Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

[RemieV]

I return from TAM 5.5 to discover that absolutely nothing has changed

Ah, it's good to be back.

maatorc, water is water because we call it water. Mammals are mammals because we call them mammals. We could just as easily call them chairs, so long as we stopped calling chairs chairs and called them water. Do you follow?

If the MDC happens to stumble across something paranormal, it will be paranormal because we call it paranormal - which is the term for any phenomenon that exists outside of what is explainable.

This doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. We may just not know what it is yet, or maybe it's because we've been fooled.

But since no remote viewer has ever succeeded, you are attempting to build on a foundation of water. And by water, I do not mean chair or mammal.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

It is indeed simple: As follows. -
Reductionist scientism is indistinguishable from a fundamentalist religious cult.
It does not build churches but is nonetheless a faith.
It's ritual is skepticism.
Meetings ironically resemble religious revival gatherings.
The faithful are exhorted to combat anything that smacks of non-reductionism.
It is, also ironically, indistinguishable from another well known cult which violently attacks others, and is violently attacked by skeptics on many threads.
Only by stepping outside this cult mind-set is it possible to objectively observe this failure to see that although the material investigations of true science are absolutely correct they only penetrate the physical and material level of an infinite reality: Something well understood at the highest levels of true science.

In what manner?
This is not really saying anything.

I'm sure you did understand what I was saying, as I'm sure the others did understand: The cult metaphor you used showed your despair and possibly your need to project. It has been used by other critics as well, usually when they were cornered and ready to bite.

For some reason, you need your belief to be true - voilà your despair.
Should you provide evidence for your case, we'll gladly examine it.

Alas, we've been here a couple of times: You won't provide evidence for your case. You keep bombarding various threads with semantic twists. You disappear after failing to convince anyone.

 

[maatorc]

...But since no remote viewer has ever succeeded...

How do you know this?

 

[maatorc]

For some reason, you need your belief to be true -

For some reason you need your reductionist scientism to be true.

 

[jimtron]

How do you know this?

Maatorc, you ignored my earlier questions. What is remote viewing? Is it seeing something without using your eyes, or is it sending messages to people?

 

[RemieV]

How do you know this?

We're talking about the Challenge, maatorc. The statement works just as well if you add in 'within the scope of the Challenge' to the end.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

For some reason you need your reductionist scientism to be true.

Good comeback. Not at all desperate.

I've stated often enough that I'd gladly take all evidence into account. I've even done it in the post you quoted.



Since this is the R&P subforum (>90% pointless rants), and especially since your arguments have been reasonably and extensively dealt with, I will leave this discussion. Anyone PM me if necessary.

 

[maatorc]

Maatorc, you ignored my earlier questions. What is remote viewing? Is it seeing something without using your eyes, or is it sending messages to people?

The notion of psychic reality is opposite to reductionist scientism.
A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
Contrary to the mechanical reductionist perspective that mind-consciousness is a brain limited chemical function, psychic consciousness both embraces and transcends limited physical brain-consciousness.

 

[arthwollipot]

So can you demonstrate this effect?

 

[maatorc]

... What do you think about remote viewing and the MDC?

Their is a conflict because the notion of psychic reality is opposite to reductionist thinking.
A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
In this analogy, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
This is contrary to the belief that mind is a brain chemical function.
It is central to the respective positions of claimants and the MDC.

 

[steenkh]

A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.

Interesting analogy. A pity that it is pure imagination with nothing to back it up that this could actually be real.

Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
Contrary to the mechanical reductionist perspective that mind-consciousness is a brain limited chemical function, psychic consciousness both embraces and transcends limited physical brain-consciousness.

Big words. Where are the facts?

 

[steenkh]

In this analogy, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
This is contrary to the belief that mind is a brain chemical function.
It is central to the respective positions of claimants and the MDC.

What is central to the positions of claimants and the MDC is that the claimants may have all sorts of "analogies" for their claims, but they cannot deliver a simple demonstration.

 

[Gr8wight]

The notion of psychic reality is opposite to reductionist scientism.
A useful physical analogy of R-V or psychic projection is the transmission and reception of television visual and sound vibrations.
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
Analogously, we are infinitely complex conscious-living transmitter-receivers.
Contrary to the mechanical reductionist perspective that mind-consciousness is a brain limited chemical function, psychic consciousness both embraces and transcends limited physical brain-consciousness.

So, in light of that, can you please answer my previous question... If I were the "receiver" in a transmitter-receiver link, how would I know I had successfully received the correct message, as transmitted?

If someone projected what to me? What, exactly, would be projected to me by this alleged "psychic projector" that would lead me to believe his or her claim? How would I know that I had received the specific projection said "projector" had projected?

Please, maatorc, explain.

 

[maatorc]

What is central to the positions of claimants and the MDC is that the claimants may have all sorts of "analogies" for their claims, but they cannot deliver a simple demonstration.

If you agreed with anything I said it would greatly alarm me.
Carry on!

 

[maatorc]

So, in light of that, can you please answer my previous question... If I were the "receiver" in a transmitter-receiver link, how would I know I had successfully received the correct message, as transmitted?

The degree of perfection and complete mastery of the technique varies.
Where the sender is fully in control the receiver will usually have a definite visual and or auditory recognition of the sender's personality and/or hear a message clearly recognizable as the voice of the sender.
The variations in this absolute objective clarity are very wide.

 

[arthwollipot]

So, how can this technique be demonstrated?

 

[maatorc]

So, how can this technique be demonstrated?

A successful and convincing demonstration could be inferred under agreed protocols in the MDC but would necessarily be at least once removed from the actual realizable process which itself is not phenomenally measurable.

 

[arthwollipot]

A successful and convincing demonstration could be inferred under agreed protocols in the MDC but would necessarily be at least once removed from the actual realizable process which itself is not phenomenally measurable.

Um, what?

 

[schlitt]

Maatorc's threads remind me of one of my favourite sayings.

"The empty can rattles the most".

 

[Cold one]

So the question now is - Maatorc why aren't you a millionaire?