Rosemary Altea

[Cuddles]

I assure you that there won't be any evidence presented by these people until there is rational discourse on a much grander scale.

How is there supposed to be rational discourse if they won't show any evidence? All we are left with is :

Believer - "I had an out of body experience".
Sceptic - "Prove it".
Believer - "No".

It's not the sceptics that aren't being rational here.

 

[MadOverlord]

Also, it is well known how unreliable eye-witness testimony can be.

The British "dads-n-lads" science show "Brainiac" (now being shown on in the US on G4 IIRC) did one experiment that really demonstrated some of the things our perceptual system can do to us.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBL2SbRj5CA

It's a truly silly show, with a habit of featuring well-endowed young ladies handling high explosives, destroying holiday caravans during games of golf, and generally torturing the lab-assistant Brainiacs. HIGHLY recommended.

During one series they had a running challenge where various groups were trying to break into a safe. They finally got it open by firing a main battle tank cannon at it. Blew up the reward money that was inside, however.

In the current series, they're trying to crack open a black box flight recorder. It's taken a direct hit from a civil war field cannon with only a minor dent.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
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.

Please define "rational discourse on a much grander scale", Expression_man.

How do those people justify not snatching up USD 1,000,000 by simply proving what they claim?

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?

In short:

0. Form a hypothesis.
1. Design a proper test to verify 0.
2. Execute.
3. Look at results.
4. Repeat.
5. Look at results again.
6. Check for errors.
7. Have others perform the test.
8. Repeat 5 - 7.

 

[petre]

Please define "rational discourse on a much grander scale", Expression_man.

How do those people justify not snatching up USD 1,000,000 by simply proving what they claim?



In short:

0. Form a hypothesis.
1. Design a proper test to verify 0.
2. Execute.
3. Look at results.
4. Repeat.
5. Look at results again.
6. Check for errors.
7. Have others perform the test.
8. Repeat 5 - 7.

That's odd, I thought it went:

0. Form a hypothesis.
1. If hypothesis isn't cool, increase levels of mind-altering substance of choice and repeat step 0
2. Tell everyone you meet about your cool hypothesis
3. When asked to justify your hypothesis, repeat it several times, often defining new terms
4. When your hypothesis is attacked, respond by attacking any other hypothesis. It does not matter if the one you attack is in any way related to your hypothesis, nor is it important that anyone ever suggest that they support the hypothesis you attack.
5. Repeat again that your hypothesis is true, if people would only listen to you and try it, they'd see for themselves
6. If people actually test your hypothesis (which always seems to end in failure for some reason), or suggest simple ways you might do so, modify the hypothesis until it becomes untestable.
7. State that you suppose your hypothesis is simply untestable, so it is up to others to believe it or not.
8. Repeat steps 3-7

 

[Moochie]

Independent Order of Odd Fellows comes to mind, but that's already taken.

EM, are you on any medication? (Not a frivolous question.)

M.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
1. If hypothesis isn't cool, increase levels of mind-altering substance of choice and repeat step 0
...

Petre, you did it again.

(I wasn't mocking you, Expression_man.)

 

[Burner]

That's odd, I thought it went:

0. Form a hypothesis.
1. If hypothesis isn't cool, increase levels of mind-altering substance of choice and repeat step 0
2. Tell everyone you meet about your cool hypothesis
3. When asked to justify your hypothesis, repeat it several times, often defining new terms
4. When your hypothesis is attacked, respond by attacking any other hypothesis. It does not matter if the one you attack is in any way related to your hypothesis, nor is it important that anyone ever suggest that they support the hypothesis you attack.
5. Repeat again that your hypothesis is true, if people would only listen to you and try it, they'd see for themselves
6. If people actually test your hypothesis (which always seems to end in failure for some reason), or suggest simple ways you might do so, modify the hypothesis until it becomes untestable.
7. State that you suppose your hypothesis is simply untestable, so it is up to others to believe it or not.
8. Repeat steps 3-7

Is that an angel with a railgun?

 

[Expression_man]

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBL2SbRj5CA

Hah, very cool. : ) I got 13 (instead of 12) and I didn’t care much about the bee thing when it came in. : p

It’s perhaps similar to how cats chase mice and end up bashing their heads when their prey gets underneath something too low for them.

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.

