Posts by rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

LT,

I'm sure there is a magic potion that can do what you are asking for. ;)

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

>>It is mystical, when It happens to me I know that it is very real and I know that I am being led by the spirit of God.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I annoyed of believers claiming that skeptics have a closed mind when they hypocritically use language like this. Please show me once where I have ever said I "know" something. All I'm providing is probabilities and alternatives or saying "I don't know". Is that so closed minded?

No offense to Myelaine... (I've never heard her make the above claim) this is just an example - one of many that I have come accross.

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

Bradley,

I don't see why my definition of love is inadequate - it is simply a testable definition - a definition that provides the possibility of testing the *existence* of love. I brought up the warm feeling in the heart because that is just another definition, though it is not testable. The thing is, we know that emotions happen in the brain and brain chemistry affects the body. How do we know that? Because we've poked and prodded brains - we now know that emotions aren't in the literal heart. Yahoo for science. I can take your word that you feel love, or I can hook you up to monitors to prove that you are in the love brain-state... but asking me to define the subjective experience of what love feels like is not the point. We are talking about the *existence* of love.

What you are basically doing is asking me to define the color "green". I can make a testable definition - the color green is between such and such range on the visual spectrum... but I don't know what green looks like to you. I'm not interested (well, actually I am, but that's another discussion) in the subjective experience - just in the *existence* of green.

I've never said something unverifiable should be viewed as false. I can simply choose not to *believe* in such things without taking a gnostic stand on the issue (i.e. remain agnostic until further information is available). Zeus is not verifiable... I can't prove he doesn't exist, but I choose not to believe in him because I don't see enough evidence and as far as I can tell it makes no difference to my life.

As far as the paranormal is concerned, I've never stated that it's impossible - just that it seems highly improbable knowing what we know today and the many experiments done over the past decades. I don't believe in it, and I don't see any point in really taking it too seriously anymore. If some evidence comes up, I'm open to hearing about it, though.

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

MyAuntFanny,

Perhaps we are using different meanings of words. To me, evidence is not "proof", though many people use the terms proof and evidence synonymously. To me, proof means there is no other alternative - the cause is determined. In science there is no such thing as proof in this context. Evidence can help one ascertain which explanation is more probable, though... yet this is not proof in this strict sense.

I agree that probability is not a causal force, but that doesn't change the facts - probability describes the way the world works - and it is most times amazingly accurate. If it wasn't, then casino's would be going out of business left and right. Since probability works in practice, I see it as an effective tool in weeding out B.S.

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

Bradley,

>>It's interesting that you call yourself a pragmatist. What could be more pragmatic than taking the "leap of faith" into a spiritual world ala William James?

Perhaps William James hijacked a perfectly good philosophy from Charles Sanders Peirce and turned it into an anti-intellectual, irrational exercise? I'm speaking of pragmatism in the sense of what works. So far, I have not found faith to be a useful tool in my bag of truth-finding tricks. :)

>>I would be very interested to get a definition of love "in a testatble way" (!)

It can be defined as different electro-chemical states in the brain... as opposed to a warm sensation in the chest.

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

MyAuntFanny,

My point was that using the word "coincidence" does not imply and explanation. If you are not trying to explain something, then it's not a tautology. The reason coincidences happen can be explained by probability. There are trillions of events that happen to billions of people each day. If "coincidences" didn't happen, then there would be something seriously wrong! It's improbable that they *wouldn't* happen.

As far as accusations of lying are concerned, I was specifically talking about skeptics on this board. I certainly haven't noticed those accusations. Of course, I can't speak for all skeptics and pseudoskeptics in the world.

You have an interesting concept of "proof". There really is no "proof" in science - only probabilities. In these cases it can be shown that certain causes are much, much more probable that others. If hallucination is known to exist in controlled studies, but ghosts are not - then hallucination is a far more probable explanation for some phenomenon. You cannot treat both explanations as being on equal footing. This is no "proof" - hell, ghosts *could* exist, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it - not unless there was some good evidence for ghosts.

>> I have no idea what causes these experiences, but that doesn't mean they don't happen or aren't worth thinking about.

Exactly - skeptics don't say anything different.

>>It is possible to find some middle ground between agreeing with people who were abducted by aliens and given anal probes, and dismissing all unusual experiences.

Yes, the rule of thumb that works well is, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

Hey, I never said rationality is the end-all be-all. It's just a useful invention that has helped us make amazing progress. I think it's wonderful because it's *useful*. If something better comes along, I'm all for it. Perhaps I'm more of a pragmatist than a rational?

