New PSI forum

[CFLarsen]

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.

That's nice, and you should appreciate that this forum even allows you to make such an appeal. Even if you have tried your best to smear the very same forum. How's that for open-mindedness?

Nevertheless, I have explained the reasons why I call you insane. It was not meant in a derogatory way, but you still want to censor my posts. You still want people to stop referring to your lies, your deceit, your fraud.

You lied. You cheated. You are a fraud. You asked for the evidence. The evidence is there. There is more, if you want it. Plenty! And yes, it is still my opinion that you are insane. And until someone with psychiatric knowledge explains to me why I am wrong - because I am always prepared to be swayed by evidence - I will maintain that opinion.

You could do something yourself to change my mind. You could start arguing in a sane manner. If you want to discuss paranormal matters, just let me know. Because, quite frankly, I'm getting a wee bit tired of pointing out your lies. It won't stop me from pointing out your lies, because I consider lies a major hindrance to human development. But I do wish you would stop.

Let's talk about paranormal issues, eh?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

CFL

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

"Rational" and "explainable by science" aren't the same thing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
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?

I haven't reached a firm conclusion at all. It is partly a process of elimination, and more information is coming to me over the next few years.

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.

No I don't. I am not expecting you to start believing in paranormal phenomena on the basis that I told you they exist. I only mentioned because I was asked about it. I just answered the question.

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

I'm afraid of people like Bill Hoyt and scribble going into overdrive and losing the thread amidst a torrent of wailing abuse, yes. I know what lies down that path, and it is not constructive for anyone.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
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?

The re-assessment was a pre-requisite of the experience. No reassement : No phenomena. Everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.

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.

I thought all of physics was supposed to be related, Claus? If so, then how can QM have nothing to do with Newton and Einstein? They don't just descrive different levels. The two levels "don't fit".

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

I don't. But it is reasonable to say most westerners are likely to have grown up in a Christian culture, since the west is synonymous with Christendom.

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 believe you can only have one starting point. I am anti-foundationalist. I have no single foundation. The greater risk is that if you start with one single foundation, you end up only being able to build one sort of "building". If you start with no single foundation at all, and attempt to build a coherent single picture based on multiple starting points you are always able to adjust any one part without risking a total collapse. Any materialist, any Christian and any other foundationalist is handicapped by the fact they have one rigid set of starting assumptions and they point blank refuse to let go of them. That includes Lifegazer, Franko and all of the skeptics posting in this thread. They can't let go, because it is the foundation of their system of beliefs. That is why I am an anti-foundationalist.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
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.

Go on......

Life is a journey of discovery. How much less rich would it be if everyone was given the biggest and best answers on a plate at the start, instead of going through the process of finding the peak of discovery for themselves!

What would life be like if mankind had already passed this one-off rubicon of discovery? Wouldn't the show rather be over?

What I don't understand is: What use is beginning a new education, if you will not be able to do anything with it?

Do anything with it? Philosophy is about learning to think better.

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.

Actually, I was just a bit bored and thought I would come back to my old haunt. I made a flippant comment about skeptics not believing it if they saw evidence and since then I have just been answering questions that arose from that comment. I have no real goal apart from to talk about a subject which interests me.

I refer you to the vast amount of scientific knowledge.

That isn't an answer. I said would you trust your own judgement regarding your own subjective experiences or would you trust someone-elses? Science on its own cannot supply an answer. Someone has to make a judgement. If you would allow someone else to make that judgement for you then you are a fool, Claus. As would I be if I believed Michael Shermers interpretation of experiences he has never had rather than my own which I have had. For me, this isn't a tough issue to decide.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
It is also not a Panacea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strawman. Nobody has claimed that.

Indirectly you keep doing so. "Panacea" means a cure for all problems, and that is how you treat science. Any other means of seeking answers is not worth a sausage. If science can't provide an answer, you might as well just make a blind guess. That is the attitude you seem to display.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
You can't. That is why you cannot rely on anyone elses experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

That isn't relying on other peoples experiences. That is going and replicating their experiences for yourself. That is precisely what I am telling you to do with PSI. You only believe in the fossils because you can go an look at them yourself and make your own mind up. You would only believe in paranormal phenomena if you experienced them yourself and made up your own mind. See?

