Why does JG continue to believe ??

[UndercoverElephant]

3. The matter is UNKNOWN. Unknown means UNKNOWN. It does not mean "possible", it means UNKNOWN - geddit?

Hah! I was responding to a claim that it was IMPOSSIBLE!

If it is UNKNOWN, then it can't be IMPOSSIBLE! Wee-hee!

Can we stop now?

We can't reach a comfortable agreement on this because I am in a different position to you. As far as I can tell, I saw a whole series of events that could not be explained in any other way than that the unobserved (by me) past changed in a co-ordinated manner. So when I hear that SOME scientists believe that QM MIGHT allow reverse causality, I sit up and listen. And when somebody like you comes along and says he firmly believes that it is impossible, I also listen, but I am not going to accept what you are saying whilst the scientific position remains UNKNOWN. In the end, as you probably have realised, it doesn't actually make much difference. The only person who knows what I saw is me, as I have said right from the start. Anyone else can come to any conclusion they like. Provided science DOES NOT KNOW whether this is possible, I will continue to believe my own eyes. I will not ask anybody else to believe my judgement. That is fair enough, isn't it?

The only thing I can infer from the above is that you are somehow referring to what I said about the Abhidharma. I mentioned that I didn't want you to make assumptions or jump to conclusions about my knowledge of philosophy. And yes, I pointed to the Abhidharma as a joke because I believe that if you tried to apply your reasoning to THAT you would end up tying yourself in knots. Now I require you to explain how that was an error. And what the other "errors" were since you referred to a "couple" of them.

OK, you described the observer as a guy in a white coat. I believe that in order to claim that a QM 'observer' is a guy in a white coat, you need to make an undeclared metaphysical assumption of physicalism. If so, you have mixed up metaphysics and science, and called it science. We both agreed this was a mistake.

Since then, you have also said that "any interaction is really an observer".

I have told you repeatedly that I am NOT going to "define" an observer. I am NOT going to play philosophical games or indulge in tautologies.

If you aren't going to define an observer, then how does anyone know what "observer" is supposed to mean in your description of QM? How do we know whether an observation has been made if we don't know what an observer is? I am no closer to understanding what you think it is which "collapses a wave function". You seem to be saying it is matter.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, Aussie.. I think you were mistaken about JG. He is more credulous than you have asserted in your original post.

 

[Pragmatist]

And it's easy to keep ignoring the fact that reverse causality in QM remains the subject of an ongoing debate to which you have no right to anticipate the result. All the rest is window dressing. Lots of it. I can re-iterate the original position because it stands on its own two feet. You claim to already know the outcome of the debate. You don't. So reverse causality, at all scales, remains on the table regardless of anything else you say.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with anyone whose level of discourse consists of "I am right because I say I am". If you honestly believe what you say above you are a blind faith believer. I have described in excrutiating detail WHY your position is a fallacy. I'm not going to explain it again. If you STILL don't get it then maybe someone else will have the patience to explain it to you again.

The issue of debate is UNKNOWN. As I have stated repeatedly.

And I already asked you where you draw the line between microscopic and macroscopic. You failed to answer the question and told me that I wouldn't understand it anyway. So I left it at that.

I don't recall you asking me that. But the answer is complex. Look up Bohr's complementarity principle and you will understand. You can't reasonably expect me to explain the whole of QM AND conventional physics to you!

Wrong. You said that the observer was "the guy taking the measurements".

The description involved an assumption about metaphysics. An assumption that we both know Schroedinger, and many others, believed to be unavoidably false.

"The guy taking the measurements" hardly qualifies as a "definition"! And I explicitly said that *I* neither needed nor wanted a "definition". I can't get clearer than that. If you want to simply score cheap points by deliberately misrepresenting what I said then you are not worth debating with.

No doubt you think I am.

I didn't initially, but the way you keep misrepresenting things leads me to believe you are true believer who is desperate to validate an unreasonable view by any means fair or foul. Which is not meant as an insult, but it is a big disappointment to me.

I was with you right up until the last sentence, Pragmatist. I understood your description of a wave function. I fail to understand what this has got to do with reverse causality, at least reverse causality as it is understood by me.

