems QM causes to people with a Newtonian-Einsteinian view of the Universe. The problem is actually very clear. It is an agreed solution to the problem which seems so hard to arrive at. The problem with QM is that it implies things which are outside the reach of science, but can never do anything more than imply them. Schroedinger has already set out the problem with his rather wonderful cat experiment. I can suggest two books that illustrate the situation. One is "In search of Schroedingers Cat" by John Gribben, which sets out the mystery and makes quite clear that the story is not yet finished. The second, which should be read second, is "Quantum Questions", an anthology of the writings and thoughts of eight of the physicists who gave us QM. It is their thoughts on the relevance of QM, and I think you would find the book very interesting indeed.

Thank you. You have just demonstrated that you have a very tenuous grasp of QM. QM has nothing to do with Newtonian physics, they simply describe two difference levels. QM does not imply things that are outside the reach of science, it merely poses some questions that physicists work at solving. There are no indications that science will never be able to "do" anything about them. Schrödinger is not the first, nor will he be the last, to come up with clever ways of posing important questions. While I applaud you reading books about QM, your lack of understanding emphasizes my point about the need to study QM, and not merely read condensed explanations of it.

1) QM.
2) The history of religion, especially the religion you are most familiar with (Christianity).
3) Metaphysics.
4) Psychological factors, especially regarding the experience and nature of time.

How do you know which religion I am most familiar with?

You keep looking for faults in your current beliefs and you keep searching in new places for new answers. You allow your knowledge and beliefs to evolve, just like you allow your knowledge of science to evolve now.

Indeed. But if your starting point lacks a few stones in the foundation, don't you run the risk of going off in the wrong direction?

I don't think that's going to get us anywhere.

I'm sorry that you feel this way. It does put a stop to any discussion about your experience, and renders the discussion rather theoretical. I would have preferred to discuss facts and evidence.

Good, because it is one very important thing to consider. I am glad you believe it is true. What you do not believe is that it could possibly have any relevance to this discussion. Nothing could top it. How would that change life on earth? Please consider the question for more than a fraction of a second before answering. I think it is the most important question I have asked you so far.

You are not the first to ask me this, and I have given it quite some thought. After all, it is at the base of skepticism.

Why not? I am telling you to discard mine, aren't I? My experiences are no use to you, and theirs are no use to me.

What I don't understand is: What use is beginning a new education, if you will not be able to do anything with it? Since you are here, and you are arguing your points, you must have some kind of goal. If you hadn't, you would not be here, but sit at home, never talking to anyone.

And who are you to determine what "mankind" knows about the Universe?

Who made you the judge?

I refer you to the vast amount of scientific knowledge.

It is also not a Panacea.

Strawman. Nobody has claimed that.

You can't. That is why you cannot rely on anyone elses experiences.

Yes, if their observations are confirmed, independently. The more fossils found, the more certain dinosaurs existed.

You don't, Claus.

So, where do we go from there? What goals do we strive for?

Another strawman, and a revealing one. Now the argument is that if you accept a single genuine example of PSI, it invalidates the entire existing body of scientific knowledge. It is revealing because it clearly implies that you believe any instance of paranormal phenomena would leave you completely bereft of logic and rationalism. Hardly an appealling thought, which is why it is a good job it's not true. But if you think it is true, you will resist it at all costs, and so would I if I believe that.

No, it is not a strawman. As I have pointed out to you, the various fields of science depend on each other. If geology turns out to be wrong, then paleontology collapses. If chemistry turns out to be wrong, geology collapses. And so on.

 

[Lucianarchy]

You will not succeed in censoring other people's opinions, either. I had a feeling it would come to this: First, you want evidence to go away, and now, you want to control what people say. You try to abuse the new forum for your desires for censorship.

It is nothing to do with censorship. It is to do with upholding the guidelines and integrity of this forum. Uncivil behaviour will stifle debate. That will effectively censor people from participating here.

You have not posted those statements as opinions. You have posted them as facts. "Luci is..." is not the same as "IMO, Luci is.."

They are insults. Pure and simple. Completely unwarranted. The whole thread has been quite cordial until you started with the insults.

I want this decision defined so we all know where we stand on the issue of maintaining civility.

For this reason I have made a formal appeal.

 

[Timble]

In my opinion Lucinarchy is both a troll and a drama-queen.
I cite the post above as evidence.