Question about the supernatural act

[Zep]

Yes, here it is. Aster was here before over six months ago, and with the same story, it appears. Does he not learn??

 

[Beleth]

I say put your money where your mouth is and start investigating and administrating supernatural claims of past and future, one shot, two shots experiences of genuine people, whatever, and be willing to inform yourselves and investigate with all means possible to determine wether this indeed could be determined as a supernatural act, wether scientifically proven or not. And then gladly hand over the million.

I will assume that this was a challenge to the JREF and not a personal challenge to me, despite that what I am quoting above was in response to something I wrote.

Nothing could be more the definition of "putting money where one's mouth is" than the JREF Challenge is. The JREF has drawn a line in the sand and put a million dollars down to anyone who can cross that line.

Anyway, I've already described in my previous post why what you suggest is infeasible. As you have not refuted my arguments, there is no reason for me to repeat myself. All I will add is that even if the JREF did investigate one-shot supernatural claims, I predict that all of the conclusions reached would end up being "the evidence is inconclusive" with a subsequent non-handing-over of the million ... and I doubt that that would be met with anything less than a cry of "outrageous!" from people such as yourself.

 

[Todd H]

Re: Chad Noles

Chad. In 1979 I created a painting that shows in detail a burrial scene taking place outside the cemetary wall. In other words, the grave is situated outside of the cemetary. In 1983 I burried my brother in exactly such situation. So, I painted it, signed the painting and dated it. I had no idea that what I was painting was pertaining to any such event to come into reality. But it did under the most parculiar circumstances. In my previous posts I have been writing about this in greater detail and also put a photo of the painting and a photo of the grave and graveyard.

Rgds.,
Aster.

Sounds like nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Segnosaur]

Why could a supernatural act not stand on its own ? Why does it need to be repeated in order to be determined (by mr. ignoramus)as a real or true supernatural/paranormal phenomenon or quality ?

One of the reasons that we ask for supernatural acts to be repeated is that quite often, things happen on their own "by chance". (People have cancers that go into remission, blind/deaf people regain lost senses, etc.) These types of events may happen regularly, with no supernatural input.

Without the ability to repeat the supernatural act, its impossible to know whether the event was due to paranormal causes, or just from "luck".

 

[uneasy]

Re: Uneasy

Originally posted by Aster

First, I'd love to know what other means can determine whether an act is genuinely supernatural.

Instead of trying to find this in scientific or religious institutions, or secret societies, perhaps we should search for the parameters of what constitutes true supernatural acts inside ourselves and change our mentalities towards something what we could accept as a supernatural side of life. When we succeed to do this, science and even religion will follow.

You had your chance. You said you doubt scientific methods are any good. I said I would love to hear an alternative. And the best you can come up with is vague words about about searching inside ourselves and changing mentalities?

You criticize something and offer no alternative. Just vague words about how we should just somehow think different. How pathetic.

You're not writing posts for people like me. Byeeee

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: mrc Hans

Don't be so hasty, Hans. I leave here as soon as I am basically convinced that what happened to me will not happen again.

No need to leave. Anyhow, how could you be convinced of that?

In other words I still believe that the awareness is there where the focus is, which includes the minds ability to correctly predict a future event. My motivation and also teacher Earthborn's : what happend once can happen again. The JREF prize is not my motivation.

You were the one who mentioned it.

I see JREF primarily as a debunking institute, out to debunk people who claim to have supernatural powers. This is fine in itself. On the other hand I see no evidence or discussion that supports the JREF statement that the foundation is committed to support and conduct original research into the supernatural, claims such as my own for instance, just because the fact that any such claim has to be reproduced which, in my opinion, rules out many a claim worth investigating for genuinity.

The JREF has limited ressources, as any scientist has. As any sensible scientist, the JREF has limited the scope of its investigation to match its ressourses. It is investigating predictable, repeatable paranormal events.

If you think non-predictable, non-repeatable paranormal events should be investigated, I suggest you start by finding a METHOD to investigate such events.