That is the difference between paranormal phenomena and fossils. Fossils sit there for anyone to experience them and paranormal phenomena are like elusive butterflies which run away if you chase after them.

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

That must be self-defined. You have to stop thinking in terms of 'we', and think for yourself. You cannot expect the rest of humanity, or the rest of the scientific community to do it with you.

 

[JPK]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff

As would I be if I believed Michael Shermers interpretation of experiences he has never had rather than my own which I have had. For me, this isn't a tough issue to decide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to go into this any deeper, but I think the title of the book has misslead you. You know what they say about judging them...
What if your experience wasn't so unique? What if you were to discover that many people have been through a very similar ordeal? Would that mean it's more likely to be paranormal and add to the body of evidence of things beyond science or could it mean that it is part of being human and some kind of "bug" hardwired into the way humans think?
Demon Haunted World gives some excellent examples of experiences that Sagan had himself that could easily be mistaken as paranormal. I don't have the book at hand but I remember him talking about hearing his fathers voice calling to him after his dad had died. A hallucination. It felt very real to him, but what makes more sense, a voice from beyond or a memory causing a hallucination? We might dissagree on the answer to that. Once again I admit to have not experienced anything I would consider paranormal. Perhaps I'm missing things because I look for normal reasons. There are plenty of things I can't explain and really do not feel the need to. I also do not feel the need to chalk it up to the supernatural.
I am far more interested in why people beleive or not beleive in the paranormal then the paranormal itself.

JPK

 

[AOK Tiger]

JustGeoff,

I am trying to paraphrase this rather than go through a bucketload of quotes..

1. Your claim of paranormal experience has NO support except for your own observation.

2. You claim that NO one should accept anything but their OWN experience.

Your first claim is EXACTLY the same as a lunatic claiming they are Napoleon. The ONLY support the lunatic has is their OWN deluded experience.

How do we show the lunatic that they are not Napoleon?.

We show them EVIDENCE Separate to their own delusion that they are not Napoleon… eg.. History books, Birth records, other human testimony, evidence of human delusion and hallucination etc etc..

You have NO evidence aside from your own interpretation of your experience. Worse than that you don’t even want any. Worse again is you won’t even discuss the experience and gain insights from people who may explain it to you..

This is Delusion at its worst.

Has ANYONE agreed with you that the Past altered or whatever happened to you ???

Second you argue that you can ONLY know through experience. That is just plain silly. It is the classic cop out by paranormalists that ALWAYS ensures their fantasy remains safe. As soon as we experience it (and become delusional too) we will then agree with you ! While we remain rational we can NEVER sense the paranormal… Whew.. that’s crazy.

Lucianarchy.

Insane/Liar/Fraud

Lets see……..

I think you are crazy too. Anyone who thinks the lame debunked and tiny amount of evidence you have shows you have some sort of “psi” power would have to be demented.

You were banned from the Fortean board for dishonesty (illegally editing posts) so that pretty much shows you to be a liar.

I suspect you of being a fraud on the Ladybrook issue (due to working in the home office or some such thing).. but have no proof so I wont outright accuse you of it.

 

[Lothian]

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".

It is funny but if you search for clearly insane liar fake fraud the only posts you find is Luci's original (as above) or people quoting it.

I was really surprised, however, to only find one hit with Luci credulous innumerate spamming twat, But I suppose now there will be two.

[pmod=Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]In spite of what you think of Lucianarchy, please try to carry on this conversation without resorting to so much name callling.[/pmod]

 

[CFLarsen]

"Rational" and "explainable by science" aren't the same thing.

Perhaps. You have abandoned the possibility of your experience being not-explainable-by-science?

I haven't reached a firm conclusion at all. It is partly a process of elimination, and more information is coming to me over the next few years.

What do you mean? Are you still hallu...getting your experiences?

