Why does JG continue to believe ??

[UndercoverElephant]

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

I don't believe it was paranormal. I have already said that. Nobody was listening, apparently.

YOU might believe it was paranormal, if you saw it. I thought it was paranormal at the time. But it wasn't.

IT WASN"T "PARANORMAL". NOTHING IS. Nothing is "NORMAL" either. Those words don't actually mean anything. What on earth is "NORMAL"?

 

[CFLarsen]

Geoff,

What, exactly, was this "side-ranging macroscopic reverse causality"?

See what I mean about why I ask the same questions again and again?

 

[thaiboxerken]

IT WASN"T "PARANORMAL". NOTHING IS. Nothing is "NORMAL" either. Those words don't actually mean anything. What on earth is "NORMAL"?


Ahh, the ol' "it wasn't paranormal" routine again. If it isn't paranormal, then why don't you simply come out with it? Why are you afraid to tell us what happened along with the mundane explanation of how it happened?

Believers tend to call many paranormal things "normal" and mundane. Lucianarchy doesn't think having superpowers is paranormal, for example. Many religious people think that there is nothing paranormal about the claim that jesus walked on water.

If what happened to you is not paranormal, why do you have the need to distort QM to justify to yourself that it happened?

 

[CFLarsen]

If what happened to you is not paranormal, why do you have the need to distort QM to justify to yourself that it happened?

Very good question!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff,

What, exactly, was this "side-ranging macroscopic reverse causality"?

See what I mean about why I ask the same questions again and again?

That was a typo. "Wide-ranging". And I am not going to go into specifics, no matter how many times you ask. I mean I witnessed significant and unmistakeable alterations to the past, as if I had moved from one timeline to another (in startrek-speak). Why do you need more details, Claus? Isn't that claim extra-ordinary enough?

I have a general policy whilst talking about this. What I feel it is appropriate to say depends upon who I am talking to. I do not bother explaining things to people who are not capable of believing or understanding them. There is simply NO POINT. It looks like there is a point to you, because you are itching to attempt to "debunk" them. That is what you do, after all. They are not available for debunking by people who do not understand them. I already know what it is like to think like a scientific skeptic, because I was one for most of my life. I don't need your attempts to rationalise them into your own belief system, which will basically consist of looking for an explanation you can believe in and if there isn't one explaining condescendingly to me that they were hallucinations. We've already done that, Claus. Why do it again? For me, it is a completely pointless exercise which draws attention away from what I really want to do, which is talk about skepticism and why I am no longer like you. And just in case you have forgotten I will repeat that many things within my belief system changed BEFORE anything unusual happened to me. Similar changes would have to happen to your own belief system before there is any point in me explaining more to you. Right now, you don't think you have anything at all to learn from me. You think I have something to learn from you. But I don't, because I spent 30 years thinking like you do. All that is fair enough, I'm not criticising you for holding the beliefs you do, but it restricts what it is appropriate for me to say.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Believers tend to call many paranormal things "normal" and mundane. Lucianarchy doesn't think having superpowers is paranormal, for example. Many religious people think that there is nothing paranormal about the claim that jesus walked on water.

Define "normal" please.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Quite frankly, if most of the people conversing with me here knew what was written by Hegel, you would probably claim he was a paranormalist. However, people who have some degree of actual understanding of Hegel don't believe he was a paranormalist.

There is a basic problem here, and that is that some people believe that all metaphysics is bunk. To those people, I cannot speak about anything that requires an understanding of metaphysics to be able to understand it. Pragmatist is an interesting exception since he seems NOT to believe that all metaphysics is bunk, but he is as adamant in his refusal to talk about it as I am in my refusal to talk about specific "paranormal" phenomena. You might as well call them "metaphysical" phenomena and accept that neither of us will talk about them.

Wittgenstein : "Whereof I cannot speak, thereof I shall remain silent."

Lao Tsu : "He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak."

Pragmatist : "I will NOT discuss metaphysics. I will NOT define the observer. I will NOT admit this is because I don't know about them, it's just I won't talk about them. It's pointless."

Geoff : "I will NOT discuss specific phenomena driven by metaphysical law. I will NOT admit this is because I don't know about them, it's just I won't talk about them. It's pointless."

There is a pattern emerging here.

 

[CFLarsen]

I mean I witnessed significant and unmistakeable alterations to the past, as if I had moved from one timeline to another (in startrek-speak). Why do you need more details, Claus? Isn't that claim extra-ordinary enough?

You claim to have witnessed something that has not been observed before, and you ask me why we need more details??

Even if you don't see the need to share this information with the rest of humanity, do you at least understand why people would want to see this? It does have tremendous implications to everything we - those who accept reality, yes - know. You may not agree with this, but do you at least understand why people ask for it?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You claim to have witnessed something that has not been observed before, and you ask me why we need more details??

I know why you need more details. You want to "debunk" it. I have already told you that I believe that there are flaws in your own belief system that will prevent you from properly understanding those details. Therefore instead of providing the details I want to talk about the way you yourself evaluate such things. You don't want to talk about that.