It has everything to do with the idea that you can simply substitute philosophical imaginings for known physical events. And it once again highlights the fallacy I have repeatedly mentioned. I have a cookie tin and I don't know what is inside. I won't know what is inside until I open it. So I theorize that it is POSSIBLE it could contain gold coins. I open the tin. It doesn't contain gold coins. Therefore it was never in reality possible (at that time) that it DID contain gold coins. From that I observe that I made a fallacy. It was only ever THEORETICALLY possible whilst the true situation was unknown. I recognise that THEORETICALLY possible is just another way of saying it was possible that it was possible. NEVER that it "WAS possible". "Possible in theory" does not imply "possible in practice". Last time I explain this.

There are neither "equal probabilities" aren't even a guess. Why don't you just take the simple of this. There aren't "equal probabilities". There just isn't any event. To use your analogy, before you hear the traffic report nobody needs to know where the bus or the car were. It wasn't that they were "at X, but we didn't find out till afterwards". It wasn't that they were"smeared out between X an Y", either. They simply weren't anywhere at all, because nobody and nothing was observing them[/i]. You (and Schroedinger apparently) seem to be jumping through hoops backwards because of a need to explain what is happening to the bus and the car when nobody is looking at them. Yet we both know that Schroedinger was idealist and therefore didn't need them to be anywhere at all when nobody was looking at them! .

No. Why should I substitute theoretical philosophy for known fact? It was PRECISELY that attitude that Schrodinger was arguing AGAINST. Look up his argument with Heisenberg over the path of an electron. He did NOT support the view you claim he did.

The cat HAS to be, because even if you are an idealist a cat is a conscious observer. But if there is no cat, then the contents of the box DO NOT "have" to be in one state or another, and neither do they have to be "smeared out". Why do unobserved physical things have to have a definate state if you aren't a physicalist?

Now you are just being obtuse. You are misrepresenting Schrodinger as you have misrepresented me on here. There is no issue with the "consciousness" of the cat and there never has been.

Ah....I see. So we know it must have collapsed, but we don't know what collapsed it or when? I must then ask you how we know it has collapsed..

Do the cat experiment and leave the (airtight) box sealed for 50 years. Do you HONESTLY believe there is the slightest possibility the cat will come out alive? The wavefunction says there is a 50% probability it will if it hasn't collapsed. It's a MATHEMATICAL model!!! If I say "5 apples" on here, that does not mean you can eat them! I challenge you to eat the 5 apples in the last sentence!

"Patently ridiculous"?

Funny that. You see, that is what people have been saying about Berkeliean Idealism ever since it was first proposed. Yet, however patently ridiculous you think it is, it is still alive and well and making a bit of a comeback recently. And you see, if you do happen to be a person who thinks reality cannot be understood properly without reference to idealism then is it any surprise that you might end up believing that it is consciousness which collapses the wavefunction? I mean, let's not beat around the bush - that claim has been right at the heart of the problem we have been having here, but neither of us wanted to state it. When you finally DID state it, you called it patently ridiculous. I fail to see how stating the "consciousness" (whatever that means) collapsing the wavefunction is "patently absurd". Please explain.

Well I'm glad to see that not EVERYONE's brains have fallen out!

A wavefunction is collapsed by ANY change in ANY quantum state. So you have a man in a steel box, with an electric light. ANY electromagnetic wave will cause a change in quantum state. So lets eliminate them. That rules out the light. And the box and everything in it needs to be cooled to absolute zero. And we need to switch off gravity as well. And electric charge. And we need to shield 100% against cosmic radiation, neutrinos and everything else. Oh, and we need to remove every single atom of any radioactive isotope from the man, the box, and everything else. And....

On the other hand we can simply leave all of these things just as they are and simply ASSUME that there could not possibly have been one single quantum interaction or ANY physical process whatsoever in the box during the whole time, but it was just some abstract quantity we choose to call "consciousness" that we can't even clearly DEFINE let alone detect or measure which did the trick instead!

PATENTLY ridiculous!

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Originally posted by Geoff:
Quite a few of them have told me that![I am crazy]

I didn't. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

Originally posted by Geoff:
I have no problem at all with people offering opinions that don't fir my worldview. As for reasoning and facts....well, reasoning is reasoning and stand on its own - it doesn't "fit" or "not fit" my worldview. Either it's wrong or it's right.