No I don't. I am not expecting you to start believing in paranormal phenomena on the basis that I told you they exist. I only mentioned because I was asked about it. I just answered the question.

But you are basing your assertation that paranormal phenomena exist, solely based on your own experience.

I'm afraid of people like Bill Hoyt and scribble going into overdrive and losing the thread amidst a torrent of wailing abuse, yes. I know what lies down that path, and it is not constructive for anyone.

Then, put them on ignore. It's only two clicks.

.

.

Done? Good! Let's hear it, then.

The re-assessment was a pre-requisite of the experience. No reassement : No phenomena. Everyone is sovereign over their own experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.

Yes, that's nice. So, you had made up your mind before your experience happened.

I thought all of physics was supposed to be related, Claus? If so, then how can QM have nothing to do with Newton and Einstein? They don't just descrive different levels. The two levels "don't fit".

Yes, they "fit", because they describe what happens on different levels.

I don't believe you can only have one starting point. I am anti-foundationalist. I have no single foundation. The greater risk is that if you start with one single foundation, you end up only being able to build one sort of "building". If you start with no single foundation at all, and attempt to build a coherent single picture based on multiple starting points you are always able to adjust any one part without risking a total collapse. Any materialist, any Christian and any other foundationalist is handicapped by the fact they have one rigid set of starting assumptions and they point blank refuse to let go of them. That includes Lifegazer, Franko and all of the skeptics posting in this thread. They can't let go, because it is the foundation of their system of beliefs. That is why I am an anti-foundationalist.

Yes, that's nice. You still need to lay down some stones, before you start building.

Go on......

Feel free to open a thread about this.

Life is a journey of discovery. How much less rich would it be if everyone was given the biggest and best answers on a plate at the start, instead of going through the process of finding the peak of discovery for themselves!

What would life be like if mankind had already passed this one-off rubicon of discovery? Wouldn't the show rather be over?

Who said anything about handing answers on a plate? There are many things in nature that science has not explained. Nobody claims that science has found everything.

Do anything with it? Philosophy is about learning to think better.

And then? What will you achieve by learning to think better?

Actually, I was just a bit bored and thought I would come back to my old haunt. I made a flippant comment about skeptics not believing it if they saw evidence and since then I have just been answering questions that arose from that comment. I have no real goal apart from to talk about a subject which interests me.

This would fit nicely with your laid back attitude. You want to talk, I want to find answers.

That isn't an answer. I said would you trust your own judgement regarding your own subjective experiences or would you trust someone-elses? Science on its own cannot supply an answer. Someone has to make a judgement. If you would allow someone else to make that judgement for you then you are a fool, Claus. As would I be if I believed Michael Shermers interpretation of experiences he has never had rather than my own which I have had. For me, this isn't a tough issue to decide.

I trust science with my life, and so do you. Every time you fly somewhere, you lay your life on the doorstep on other people's experiences.

Indirectly you keep doing so. "Panacea" means a cure for all problems, and that is how you treat science. Any other means of seeking answers is not worth a sausage. If science can't provide an answer, you might as well just make a blind guess. That is the attitude you seem to display.

Then you have perceived wrongly. Do you consider it possible that you have?

That isn't relying on other peoples experiences. That is going and replicating their experiences for yourself. That is precisely what I am telling you to do with PSI. You only believe in the fossils because you can go an look at them yourself and make your own mind up. You would only believe in paranormal phenomena if you experienced them yourself and made up your own mind. See?

No, that wasn't what I meant: I am relying on other people's experiences, because I have never dug up a dino myself. Have you? If not, then why do you believe dinos existed? (I assume that you do, of course)

That is the difference between paranormal phenomena and fossils. Fossils sit there for anyone to experience them and paranormal phenomena are like elusive butterflies which run away if you chase after them.

No, you are wrong. Paranormal phenomena can also be experienced by everyone: Either a dowser finds water, or he doesn't.

That must be self-defined. You have to stop thinking in terms of 'we', and think for yourself. You cannot expect the rest of humanity, or the rest of the scientific community to do it with you.