Love and other non-measurable feelings are useful. I feel hungry - it's not really a testable feeling, but it is useful - it keeps me alive. Love, though annoying at times, helps us procreate. What really is love, anyway? It's just a combination of "mental states" that we put a label on (you can define it in a testable way, or in a fuzzy non-testable way). In any case, we at least have the beginnings of a testable theory when it comes to such things (they happen in the brain rather than in the physical heart, etc.)

So far, real crimes are not solved by paranormal powers. To this day, paranormal powers will not help you win the lottery. You still cannot have a coherent remote conversation with someone via supernatural powers. It's not especially useful. There is no testable theory of how they are supposed to work.

LT, I've been saying all along that the benefits from such "fringe" research do eventually flow to normal science - but that is no vindication that there really are supernatural powers! Just because alchemy lead to chemistry doesn't mean it's still possible to manufacture gold out of mercury! Just because scientists have learned much about the brain due to parapsychological studies doesn't mean that Remote Viewing works.

And I don't think you do understand the analogy that I countered with. Scientists are looking for the base fundamentals - not the gimmicks. They are looking for the existence of the supernatural fabric - not bent spoons. They are not looking for some specific talent - they are looking for a theoretical foundation. That's why what they are looking for is more akin to the paint and canvas Monet uses than the actual art he creates.

Blanko, many of the claims you have presented frankly are not extraordinary to me. Orbs are often caught by digital cameras - they are usually out of focus dust or bugs. It happens with my digital camera too in my not-so-haunted condo. Figures at the foot of the bed can be explained by night terrors - a phenomenon that I experience as well. I honestly don't have enough information to say one way or another about the other things. This is something that LT seems to forget. He often accuses me of calling people liars or mentally deranged. All I've ever said is I don't have enough information to automatically jump to the paranormal explanation. It's the same with a murder crime scene. You can't make strong statements with second and third-hand information.

MyAuntFanny, some of your statements just don't make any sense to me. Especially this paragraph:

>>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.

Coincidence is not tautological - it is just a fact with no further explanation. Things happened at a time some humans find curious. That's a coincidence. Probability shows that coincidences are inevitable. I've never heard any skeptic accuse anyone of lying, though it is a possibility that cannot easily be discounted. There are other possibilities, such as misperception, hallucination, created memory... these are all things that have been shown to truly exist by psychological science. Skeptics often say they don't know why or how things happen... your statement is ridiculous. Instead it is you who insist the cause must be supernatural. When there is not enough information, the most honest answer is "I don't know".

I've read up on the PEAR research. I beleive you are referring to the experiments where people can seem to influence a random number generation over billions of iterations. This is interesting work to me, and the initial results are promising, but I'm not overly optimistic. We've seen the same thing with Ganzfeld expiriments, and statistical blips such as these are always due to procedural errors and errors in meta-analysis. If there is no problem with the procedures and another lab can replicate the results, then I think that would be a great starting point, though it is a quite modest phenomenon.

Bradley, I wouldn't mind reading some books that you suggest; in fact I'd probably very much enjoy them.

Sorry, there were just too many replies for me to address adequately. I'm starting a new job and I haven't had much time for this, so my responses are probably below par. :)

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

Bradley,

A couple more things:

>>Since you have no idea how many examples of scientific dogmatism turned upside it's head I can give you cannot make the above statement.

I was being conservative. It's obvious that there are far more wrong ideas that right ones. Just because someone is going against contemporary thinking doesn't give him any more chance of being correct. As Sagan was fond of saying, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

As far as paradigm shifts in scientific thinking - that's all part of the process. That's why the scientific method works. Pseudoscientists don't change their theories in the face of facts.

>>Again, there is a big difference between state-dependent mental phenomenon and physical phenomenon. Surely you must see this.

Surely you must be suspicious that not a *shred* of high-quality evidence has surfaced in all of these decades of intense study? I can see it being elusive... but all-together invisible? I doubt it. Like I said before - nobody is looking for huge phenomenon - they gave that up a long time ago. They have been looking for the slightest blip on the statistical radar for years now. The problem is that when you start looking to that level of signal to noise ratio, your procedures have to be pretty much perfect so as to rule out non-psi factors.

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

Bradley,

>>I'm very new to exploring the "pro" side of the parapsychology debate, so I cannot give a complete answer to your request. I have heard, though, that some consider psi phenomenon to be "state-dependent" and thus not readily accesible to experimental validity.