What are you saying? That what people (including yourself) say is an opinion if it does not fit your world view, but a fact when it does fit it? Pragmatist (yes, I'll refer to him again because his posts survive scrutiny and they tally with my reading of Feynman) has conclusively and repeatedly shown that you have misunderstood the salient facts concerning QM. You are entitled to your own opinions - not to your own facts.

Originally posted by Geoff:
Facts are hard to come by too, as seen by the tortuous discussion about the status of reverse causality in QM. Turns out there are opinions involved in many so-called "facts".

So, if an opinion fits your worldview it is elevated to a fact, whereas if it contradicts it it is reduced to an opinion? You can't have it both ways. The fact is, it is not a fact that QM supports the existence of reverse causality. The fact is, that some physicists have presented an as yet unverified claim that it may possibly be possible for reverse causality to exist. That is their opinion, but it does not make reverse causality a fact by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by Geoff:
Er....Claus repeatedly claimed that "all paranormal phenomena" break the laws of physics. He claimed what I had reported broke the laws of physics. When I tried to explain why that wasn't true, he started talking about psycho-kinesis instead and flatly refused to take any notice of the QM debate.

With all due respect, you were the one who introduced QM in an attempt to support your claim that your, to us, paranormal experiences fit within known science. Pragmatist has conclusively demonstrated that QM does not support the paranormal within the framework of known science. So what you reported does, in fact, break the laws of physics - i.e. known science. End of story - until known science changes - but WE DO NOT KNOW what science may or may not find in the future, so speculation does not provide answers.

Originally posted by Geoff:
Er.....some of them he did. But he did it on the basis of claiming peer-reviewed papers on QM were full of nonsense. The debate about reverse causality in QM is not resolved, Anders. So I am afraid what you are saying is dependent on AN OPINION. Not facts. So what you have done here is tried to claim an opinion is a fact, and then told me that my arguments concerning QM had been shown to be false. Luckily for me, I don't let other people do my thinking for me.

Wrong. Pragmatist never said that the peer-reviewed papers were full of nonsense, but I'll let Pragmatist respond to that misrepresentation himself.

The debate about reverse causality in QM is not resolved, I agree. What currently exists is opinions about possible possibilities. IMHO it is, however, meaningless to try to make observations (regardless of their nature) fit one's worldview by basing the explanation on something that is currently both unresolved AND unknown, and Pragmatist has also pointed out why that is absurd.

And since you again neglected a reply to my original question, I will indulge you by repeating it here: Geoff, are you open to the possibility that your experience may have been the result of numerous tricks the mind can play on a person? Would you consider this a possibility, and not just a possibility of a possibility?

And since you skirted my second question also: As QM does not enable you to fit what you reported within known science, what arguments will you provide instead of QM?

 

[Pragmatist]

Hah! I was responding to a claim that it was IMPOSSIBLE!

If it is UNKNOWN, then it can't be IMPOSSIBLE! Wee-hee!

Can we stop now?

Yes, we can stop now. I just lost all patience with you. You have nothing to say without deliberate distortion and misrepresentation. And you are clearly unable to follow elementary logic.

OK, you described the observer as a guy in a white coat. I believe that in order to claim that a QM 'observer' is a guy in a white coat, you need to make an undeclared metaphysical assumption of physicalism. If so, you have mixed up metaphysics and science, and called it science. We both agreed this was a mistake.

Since then, you have also said that "any interaction is really an observer".

So your claim is now that any physical reality is a matter of metaphysics? And I never said an interaction is an observer, I said a quantum interaction is an OBSERVATION. Misrepresentation, time and again.

If you aren't going to define an observer, then how does anyone know what "observer" is supposed to mean in your description of QM? How do we know whether an observation has been made if we don't know what an observer is? I am no closer to understanding what you think it is which "collapses a wave function". You seem to be saying it is matter.

I told you precisely what an observation was, more than once. If you STILL can't understand it then I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Pragmatist!

The issue of debate is UNKNOWN.