I am not. I was merely hoping you would help out finding THE biggest discovery of all times.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi JPK

What if your experience wasn't so unique? What if you were to discover that many people have been through a very similar ordeal?

I don't suppose for one moment that I was the first person to experience something along those lines. I never claimed to be unique.

Would that mean it's more likely to be paranormal and add to the body of evidence of things beyond science or could it mean that it is part of being human and some kind of "bug" hardwired into the way humans think?

I don't think it has anything to do with the way humans think, no. The fact that other people may have experienced something similar doesn't make it a human defect.

Demon Haunted World gives some excellent examples of experiences that Sagan had himself that could easily be mistaken as paranormal. I don't have the book at hand but I remember him talking about hearing his fathers voice calling to him after his dad had died.

I have had a previous experience also very similar to the one you describe, shortly after the suicice of my best friend at the age of 21. I didn't put it down to paranormal phenomena, I just thought it was a bit strange. What I am talking about now belongs in a whole different league. I don't think reading books by Randi, Sagan and Shermer are going to make any difference. I am a registered ex-arch-skeptic myself. It's like asking an ex-Christian to read Michael Behe. There's really no point.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

JustGeoff,

I am trying to paraphrase this rather than go through a bucketload of quotes..

1. Your claim of paranormal experience has NO support except for your own observation.

2. You claim that NO one should accept anything but their OWN experience.

Your first claim is EXACTLY the same as a lunatic claiming they are Napoleon.

A.T.,

I have to stop you there. You have just said that anyone claiming a paranormal experience (and most have no 3-rd party evidence) is "as lunatic as claiming they are Napoleon."

I am sorry, A.T., but that is not the way we do business around here. You can't just accuse anyone who believes in the paranormal of being "mad as Napoleon". It has no content - it is just you blathering about your own opinion as if it was fact, and being rather insulting at the same time. It isn't debate.

I am not even going to read the rest of your post. Calm down, and try again - this time sticking to a sensible argument and avoiding the wild ad hominems. Stop getting upset. We are just having a chat, alright?

Geoff

 

[CFLarsen]

But the point is: How do we tell the difference between a person who claims to have a paranormal experience with no support except his own observation, and someone claiming to be Napoleon?

Napoleon's spirit could have overtaken the person, you know.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus :

Perhaps. You have abandoned the possibility of your experience being not-explainable-by-science?

I don't see how it could ever be reliably repeated. I'm not sure it can happen to anyone more than once. That on its own would make it science-unfriendly, even if understanding it properly requires a grasp of physics. To me it seems you are using over-emotive language - I haven't "abandoned" science. I just use it as only one tool. It's "abandoned" in my toolbox, reading to be used next time I need it, rather than being permanently glued to my hands.

What do you mean? Are you still hallu...getting your experiences?

No Claus. I am about to start a philosophy and cognitive science degree.

But you are basing your assertation that paranormal phenomena exist, solely based on your own experience.

I believe based on personal experience. That doesn't mean I expect you to believe it based on my experience. Answering questions about my own experience doesn't imply I expect or desire you to change your own belief system in accordance with what I tell you.

Yes, that's nice. So, you had made up your mind before your experience happened.

No, I had to take the lock of the door. I say for the third time : Everyone is sovereign over their experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.

Yes, they "fit", because they describe what happens on different levels.

Read Gribbens book. Then read Wilburs book. Arguing that "Geoff doesn't understand QM" is a bit lame. I think this discussion has moved beyond here.

Yes, that's nice. You still need to lay down some stones, before you start building.

You don't have to have one single "holy and untouchable" foundation. These days, I often feeling like bashing foundationalists of all creeds over the head with a blunt instrument. I don't want any untouchable foundation. It isn't helping you either. It is a hindrance.

Who said anything about handing answers on a plate?

That is what would happen if and when humanity as a whole comes to an understanding of paranormal phenomena. I am suggesting to you that the discovery would be so important, and making sense of it would provide so many other BIG answers, that life would be robbed of much of its richness and mystery. I am saying than rather than discovery being a cumulative process, this would be a one-off rubicon which once passed would rob life of its most important value by giving the game away. It would be like ruining your favourite film by giving away the ending at the beginning.

