My mind is not open to experience

[varkam]

Or at least that's what I've been told by my 'Jesus-Pals', ghost hunters and fortune tellers. I've often asked "If is real, then how come I've never seen, heard, touched, or experienced ?" The invariable answer is, as of late, that my mind is closed to the experience and therefore it will not happen to me.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a big, nasty, mean ole skeptic. You wanna sell me a bridge? I wanna talk to the engineer. You have an amazing new cure for shoulder pain? I want to see the raw data from the clinical trials. I may not be that fun to hang out with, but you can bet I don't buy anything from late-night infomercials (well, not much anyway).

But back to the point. The response that my mind is not open to the experience of God / Ghosts / ESP seems suspect to me. It seems suspect, because phrased differently (though still catching the meaning), the response is: You don't have religious experiences / see ghosts / see the future because you don't believe they are possible. Ahhh...my arch-nemesis, belief. Belief is a means of suspending one's need for evidence to (forgive me) believe that something is real. That's not to say I don't have beliefs that aren't supported by any sort of evidence - I do. I have a lucky tie, that I honestly believe bestows good fortune onto me when I wear it. I have no reason to think that other than a few instances when I really felt I lucked out when I was wearing it...but I wonder how many times I performed poorly on something when wearing it and simply forgot. Plus, wouldn't it bestow good fortune onto me by virtue of owning it? Why I do have to wear it to harness it's mystical powers?

I digress again. My point is this: If belief is necessary to experience these things, but objective reality remains the same for each of us, then isn't this a bit like voodoo? I'm no shaman, but from what I understand voodoo can only have effects on you if you believe in it. Let me try to explain it this way: I live in an old house. Sometimes, when I'm home alone and it's late at night, I'll hear weird noises. A bump. A scrape. A blood-curdling shriek (okay, but that's just when my girlfriend sees how good I am at cleaning). Personally, I hear a weird noise and I think "Hmmm. An unexplained noise. Fucked up". But my girlfriend, who lives in the same house as I do, hears a noise and thinks the damn place is haunted. It's not like there was a quadruple homicide there 10 years ago or anything (come on, it was 20 years ago!). But it seems that we both are given the same stimulus (the noise) and come to completely different conclusions. My conclusion isn't really a conclusion at all, but she thinks that ghosts are trying to scare us out of the house. If ghosts really wanted to scare me, I can think of some much more effective ways than making a bump at night. Maybe jumping out at me with fangs and claws would be a start.

But isn't it just that, for those us who have "spiritual moments", that you already believe and just attribute new, unexplainable experiences to that? At least, that's what I told my Jesus-Pals. They told me I should take a drive with them. To visit their pastor.

I wanna talk to the engineer.

[WiseButAngrySara]

1. God is not experienced. God can only be realized, existentially, beyond

sense and experience.

[MindPilot]

5. Huh? Can you explain exactly how that works?

I can realize something beyond sense and experience? I can become conscious of something without having any kind of awareness, knowledge or feeling about it?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. drugs, hypnosis and meditation do the same thing

does that mean that god consists of drugs, hypnosis and meditation? Cool. I may have to revisit my atheistic leanings.

[neoblues]

8. Interesting, one of my Jesus pals bases her belief...

on the fact that she "experienced" God... or had a "Religious Experience" or "felt the presence of the divine" or whatever you want to call it... her belief is based on the experience.

I've read where such altered-states experiences can be induced by magnetic brain stimulation (researchers have been zapping people)... still, as her experience happened in a church--when she was actually searching for 'something more' to life... Bingo, she got what she wanted.

That's just an individual's story and I'm not even arguing whether or not "God can only be realized, existentially, beyond sense and experience" is or is not the case (I'm not quite sure what that means anyway).

[Orrex]

23. What does it mean to "realize" something "existentially?"

Sorry, but you're just witnessing, and witnessing is only persuasive either to those who already believe or to those who don't engage in critical thinking.

[jedicord]

2. Personally, I think that the ability to experience such phenomena

is innate, like being double-jointed, etc.

For example, my mom knew beforehand when we would have an earthquake. It wasn't psychic mumbojumbo, she just knew.

When I was 10 I had a dream I was pregnant and my mom died. She died when I was 8 months pregnant more than 20 years later.

My family has experienced much of this kind of stuff, not because we believe in it, it just happens, outside of our control. (Too bad, because it could be useful with the lottery.)

For you, maybe you just aren't "born with it". And having not experienced anything like this, I don't blame you for not believing. For me, it's not a belief, it's real.

[varkam]

12. So if by being true to myself then

and not believing (as I would be incapable of it if you are correct and I am just born without this ability) - then that certainly casts doubt on the whole idea of everyone being created equally (which I think is a crock anyway). Plus, what of the morality for sending people like myself to hell on the basis of a lack of faith?

[jedicord]

14. First, the concept of men being created equally

is based on the idea that no man is greater than another, no man lesser. In physical terms this doesn't ring true, as some are born with 2 arms, while others aren't, some have higher IQs, etc.

With regards to sending people to hell on the basis of lack of faith, that shouldn't bother you, since by your line of reasoning I assume you don't believe in hell.

On that note, I feel that hell can also be on earth, and people "earn" it by being evil, not by having lack of faith.

[varkam]

15. But let's assume hell *is* real

Assume I'm wrong. Assume that the whole of J-C theology is true, part and parcel. If the ability to believe is something that we're either born with or we're not...and I'm not...then how is it moral to send me to hell for not believing if it's through no fault of my own?

