Rosemary Altea

[GzuzKryzt]

Expression_man, I might sound like a broken record, but all your descriptions of your experiences really do not prove anything besides your subjective view.

You said you can't offer proof. Fair enough.

For what specific reason do you continue to post on a skepticism forum, and especially in the Million Dollar Challenge subforum?

 

[Moochie]

Because many people have the misguided notion that science should be infallible and a fount of absolutely certain truths, they look at the Blondlot episode as a vindication of their excessive skepticism towards science. They relish accounts such as the one regarding Blondlot and the phantom N-rays because it is a story of a famous scientist making a great error. However, if one properly understands science and scientists, the Blondlot episode indicates little more than the fallibility of scientists and the self-correcting nature of science.

This point is too often glossed over by believers in all kinds of fantasies.

I will self-correct when I see some evidence of OOBEs, not the bloated blather we're usually fed.

Forget the foreplay; get to the really dirty stuff!

M.

 

[Expression_man]

Indulge me for a moment. Take your time, and read about Rene Blondlot.

Great scientist. Made major contributions, at a time where a lot of discoveries were made. Yet, he managed to not only fool himself, but also a lot of other people.

For one reason only: All of them lacked the ability to critique their own experiences.

Read the link. Tell me what you think.

Interesting read, although it raises more questions than answers for me. That may be because I need more information though, not because it might be a hasty conclusion.

It doesn't comment on what Robert W.Wood actually saw regarding the experiment, he only comments on the behaviour of the people in question. When I think about things as bizzare as the phantom DNA effect I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. Although, that too might be a blunder!

Regarding Pons and Fleischmann's "discovery" that's also something I've given thought in the past. Either they were wrong or there was some extra variable they failed to identify. Who knows?

Specifically, tell me why you think you are better at critiqueing your own experiences better than Blondlot.

Hmm, with this in mind I definitely don't.

What makes you someone I should believe in, more than I should believe in Blondlot?

I don't think that you should take my word for anything. You are able to have these experiences for yourself and do whatever testing you like. Just because some guy on a forum tells you "stuff" doesn't mean you should believe him outright. I just want to get people thinking about it rather than dismiss it out of hand. So far I've only been relaying my own experiences. There are many more interesting ones out there.

For what specific reason do you continue to post on a skepticism forum, and especially in the Million Dollar Challenge subforum?

Just answering questions and commenting on things. If people take an interest I'll do my best to explain myself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Interesting read, although it raises more questions than answers for me. That may be because I need more information though, not because it might be a hasty conclusion.

If you need more information, then you cannot possibly continue claiming that you have experienced a paranormal phenomenon.

It doesn't comment on what Robert W.Wood actually saw regarding the experiment, he only comments on the behaviour of the people in question. When I think about things as bizzare as the phantom DNA effect I'm open to all sort of possibilities. Although, that too might be a blunder!

The issue isn't what someone else saw. The issue is what Blondlot saw, along with a string of other scientists.

Regarding Pons and Fleischmann's "discovery" that's also something I've given thought in the past. Either they were wrong or there was some extra variable they failed to identify. Who knows?

Yeah. Who knows. That's the question. So, if you question these people, why don't you question your own experiences?

Hmm, with this in mind I definitely don't.

So, do you formally retract your claims? Yes or no?

I don't think that you should take my word for anything.

But that's exactly what you are asking us to do.

You are able to have these experiences for yourself and do whatever testing you like. Just because some guy on a forum tells you "stuff" doesn't mean you should believe him outright. I just want to get people thinking about it rather than dismiss it out of hand. So far I've only been relaying my own experiences. There are many more interesting ones out there.

No, I am not able to have these experiences for myself. Isn't that what you have been arguing? That these experiences are not something that everyone can experience at will?

Pardon me, but if you are aiming to make an impact here, you will have to make a coherent claim. Don't muck about, don't ◊◊◊◊ with people here.

Make up your mind!

Just answering questions and commenting on things. If people take an interest I'll do my best to explain myself.

Bull. That is not your aim. You have demanded that people take your word for it. That people believe you, your word. But when you discovered that people would not do that, you went through all this bull.

It's bull.

 

[Expression_man]

Hmm, this is regrettable.

If you need more information, then you cannot possibly continue claiming that you have experienced a paranormal phenomenon.

I don't know what you mean. I'm sure science will have a full explanation one day. I'm just saying there's something worth looking into.

The issue isn't what someone else saw. The issue is what Blondlot saw, along with a string of other scientists.

