Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko 207 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  El blanko

  Sleepy

  In order to have evidence of a paranormal experience you would first have to prove that this what not created by your brain.

  Well by definition of the word paranormal, if my friend James had summoned forth those orbs by the 'power of his brain' that would still be paranormal activity.

  I assume you meant an intelligent lifeforce or entity sitting outside of the known physical realm creating the phenomenon and then proving first of all that this entity actually exists and then ascertainment of knowledge as to why and how the entity performed the manifestation?

  If you mean the later, that boils down to your personal belief system and the spin you choose to apply when considering the event, and also theoretically if we are dealing with higher universal lifeforms, then how is it possible for us to accurately describe their methodolgy?

  To my mind, we have our limits. Even science, god bless it !
• 

  LittleToe

  This exchange is making me chuckle.
  I've been trying to make some of those points for years, but it's great to see one skeptic level similar arguments at another skeptic.
  Apparently my "belief" discounted me as a skeptic, and so I was precluded from being listened to.

  ~grabs an extra large bag of popcorn, and watches the intriguing battle of mind~
  ~hollers to Gumby that it's his turn to bring the beer~
• 

  onacruse

  rem, my remarks to you about "rationalism" (the supposed death-blow to mysticism) are based on this:

  Rationality is, by definition, a matter of measuring one thing as compared to another. As finite beings, that's all we can do. But even in the selection of categories to compare, correlate and analyze, we inevitably betray a bias; a bias, in this case, toward or against the mystical as opposed to the scientific.

  Now, as you assert, it's often thought that "the experiment is what the experiment shows." However, as one example, remember the Russian discovery of poly-water? They had documented experimental evidence that such a material existed, until it was subsequently determined that it was a transient phenomenon caused by their use of quartz capillaries.

  And how about cold-fusion? I forget the names of the physicists, but I well remember the furor and excitement that surrounded that experiment.

  And let us not forget the "N-waves" that were 'discovered' in France in the 20s.

  In all these cases, as examples, the scientists involved had a vested, personal, interest in the results of their experiments, and presented the meaning of their data accordingly. That's rationality at work: you, the scientist, compare one thing to another, based on the parameters of your own thinking and expectation.

  Rationality does not equal objectivity.
• 

  myauntfanny

  For a pk experiment that's been running at Princeton for years google Jahn and Dunne at the PEAR lab. It seems to have produced and replicated small but statistically significant results.

  I don't understand why skeptics feel so comfortable pointing to probability every time something unexplainable happens, because that it is actually very irrational. Probability makes no meaning whatsover out of peculiar events that have no obvious cause. Even the simplest bivalent acts do not actually conform to probability predictions, and the more complicated ones are not even analyzable in terms of probability, because reality is basically a chaotic, emergent system.

  If I am talking about a dream I had about a golden scarab, and then a rare golden scarab flies at the window repeatedly, probabality theory could not begin to cope with that. The skeptic can then say it was a coincidence, which is tautological, and as meaningless as saying it was god who sent it. Or they could say the person was lying, which is of course an equally untestable statement, since they weren't there. It's the skeptics who can't say "I don't know why or how that happened" because they can't bear not to have an explanation.

  Also, just because we don't know the cause of something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, that is perfectly obvious. Nobody knows why a changing electric field produces a magnetic field and vice versa, they just know that it does and you can use it to start an engine. Nobody has the faintest idea how gravity works, they've been searching for a vector for years but haven't found one. Funny how they still believe in it though.

  And it is not logical to say that because something can't be replicated under laboratory conditions, it doesn't happen. I, for example, doubt that I could become sexually aroused in a lab, but that does not mean I never get turned on. Saying that non-testable events or experiences are in some way not valid is actually an emotional and NOT a rational response.

  And last but not least, ALL evidence is anecdotal. The difference is the conditions under which the observation is made, and who makes the observation. Even if 100 scientists all observe the same thing, they are each having a subjective experience. We're supposed to believe that because they are trained to be objective and because they all agree on the observation, they are somehow removed from the limitations of human perception and subjectivity. But that is also an irrational belief.
• 

  Sirona

  myauntfanny:

  ~~~~APPLAUSE~~~~~

  Sirona
• 

  sleepy

  I haven't read the entire topic by the way.
  "Well by definition of the word paranormal, if my friend James had summoned forth those orbs by the 'power of his brain' that would still be paranormal activity."
  Thats not what I was talking about.Those pictures show nothing out of the ordinary, why are they not in context with anything apart from the flat background?
  If he can make orbs appear let him prove it those pictures prove nothing.
  There needs to be repeated and confirmrd observation of any phenonima in order to validate it.
• 

  sleepy

  onacruse As to cold fusion etc ... When other scientists tried to repeat those reults they failed , that is science at work , not the first experiment or claimed result but the repeated and tested one.
• 

  LittleToe

  Sleepy:

  I haven't read the entire topic by the way.

  It's shows.
  Sleepy by name, sleepy by nature...
  

  If he can make orbs appear let him prove it those pictures prove nothing.
  There needs to be repeated and confirmrd observation of any phenonima in order to validate it.

  He's already offered to do that. The pics were supplimentary evidence, which go as far as this medium (excuse the pun) permits. Would you like to supply a 3d camera, for the evidence, along with a 3d compatible Internet Browser?
• 

  LittleToe

  MAF:

  I, for example, doubt that I could become sexually aroused in a lab, but that does not mean I never get turned on.

  Are you sure? It's testable, ya know
• 

  myauntfanny

  Sirona

  

  LT

  I put that line in just for you because I know you get bored without regular opportunities to flirt.