Think about the potential of people and what the world can learn from them. What is it that makes people have (correct) preminitions, visions or clairvoyant dreams that pertain to the future ? What does that say about such a person, what does it say about reality and about the evolution of people in general ?

Well, that is one way of investigating: If such events do happen, what impact on the real world do they have?

It seems to me that JREFs attitude surpasses this and caters to the skeptic markets alone, indirectly suggesting that no supernatural act or ability can in fact exist outside their prelimitations.

It certainly does not. As I said above, the JREF has decided on a certain scope. This does in no way imply that other fields do not exist. Just like choosing to research acoustics does not imply that you do not think optics are important.

I think this summs up my reason to post this thread.

In short, you would like the JREF to change the scope of their investigations. Well, again, I suggest you design a way to investigate the events you want investigated and approach the JREF with it. If they think it can fit within their abilities, they might be interested.

Rgds.,
Aster.

Hans

 

[Earthborn]

Why could a supernatural act not stand on its own ?

A supernatural act, if such things exist, might very well stand on their own. Since such things have not been proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, nobody can say for sure that they can't be one time events.

In fact, if they exist they are most likely very rare one time events, because if they weren't someone would've proved their existence already.

There is a problem though. There is no doubt that there are many completely random events that just seem like supernatural events to people. Everyone, including every skeptic on this board, has experienced some remarkable coincidences in their lives. So there is always the formidable problem of trying to differentiate between these random events and real paranormal events.

For a getting a good idea on how things that are totally unrelated can appear to be strongly connected, I invite you to read about Mysterious Alternative Soundtracks. It isn't surprising that such things happen in people's lives too: that things dreamed or imagined appear to match real life events later.

I don't mean to diminish what the event surrounding your brother's funeral means to you. It could very well be a supernatural event and if you believe that it is, there is no one who can or should try to talk you out of it.

But try to look at it from a skeptic's point of view once in a while. Just ask yourself: "What would a skeptic think of this?". If you do that, I think you will agree that what you tell us doesn't sound so convincingly paranormal to people on this board.

Why does it need to be repeated in order to be determined as a real or true supernatural/paranormal phenomenon or quality ?

It probably doesn't need to be repeated if you can prove it true otherwise. Of course in most cases it would be very usefull if it can be repeated, as that makes proving it true much easier.

Your friend is blind. You suddenly feel empowerd by Jezus and you tell him that he can see; hence his eyes can see for ever more. Next time you try this on someone, it doesn't work.

I think this is an excellent example. If someone is blind, then most likely this person has been examined by a doctor who determined the blindness conclusively. If the friend can then later be proven to be able to see, and this could not be explained, then you will have something that is extremely interesting to skeptics. Such a case has never been documented, as far as I know.

It will probably not win the million dollars though, as the medical dossier could be forged, the doctor could be in a plot with you and the 'blind' friend to win the million dollars and make a deliberate misdiagnosis, etc... It will be difficult to disprove these possibilities.

Repeatability isn't important perse. What is important is that you can prove what was before the supernatural act, what is after it and that it wasn't a coincidence. Blindness doesn't usually cure by itself (some forms might so those won't count), so we can rule that out. Then all you have to do is prove what was before and what was after.

If an act is repeatable, it is much easier to prove what is before, because the experiment can be set up beforehand to make sure there is no cheating.

To others, this is brushed off as a coïncidence.

Curing the blind would be an amazing feat, and is not easily brushed off as coincidence. Even if it is coincidence, it might be a coincidental paranormal event.

Much more likely, and that is what skeptics will want to investigate after such an event, is whether the person really was blind, and after the event really can see. And whether there wasn't any medical intervention that would explain the cure.

These experiences, my friends, are the true examples whowing the nature of supernatural acts and abilities.

If you can point to a decently documentated case similar to this, I agree.

On the other hand, the supernatural act is usually a given, and not something that can willfully be acted out and tested.

If it happened it can be tested. Perhaps not in a repeatable experiment, but maybe it can be tested by checking how well the conditions before and after the event were documented and see whether there maybe a different explanation than a supernatural one.