And as for equality: What I was getting at is that we certainly aren't afforded the same opportunities as one another by virtue of where we are born / who we are born to. (Take Bush, for example).

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. To a Calvinist, we *all* deserve to go to hell

It's just that God, using a decision process beyond our ken, has decided to make a few people 'good', and he will save them. But it wasn't their own free will that did it - it was God's decision. They, apparently, won the lottery of eternal salvation.

However, other Christian theology does believe in free will, and would say you're perfectly capable of believing in God if you wanted to. You're meant to take people's word for it when they tell you about Jesus, and hell. They might argue that neither the Bible nor church theologians say anything about being born with, or without, the ability to believe, so it's not true.

There is no one Christian theology - there's many. And if by 'J-C' theology you meant 'Judeo-Christian', then you're expanding it enormously. Jewish religion is remarkably quiet on the subject of the afterlife.

[simonm]

21. state of mind

Intuition is a state of mind and mainly comparable to tuning a radio. How well a person can "tune" depends on their understanding and self control. Everyone has the ability.

[varkam]

22. Is there a right and a wrong intuiton to have? n/t

[simonm]

24. Radio

Like a radio it is just a tool. The scientific principles are the same as radio waves. One source of information can override the other if strong enough. Our instruments may not be able to detect these energy patterns but it is definitely there for those willing to test it out.

We are capable of perceiving various channels from different sources whether internal or external. Knowing the difference between genuine information obtained externally and a self made "hallucination" can be difficult. There is a very thin line between imagined and valid information.

Since we are dealing with something that cannot be measured physically it is always best to be careful. I personally do not believe in ghosts but I have conducted tests in the past with results that hints at the existence of invisible intelligences. These unseen forces are capable of deception.

[trotsky]

25. Can you describe these tests you claim to have performed?

Can you explain the reasoning by which you concluded the results could only be explained by introducing unseen invisible intelligences?

[simonm]

27. hint = suggests

The results are still inconclusive since there is more than one possible explanation.

We paired two known psychics with demonstrable talent and introduced the idea of conducting a magical ritual. The ritual consisted of deceiving spirits (that is what they believed in) for accomplishing a desired action. After their agreement, both psychics had trouble with their intuition and other "abilities". They could no longer receive "information" and took a few weeks to recover.

Possible explanations:

1. Internal influence (subconscious)
2. External unknown influence

How both were affected at the same time is interesting especially when you consider their belief structure. Both believed in having authority over the "spirit realm" and never thought of losing anything. One was a practitioner of Spanish Voodoo and the other was into Kabala. They followed different paths yet yielded the same result.

[trotsky]

28. Hmm, let's see...

In summary, you have:

1) Two people claimed to have psychic abilities.
2) When tested, neither displayed such talents.

Shouldn't the most reasonable and obvious conclusion be that they have no psychic abilities?

[simonm]

29. Misread

These talents are very real and they proved it before the test and weeks afterwards. It took some time to recover.

edit: the test was not about proving psychic powers. The goal was to determine the source of said abilities.

[trotsky]

30. May I ask what tests were performed...

that "proved" they had these talents in the first place? Just curious.

[simonm]

31. Simple

Telepathy

One person concentrates on a thought while the other "reads" their mind. They both write everything down on paper and compare. To avoid trickery, we checked for mirrors, pen movement, used plain school paper, and wrote in small letters. We even tried tricking the psychic by writing 'f&^$ you' while the thought was supposed to be an object. Somehow, he was able to pick that up.

Remote Viewing

The psychic was requested to spy on a person and he was able to successfully describe the target's surroundings. The fact about the target arguing with his mom was amusing but there were many other details not coincidental. RV has lots of military potential and I would be surprised if our government is not taking advantage of it.

There is a show on TV that scientifically confirms most of the abilities described here.

http://www.scifi.com/proofpositive

[trotsky]

33. Not quite.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_Positive:

The program's purpose was to only validate the authenticity of evidence from a paranormal encounter and not to prove that the paranormal activity exists. Just because a photo of a flying saucer was declaired "proof positive" on the show, does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that flying saucers exist. The show simply validated that the photo was a picture of something unexplained, flying in the sky, and that was really there, and it was not faked in any way.

Nice try, but no, there is no "scientific confirmation" of any paranormal claims. If there were, there would be another millionaire thanks to James Randi.

In answer to my question, there weren't any tests that confirmed these people's supposed psychic abilities, were there?

[simonm]

35. Yes quite. Here is video evidence

Sorry for the wait. I wanted this response to be as thorough as possible with a video example.

The show simply validated that the photo was a picture of something unexplained, flying in the sky, and that was really there, and it was not faked in any way.

Lets see,

1.) Someone provides a picture of a UFO
2.) The photo was analyzed
3.) The photo was determined genuine
4.) Whoa! it really was a UFO!

<cough> trotsky, do you know what U.F.O. stands for? (hint: U.F.O. is not the same as E.T.)

Nice try, but no, there is no "scientific confirmation" of any paranormal claims. If there were, there would be another millionaire thanks to James Randi.

How convenient and lazy. Why do skeptics always invoke Randi's name like he is the authority on all matters paranormal? Last time I checked, he never conducted any real scientific tests. It is unfortunate that some folks base their final conclusion on a one million dollar publicity stunt. The stunt makes for great entertainment but provides no actual substance besides magic tricks.