And then? What will you achieve by learning to think better?

A better understanding of everything I choose to think about.

I trust science with my life, and so do you. Every time you fly somewhere, you lay your life on the doorstep on other people's experiences.

Sure. But I don't trust other people to make subjective judgements for me.

No, that wasn't what I meant: I am relying on other people's experiences, because I have never dug up a dino myself.

No Claus, the point is that you know that if you wanted to, and were allowed to, that you COULD go and dig up the dino yourself. You don't have to actually repeat all scientific experiments yourself - but you know there is no theoretical reason why you cannot do so.

Have you? If not, then why do you believe dinos existed? (I assume that you do, of course)

I have certainly pulled the odd bit of cretaceous sea-monster out of the bottom of the cliffs at Eastbourne, yes.

No, you are wrong. Paranormal phenomena can also be experienced by everyone....

Never seems to happen though, does it?

I am not. I was merely hoping you would help out finding THE biggest discovery of all times.

Wouldn't it be more fulfilling for you if you found out for yourself?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But the point is: How do we tell the difference between a person who claims to have a paranormal experience with no support except his own observation, and someone claiming to be Napoleon?

Napoleon's spirit could have overtaken the person, you know.

No, the point is you can't just fling your arms up and say "anyone claiming paranormal experiences is as insane as Napoleon!".

It doesn't exactly encourage sensible debate, does it?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't see how it could ever be reliably repeated. I'm not sure it can happen to anyone more than once. That on its own would make it science-unfriendly, even if understanding it properly requires a grasp of physics. To me it seems you are using over-emotive language - I haven't "abandoned" science. I just use it as only one tool. It's "abandoned" in my toolbox, reading to be used next time I need it, rather than being permanently glued to my hands.

If you want a true perception of the world, then you cannot pick and choose the tools that give you the answer you want. You need to be consistent.

No Claus. I am about to start a philosophy and cognitive science degree.

OK. And you are sure that will provide you with answers?

I believe based on personal experience. That doesn't mean I expect you to believe it based on my experience. Answering questions about my own experience doesn't imply I expect or desire you to change your own belief system in accordance with what I tell you.

No, I had to take the lock of the door. I say for the third time : Everyone is sovereign over their experience of reality, via their choice of beliefs.

Yes, I heard you the first time. I think it is interesting that you on one hand say that you believe because of personal experience, but you also say that you had made up your mind before the experience had happened.

Read Gribbens book. Then read Wilburs book. Arguing that "Geoff doesn't understand QM" is a bit lame. I think this discussion has moved beyond here.

Perhaps.

You don't have to have one single "holy and untouchable" foundation. These days, I often feeling like bashing foundationalists of all creeds over the head with a blunt instrument. I don't want any untouchable foundation. It isn't helping you either. It is a hindrance.

But science is neither holy or untouchable. Science invites to be attacked, by evidence. That is what's so strong about science.

That is what would happen if and when humanity as a whole comes to an understanding of paranormal phenomena. I am suggesting to you that the discovery would be so important, and making sense of it would provide so many other BIG answers, that life would be robbed of much of its richness and mystery. I am saying than rather than discovery being a cumulative process, this would be a one-off rubicon which once passed would rob life of its most important value by giving the game away. It would be like ruining your favourite film by giving away the ending at the beginning.

Aren't you arguing that believers are extremely reluctant to give up that mystery?

A better understanding of everything I choose to think about.

That's it? No benefits for anyone else than yourself? That seems rather selfish to me. If you understand something better, you should share it, so others can achieve the same understanding as you have.

Sure. But I don't trust other people to make subjective judgements for me.

Nobody is asking you to. Science is objective.

No Claus, the point is that you know that if you wanted to, and were allowed to, that you COULD go and dig up the dino yourself. You don't have to actually repeat all scientific experiments yourself - but you know there is no theoretical reason why you cannot do so.

Absolutely, but that was not my point: My point was that even you trust other people's experiences with your life.