Now, how can you ever prove that what happened was in fact a supernatural act ? The answer is you can't.

True, but it maybe possible to prove that it cannot be explained in any other way. And that's basically what a supernatural event is: something that cannot be explained by natural means.

Then I remembered a good lesson by teacher Earthborn; to always be nice and respectful to all skeptics if I want to be treated likewise. Sorry, I still flunked.

Yes, you did. I hope the treatment you got wasn't too bad for you.

You deserve better, but don't expect it from the people here. Skeptics often aren't even nice to eachother.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You deserve better, but don't expect it from the people here. Skeptics often aren't even nice to eachother.

---'cause, you see, skeptics are ordinary people like everone else. Plus, being active in skeptic debate for any amount of time means that you have seen so much BS that you sometimes shoot first and ask questions afterwards. Chalk it up to life.

One comment on curing the blind: There is actually a condition where blindness is psychological, that is, there is nothing physically wrong with the patient, he/she is just for some (sometimes unknown) reason unable to use his/her eyesight. Sometimes, it can be attributed to a blocade induced by some traumatic experience, patient has seen something horrible, and as a protective reaction, the mind cuts off vision partly or totally (I once met someone who was unable to look at herself in a mirror).

This kind of blindness may resolve spontaneously, either after therapy, or without known reason. It may also resolve if the patient believes to be healed by someone else. In this case, you have a genuine, but not supernatural, miracle.

Hans

 

[Aster]

Zen: Folks, I seem to recall that the same thing that Aster talks about here has been on this forum before - some months back. Let me just go look for something...back soon.

Ooops. Caught with my pants down! Buttah... Is there something against making a fresh start ?

Beleth: All I will add is that even if the JREF did investigate one-shot supernatural claims, I predict that all of the conclusions reached would end up being "the evidence is inconclusive"

This may very well be, but does not nescessarily mean that the investigated claim is not what it claims to be. Moreover, you are predicting something which is interesting. Why not motivate your prediction ?

Todd: Sounds like nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That's the most short sighted comment I've ever heared and I have heared it many times here. I sometimes wonder where people get the nerve to be so blunt and disrespectful. Again, motivations please.

Segnosaur:Without the ability to repeat the supernatural act, its impossible to know whether the event was due to paranormal causes, or just from "luck".

Well, in a strange and parculiar I am enjoying the correctness of what you write here. See, luck may not nescessarily be the correct word pertaining to the paranormal cause, but to the supernatural experiencing it very well may. The word blessed is better. What constitutes the paranormal cause of a supernatural act, I wonder.

Uneasy: You criticize something and offer no alternative. Just vague words about how we should just somehow think different. How pathetic

Your answer tells me something about you too. It tells me that one side of your personality senses that there must be something that could proove a supernatural act true, but another side of your personality does not allow the triggering of a new awareness that does not come from external sensory perception but rather from the internal well inside yourself. You may think this is just bla bla, but there was a purpose to me being vague and open. The purpose of my communication with you is the response I get. Now, to satisfy you with a direct external sensory perspective: The Vatican. This institution knows more about the supernatural act than science will ever hope to prove.

Hans: No need to leave. Anyhow, how could you be convinced of that?

I am not and I don't see how I ever could. But never say never.

Hans: If you think non-predictable, non-repeatable paranormal events should be investigated, I suggest you start by finding a METHOD to investigate such events.

Right on... I absolutely agree with you and I am seeking help before this effort, and have been for many years now. There are some problems however that I am unable to oversee right now.

Hans: As I said above, the JREF has decided on a certain scope. This does in no way imply that other fields do not exist.

Thank you, you're handing me a blanket where I was lost in a cold.

If they think it can fit within their abilities, they might be interested.

Others will have to represent me, Hans.

Earthborn: For a getting a good idea on how things that are totally unrelated can appear to be strongly connected

Teacher! Thank you for your post and time. It's been a great reading. What you see as coïncidences I see as synchronicity. Your way blocks chi. Mine allows chi to flow free. It takes practice you know. To discover something like the synchronicity of the mysterious alternative soundtracks is not something ordinary. It most probably required susceptability of the personality of an act of grace which is a supernatural act. The result of this act is that it became conscious and that it manifested. As manifest it could be explained and generally shared. This leaves us with a sense of mystique. We can either choose to pass it by or to open up for the supernatural quality.