In answer to my question, there weren't any tests that confirmed these people's supposed psychic abilities, were there?

Here is the video which supports my claims,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=66758250520111543

FACT: Remote viewer is ex-CIA trained by our government.
FACT: Our government spent millions on psychic programs.
FACT: The psychic tests were successful.

Knowing skeptics such as yourself, it doesn’t take a psychic to see how you will dismiss the results and claim everything as coincidence.

[beam me up scottie]

37. David Morehouse ???

:spray:
You're using David Morehouse as PROOF ???

The guy who wrote "Psychic Warrior" ???
:rofl:

This story is true. Time's undistorted view of reality has defeated the unethical assassins of truth who made numerous attempts to keep this book from you. The individuals and events portrayed herein, the situations and espionage missions happened just as they are recounted. Despite monstrous ridicule and concerted efforts by the United States Intelligence community to destroy and mislead the public trust, this book remains the single truth about what happened within this highly classified enclave of psychic spies.


As you read this book, focus on the fact that this espionage technique remains a viable if still esoteric collection methodology within the intelligence communities of the major global powers. It is not dead, discredited, nor has it been replaced. It is merely functioning under some other name in some other place within the shadow world.


In 1996, two weeks prior to the US release of Psychic Warrior, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) planned and executed a media blitz designed to minimize the impact of this book. When it appeared that the misinformation, i.e. telling your version of the story first, didn't produce the desired results, the buildings that once housed this organization were bulldozed to the ground, and the debris was removed to a hidden landfill. All that remains of this bizarre unit are those who now choose to tell their individual stories about what happened there. This is mine.


If you are reading this book, then one may assume you are more than simply curious. You are a seeker of truth, which is a daunting task in this unraveling world. Truth in its purest form can be considered the aristocracy of spirituality, and therefore must be sought out in all its dimensions. Truth carries with it a range of eagerness as well as one of reverence. Those who embrace the genre of this book tend more toward the eagerness of truth than the reverence of it. However, one cannot know truth without the application of both eagerness and reverence.


Read with an open mind. Know that this phenomenon is real. And know that those who participated in this program are no more unique than you or me. We all have the ability to learn and apply what is discussed within these pages. To date, I have trained more than 4,000 civilians to become Remote Viewers. There is one requirement for success. There is one quality each individual must possess to embark on the spiritual journey of learning to become a Remote Viewer. You must believe there is more to this existence than the physical dimension. If you believe this, then what you find here will transcend you from a place of belief, of hopes and dreams, to a place of knowingness. You shall understand who and what you are, discern your purpose here, and the journey to wisdom shall begin. Enjoy the journey inward and beyond.

Here's the pitch for his "Explorer's Class":

The Explorers' Group Class

You will join your friends once again as we collectively journey into the Matrix of all Creation to seek truth, find knowledge and become wisdom. This Explorer’s Group is an annual summit reserved exclusively for graduates of the Master Class—Master Extended Remote Viewing Training.

The purpose of this exciting retreat is to unite those who have made the commitment in the Master Class to live their lives in such a way as to make a positive difference in the individual and collective outcomes of human destiny. This unique conference assembles dedicated Remote Viewers and powerful thinkers from around the world for six days of Remote Viewing intensive; dialogue with friends and strategic planning.

These highly advanced Remote Viewers will continue the exploration of the 128 targets identified as “known” other world targets compiled from the thousands of Open Searches into the Matrix from the Military Remote Viewing unit as well as from other advanced classes throughout the years. These targets clearly exist so that we might learn what is needed for us on the return to the eternal return. These targets exist on the edge of knowledge—it is our purpose now, to go there and beyond.

The Explorer’s Group will work with open frame techniques to further define the Remote Viewer’s efforts toward enhanced human performance potentials and the altering of human destiny.

Let's see what else he's selling:

Products from David Morehouse Productions
Remote Viewing essentials

To order BY PHONE please call toll free 1-800-234-2199, or International 1-760-729-3837 From UK 08714 742358


Remote Viewing Home Study


Call 1-800-333-9185 to order now

An Unprecedented Program on Remote Viewing

The Remote Viewing Course includes:
• A 284-page illustrated workbook
• More than 20 hours of guided instruction on CD
• Three viewing missions with sealed confirmations—to train and test your Remote Viewing skills
• 60-minute pink noise CD, and much more
21 CDs, 22 hours, 284-page workbook, 3 sealed missions, and eye mask

$300 scholarship towards San Diego class with David Morehouse with proof of purchase. ourse now available for $199, full price $249

$199.00

PSYCHIC WARRIOR, Paperback

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW. The true story of America’s foremost Psychic Spy and the cover-up of the CIA’s top-secret Stargate Program.

