SPR Study Day - The Psychology of the Sceptic

[Mashuna]

Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.

As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.

Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

I think you end up making this same post in every thread.

If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there, this is your noumenal event. If you then tell someone what you saw there, and have no other way of getting that information, this is testing noumenal events by phenomenal means.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.
As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.
Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

1... I think you end up making this same post in every thread.
2... If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there, this is your noumenal event. If you then tell someone what you saw there, and have no other way of getting that information, this is testing noumenal events by phenomenal means.

1... I think you say the same things in every thread.
2... Verbally reporting it is not testing it and cannot be a proof. Although it may be convincing to some and acceptable as a reasonable inference of the event actually occurring, the one experiencing the event noumenally and reporting it phenomenally has not thereby proven the event occurred.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Psychic reality is that level or category of perception or awareness lying outside our normal perceptions of time and space based on our physical senses.
As an example: If you visually observe a place by physically being there that form of perception is called phenomena. If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there that form of perception is called noumena.
Phenomena and noumena are incommensurable: Phenomenal means cannot measure noumenal events.

1... I think you end up making this same post in every thread.
2... If you visually observe a place but you are not physically there, this is your noumenal event. If you then tell someone what you saw there, and have no other way of getting that information, this is testing noumenal events by phenomenal means.

1... I think you say the same things in every thread.
2... Verbally reporting it is not testing it and cannot be a proof. Although it may be convincing to some and acceptable as a reasonable inference of the event actually occurring, the one experiencing the event noumenally and reporting it phenomenally has not thereby proven the event occurred.

 

[Mashuna]

1... I think you say the same things in every thread.

I see the problem. You need to work on your phenomenal awareness.

 

[blutoski]

1... If it is true, and matches what skeptics claim, why does the MDC exist when it relies entirely on phenomenal procedures to test claimants. You are clearly missing something fundamental here.

The MDC exists because skeptics think that what psi advocates call supernatural are, in fact, natural phenomena, which can be revealed and explored through scientific means. Naturalism is the null hypothesis for any skeptical psi test.

Secondly, there is a litmus test popular among both skeptics and psi advocates that is used to identify psi phenomena: the rigorous exclusion of natural phenomena. In other words: psi is identified by exhausting natural explanations. The MDC team has frequently designed protocols for this purpose.

2... I am distinguishing between false skeptics like you and genuine skeptics who do not appear to be here.

I'd love to discuss this, but you need to this by inventing new terms instead of misusing existing terms. It aids in communication.

Really, it sounds more like you're throwing insults at this point. Going onto a skeptic forum and announcing that there are no skeptics there is pretty boilerplate troll behavior.

 

[fls]

At an acknowledged simplistic level, without sarcasm, are you saying that if you meet a friend or send me a message you cannot be sure you met your friend or sent me a message?

It depends upon what conclusions you are drawing about the nature of that interaction. What sorts of experiences are you concluding represent genuine psychic abilities?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

......Really, it sounds more like you're throwing insults at this point. Going onto a skeptic forum and announcing that there are no skeptics there is pretty boilerplate troll behavior.

You mean like this? :

......( blutoski - post 439 )......that you appear to have pulled out of your butt?

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
At an acknowledged simplistic level, without sarcasm, are you saying that if you meet a friend or send me a message you cannot be sure you met your friend or sent me a message?

It depends upon what conclusions you are drawing about the nature of that interaction. What sorts of experiences are you concluding represent genuine psychic abilities? Linda

Strictly noumenal events.

 

[blutoski]

You mean like this? :

No. That's not troll-like behavior.

That's an expression that means "...that you appear to have invented yourself without justification."

 

[blutoski]

Strictly noumenal events.

Could you be specific: the perfect day is noumenal. Is it psychic?

 

[blutoski]

Could you be specific: the perfect day is noumenal. Is it psychic?

Also: I'm not sure I truly understand your use of the word noumenal in this thread. I'm aware of different meanings, from philosophy.

The most common use is Schopenhauer's: to describe events that do not interact with things. Is this how you are using the term?

There are other uses that predate Schopenhauer's, but mostly if people are not discussing Schopenhauer's, they are discussing Kant's. Kant had both positive and negative noumena. If you're talking about Kantian noumena, are you talking about the positive or negative variety?

These are very different uses of the term and I want to avoide confusion. Once I get this square, I'll be able to continue considering your statments.

 

[fls]

Strictly noumenal events.

Can you give an example of a noumenal event that represents a psychic experience?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

......That's an expression that means "...that you appear to have invented yourself without justification."

And who invented you and with what justification?

 

[maatorc]

Can you give an example of a noumenal event that represents a psychic experience? Linda

Seeing or hearing at or from a distance.

 

[fls]

Seeing or hearing at or from a distance.

How do you distinguish that from normal cognitive function?

Linda

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Seeing or hearing at or from a distance.

How do you distinguish that from normal cognitive function? Linda

It is quite 'normal', just not phenomenally based.

 

[fls]

It is quite 'normal', just not phenomenally based.

How do you distinguish it from non-psychic, non-phenomenally based cognition - e.g. someone who visualizes a remote scene?

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

nou·me·non (nm-nn)
n. pl. nou·me·na (-n)
In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. Also called thing-in-itself.

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

[German, from Greek nooumenon, from neuter present passive participle of noein, to perceive by thought, from nous, mind.]

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

noumen·al (-m-nl) adj
Is this what you talking about? If so, I don't get it. How can a thing-in-itself, independent of the mind (whatever that is) be involved with "seeing or hearing at or from a distance".
I'm doing that right now, without any immaterial mind, just the same old brain.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Two aspects of my personality that I'm not proud of are I like being right, and I like winning an easy fight. Arguing with creationists, for example, is attractive to me because it's like shooting fish in a barrel. There are good reasons to combat irrational thinking and dishonesty, but assuaging my own ego is not one of them. So that's something I struggle with.

Uhg...How can you even stand that kind of argument?

I find arguing w/ "easy targets", like creationists, embarrassing and downright frustrating. Trying to have a rational debate with someone who is profoundly ignorant or obviously stupid/deluded makes me wanna take an impact drill to my temple. Oh, and folks who don't actually engage in a salient way to a debate (but seem intellectually capable) annoy me almost as much.

I prefer "hard" targets to the "softies". Its a good mental workout and challenges me to flesh out my own thinking in a more thorough manner.

 

[maatorc]

How do you distinguish it from non-psychic, non-phenomenally based cognition - e.g. someone who visualizes a remote scene? Linda

Am having a little problem with your exact meaning.
Visualizing can lead to psychic remote viewing.
You seem to be saying someone who visualizes and succeeds in remotely viewing a place is not experiencing a psychic event, whereas I would say they are; but I am uncertain of your meaning.