That's convenient. Define the phenomenon as non-testable. Now we are in the region of philosophy - not science. The purely rational standpoint is usually to withold judgement on such things, yet not hold them credible. i.e. allow for the minute possibility that they exist - but don't believe in it. God's and fairies fall into this camp as well.

>>Ask a Monet to paint in a laboratory and he might say that it is impossible. One has to be "in the mood." Again, this is just a possibility, I'm not even saying that I believe in parapsychology.

First of all, many people claim their paranormal powers *can* be tested. Dowsers are tested all of the time with conditions that they agree to and feel are completely fair. They are usually flabergasted when they only perform around the level of chance. There are many other examples, of course.

In fact, scientists aren't even looking for particularly *good* paranormal practicioners or strong phenomenon. They are only looking for a significant deviation from chance. No one is asking Monet to paint a masterpiece - they are just asking him to slap some paint on a canvas to see if the paint actually exists.

But, sure, there is the possibility that the phenomenon is extremely shy. In that case there is no way to test it and all we have are anecdotes. Anecdotes are really useless as evidence. No matter how many are piled up, they are still suspect - the plural of anecdote is not data. The Bible is full of anecdotes, but do you really believe an ancient jew named Jesus was really resurrected?

As far as intelligent believers - all they can do is define the phenomenon as untestable. Just like the fairies that float around my head - they only come out when nobody is looking. That's not rational.

Of course, this does expose us to the possibility of Type II errors. This is unavoidable until someone invents a system of knowledge as effective as the scientific method and filters out the infinite number of Type I errors. But really, what good are the nuggets we lose with Type II errors if we cannot even harness them for the good of humanity. If it's so shy that it can't be tested in a lab, how is it at all useful? Once it becomes useful, it automatically becomes testable.

As far as wanting to believe - maybe I really don't want it *that* badly. Can you briefly outline the benefits to belief? Why should I? Because I might be missing out on something that cannot be tested or verified? Why should I read one of those books? Is there any startling truth I'm missing out on with my rational viewpoint? All you can say for certain is that there is a *possibility* that I'm missing out on something - and you can't even say for a certain what exactly it is! (Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation) :)

But anyway, I really should not be posting while I'm drunk. :) Take it easy!

rem

207

Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko in

the following i wrote to a friend this morning and doctored slightly for this forum.

can any of you relate to this kind of mystical experience and if you would be kind enough, would you mind me quoting any experiences listed to my friend?

please be aware that the letter uses language to detach me away from the watchtower (thus church, instead of congregation etc).

rem

Hey Sunnygal!

Your response presumes that there really is a higher level of consciousness. It's question begging. Perhaps there is some higher consciousness that we can "evolve" to, but first you have to provide evidence of it. I can just as easily say, "The tooth fairies will only leave money under our pillows if we are nice to them." It doesn't make much sense unless you provide evidence for the existence of tooth fairies. :)

Also, sometimes things are black and white - there is a god (gods?) or there is not. The Earth is held up by a tortoise or it is not. There really is some type of paranormal phenomenon or there is not.

Beleive me - I can just imagine how cool it would be if there really was supernatural intervention in our world. I think it would be great! We could cure diseases with witch doctors instead of using costly drugs and risky surgery. We could pray for rain and good harvests, mitigating the need for pesticides, genetic engineering, fertilizers - practically eliminating famine. Who needs police detectives? Remote viewers can find murder victims and their killers through the ether. But crime would never happen anyway, since we could consult fortune tellers and see our future and possibly avoid situations. No need for the telephone - we can communicate with each other telepathically faster than the speed of light!

If paranormal research could just match one of the breakthroughs of scientific, rational thinking, then I would change my mind about it. If a theory is useful, then that's all that matters to me. I'm pragmatic that way. But theories that are useless usually tend to turn out to be wrong. Meaning - there probably isn't a higher consciousness for us to strive for.

It's surprising that there aren't any really surprising finds to be found in parapsychology considering the amount of research that has gone into it. Seriously - if there is anything to synchronicity and other spooky phenomenon beyond psychology and coincidence - it's a wonder that no trace of anything has been found until this point. Not a trace! This is strange for phenomenon that happens to every person on earth many times throughout the year! We are not talking about rare stuff here.

Anyway, I'm rambling... I was a believer in this stuff until a few years ago. I started reading the other side of the story... and man, is there a lot of research. Scientists have not been slouching when it comes to the paranormal. The problem now is that pseudoscientists have come in to take their place and are now making unfounded claims that tickle the ears of many who want and even need to believe. They make a lot of money on books, though.

rem