I’d agree with that but I’d also point out that it’s important to involve oneself in the experiment where possible. Either by taking part in it or by merely observing it, hearing about it isn’t so good. Discussions follow / points are raised and an understanding, based on the experience, is reached.

You should never believe anything 100% even if it has been demonstrated to you. There may have been methodological flaws.

I agree, all I’m saying is that there’s a lot we take for granted.

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.

Nay, not what I meant, not exactly.

The account of Blondlot and Robert W.Wood raises interesting questions for me. I see 2 explanations for them.

1.) The results were real but not repeatable for reasons a, b, or c.

a.) Blondlot wanted to see something with so much enthusiasm that he somehow, subconsciously, hypnotized all his followers into being able to witness the same, perhaps hallucinary, phenomena.

b.) Robert W.Wood’s doubt stopped him from seeing what was there. Similarly, others had no reason to believe it and so they saw nothing.

c.) There was another set of unidentified variables involved.

2.) Blondlot lied.

I’m finding very different accounts regarding the story 1a describes. Robert W.Wood’s character is also called into question repeatedly. Although, I did manage to find this…

Wood saw no effect and was told that his eyes weren't properly sensitized

That’s interesting to me for a number of reasons. One of them involves the idea of seeing auras and the associated practice with it (not that it has ever been successfully proven). One of the steps supposedly involves people increasing their sensitivity to light by remaining in dark rooms for extensive periods of time.

If 1a is given credence then 1b is also a possibility.

1c, something happened but for another set of reasons. That’s also entirely possible.

2, doesn’t make sense, he held a respected position and had too much to lose.

I just find it curious.

EM, are you on any medication?

None. Thank you for caring.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Expression_man, are you actually interested in a discussion or do your posts in this thread represent you thinking out loud?

 

[Expression_man]

Expression_man, are you actually interested in a discussion or do your posts in this thread represent you thinking out loud?

That seems rather harsh after all the flippant remarks I've had to do my best to ignore.

People were talking about self-critique and I was just giving my thoughts on it. I'm sorry if it's not what you wanted to hear.

Right, you're asking me why they don't they snap up the $mil.

My guess is that they see it as being a trap of some sort. If you look around the forums, at all the preconceived notions people have, it's not difficult to understand why they might think that way. That's why I say rational discourse is imperative. I've been following David Farrant in his thread on the forums and people just don't want to listen to him either.

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.

When we do even non-guided group meditations we get things happening. OBEs are something they deal with but it's not a constant focus. When I say they've done it all before I just mean that they've encountered "skeptics" before (I'm sure that one will get me in trouble). There's a lot more to these people than just OBEs. It's difficult to keep this on topic sometimes, ok.

I'm not sure if there's anything more I can say regarding this. If you've taken an interest, try for an experience but don't do anything rash. I was rather desperate the first time and did something drastic I'd rather not talk about (hence the side effects). There's nothing to be fearful of as long as you remain positive and don't do anything stupid, I assure you.

The book you would probably understand best is Astral Dynamics by Robert Bruce, another nutcase like me. Stick with what works and don't worry if you don't get it early on. You don't have to agree with what's being said (I know I don't), just follow the techniques.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Right, you're asking me why they don't they snap up the $mil.

My guess is that they see it as being a trap of some sort. If you look around the forums, at all the preconceived notions people have, it's not difficult to understand why they might think that way. That's why I say rational discourse is imperative. I've been following David Farrant in his thread on the forums and people just don't want to listen to him either.
...

How do "preconceived notions" affect one's ability to have a qualifying claim for the JREF Challenge, applying, proving what is claimed and getting the mil?

It's of course a rhetorical question: They don't.



Since you still post in the Challenge subforum, do you intend to apply, Expression_man? (I know, I have asked this before.)

 

[Expression_man]

How do "preconceived notions" affect one's ability to have a qualifying claim for the JREF Challenge, applying, proving what is claimed and getting the mil?

It's of course a rhetorical question: They don't.

Then I guess I must be wrong about their reasons.

Since you still post in the Challenge subforum, do you intend to apply, Expression_man? (I know, I have asked this before.)

Given time, yes. I think it'd be stupid not to. As for how much time, I don't know. I need to find a way to get repeatable results.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Given time, yes. I think it'd be stupid not to. As for how much time, I don't know. I need to find a way to get repeatable results.