Great. Then let's move on.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
And I already asked you where you draw the line between microscopic and macroscopic. You failed to answer the question and told me that I wouldn't understand it anyway. So I left it at that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't recall you asking me that. But the answer is complex. Look up Bohr's complementarity principle and you will understand. You can't reasonably expect me to explain the whole of QM AND conventional physics to you!

Well, rather like reverse causality I was under the impression that the answer to this question is also UNKNOWN. There are theories, but nobody seems very confident that they are right. So you don't have to explain it, but if the answer isn't known then that'll be just great.

"The guy taking the measurements" hardly qualifies as a "definition"!

I agree. But you must realise that plenty came before you and tried to claim it did.

And I explicitly said that *I* neither needed nor wanted a "definition". I can't get clearer than that. If you want to simply score cheap points by deliberately misrepresenting what I said then you are not worth debating with.

I'm not trying to score cheap points by deliberately misrepresenting you. That's what Claus does, and it irritates the hell out of me. So sorry if I did.

If you don't want or need a definition of "observer" then that leaves plenty of doors open for people to come along and come to their own conclusions about what an observer might be. I realise you don't want to talk about metaphysics, but do you think that everyone else should stop talking about it to?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
No doubt you think I am.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't initially, but the way you keep misrepresenting things leads me to believe you are true believer who is desperate to validate an unreasonable view by any means fair or foul. Which is not meant as an insult, but it is a big disappointment to me.

A believer in what?

All I believe in is my own eyes. I am not defending any religions here. I believe that what happened to me really happened. That isn't the same as believing in a religion and trying to find evidence to back it up.

It has everything to do with the idea that you can simply substitute philosophical imaginings for known physical events. And it once again highlights the fallacy I have repeatedly mentioned. I have a cookie tin and I don't know what is inside. I won't know what is inside until I open it.

From my POV, you have already left out a possibility. That possibility is that the contents of the cookie tin simply aren't defined until you open it. I am not substituting philosophical imaginings for real events because there aren't any real events to substitute. All there are is "assumed events". From the POV of an idealist, you are trying to solve a non-existent problem.

Sorry if that sounds like sophism, but what can I do? For the idealist, it simply doesn't matter what's in a closed cookie tin unless whatever is inside it has a mind. So what does an idealist evaluating QM make of your descriptions/questions? Half the time he can't make anything of them at all, unless he temporarily adopts materialism. If he temporarily adopts materialism he then ends up wondering what "smeared particles" are. As far as I am concerned, they just aren't.

It was only ever THEORETICALLY possible whilst the true situation was unknown. I recognise that THEORETICALLY possible is just another way of saying it was possible that it was possible. NEVER that it "WAS possible". "Possible in theory" does not imply "possible in practice". Last time I explain this.

So it is possible that reverse causality is possible, but reverse causality isn't actually possible!? Yeah!

I'm sure I'm not the only one struggling with this.

No. Why should I substitute theoretical philosophy for known fact?
It was PRECISELY that attitude that Schrodinger was arguing AGAINST. Look up his argument with Heisenberg over the path of an electron. He did NOT support the view you claim he did.

I am not asking you to substitute theoretical philosophy for a known fact, because you don't know the fact you think you know. You only think you know it because you have already presumed materialism is true, which is in itself a theoretical philosophical position. The problem is that the position you are describing as scientific fact is only actually true if your assumptions are true, and in this case I believe your assumption is false. I think it is very difficult to provide an opinion on QM and totally avoid implying metaphysical assumptions.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
The cat HAS to be, because even if you are an idealist a cat is a conscious observer. But if there is no cat, then the contents of the box DO NOT "have" to be in one state or another, and neither do they have to be "smeared out". Why do unobserved physical things have to have a definate state if you aren't a physicalist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you are just being obtuse.

I'm not! It's a genuine question. I'm not trying to be sophistic. This is not cheap points. If you are an idealist, what on earth is the need for a "smeared out particle" or a probability? Unobserved particles are simply irrelevant.

You are misrepresenting Schrodinger as you have misrepresented me on here. There is no issue with the "consciousness" of the cat and there never has been.

Depends on your metaphysics, doesn't it?

Do the cat experiment and leave the (airtight) box sealed for 50 years. Do you HONESTLY believe there is the slightest possibility the cat will come out alive?