I have certainly pulled the odd bit of cretaceous sea-monster out of the bottom of the cliffs at Eastbourne, yes.

How do you know that they were from that period? Did you philosophize your way to it, or did you depend on other people's experiences?

Never seems to happen though, does it? `

Yes, it does! That's exactly the point! How can you dismiss so many people's experiences?

Wouldn't it be more fulfilling for you if you found out for yourself?

Perhaps. I doubt that filling my brain with drugs is the right way to do it, though.

No, the point is you can't just fling your arms up and say "anyone claiming paranormal experiences is as insane as Napoleon!".

It doesn't exactly encourage sensible debate, does it?

Why not? Because the possibility that you might be insane scares you?

What is the bleedin' difference, Geoff? We need to know.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you want a true perception of the world, then you cannot pick and choose the tools that give you the answer you want. You need to be consistent.

Each to his own, Claus. If you want to restrict yourself to one solitary means of understanding Life, the Universe and Everything that is your choice. I am sure you can understand why others have chosen differently.

OK. And you are sure that will provide you with answers?

I'm sure it will help me to ask better questions.

Yes, I heard you the first time. I think it is interesting that you on one hand say that you believe because of personal experience, but you also say that you had made up your mind before the experience had happened.

There is no clash if you think about it carefully. Being geniunely open to a possibility is not the same as believing it. I had not "made up my mind" - you are slightly misrepresenting what I said. Rather, I "unmade my mind" from the sort of hardline skeptical point you are at. I backed down to a neutral position. That is not the same as deciding before the experience that paranormal phenomena exist. I might add that the phenomena kind of "crept up on me". They started mildly, and I did not really acknowledge them. I just thought "Hmm. That's a bit funny.".

But science is neither holy or untouchable. Science invites to be attacked, by evidence. That is what's so strong about science.

You are a foundationalist. You have a single foundation to your belief system which you are not willing to compromise on. You are even trying to convince me to share that view.

Aren't you arguing that believers are extremely reluctant to give up that mystery?

No. I'm not sure how you derived that suggestion from the paragraph you are responding to. For people like you, there is a mystery. Once you cross the rubicon, much of the mystery is gone. All that remains are lots of loose ends to be tied up. I am suggesting to you that each person must cross the rubicon alone, that this is the way it has always been and that it must remain this way until the end of time. Science cannot cross it, because it would deny all who followed the opportunity to cross it on their own. It would rob people like you of the opportunity to find out for yourself who and what you really are and how and why things are the way they are.

That's it? No benefits for anyone else than yourself? That seems rather selfish to me. If you understand something better, you should share it, so others can achieve the same understanding as you have.

I am doing my best, Claus. I am trying.

Nobody is asking you to. Science is objective.

Yes, but that does not mean Michael Shermers analysis of experiences he hasn't had are more reliable than my own analysis of experiences I have had. The original point is getting drowned out by your incessant flag-waving on behalf of science.

Absolutely, but that was not my point: My point was that even you trust other people's experiences with your life.

I don't believe in anything based solely on somebody-elses experiences.

How do you know that they were from that period? Did you philosophize your way to it, or did you depend on other people's experiences?

I went on the internet to find out how old the rocks were. They are easy to identify, because they are a layer of clay underneath an enormous tower of chalk. I actually went looking because in addition to the fossils I found a bizarre lump of iron embedded in the rock. It looked like a lump of pig iron, although it couldn't have been, since there were no humans to make it and there's no way it could have ended up in the rock recently. I'm still not sure what it is. It is about the size and shape of a persons finger, and its definately metal, and it was embedded in a lump of clay.

Yes, it does! That's exactly the point! How can you dismiss so many people's experiences?

Because I don't rely on personal testimony.

Perhaps. I doubt that filling my brain with drugs is the right way to do it, though.

I wasn't suggesting it was. In your case, the way forward is to take a genuine interest in some other points of view which you are currently too quick to dismiss as irrelevant. If you are genuine about wanting the answers, what is so bad about reading an anthology of the philosophical thoughts of Schroedinger, Eddington and the rest of the QMers? If you really wanted answers, you'd be open to giving those guys a fair crack at the whip, no?