Earthborn: If you do that, I think you will agree that what you tell us doesn't sound so convincingly paranormal to people on this board.

I often do this, this is why I enjoy the challenge of being here. I have received more intelligent responses from sceptics than any other persons.

Earthborn: If it happened it can be tested

Okay, but self experience suggests that it would not nescessarily be upto the prospect's will that the test would be succesful. The supernatural act seems not to be a function of the personality but rather of consciousness; one needs to be superconscious in order to perform succesfully. And I believe I would make a great prospect if you look at it from this perspective. Just look at the case I represent.

Earthborn: And that's basically what a supernatural event is: something that cannot be explained by natural means.

You are a hero to stick your neck out like this. Tell me something, what ís it then that constitutes the DIFFERENCE between a natural and a supernatural event ? Let me guess: Something that CANNOT be explained. Now, how can anyone prove something that cannot be explained ? Let me tell you: Faith. And this is what makes faith a supernatural act. It is as natural as anything, but it can just not be explained, let alone proven. Until soon, is my prediction.

Rgds,
Aster.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

If you tell a friend who is sick to swallow five dead ketchup covered flies, and he gets better after he does, one might consider the possibility that ketchup smothered flies can cure sickness. However without testing it properly, you also have to consider the possibility that your friend was going to get better regardless of your strange medicinal approaches.

Just like your example. If you ask jebus to cure your friend's blindness, and he is cured, you can consider the possibility that a supernatural event has happened. However, once again, without proper testing (e.g. repeated performances) you also have to consider the possibility that your friend's eyes were going to get better on their own.


Hope this helps answer your question.

 

[Aster]

\/\/ALTER

You've been juggling too many balls, if you ask me.

a-ve-ry-bo-ring-way-to-re-pe-at-my-se-lf-at-all-the-ot-her-800-+-posts I've made here.

I'm sure the sceptics community is thrilled with all your contributions, though. So, keep on going Walter, something tells me youre going strong.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Beleth]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beleth: All I will add is that even if the JREF did investigate one-shot supernatural claims, I predict that all of the conclusions reached would end up being "the evidence is inconclusive"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may very well be, but does not nescessarily mean that the investigated claim is not what it claims to be.

No, but it also means that the one-shot claim will not win the Challenge money.

Moreover, you are predicting something which is interesting. Why not motivate your prediction ?

I've already answered this - there is lower-hanging fruit to pick. The JREF has limited resources.

 

[Todd H]

That's the most short sighted comment I've ever heared and I have heared it many times here. I sometimes wonder where people get the nerve to be so blunt and disrespectful. Again, motivations please.

The word is "heard" not "heared." And there was no disrespect intended. I merely stated my belief. Because you obviously disagree, you apparently became emotional and assumed there was some sort of ill will involved. There was none.

It's simply my belief that your "vision" somehow influenced you as to where you would later bury your Mother. You may not have realized it, but perhaps subconsciously you sought a burial plot that bore a resemblance to the one in your "vision."

 

[Earthborn]

It's simply my belief that your "vision" somehow influenced you as to where you would later bury your Mother. You may not have realized it, but perhaps subconsciously you sought a burial plot that bore a resemblance to the one in your "vision."

That makes no sense at all, which means you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

First:
It was his brother!

Second:
He and his family had very little choice in cemetaries.

From this thread:

Originally by Earthborn
One striking feature on the painting are the many Christian crosses. There are none in the photo. Since it is in Israel, I assume it was a Jewish cemetary?

No, it wasn’t. My brother was not jewish, nor of any religion, and so we had great difficulty getting a space at any cemetary. Finally we were offered a space for him on the premises of an american catholic cemetary. What we were not told in advance was that his grave could not be admitted on the cemetaries holy grounds, behind the wall. His grave was dug on a small strip of land outside of the cemetary holy grounds, within a few yards of a public toilet.