Now YOU are being obtuse!

Of course not.

On the other hand we can simply leave all of these things just as they are and simply ASSUME that there could not possibly have been one single quantum interaction or ANY physical process whatsoever in the box during the whole time.....

Sorry, but my problem is once again that I am looking at the science with the assumption of materialism switched to idealism because of the whole unmentionable "observer" business. So, from that POV, I do not have to assume that there are any physical processes going on in a sealed box. Instead, once the contents of the box is observed, an outcome is observed. This is in itself a sort of reverse causality, but maybe not how Jim knows it. It's like viewing the material world as being made of information, but the calculations being done to define what happened in the box don't occur until the observation does, and then they can happen "backwards", provided they a consistent with the last observed state. Maybe reverse causality, but it might not be what YOU mean by reverse causality. I don't agree with you that the outcome is driven solely by physical law. I think physical law provides a set of possible outcomes and metaphysical law decides the specific outcome.

, but it was just some abstract quantity we choose to call "consciousness" that we can't even clearly DEFINE let alone detect or measure which did the trick instead!

PATENTLY ridiculous!

You might not be able to define it. Science might not be able to define. Some of those metaphysicians might be able to, but they aren't allowed in this thread!

 

[apoger]

I never asked anyone else to believe me.

I never intented to even talk about these things.

I have always said that there is no point.

Your actions speak louder than your words.
If you really felt there was no point, never intended to talk about it, nor wanted others to believe you... we wouldn't be subjected to your endless obfuscation.

Why is it a problem that I believe that mystical experiences are real and not mere fantasy?

You are posting this on a skeptics forum. What are you to expect if not a request for details and evidence?

The issue of debate is UNKNOWN.

Great. Then let's move on.

There is nowhere to move to. The foundation of the discussion hinges on an experience you refuse to share.

You claim passionately that you don't care about what others think. You refuse to explain yourself. Then you back out of debate when it gets tough. However the posts just keep on coming!

JustGeoff seems interested in nothing more than perpetual conversation. He is a Troll.

 

[JPK]

Hello JustGeoff,

I wanted to write to you in suport of Mercutio, to also point out that I am very interested in hearing the the story of the events that have lead you to your belief. I have stayed on the sidlines and continued to follow this thread because like many on here, that is where my interest is. I am convinced something happened to you to cause you to believe so strongly. Something was so powerfull that it caused you to drag your self proclaimed previously skeptical worldview out into the light, re-examine it and fundemently change they way you look at things now. This fasinates me. When you stated you wouldn't write about it because of the backlash you felt you would get, I understood. I am not a suport group, I don't think I'm qualified to offer anything more then friendly advice, and I doubt very much I can convince you of anything you do not want to believe. In fact it might be safe to say that it is for purely selfish reasons that I would like to hear and evaluate your story. I am curious as to why people see things the way they do. From my viewpoint, I do not believe anyone on this thread has attacked you. At first I didn't know that you had a past on this forum. So you must have known that any claim you made of a paranormal event would have been met with demands for evidence. So you must have had a reason to do so.
Since you do not like the idea of "ignoring" those you find objectionable my question is, can a moderated thread be started where you can describe you event to those of your choosing.
Don't get me wrong, I would much rather see things like they have been going. Hell, I have a much better understanding of some QM princibles then I had before . Although I still don't see how it could possibly affect anything I do on a day to day basis. But I'm happy no know that people have spent 30 years pondering about black holes. I need to get stuff done by the time the bills come. Much can be learned from oposing viewpoints.
Just my 2¢.
You seem to be looking for QM to justify your experience. What if it doesn't? Will you simply look for something else to justify it? Something other then your mind playing tricks on you? Mind playing tricks does not equal crazy, or nuts. And once again I do not rule out the possiblilty that something paranormal did in fact happen to you.

JPK

 

[CFLarsen]

I actually think Geoff had some kind of hallucination. He desperately wants his experience to be real, but he cannot reconcile himself with even the possibility that it might have a rational explanation.