I'm more interested in what the person who went to verify the claims saw of the experiment than his bias towards it being in error.

Yeah. Who knows. That's the question. So, if you question these people, why don't you question your own experiences?

Hmm, I have. At first I thought it was something with religious connotations but much reading and experience has led me to believe something else.

So, do you formally retract your claims? Yes or no?

Which claim? I made lots I think.

But that's exactly what you are asking us to do.

There is no way I can prove this to any of you short of interacting with you individually/directly.

No, I am not able to have these experiences for myself. Isn't that what you have been arguing? That these experiences are not something that everyone can experience at will?

Oh, you can certainly increase the frequency of them. I've induced it consciously a few times myself. It is difficult however, yes.

Pardon me, but if you are aiming to make an impact here, you will have to make a coherent claim. Don't muck about, don't ◊◊◊◊ with people here.

I claim that there may be more to this than meets the "eye"! : P

Make up your mind!

I don't have enough data, yet. : )

Bull. That is not your aim. You have demanded that people take your word for it. That people believe you, your word. But when you discovered that people would not do that, you went through all this bull.

It's bull.

Moo : p

Yeah, I did get frustrated after reading people's opinions of OOBE in general. What makes you angry though?

 

[BillyJoe]

Em,

It seems to me that, because of the vagueness of your experiences, especially regarding vision, you will probably have difficulty proving to yourself that these experiences are real. For example, ou won't be able to read the number on the card because your vision is not sufficiently clear. You won't be able to detail what you find in a remotely viewed room, because the concentration required interferes with the clearness of your vision. Etc. Etc,

Are there any amongst your colleages who have perfect vision? They would be in a good position to prove the reality of OBEs to themselves, if they so desired. You might invite them here to discuss this, if there is such an individual..

 

[Expression_man]

Are there any amongst your colleages who have perfect vision? They would be in a good position to prove the reality of OBEs to themselves, if they so desired. You might invite them here to discuss this, if there is such an individual..

Yes, there are a few. I'm still very much a newcomer to this subject, I've only been pursuing it for about 4 years which is why I say I'm not the man for the job. Some have been doing it for most of their lives.

Yes, they are in an excellent position and have, supposedly, validated their experiences beyond any reasonable doubt. They also tell me that I'm unwise to approach a community like the JREF. I think they're wrong about that mind you.

The reason I got involved with these people was due to an experience I had in a remote healing session with them. I don't know what to make of all this stuff about "chakras" but one of them managed to stimulate what is supposedly the second/orange/Hara/Svadhisthana chakra in me (lots of names for it). I got a buzzing/tingling feeling around my stomach. Moments before I could mention it to them I was told what they were doing and that I shouldn't be alarmed. Needless to say, that got me very curious about things. I'll certainly keep mentioning this stage to them, I'd do that without prompting from anyone.

 

[Moochie]

Yes, there are a few. I'm still very much a newcomer to this subject, I've only been pursuing it for about 4 years which is why I say I'm not the man for the job. Some have been doing it for most of their lives.

And I'd guess your age at about 15--16...

Yes, they are in an excellent position and have, supposedly, validated their experiences beyond any reasonable doubt. They also tell me that I'm unwise to approach a community like the JREF. I think they're wrong about that mind you.

I wonder why they would say such a thing?

The reason I got involved with these people was due to an experience I had in a remote healing session with them. I don't know what to make of all this stuff about "chakras" but one of them managed to stimulate what is supposedly the second/orange/Hara/Svadhisthana chakra in me (lots of names for it). I got a buzzing/tingling feeling around my stomach.

ROFLMAO

Priceless!

Moments before I could mention it to them I was told what they were doing and that I shouldn't be alarmed. Needless to say, that got me very curious about things. I'll certainly keep mentioning this stage to them, I'd do that without prompting from anyone.

I'm finding your naivety refreshingly hilarious. But, really, this thread ought to be in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy forum.

M.

 

[Expression_man]

And I'd guess your age at about 15--16...

If my pay grade factors into this then I'm 23 with 1 GNVQ (advanced information and communications technology), 1HND, and a 1:1 hons in Software Systems for the Arts and Media (BSc). I had an interest in parapsychology at one point but it seems to only entail theoretical work which is more or less useless to me.

I'm finding your naivety refreshingly hilarious

/shrug

 

[Burner]

Yes, they are in an excellent position and have, supposedly, validated their experiences beyond any reasonable doubt. They also tell me that I'm unwise to approach a community like the JREF. I think they're wrong about that mind you.

Any particular reason or is JREF just 'bad people' ?