 

[Todd H]

My mistake. I must have skimmed too quickly through the thread. That's what I get for trying to post and work at the same time. I'm a terrible multitasker. And as you can see I have no problem admitting my mistakes, something many believers in the supernatural refuse to do.

If I'm given two choices, one being that the paintings are visions from a higher power foretelling me of some future event and the other being that it is all simply a mere coincidence, I would choose #2. Many times the simplest answer is the correct answer.

Will Aster's claims ever be proven real or otherwise? Probably not. He doesn't trust science to come up with an acceptable way to test his ideas, yet he can offer no alternative. He challenges us to prove that these paintings aren't supernatural in nature, but the burden of proof lies in the hands of the one making the claims. Because of this, the chances of either side changing its view is miniscule at best.

So is all of this just an exercise in futility? Probably so. But it sure is entertaining.

I can't believe it's only taken me 8 posts to be labeled "blunt," "disrespectful," and told I don't "have a clue" what I'm talking about. The people here certainly are a friendly bunch!

 

[Powa]

The people here certainly are a friendly bunch!

Of course we are, you blunt, disrespectful, no-clue son of a...

 

[Aster]

Todd

Will Aster's claims ever be proven real or otherwise? Probably not. He doesn't trust science to come up with an acceptable way to test his ideas, yet he can offer no alternative.

Todd, I do trust science (don't know how you get to make these conclusions) and I am willing to work together with any scientific body that would be interested in my case. Since 2001 I am part of scientific research at the faculty of psychology of the Humantitarian and Economics Institute in Minsk, Belarus. My work as an ideomotor trancedental artist/communicator is on permanent display there and part of students case studies, readings and conferences. My automatic art travels back and forth to exhibition sites in Russia.

It's not an easy task to offer alternatives. I have a strong feeling this is all growing towards something practical. In my previous post I pointed towards a portal within religious walls that, perhaps, should be opened by a modern hand, in order to determine how (one time) supernatural claims can or cannot be researched and tested.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

The British lecturer, David Mandell, has a far more impressive portfolio. His paintings supposedly predict many real-life events with a far greater degree of accuracy than Aster's effort. The images of real-life disasters are strikingly similar, often even including names and landmarks. Even this work, however, offers no evidence of genuine precognition and Randi appeared on a documentary here in the UK to give his position on the claim.

Aster, if Randi was ever to pay out for a painted prediction, Mandell would be well ahead of you in the queue.

 

[NullPointerException]

Aster, abstract art would never qualify as a good prediction method unless it had discrete symbolism... which your painting is lacking. I mentioned before, and will reiterate now, that this would seem logical to me given that your unconcious mind would or should have been aware that non-religious people wouldn't be buried inside the walls of a cemetary for jews/roman catholics because they are considered holy places and athiests are considered unholy.

Also, a process that is not falsifiable or observable is useless to JREF. Enter as autonomic conditioning, which is scientifically impossible according to science, and you might have a chance.

 

[Aster]

TheBoyPaj

The British lecturer, David Mandell, has a far more impressive portfolio.

Please guide me to a website presentation of his art. I cannot find anything on this person.

Randi appeared on a documentary here in the UK to give his position on the claim.

What did he say ?
Which persons/artists are in this supposed qeue ?

NullPointerException

abstract art would never qualify as a good prediction method unless it had discrete symbolism... which your painting is lacking.

What makes you consider the painting I represent is abstract art ?

...your unconcious mind would or should have been aware that non-religious people wouldn't be buried inside the walls of a cemetary for jews/roman catholics because they are considered holy places and athiests are considered unholy.

I can go along with that. But to my opinion this is not relevant. I painted this picture 4 years ahead of my brothers death and nothing of this painting suggested that the grave had his name on it. Something one could perhaps read from the painting would be that the grave is awaiting a person who is either non religious or a criminal or both.

autonomic conditioning

I have to read up about this subject. Would you explain here what this entails ?

Rgds.,
Aster.