So, he goes from pompous New Age blather to pseudo-scientific QM-blabber to whatever will explain that he is special. Outside the norm. Because of his experience, he is special. Without it, he's just a pretty intelligent fellow.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He says he is skeptic, but has some paranormal experience that he refuses to give details about and at the same time distorts QM theory to justify his belief. Do believers know they are being dishonest, or is this a subconscious defense mechanism??

 

[CFLarsen]

He says he is skeptic, but has some paranormal experience that he refuses to give details about and at the same time distorts QM theory to justify his belief. Do believers know they are being dishonest, or is this a subconscious defense mechanism??

In most cases, I think the latter. It takes a while before you run out of phony explanations.

There are examples, of course, of conscious deception, some of which we have had the pleasure of meeting in this forum. Bethke and Lyndale (ICANTAKEPICTURESOFDEMONS) were clearly nutty as a fruitcake. Steve Grenard knows exactly what he is doing.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You are posting this on a skeptics forum. What are you to expect if not a request for details and evidence?

So I can't come here and talk about skepticism in general and paranormalism in general?

Why must the debate concentrate on my own personal experiences if I acknowledge already that my personal testimony is of no use to anyone?

This is the problem, apoger. It makes no difference what I SAY, because if I can't prove anything then I can't prove anything.

There is nowhere to move to. The foundation of the discussion hinges on an experience you refuse to share.

It does NOW. When I entered the discussion I made a comment about how many skeptics would be unable to believe a paranormal event even if they witnessed one. That has NOTHING to do with anything that may have happened to me, it is about skepticism and psychology and belief systems. But the skeptics here don't want to talk about the psychology behind their own belief system so they just kept asking me about me own experiences. Each time they asked I told them there was no point in me sharing them, because there is indeed no point in me sharing them.

You claim passionately that you don't care about what others think.

No - I don't care if they happen to hold a different belief system to me.

JustGeoff seems interested in nothing more than perpetual conversation. He is a Troll. [/B]

Ah. So someone who just comes here to talk, politely and intelligently, is a troll because he won't share experiences that no skeptic would be able to believe?

Why don't you just ignore me if that is what you think?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I was merely pointing out that you seemed to be withdrawing from one debate after another. I don't understand why you withdraw now, because we were actually having quite an interesting debate.

Sometimes an exchange with someone reaches a dead end. The you just end up repeating yourselves. At the point, someone has to stop repeateing themselves.

Whether you like it or not, you have to exemplify. You have to specify just what the heck you are talking about. We cannot have a meaningful debate, if we are not both on the same level: I need to understand what exactly it is you are talking about, so I ask for examples, and specifics. That, you will not give. Perhaps, you cannot.

I have given you one VERY specific claim. I claimed to have witnessed side-ranging macroscopic reverse causality. That claim was more than enough to provoke very heated debate, and provided some interesting insights into both QM and its connection with metaphysics. Had I simply posted my experiences, there would not have been such an interesting debate, IMO.

You said you were going to get around to replying to my post yesterday. Now, you withdraw, and reiterate your previous concerns (before this latest debate). Are you sure you are not merely tired of being shown how weak, flawed and clueless your argumentation is? I'm not saying this in a disparaging way, because it is obvious that you are doing really, really bad. [/B]

No. I told you why I am bored of talking to you. You keep asking the same questions over and over again and you never take any notice of the answer! It's like you think if you ask it enough times you are going to get the answer you originally wanted.

 

[CFLarsen]

But that is not what you have been doing, Geoff. You haven't just come here to talk, or to discuss skepticism and paranormalism in general.

You have pointed to your experience as a reason why you believe. You have argued from that.

You are swiftly moving from delusion to deception, Geoff.

 

[CFLarsen]

Geoff,

Remind me again: What, exactly, was this "side-ranging macroscopic reverse causality"?

Have you considered the possibility that I ask the same questions, because you haven't answered them?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi JPK

I wanted to write to you in suport of Mercutio, to also point out that I am very interested in hearing the the story of the events that have lead you to your belief. I have stayed on the sidlines and continued to follow this thread because like many on here, that is where my interest is. I am convinced something happened to you to cause you to believe so strongly. Something was so powerfull that it caused you to drag your self proclaimed previously skeptical worldview out into the light, re-examine it and fundemently change they way you look at things now.