"A crackling saga that makes The X-Files look like The Waltons."-The American
$7.00

Psychic Warrior, British trade paper version

Psychic Warrior, Inside the CIA’s Stargate Program: The True Story of a Soldier’s Espionage and Awakening. What the Government doesn’t want you to know. The true story of America’s foremost Psychic Spy and the cover-up of the CIA’s top-secret Stargate Program. "A crackling saga that makes The X-Files look like The Waltons."-The American

This British trade paper version can be purchased here now or directly from

Clairview Books in the UK. To shop online at Clairview Books, click here>>
$20.00

PSYCHIC WARRIOR, Hardcover

Psychic Warrior, Inside the CIA’s Stargate Program: The True Story of a Soldier’s Espionage and Awakening. What the Government doesn’t want you to know. The true story of America’s foremost Psychic Spy and the cover-up of the CIA’s top-secret Stargate Program. "A crackling saga that makes The X-Files look like The Waltons."-The American

This item is no longer available.
$55.00

NONLETHAL WEAPONS, Hard Cover
Presenting alternative methods of conflict resolution, this examination of the philosophy of peace presents nonlethal weaponry as a solution to the destructiveness of war.
$85.00

SOUL SURVIVAL, DVD & David Morehouse Video Collection DVD
What is life when you know that you have lived before, and that you will live again? The answer to this eternal question can be yours in the form of Knowledge through the Art and Science of Remote Viewing. (plus free DVD)
$15.00

A MESSAGE FOR OUR TIMES DVD & David Morehouse Video Collection DVD
An inspirational Veteran’s Day seminar on how to live with love, honor, and compassion given by one of today’s most dynamic and innovative Metaphysicians. (plus free DVD)
$15.00

David Morehouse Video Collection DVD

Presents some of the best interviews Dr. Morehouse has offered, including 1997 Emmy Award winning Fox News segment. Because of his knowledge, experience, compassion and humor, he is highly sought after by print, radio and television interviewers. Free with other DVD purchase.

A MESSAGE FOR OUR TIMES VIDEO
$15.00

Journey to the Wild Divine Computer Adventure

Take the Ultimate Challenge—Become a Time Traveler

To arrive at the next level of personal performance you will have to seek a higher education for your Mind, Body and Spirit.
$159.95

PINK ALPHA AUDIO CD
Pink Noise with Binural Beat Alpha Wave for use with Coordinate Remote Viewing or Light Meditation.
$13.00

PINK THETA AUDIO CD
Pink Noise with Binural Beat Theta Wave for use with Extended Remote Viewing or Deep Meditation.
$13.00

"AQUA" MOVING MEDITATION Audio CD
Music made in the Matrix Field from Remote Viewing Technologies International.
For use during moving meditations.
$13.00

COORDINATE REMOTE VIEWING COOL DOWN Audio CD

Guided Meditation to prepare for Coordinate Remote Viewing Sessions.
From Remote Viewng Technologies International. 23 minutes
$13.00

EXTENDED REMOTE VIEWING COOL DOWN CD

Guided Meditation to prepare for Extended Remote Viewing Sessions.
From Remote Viewing Technologies International. 45 minutes
$13.00

REMOTE VIEWING AND MEDITATION EYE MASK

TOTAL DARKNESS WITH YOUR EYES OPEN!
Ideal for Coordinate or Extended Remote Viewing Sessions or Meditation
$20.00

RVT CLOTH EYE MASK
Black cloth eye mask with white RVT logo. Ideal for remote viewing, mediation, relaxation and sleeping.
$3.00

PRACTICE TARGETS 4-PACK

Each pack contains four practice targets with instructions, coordinates and photo feedback sheets. Choose from pack A, B, C, D or E.
$10.00

CELL PHONE PROTECTION
Our hands free headsets and mobile phone radiation shields provide cellular protection without effecting the quality of the cellular transmission.
$39.95

RVT MEN'S BLACK POLO SHIRT
Embroidered with “RVT, Remote Viewing Technologies” logo.
$35.00

RVT LADIES' BLACK V-NECK
Embroidered with “RVT, Remote Viewing Technologies” logo.
$25.00

NUTRITION & HEALTH
Infinity2 has earned the reputation of having the highest quality, most effective products available. It’s no wonder that numerous professional sports organizations, hundreds of professional athletes, thousands of health care professionals and hundreds of thousands of delighted customers recommend Infinity2 products.

If you can stand it, there's lots more here: http://www.davidmorehouse.com/default.htm


How sweet, a woo woo milker and his flock...

Take THAT, trotsky !!!
:rofl:

[simonm]

38. Yup

You ignore the tangible test results from the video and attempt to discredit the messenger instead.

That is sad.

pathetic.

[beam me up scottie]

39. A video from the Sci Fi channel ???

You think a video proves people have psychic powers ?

I have something else to sell you:





A real bargain, strictly wholesale.

Call me, we'll talk.;)

[salvorhardin]

41. Why that's gorgeous...

I'll take two, if you've got them!

[Evoman]

42. Whats pathetic is using bullshit sources.

The sad thing is that you watched that video and thought it was any sort of proof or evidence. Its an entertainment video without any sort of scientific legitimacy. Bullshit results from a bullshit "messenger".

Do you go on the internet and believe anything you read? I hope not. The source of information IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR WHEN DESSEMINATING INFORMATION!!! Thats what you "believers" don't get! EVERY SINGLE TIME psychic powers are put to the test in a scientifically controlled experiment---let me repeat that for you, EVERY SINGLE FREAKING TIME----they fail miserably. Oh sure...let a guy blab on a video about how he has secret powers, thats cool...make him display those powers in a controlled environment...like, oh my god.....FAIIIILLLLLLL.

Honestly...keeping an open mind doesn't mean you have to believe any old shit fed to you. I mean..it would be nice to believe in psychic powers. Wow, we can move things with our minds. We can read other people. COOL. But hope is not truth. Belief is not truth.