Why not? Because the possibility that you might be insane scares you?

No. I'm not scared of anything. Except needles maybe.

What is the bleedin' difference, Geoff? We need to know.

Napoleon was a loser!

 

[Lucianarchy]

You were banned from the Fortean board for dishonesty

No I wasn't.

The fact that you and a few others are violating the forum guidelines in such a way, the door being kicked open by Claus, shows that you have nothing left to argue with rationaly in this thread.

It also leads the way to stifling debate, a form of censorship, as you know that there are few people who will participate and share their experiences in the face of such abuse.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Then, put them on ignore. It's only two clicks.

No, Claus. You are being abusive towards people because of their beliefs. It is not only extremely uncivil, it is completely unwarranted and of no useful purpose in a discussion forum other than to inflame and insult.

It could be that you have reached the point where your arguments have failed, and the more that happens, the more you will have to accept that what we are saying is not only true, but increasingly likely that at some point or other you will have to re address your own connection to the rest of reality and the part you play in it. I can imagine for you, that would be Hell.

Which explains your current behaviour, but it does not excuse it.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

JustGeoff,

Just my two pennies worth: If other people's subjective experiences are unreliable, does that not automatically render meta-analysis of, say, PSI investigations useless? As I understand you, in order to give credence to other people's experiences, then you would necessarily have to replicate all the experiments - and that is exactly where PSI (and other paranormal) research has failed miserably so far - the lack of replication combined with subjective (read experienced) validation of "hits".

As I see it, PSI phenomena cannot be determined to exist, unless replicable and objective experiments can be devised and performed - with positive results.

A further point: I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. I'm the only one who can see it or experience it, so I know it's real. Can you see what I'm hinting at? I don't suppose you are a solipsist?

Concerning philosophy and philosophers: An interesting subject, indeed - but why is it that philosophers have argued and debated for eons, and yet they don't really appear to ever having reached any semblance of useful concensus? I mean, we still call it different schools of philosophy, yet it's the same discipline. It appears to me that philosophy only deals with how we humans interpret the world (and that very much dependent on cultural and historical context), not with how the world just happens to be, independent of human interpretation. As far as I can tell, philosophy cannot establish the objective existence of any phenomenon. However, philosophy does enable us to understand the human, cultural and logical implications of a phenomenon, once it is established empirically (using the scientific approach). Philosophy also allows us to deal with what if scenarios, but that doesn't turn the "what ifs" into objective realities. I guess what I'm trying to stutter forth, is that I do not believe philosophy can disclose reality, but it can help us pose questions based on established reality and it can help us understand reality in a human context.

Science, on the other hand, does have different schools of thought within a discipline, but usually not for long - eventually the schools converge, but may and will yet again move away in different directions, perhaps sprout into new disciplines, based on new discoveries, only to converge again as proximity to objective reality approaches. (I'm not too sure I phrased that too clearly, though, not being a philospher myself...)

Methinks there's an important message in that subtle difference between philosophy and science.

BTW, I do not for a moment think that the establishment of PSI (or any other paranormal phenomenon) as real will take the mystery away from the World - quite the opposite, in fact: It would pose more new questions than it would answer, IMH(umble)O. I would not lose my World view - it would add to it and reshape it, but I wouldn't lose anything (perhaps other than the privacy of my thoughts, but who says that's necessarily a bad or terrifying concept?).

I'm sorry, Geoff, but your claim that you have opened your mind appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part - you have ruled out that figments of your imagination might be just that - figments of your imagination.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Anders,

Please just call me Geoff by the way. I am only "justGeoff" because "Geoff" was already taken and I didn't want any more silly pseudoymns.

Just my two pennies worth: If other people's subjective experiences are unreliable, does that not automatically render meta-analysis of, say, PSI investigations useless? As I understand you, in order to give credence to other people's experiences, then you would necessarily have to replicate all the experiments - and that is exactly where PSI (and other paranormal) research has failed miserably so far - the lack of replication combined with subjective (read experienced) validation of "hits".