Even if you don't see the need to share this information with the rest of humanity, do you at least understand why people would want to see this?

Yes. Of course. And I have shared with many people who were capable of understanding what I told them.

It does have tremendous implications to everything we - those who accept reality, yes - know.

You've already made an error, as far as I am concerned. Pragmatist understood this when he said (something like) :

"If a real personal reality (as opposed to an imaginary one) can override parts of a consensus reality, then very strange things are possible."

He was prepared to go so far as making this "If...then" connection, even though he does not personally believe that the IF condition is true. Are you?

And just for the record, it has been observed before, but not by any skeptic. I believe it is the basis of synchronicity, which is the most commonly reported "paranormal phenomena" of all.

 

[CFLarsen]

Geoff,

"Capable", in what ways? They didn't ask too many questions? They were quite happy with accepting your story at face value?

I have told you so many times now, that I regard proof of a paranormal phenomenon a huge event. A fantastic discovery, equal to finding life outside the planet.

By withholding this information, you are depriving humanity the possibility of making this discovery.

It is incredibly selfish.

 

[joyrex]

I believe it is the basis of synchronicity, which is the most commonly reported "paranormal phenomena" of all.

Do you have a theory of how synchronity works? Or do you support an existing theory of it?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

"Capable", in what ways? They didn't ask too many questions? They were quite happy with accepting your story at face value?

No. They asked plenty of questions. They just weren't the questions you would ask. By "capable" I mean already possessing a sufficiently advanced understanding of either mysticism or metaphysics or both to be able to get past the blockages you would experience. Basically, some of the things you believe are wrong, and these things would create a conflict between what I tell you and what you believe is possible. You would then try to resolve that conflict within the boundaries of your own belief system.. Because these people do not share the particular belief-system errors that you do (they may have others, as not doubt do I) they were able to comprehend what I was telling them and make some sort of sense of it with respect to their own belief system. They did not share your scientism, Claus. They were capable of accepting non-scientific information without it causing an allergic reaction.

I have told you so many times now, that I regard proof of a paranormal phenomenon a huge event.

The people who I would choose to talk to would not consider the existence of paranormal phenomena a huge event. However, they would most likely consider your acceptance of it to be utterly astonishing!

A fantastic discovery, equal to finding life outside the planet.

Have you forgotten my reaction at the time?

 

[CFLarsen]

And just for the record, it has been observed before, but not by any skeptic.

Really? How do you explain that? Why are skeptics unable to observe these phenomena?

I believe it is the basis of synchronicity, which is the most commonly reported "paranormal phenomena" of all.

I would like to see the statistics on this claim. Got a study? Something?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Do you have a theory of how synchronity works? Or do you support an existing theory of it?

Yes. I'm not sure posting it here would be a particularly good idea though. I don't know you. If you are genuinely interested, rather than on a debunking crusade, then PM me.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Really? How do you explain that? Why are skeptics unable to observe these phenomena?

Claus, this is silly. I have already explained in great detail the answer to that question.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. I'm not sure posting it here would be a particularly good idea though. I don't know you. If you are genuinely interested, rather than on a debunking crusade, then PM me.

So, you point to an explanation, but won't say what it is. Only those who are "genuinely interested" can know, but only in secret.

No wonder they call it the "occult".

Do you really think people are going to be convinced that you are here for debate?

I have already explained in great detail the answer to that question.

May I ask where?

 

[homer]

"Schrodinger's Cat, whose past state is undetermined until observed."
I've never understood the big deal here . If the cat is dead it will still be dead even if nobody looks and if it's alive then it will remain alive until somebody looks . Sounds to me just like the usual ' If a tree falls in the forest and theres nobody there to observe it ,willl it still make a noise ? . Of course it will .
The real mystery is how does a single photon 'know' that there are two slits ?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Define "normal" please.

In the context of this thread, normal means mundane. It also means "not paranormal". IE, that which does not violate the conventions of science.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Looks like JG is just another credulous believer that doesn't want to actually talk about what his belief is, but only that skepticism is wrong.

So, JG will now be ignored. No use in trying to have a reasoned discussion with the unreasonable.

 

[CFLarsen]

In the context of this thread, normal means mundane. It also means "not paranormal". IE, that which does not violate the conventions of science.

And this is Geoff's "out": He claims that what he experiences does not violate science.

However, he has a hard time explaining why.

This doesn't stop him, though. He just thinks that those who don't see it his way are too dumb, uneducated or too un-illuminated to understand it.

So, he takes the debate private. Hidden. Secret. Only those who will accept his explanation without questioning it can know.

• Grand claims are made
• Unable to back them up with evidence
• Increasingly irritated at those who won't accept the claim at face value
• Ignoring rational explanations
• Attempting to remove the whole thing from the public eye
• Only those worthy can know
• Increasing paranoia and personal attacks of those who won't accept the claim at face value

Yup. Classical Superstitious Behavior Gone From Bad to Worse.