There is so much real mystery out there. There are things that animals do with their REAL senses that are extraodinary. How can dogs SMELL cancer? What chemical messengers do sea urchins use to communicate? There are real mysteries about our planets past...how did we evolve? What continent did the first beetle orginate? There are real mysteries about ourselves...what causes alzeihmers? Are viruses responsible in part for our evolution and gene duplication?

Why do so many people waste so much of their time on this bullshit! I mean...if there was any shred of evidence, anything that could be studied...hell, I would probably study it. But its bullshit, it always HAS been bullshit, and until psychics get their shit together and quit laming out when they asked to DEMONSTRATE their powers in a science lab, IT ALWAYS WILL BE BULLSHIT!

Evoman

[simonm]

43. Amazing Randi? or ex-CIA agent?... hmmmm

IT ALWAYS WILL BE BULLSHIT!

Well spoken Evo.

[beam me up scottie]

45. Actually, the choice is science or magical thinking.

Guess which one accurately describes your belief in the "amazing" psychic and time traveler who will gladly show you the "truth" if you pay him enough money?
(here's a hint, it's not David "Will that be Visa or Mastercard" Morehouse)

[Evoman]

46. I didn't say anything about Randi

Although, I'm guessing the ex-CIA agent makes a shitload more teaching others his "Skills as a Remote Viewing Warrior" then he would at Randi's Million-Dollar challenge.

Honestly...I'm in AWE that people buy this stuff. I wish I was half the con-man that "the psychics" are. I would be rolling in dough. The only thing stopping me would be my moral and intellectual integrity.

[simonm]

50. Rolling in dough?

The only thing stopping me would be my moral and intellectual integrity.

You claim everything as bullshit without discussing the actual contents within the video. Yeah, loads of integrity there. All psychics are just con men trying to trick someone ..including the team behind Proof Positive.

About Page (Damn bunch of wackjobs!)
http://www.scifi.com/proofpositive/about/experts.html

Sorry, I prefer to trust their results and the ex-CIA agent over a magician turned world debunker.

[trotsky]

51. Oh look

Here's a brief yet effective debunking of your favorite episode.

http://www.raybenjamin.com/public_html/article.php?story=20041021111801644

In yesterday's episode, the show concludes that psychic remote viewing can be demonstrated "Proof Positive". In the episode, they bring in a number of people trained in this "skill". They have a "beacon", a young woman, drive around Los Angeles, a city everyone in the world knows from TV and movies, on her motorcycle. The remote viewers are given an hour to receive "psychic impressions" of what the "beacon" sees. Then they are given half an hour to draw what they have seen.

When they are all done, they hop in a van and drive the same route that the "beacon" traversed. On the way, they find landmarks and scenes that match many of the drawings that they have produced. The show uses this to conclude that remote viewing works. The only nod to science is that Amanda Tapping tells us that there is no scientifically established method of verifying the accuracy of remote viewing.

To someone untrained in science, it might appear that the results obtained were amazing. Many of the drawings could be matched to scenes along the path that the "beacon" drove. How could I doubt such evidence?

If you really wanted to test the effectiveness of this method, you would use a different "beacon" for each viewer and have them look at a specific object. The viewer would be required to produce an accurate rendering of the object. Since the "beacon" drove around L.A. for an hour, it would be truely unlikely that some of the drawings wouldn't match up with something that she saw. Since there is no way to match up the time that she supposedly saw something with the drawings the psychics made, you cannot prove that any given impression was of something that she was looking at when the pychic "tapped in."

[simonm]

52. Looking

I agree, some of the evidence is not rock solid but how do you account for the uncanny descriptions of the target (beacon)? The remote viewers were not given any specific information prior to the test.

Only three possible explanations:

1. coincidence
2. trickery
3. genuine ability

[trotsky]

53. Are you familiar with how producers edit reality shows?

Taking little clips here and there and mixing them together, or putting them out of order, to present a much different picture than one might otherwise see?

Do you think that's at all possible with this Science FICTION channel program?

[simonm]

54. Your suggestion has no basis

Editing video clips and misrepresenting facts are two separate actions. I don't see anything tangible that supports your speculation. All the participants seem to be in agreement including impartial observers.

Proof Positive does a good job at debunking paranormal evidence, should we assume those results were manipulated too?

[trotsky]

56. Let me put it this way.

If there were really "proof positive" evidence of psychic abilities, would the only place you'd see it be on a science fiction cable channel?

Seriously, bud, anyone providing valid evidence of such would be a shoe-in for the Nobel prize, not relegated to producing a 2nd-class television show.

All the participants seem to be in agreement including impartial observers.

But we don't know that, do we? Bottom line is, do you trust a show that is designed to be sensational to play strict & tight with the facts, or fast & loose?

As a final note, Proof Positive was canceled due to low ratings. If this show had seriously presented valid evidence for various claims, why did it die out of lack of interest?

[simonm]

58. We can agree to disagree

If there were really "proof positive" evidence of psychic abilities, would the only place you'd see it be on a science fiction cable channel?

I can understand that paranormal subjects are not your specialty but if you did actual research, the results can be surprising. There are many sources that support Proof Positive's conclusions. Just cause something is not on TV doesn't mean it never happened.

anyone providing valid evidence of such would be a shoe-in for the Nobel prize, ...

They will most likely be dismissed in the same manner displayed in this thread.

do you trust a show that is designed to be sensational to play strict & tight with the facts, or fast & loose?

