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

[jimtron]

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.

OK, get two people who don't believe in "reductionist thinking," two folks who are "attuned" to each other. Neither needs to be a skeptic or affiliated with JREF. Put the two people in separate rooms, or same room with a curtain between them. Someone rolls a pair of dice. Say they come up 12. So the transmitter transmits the number 12 to the other person. The other person writes the number down. I can't speak for JREF, but I'll bet they'd go for something like that.

Sound good, Maatorc?

 

[maatorc]

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

You are articulating the hang-up of this site!

 

[Gr8wight]

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.

That sounds very interesting, but it did not answer my question. I might believe I had received a very clear message from the sender (in the sender's own 'voice' even), but how would I know I had actually received the correct message?

 

[arthwollipot]

You are articulating the hang-up of this site!

While it is true that all answers are responses, not all responses are answers. You didn't answer the question.

 

[steenkh]

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

Evasion noted.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

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

Keeping in mind that this forum is a place to discuss "skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" and this subforum is dedicated specifically to the MDC:
What is your point in doing what you do, maatorc, if you refuse to provide evidence for your claims? (I assume you understand why most people here insist on more than words.)

 

[jimtron]

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.

If the sender's message is clearly recognizable, why couldn't that be tested? As I said on the other thread, the sender and receiver don't need to be skeptics, that could be two "non-reductionists" whom are "attuned" to each other. A random word or number is chosen, showed to the sender, then the sender sends it, and the receiver writes down the word or number sent. Is there any reason this couldn't be tested?

 

[Gr8wight]

While it is true that all answers are responses, not all responses are answers. You didn't answer the question.

Hmmmm, do I detect a trend?

 

[maatorc]

That sounds very interesting, but it did not answer my question. I might believe I had received a very clear message from the sender (in the sender's own 'voice' even), but how would I know I had actually received the correct message?

What do you mean by 'correct' message?

 

[maatorc]

If the sender's message is clearly recognizable, why couldn't that be tested? As I said on the other thread, the sender and receiver don't need to be skeptics, that could be two "non-reductionists" whom are "attuned" to each other. A random word or number is chosen, showed to the sender, then the sender sends it, and the receiver writes down the word or number sent. Is there any reason this couldn't be tested?

This is confusing parlor tricks with psychic reality.
The example you give does not test the actual process but might be acceptable to the MDC.

 

[Gr8wight]

What do you mean by 'correct' message?

Well, what if I very clearly received the message "green" from the sender, but he was really sending "Thursday?"

 

[maatorc]

While it is true that all answers are responses, not all responses are answers. You didn't answer the question.

If, like the other person, you are asking me a question about my private life, it is none of your business.
I am discussing a principle, not personalities.

 

[Gr8wight]

This is confusing parlor tricks with psychic reality.
The example you give does not test the actual process but might be acceptable to the MDC.

One cannot test the process unless one is able to determine that there actually is a process. And in order to know there actually is a process, one must demonstrate a result. Lacking a demonstrable result, why should anyone, anywhere, actually believe there is a process?

 

[maatorc]

Well, what if I very clearly received the message "green" from the sender, but he was really sending "Thursday?"

Can you explain how that would happen?

 

[Gr8wight]

Can you explain how that would happen?

Sure. The receiver was mistaken.

 

[maatorc]

One cannot test the process unless one is able to determine that there actually is a process....

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.

 

[jimtron]

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.

Maatorc: You said:

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.

This is a process, no? You have made a claim above. This would be easy to check, as I have pointed out--give the sender a word, have the sender send it, and ask the receiver what it is.

The skeptics are not making claims that remote viewing and sending thoughts is real---apparently you are, and a great many others. How do proponents of RV'ing know it's real, if it's so vague, and as you have pointed out, objective. Could it be that they are being fooled, and or fooling themselves?

Tell me, what evidence do you have that RV or sending messages via the mind can really happen?

 

[maatorc]

Sure. The receiver was mistaken.

So what do you think actually caused this?

 

[jimtron]

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.

If the phenomenon can't be measured, how do you know it exists? If someone can send a message telepathically, it would be so easy to check, as I've pointed out. Give the sender a word without the receiver knowing, and then ask the receiver what the word is. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

 

[maatorc]

.....This is a process, no? ...-give the sender a word, have the sender send it, and ask the receiver what it is.....

No, the mechanics of the demonstration are NOT the process.
The process of any psychic event is the actual psychic-mental action of performing it, which mental action is not in itself materially measurable, as distinct from its effects which may be observable and measurable.