The reason I got involved with these people was due to an experience I had in a remote healing session with them. I don't know what to make of all this stuff about "chakras" but one of them managed to stimulate what is supposedly the second/orange/Hara/Svadhisthana chakra in me (lots of names for it). I got a buzzing/tingling feeling around my stomach. Moments before I could mention it to them I was told what they were doing and that I shouldn't be alarmed. Needless to say, that got me very curious about things. I'll certainly keep mentioning this stage to them, I'd do that without prompting from anyone.

You sound like a perfect client for those phone healing woos. 'Do you feel a tingle in your stomach ?' 'Uhhhh, yes? Yes.. I do! Wow!'

 

[Expression_man]

Any particular reason or is JREF just 'bad people' ?

The most common response I get is "they don't want to know".

You sound like a perfect client for those phone healing woos. 'Do you feel a tingle in your stomach ?' 'Uhhhh, yes?' 'Yes. I do! Wow!'

Ah, you misunderstand me. I had no chance to mention what I was feeling as in the moments which followed they said what I was about to describe perfectly.

As for phone healings, no. This isn't commercial stuff I'm talking about. We have a community and we use chat/video/voice communication software which is freely available. No one is charged anything.

The majority of them are above 50 years of age and I'm somewhat out of place there.

Edit: I'm one of the people who suggested we use the current software. A few are somewhat technophobic and need help with it. : )

 

[BillyJoe]

The most common response I get is "they don't want to know".

Tell them that some of us do wish to know, but warn them there are some who lash out with humour and ridicule.

But they can always respond to these individuals with a silent smile or shrug.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Also a little bit of evidence will result in a rational discourse

 

[Burner]

The most common response I get is "they don't want to know".

I thought the sole purpose of the JREF was to learn. Oh well, guess the psychics know better.

Btw, what exact effects did that remote healing of yours have? Which illnes did they treat and what were the results?

 

[Jackalgirl]

The most common response I get is "they don't want to know".

BillyJoe's spot on with this. I /do/ want to know. But I want to /know/, and for me, /know/ requires that I have logical, demonstrable, observable evidence. It's the kind of know I can be absolutely sure of, because there's hard evidence to back it up -- not conjecture, not anecdote, but actual observable, measurable events controlled for tricker and/or other possible mechanisms.

It isn't /know/ in the sense of "faith". That's another animal entirely.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

The most common response I get is "they don't want to know".
...

If you are referring to the JREF Forum, which I am a part of, I do want to know.

But you have to convince me by showing me. Your words mean nothing beyond your subjective perception.

(Even a Nobel Laureate's word would not be good enough for me. He'd have to present verifiable evidence. If he's worth his salt, he could do it in a jiffy.)

 

[Expression_man]

I thought the sole purpose of the JREF was to learn. Oh well, guess the psychics know better.

I'm not even sure if "psychic" is the right term to use for these people. They certainly can't mind read in the sense you describe. It's just that in their minds they think they've been through it all before (I'm aware of the irony). They tend to keep to themselves but they're a great bunch and very kind hearted (unlike me). I've actually gotten angry at how passive they seem sometimes.

Btw, what exact effects did that remote healing of yours have? Which illnes did they treat and what were the results?

I find it rather personal but if sharing will help bring an understanding...

As I said earlier, some people can have an OBE and feel great afterwards. I'm not one of them. The healing in this case was for me. After my first consciously induced projection I lost my sense of balance. It felt as though I was physically falling yet my vision was unaffected, something similar to vertigo maybe. This went on for a month and I was experiencing regular hallucinations. I was seeing and hearing people who weren't there and at one time I even saw a giant hand waving to me in thin air. I was something of an emotional wreck and contemplating suicide.

I was in a deep state of what you would describe as being psychosis (maybe I never left)! After this healing session everything changed immediately. I stopped seeing "stuff" while awake and my sense of balance had returned. I was so grateful I just broke down and wept, it was a huge relief for me.

Their view of the world is different and I'm sure you will have come across it before. They believe that everything is tied together by consciousness and that by focussing positively on something you can make changes that are both physical and mental. A lot of people call it the law of attraction. I'm aware of how it's perceived and I don't want to talk about it. I'm just being honest about where I'm coming from.

Also a little bit of evidence will result in a rational discourse

I assure you that there won't be any evidence presented by these people until there is rational discourse on a much grander scale. There are communities dedicated to pursuing just OBEs however, they would probably suffice as that's what's in question here.