Where did you see an example of "fast & loose"? Their methodology looked simple and straightforward to me. Where is the deception you always mention?

Proof Positive was canceled due to low ratings. If this show had seriously presented valid evidence for various claims, why did it die out of lack of interest?

Perhaps the viewers wanted to see more fantasy like ghosts, goblins and dragons rather than paranormal evidence under scientific scrutiny.


Thanks for the lively discussion. It was informative.

[trotsky]

59. Yeah, that happens when...

one side insists on facts, and the other side on wishful thinking.

There are many sources that support Proof Positive's conclusions.

Name them. Don't bother if they aren't in peer-reviewed professional journals, though. If evidence can't withstand scrutiny, then it isn't evidence.

Just cause something is not on TV doesn't mean it never happened.

More importantly, just because it was on TV doesn't mean it did. I can't believe this needs to be pointed out to an otherwise functional adult.

They will most likely be dismissed in the same manner displayed in this thread.

Well, yeah, if the only "evidence" is a biased sensationalized TV show. Science doesn't dismiss things it doesn't like, it dismisses things for which there is no EVIDENCE. Sorry about that, requiring proof before accepting something.

Where is the deception you always mention?

If you can't see it, there's no point in demonstrating. You're a twue believer and no pesky facts are gonna get in your way.

Perhaps the viewers wanted to see more fantasy like ghosts, goblins and dragons rather than paranormal evidence under scientific scrutiny.

Or perhaps it was just a lousy show that didn't prove anything.

[simonm]

62. mistaking opinions as facts

Your arguments summarized:

1. No comment on simonm’s psychic test results based on direct observations.
2. If psychic abilities were real, Randi would have made someone a millionaire
3. The Proof Positive episode is fully debunked because a web site said so.
4. The Proof Positive show is worthless because it was made by Sci Fi and had low ratings.
5. No explanation for the remote viewer’s ability to determine the target’s sex, physical makeup, and bike.
6. No suggestion for a remote viewer’s ability to see the film crew’s shirt illustration.
7. Proof Positive is a 100% bullshit since it is a reality show. Their team of experts manipulates facts.
8. Simonm is a wishful thinker and true believer while I, Trotsky, argue with facts.

As an atheist, I believe in making informed conclusions based on available data. The data produced independently years ago and data from various reliable sources has led me towards the conclusions I currently share. If something new is introduced, I will consider it and adjust my theories accordingly.

I was hoping for a more rational discussion. Your arguments are mainly dismissive and full of accusations without merit. By any definition, I’m not the true believer here.

Thank you for your time and goodbye.

[Random_Australian]

63. So he's gone? Damn, it is funny arguing with people who think that science

is a conspiracy, or in this case a bunch of uppity know-nothings in lab coats who just dismiss the evidence out of hand. Rfitqc Almighty does he sound foolish!

If you are still there: Scientists would LOVE it if there was a whole new branch to investigate in science. They'd think it was triple freaking amazing. But we do need proof. Objective proof. AS SOON AS YOU, OR ANY TV SHOW, PROVIDES ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, you really, really would be in the running for the next Nobel Prize. Scientists are interested in the truth, the real truth, and so very few care if some of what they sciintificallly believe is incorrect, if this was anything other than BS, you'd all be famous. Hell, gimme something from a peer reviewed journal and I'll start believing there is something going on right now!


Who else thinks that this is very much like the guy in the other thread who believed he'd proven the existence of God? (Show of hands please)

[trotsky]

65. Oh my.

Well, considering you don't understand what the burden of proof means, I am glad you are running away from this discussion. It obviously would never have gotten past your wishful thinking stage.

[charlie]

67. Sorry, simonm

A pop "mysterious world" program is no way to bolster claims. They're made for emotional impact, not accuracy or rigor.

I watched it yesterday, here's some of the things I noticed.

A brief bio of Morehouse's remote-viewing career. It was claimed he participated in remote investigations, targetted mideast leaders. A bit of extended focus on "his most famous case" -- how he helped discover the cause of the Lockerbie explosion. And...? No details of what he did, how he helped, or whether he was actually any help at all.

(Throughout the show he was referred to as "ex-CIA" and once called a CIA agent. He was never CIA, let alone an agent)

12 viewers were drawn from a pool Morehouse had trained. How were they selected? Who selected them? Were precautions taken to ensure he didn't have confederates among them? Two people watched over the group during "viewing" (apart from the camera crew), Morehouse and the LA police sergeant. Was there anyone present who would know how to spot surreptitious signalling? Did Morehouse know the identity and mission of the "beacon"? They didn't say, we don't know.

Were the viewers transported in along routes that intersected the beacon's itinerary, so that they saw landmarks she would see? Did the beacon depart from nearby, where the viewers might have heard a motorcycle? We don't know.

The announcer said that "there is no scientifically established method of verifying the accuracy of remote viewing". So, after noting there wasn't a chance of meeting any standards of scientific rigor, she reports that Morehouse says that studies indicate 4 "solid hits" would be extraordinary.

NO! You DO NOT let the claimant define the parameters of success! And certainly not one with a commercial interest in demonstrating the efficacy of his product. PP has a roster of degreed "experts", why didn't they survey for opinions?

A short montage of viewers describing their impressions. When was this recorded, before or after they were apprised of the identity of the beacon? The time not only affects their demeanor, but if done afterward, they'd exclude "missed" impressions (they'd also have the confidence to embellish). They didn't say, we don't know.