I just have to correct this. My previously skeptical worldview was underpinned by certain things I thought I understood, which I later discovered I didn't. Long before anything remotely strange happened to me I had to have a big rethink about several important foundation stones of my previous belief system. One of them concerned the question about consciousness rising from matter - I became completely convinced that this was logically impossible. Another regarded the origins of Christianity, and my discovery that what I had been led to believe about Christian origins was completely wrong. In fact, a great deal is known about this, and it was deliberatley hidden by the early catholic church. Not quite completely hidden, because it is now resurfacing in books like "The Jesus Mysteries". The peak experience I am talking about then took the process to a new level, but the changes were already taking place. I has to be primed for waht happened.

I believe you, by the way. I shall send you a PM.

This fasinates me. When you stated you wouldn't write about it because of the backlash you felt you would get, I understood. I am not a suport group, I don't think I'm qualified to offer anything more then friendly advice, and I doubt very much I can convince you of anything you do not want to believe. In fact it might be safe to say that it is for purely selfish reasons that I would like to hear and evaluate your story. I am curious as to why people see things the way they do. From my viewpoint, I do not believe anyone on this thread has attacked you. At first I didn't know that you had a past on this forum. So you must have known that any claim you made of a paranormal event would have been met with demands for evidence. So you must have had a reason to do so.

I do indeed have a past at this forum. It was me who asked for a religion and philosophy forum to be put here, in the week the forum opened. You now know the rest, I guess.

You seem to be looking for QM to justify your experience. What if it doesn't? Will you simply look for something else to justify it?

I don't need anything to "justify" it. I already understand what happened to me, at least I understand a lot more about it than people think I do. What I cannot explain is the context, and the context is everything. Had these things happened completely out of the blue, then I would have simply have gone mad, or killed myself.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But that is not what you have been doing, Geoff. You haven't just come here to talk, or to discuss skepticism and paranormalism in general.

You have pointed to your experience as a reason why you believe. You have argued from that.

You are swiftly moving from delusion to deception, Geoff.

Claus, I have indeed pointed to my experience as a reason I believe. However, as I have told you so many times I have lost count, I am NOT pointing to it as a reason for anyone else to believe. If someone else told me the story I could tell you, before it had happened to me, then there is no way on Earth I would have been capable of believing it. I would have done exactly what you would do : try to find some way to resolve the apparent conflict between what I was being told and what I myself believed. The result would have been a total failure to properly understand what actually happened.

And you are mistaken again, Claus. I really did come here to talk about skepticism in general. My opening comment was : "Skeptics wouldn't be able to believe it if they saw it, because doing so would require a total reversal of their belief system, and this simply does not happen overnight." That is what I said, that is what I wanted to discuss. It's not my fault hundreds of people are demanding I share my personal experiences. Indeed, if you had read and understood that opening comment then you would already know why it is pointless for me to post my experiences. If you wouldn't be able to believe it if you saw it, how the hell can you be expected to believe it if you never saw it!? You couldn't! So what is the point in me telling you? You will try to find a way to fit it into YOUR belief system. But in truth it only makes sense with respect to MY belief system.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

Let's just have a recap. When I criticised you for the way you behave on this forum you told me that I wasn't being attacked because of my beliefs, it was because of my claims. It is beside the point that I didn't really make any claims and you had to trawl through the archives and post some claims I made two years ago. The point is that you, and many others, are now repeatedly demanding that I post some more claims. Since you have already said that it is precisely this that leads people to attack me, I don't get why you are having such a hard time understanding why I won't post any! You claimed that it was my unprovable and fantastic claims that led people to attack me, and yet you are now attacking me for not posting any claims. I can't win, can I? If I tell you what happened, you will attack me for not being able to back up my claims. If I don't, you will attack me for not posting any details of what I experienced.

Head you win, tails I lose. And you wonder why I don't want to talk to you?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I doubt that you understand what happened to you, otherwise, you'd probably not believe it is paranormal.

 

[Pragmatist]

No. I told you why I am bored of talking to you. You keep asking the same questions over and over again and you never take any notice of the answer! It's like you think if you ask it enough times you are going to get the answer you originally wanted.

My irony meter just went supernova and collapsed into a quantum singularity!