So far, so good. Keep going.

I suggest you open a new thread in this subforum if you are really serious about your application. If you do come forward with a valid claim - and I have enough reasons to assume you can do that - we will offer our best in helping you hammer out a protocol.

Please remember the changes to the JREF Challenge, Expression_man. Starting April 01, the focus of JREF shifts to the big cahunas.
If you have something substantial, it'll just mean you have to relegate it through different channels, i.e. local skeptical groups, EA, etc.

 

[BillyJoe]

That's odd, I thought it went:

0. Form a hypothesis.
1. If hypothesis isn't cool, increase levels of mind-altering substance of choice and repeat step 0
2. Tell everyone you meet about your cool hypothesis
3. When asked to justify your hypothesis, repeat it several times, often defining new terms
4. When your hypothesis is attacked, respond by attacking any other hypothesis. It does not matter if the one you attack is in any way related to your hypothesis, nor is it important that anyone ever suggest that they support the hypothesis you attack.
5. Repeat again that your hypothesis is true, if people would only listen to you and try it, they'd see for themselves
6. If people actually test your hypothesis (which always seems to end in failure for some reason), or suggest simple ways you might do so, modify the hypothesis until it becomes untestable.
7. State that you suppose your hypothesis is simply untestable, so it is up to others to believe it or not.
8. Repeat steps 3-7

I don't mind if this is just a joke. It's even a bit clever as well as funny. However, if this is your considered conclusion over a long period of time conversing with people supporting ideas such as these, then what we have is a generalisation. It is unfair, then, to apply this to a particular individual, even by implication. That individual may not fit your generalisation. Individuals rarely do. Turning Em into an abstraction makes it easy kick him in the head. But it is unlikely to endear him to your point of view.

 

[BillyJoe]

EM, are you on any medication?

Nor should you extrapolate your own proclivities.

 

[BillyJoe]

The fact that first hand experience is so unreliable is why we require evidence before we accept anything as true.

I’d agree with that but I’d also point out that it’s important to involve oneself in the experiment where possible. Either by taking part in it or by merely observing it, hearing about it isn’t so good. Discussions follow / points are raised and an understanding, based on the experience, is reached.

And I would agree with you as well. However, the circumstances may be such that we cannot be involved directly because of lack of expertise in the area under investigation (eg investigating subatomic particles). Also, if you do become directly involved in an area where you feel you do have expertise, you must still be careful to investigate the phenomenon scientifically with exclusion of confounding variables and inclusion of proper controls. Otherwise you have no basis for concluding anything about what you have observed or think you have observed.

You should never believe anything 100% even if it has been demonstrated to you. There may have been methodological flaws.

I agree, all I’m saying is that there’s a lot we take for granted.

Yes, dismissive attitudes are unhelpful for everyone involved.

 

[Moochie]

Nor should you extrapolate your own proclivities.

I asked a genuine question in a civil manner. I have concerns that this individual may need help -- help that we, here, cannot give him.

I won't be responding to his posts any more.

M.

 

[Expression_man]

: (

Well my parting gift to you is this. It's just some food for thought, nothing which needs to be crapped on so to speak.

 

[petre]

Then I guess I must be wrong about their reasons.

Given time, yes. I think it'd be stupid not to. As for how much time, I don't know. I need to find a way to get repeatable results.

Well, he's now expressed that he feels if these abilities exist that it is stupid not to apply, and he's expressed uncertainty (though perhaps in jest) about exactly why they don't. It may be interesting to see where that position will eventually lead him.

 

[Expression_man]

Well, he's now expressed that he feels if these abilities exist that it is stupid not to apply, and he's expressed uncertainty (though perhaps in jest) about exactly why they don't. It may be interesting to see where that position will eventually lead him.

Hmm, I've already commented on this. Yes, I do think it's silly not to step up which is why I keep bugging them. I've already stated that some of them are technophobes and that they need help with using a PC sometimes, no one's perfect. : )

The arguments they come out with are a bit more complex than what I stated, the context of them isn't very well suited to a discussion on the JREF forums. I just gave you what I indicated as being the most common response.

The only place it could lead anyone is to a greater understanding of things. Although, you'd probably perceive failure as being the inability to think in the same way as you do, which is also "interesting".