BillyJoe's spot on with this. I /do/ want to know. But I want to /know/, and for me, /know/ requires that I have logical, demonstrable, observable evidence. It's the kind of know I can be absolutely sure of, because there's hard evidence to back it up -- not conjecture, not anecdote, but actual observable, measurable events controlled for tricker and/or other possible mechanisms.

It isn't /know/ in the sense of "faith". That's another animal entirely.

You're looking at things through a microscope and not seeing the bigger picture. Again, all "knowing" is at the end of the day is what you believe to be the truth based on the information you've used to verify it. Evidence is important but so is first-hand experience. You should never believe in something 100% if it hasn't been demonstrated to you personally. Very few people go out of their way to see what the best pictures of atoms look like, many are content with what the cartoon-like blobs in the textbooks convey. This isn't a complex philosophy but it is overlooked by many. The only way you learn is by asking questions and "thinking outside the box". You can't just sit there and wait for things to come to you unless you take an interest in them and do some exploring. I'm talking about phenomena related to consciousness here, the scope of which we haven't yet been able to fathom. CFlarsen was talking about how Rene Blondlot and his followers supposedly suffered from self-induced visual hallucinations. How sure can we be that this isn't happening on a much larger scale?

 

[Jackalgirl]

You're looking at things through a microscope and not seeing the bigger picture. Again, all "knowing" is at the end of the day is what you believe to be the truth based on the information you've used to verify it.

I am not talking about "truth" here. I generally talk about observable, verifiable things. "Truth" is a philosophical term. Could you specify, just for my own clarity in understanding you, what you think the information is that I'm using the verify my microscopic picture (of what)? What /is/ the big picture?

You can't just sit there and wait for things to come to you unless you take an interest in them and do some exploring. I'm talking about phenomena related to consciousness here, the scope of which we haven't yet been able to fathom. CFlarsen was talking about how Rene Blondlot and his followers supposedly suffered from self-induced visual hallucinations. How sure can we be that this isn't happening on a much larger scale?

What do you mean by "on a much larger scale"? How large a scale? Are you talking about, for example, everyone hallucinating? Like, for example, everyone hallucinating that, say, physics works as it does, and everyone hallucinating the readout of the oscilloscope (for example) in exactly the same way, and everyone (in the US, at least) hallucinating 120V, 60Hz power? If so, that's entirely too philosophical a discussion for me, especially within the scope of discussing the JREF Challenge.

I think the point of this whole discussion (and I mean the whole OOBE discussion, which honestly should be split off from this thread) can be summed up as this:

Possibility one: OOBEs are (as yet) poorly understood hallucinatory episodes. That is, they take place entirely within the brain of the perceiver. Many OOBEs are similar, possibly because the wiring and/or deep structures of the human brain are similar from person to person.

Possibility two: certain mind states actually allow one to experience the world via a mechanism /other than/ the body and its traditional 5 senses (e.g., being able to see another room without being in that room and without using technology).

The Challenge portion of this discussion, so far, is how to demonstrate that possibility two is in fact the case -- that is, to control for (and thereby eliminate) all of the possible factors that would point to possibility one as being the case. That is my sole interest in this discussion -- I am /only/ interested in discussing protocols that can be designed to control for everything but an actual out-of-body experience. If that makes me microscopic in that outlook, then so be it.

 

[BillyJoe]

It's just that in their minds they think they've been through it all before.

Do you mean that they claim to have proven previously that their OBEs are real, only to have their proof denied by the observers? Have they given you any details, because without details, it would be hard to decide whether they did, in fact, prove their case or whether the observers were justified in their scepticism. Seems to me that someone with perfect vision during an OBE would have no trouble proving this, to the satisfaction of any observer, if he wished to.

 

[BillyJoe]

Evidence is important but so is first-hand experience.

The fact that first hand experience is so unreliable is why we require evidence before we accept anything as true. The brain can be easily tricked. For example, optical illusions (the most famous being the checkerboard illusion) trick all of us all of the time. Hallucinations, on the other hand, affect some of us some of the time. Also, it is well known how unreliable eye-witness testimony can be.

You should never believe in something 100% if it hasn't been demonstrated to you personally

You should never believe anything 100% even if it has been demonstrated to you. There may have been methodological flaws. This is why we demand that an effect must be reproducible. Pons and Fleichmann's effect, for example, was not reproducible and has been consigned to the dust heap.

On the other hand we do have to take some things on faith (some say trust is a better word). We can't all personally investigate the subatomic particles. We can, however, trust that the scientific community, because of peer review, is a reliable source of information about such things. Again we don't believe it 100%. This is just the nature of science.