As I see it, PSI phenomena cannot be determined to exist, unless replicable and objective experiments can be devised and performed - with positive results.

When you say "cannot be determined to exist" I think you mean in a "generally accepted" way i.e. "determined objectively". If so, I would agree. I still reserve the right to judge my own experiences myself. I don't think you need to replicate all the results. I think a statistically significant positive result should be enough, but that it would always be rejected, just like Claus rejected the RV results using Occams Razor on the grounds that PSI is so unlikely that it must have been experimental error. Follow that logic and any positive result for PSI would be rejected by the same argument.

A further point: I have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. I'm the only one who can see it or experience it, so I know it's real. Can you see what I'm hinting at? I don't suppose you are a solipsist?

Not if it can be avoided. This question runs deep. There is only One Solipsist. Solipsism is the only position I reject purely on the grounds that I am not willing to tolerate it. It is an unacceptable conclusion on the grounds that if it is true then I don't want to know.

Concerning philosophy and philosophers: An interesting subject, indeed - but why is it that philosophers have argued and debated for eons, and yet they don't really appear to ever having reached any semblance of useful concensus?

Appearances can be deceptive. One has to ask what the true purpose of philosophy really is. Providing answers is not its purpose. Enabling others to find their own answers might well be its purpose.

I mean, we still call it different schools of philosophy, yet it's the same discipline.

Perhaps then the key to understanding what is going on lies in the relationship between the different schools. Hegel claimed his philosophy was the end of history. Probably not quite true, but it may have been the beginning of the end of philosophy. You can't out-Hegel Hegel. By countering his argument (by providing an anti-thesis to his thesis) you prove him correct, don't you?

It appears to me that philosophy only deals with how we humans interpret the world (and that very much dependent on cultural and historical context), not with how the world just happens to be, independent of human interpretation. As far as I can tell, philosophy cannot establish the objective existence of any phenomenon. However, philosophy does enable us to understand the human, cultural and logical implications of a phenomenon, once it is established empirically (using the scientific approach). Philosophy also allows us to deal with what if scenarios, but that doesn't turn the "what ifs" into objective realities. I guess what I'm trying to stutter forth, is that I do not believe philosophy can disclose reality, but it can help us pose questions based on established reality and it can help us understand reality in a human context.

I would agree with this, I think.

Science, on the other hand, does have different schools of thought within a discipline, but usually not for long - eventually the schools converge, but may and will yet again move away in different directions, perhaps sprout into new disciplines, based on new discoveries, only to converge again as proximity to objective reality approaches. (I'm not too sure I phrased that too clearly, though, not being a philospher myself...)

Methinks there's an important message in that subtle difference between philosophy and science.

Yes, you may well be correct.

BTW, I do not for a moment think that the establishment of PSI (or any other paranormal phenomenon) as real will take the mystery away from the World - quite the opposite, in fact: It would pose more new questions than it would answer, IMH(umble)O.

OK. Our opinions differ.

I would not lose my World view - it would add to it and reshape it, but I wouldn't lose anything (perhaps other than the privacy of my thoughts, but who says that's necessarily a bad or terrifying concept?).

Sounds pretty scary to me.

I'm sorry, Geoff, but your claim that you have opened your mind appears to me to be wishful thinking on your part - you have ruled out that figments of your imagination might be just that - figments of your imagination.

You have every right to that opinion. I walk a tightrope here, because I am trying to explain my position, but I do not want to claim any achievements I have no right to claim. With respect to philosophy (and mysticism in particular) I firmly remain a student. I have not earned the right to teach.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Science is objective.

Yes, science is merely objective.

But only the subjective is real.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Anders,

Regarding philosophy and the curious conundrum it presents I'd offer the following :

"Whereof I cannot speak, thereof I shall remain silent." (Wittgenstein).

"He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know." (Lao Tsu).

I'd say that might explain the (apparent) lack of consensus, but hey, what do I know?


Geoff.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, science is merely objective.

But only the subjective is real.

Hello Ian!