After the viewing session, it is Morehouse alone who reviews and analyzes the notes and drawings, and he's allowed to interrogate the beacon to flesh out his analysis. There's no point to this, except to have an on-camera moment of corroboration, "storefronts, grass... was there a park? Yes, we went by Echo Park." So, having pumped the beacon for possible "hits", Morehouse is allowed to ride with the viewers when they retrace the beacon's route.

NO! This is really absurd. The only way to gauge the accuracy of a "remote" impression is to see if the viewer recognizes what he saw "psychically" in real life. Having Morehouse along to steer the viewers to pre-corroborated "hits" is ridiculous.

First hit, Echo Park of course. Morehouse holds a drawing horizontally and maps out the matches like a surveyor, bing, bing, bing, says, "oh yeah, this is good." Cut to the dark-haired guy and Ted, expressing their giddiness and goosebumps over having visited the park without being there in real life. So...

First drawing, a straight path ending in a circular path with a small pond in the center (pond is about the width of the path), with a noted dot that says "fountain" in the middle of the pond. On the north side of the straight path are two open-based squares, one with a triangular piece in the center (an opening, design, window?), labelled "welcoming structures." Outside the circular path, to the west, is a single tree.

The group is standing on a path on the south side of a lake. On the north side is another path, with at least 3 open-air tents covered by awnings alongside. The path continues to the end of the lake, where it loops around and joins the group's path. In the middle of that end of the lake are 3 tightly grouped fountains. There's also a stand of maybe a half dozen trees.

Was it a "hit"? The "welcoming structures" seem to be in the right place, though it's hard to say, they don't show a panorama shot where you can determine their location relative to the fountains. Was there a straight path? No, there's 2 paths, widely separated by water. Circular path? No. Pond with fountains? No, they're in a big lake. Tree? Yes, several.

Second drawing -- 3 spouts erupting from a mound. He got the number of fountains right, anyway.

Back in the van. Morehouse spots the Capitol Records building, jumps into action, "There's Capitol Records, lemme have your drawing!", and proceeds to explain the drawing to the viewer -- "you can see how you were catching the waves (make waving motions with hands), you missed this here (points to a spot on the drawing)."

First drawing -- an unadorned cylinder, comprised of 4 thick, stacked disks. The seams between the stacked pieces are wavy. 4 lines from the outside penetrate into the left of each section, with notation (hard to read, seems to say "open", perhaps to indicate a recess between seams?).

Was it a hit? Capitol Records is a stack of many (a lot more than 4) thin disks. Seams between disks are not wavy. Each section is ringed with an awning, so that it appears to be recessed.

Second drawing -- a tall triangular needle. No detail.

Was it a hit? Capitol Records has a spire on the roof.

Next visit, a "famous concert hall" (idiots, I had to Google it, why couldn't they say Disney Concert Hall?).

Was it a hit? See if you can find anything in the hall that resembles the lady's Prudential Rock of Gibraltar drawing.

Next, the tunnel.

Was it a hit? The drawing is a clear rendition of a tunnel. The beacon cruised a tunnel.

Next, the Y overpass.

Drawing was of a symmetrical overpass, with 2 tight circular exits departing from the middle.

Was it a hit? Overpass is asymmetrical, left exit tight and circular, right exit extending straight for a short distance before gradually veering right.

Segment of Morehouse talking.

Says 9 of 12 viewers wrote that the beacon was a woman, "which is accurate." No, it's 75% accurate, with each choice having a 50/50 chance. It's flipping a coin 20 times and coming up heads 15 times. Notable, but not remarkable.

Says "some" (how many, Dave?) viewers noted the beacon wore dark clothing, then describes the beacon's Levis, dark boots, dark leather jacket. Since clothing can ordinarily be described as dark or light, it's not much (though I did notice a "leather jacket" notation on one of the viewer sheets).

Describes an "uncanny" report from a viewer saying the beacon was a small blond woman with "tied back" hair. If you catch exactly the right couple of frames as the report is panned, zoomed, rotated across the screen, you'll see that it says the rider had "auburn hair." Morehouse lied. It mentioned "pulled back" hair. It also said she wore "white walking shoes."

Then the coup de grace, the "spooky" one in a million hit -- the face. Morehouse says that the beacon must have seen it when she was being outfitted by the cameraman. Do they ask her if she saw it? No. Replay footage from her helmet cam? No.

Was the t-shirt logo a popular one? Was the cameraman ever part of the crew filming the viewers? They don't say, we don't know.

Was it a hit? They don't juxtapose the drawing/logo onscreen for comparison. So, if you locate the two (they're seconds apart) and rock the images back and forth... you'll see they're more different than alike. The main thing they have in common is that they're both stylized faces.

Wrap up. The announcer says Morehouse deems 12 of the hits to be "solid", far exceeding his expectations. Proof Positive.

Again, NOOO! He doesn't get to judge the success/failure of the "experiment." Why didn't they get some of their esteemed roster of scientists to do a review?

In the end, there's nothing much to write home about. A simple "What's In My Pocket" demonstration would have been more convincing, especially if they came up with something like say, an LED-studded scarabic brooch. Instead, we get tunnels, overpasses, spires, a park, 2 well-known LA landmarks, and a face, all common generic stuff. And the girl on a bike (How many knew she was on a bike or mobile at all? Apart from the one dark-haired guy, they don't say).

[Silent3]

68. You really don't get burden of proof, do you?

The provable existence of something like remote viewing would be monumental in scope, an enormous change in the scientific landscape and our understanding of the nature of the world we live in. Anything that would have such a great impact must meet rigorous standards to be accepted.

It's not up to trotsky or anyone else to prove there was fraud, deception, or barely-covering-your-ass-with-a-quick-disclaimer hype. A show like Proof Positive doesn't, and shouldn't ever, get a pass as proof simply because no one has disproven its claims or its methodology. The methodology sounds like it was so poor (I haven't seen the show myself, I must admit) that it barely warrants consideration even as a tiny morsel of encouraging evidence for remote viewing, much less something that should be regarded as standing tall and proud until someone else comes along and proves this so-called proof to be deceptive.

Even a very well-conducted experiment by top scientists which looked like good evidence for remote viewing would be regarded with great skepticism -- and quite rightfully so -- until the methodology had been thoroughly studied and the results repeated by other scientists.

[Silent3]

69. There's a fourth possible explanation...

...besides coincidence, trickery, and genuine ability, and it's a favorite with TV shows like this: selective editing. You might consider that a subcategory of trickery, and maybe it is, but people can convince themselves that they're just "punching up" the drama and entertainment value of a TV show when doing this, while not considering themselves to be involved in outright deliberate deception.

I forget how long the actual recording sessions for each of the John Edwards psychic TV shows were -- it was something like 2-3 hours -- but most of each session always had to be edited away to produce an hour-long show from all of the raw footage. This means that maybe 40 minutes (accounting for commericials) of what originally went on in each session was seen by the home audience.

Apparently, if you were there in the audience, you got to see a whole lot more blind fishing around by Edwards that didn't go anywhere, including spectacular misses, and when Edwards finally did get a "hit", a vague match with some person or event known to an some audience member among many (200? 300?), it seemed more like "It's about damned time" than "Ooooh! Aaaah! Amazing!!!".

How do you "punch that up" to get more "Ooooh! Aaaah! Amazing!!!"? Just edit away most of these fishing expeditions. Hey, we've only got an hour-long show -- we've got to edit! That's not deception, just the practical reality of the TV business!

I own no burden at all to account for what you call "uncanny" from the Proof Positive show. The burden is on you and those who want to promote the reality of remote viewing to prove that what appears uncanny has real substance behind it.

[Evoman]

55. WHAT PART OF "NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF"

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!

Its not about Randi vs Proof Positive and an ex-CIA guy. Its about THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT vs Proof Positive and the ex-CIA guy.

That show has been debunked. Those "proof positive tests" they do are bullshit. Do a damn google search on it. Even an amateur scientist would tell you they are stupid. The probability is that they did good science for this show, but when the good science didn't pan out, the producers decided to fill it up with these INANE tests.

Heres a test. They put a "probe" in front of one building...an apartment building in some barrio that nobody ever goes to, then the psychic draws that one building. But no...they drive through one of those most easily recognized cities in the world and give the psychic hours to draw their pictures.

DO YOU NOT SEE THE BULLSHIT!!!!


I can't believe YOU would be so intellectually dishonest. C'mon man...its even okay to believe out of hope, but to say there is proof or evidence. That requires more than just one tape from a science fiction channel that had been debunked.

Evoman

[simonm]

57. Show me

Its about THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT vs Proof Positive and the ex-CIA guy.

Go ahead, show me the evidence that you claim exists. Show me where the scientific establishment has resorted to actual hard testing rather than ridicule of these subjects. Give me real verifiable data that proves psychic abilities are impossible.

DO YOU NOT SEE THE BULLSHIT!!!!

Can you provide something with substance besides your "educated opinion"?

[trotsky]

60. You don't even understand science.

It's not up to others to prove your assertion wrong.

And you know what? No true scientist is going to flat out say that "psychic abilities are impossible." A true scientist never completely dismisses anything, just assigns it a very low likelihood of being true - pending... EVIDENCE otherwise.

Do you understand? YOU have to prove that psychic abilities exist. No one has to prove they don't. The evidence they don't, is that they've never EVER been shown to exist.

[simonm]

61. And you mastered it? LOL!

The poster made an assertion that should be backed up. I'm interested in examining the scientific trials he mentioned.

[trotsky]

66. Compared to you, yeah, I've mastered it.

Compared to the world's best scientists, no, I'm a novice.

At a bare minimum, I understand things like burden of proof and quality of evidence. It is painfully obvious you do not.

[simonm]

64. Apologies Evo

I'm sorry Evo, I misunderstood you in post #57. Please disregard that response.

I understand where you are coming from so lets forget the drawings of the city. Do you have any idea how they were able to know the physical makeup of the target and see the t-shirt illustration?

[Evoman]

70. I have no idea

But again, there were no controls, etc. With the right editing (and seeing how very few people in the production of this thing know anything about proper methods of authentifying phenomena..i.e. controlled studies), you could make ME look like I have psychic powers.

Reminds me of a story. One time, I was chatting with a girl on the internet. I talked to her for about 5 minutes..I got a general idea of what sort of person she was just in those five minutes. I proceeded to tell her her favourite movie, actor, band and what type of guys she liked. She was absolutely convinced I was psychic...I'm not kidding.

[Silent3]

71. Dammit, don't you see that you are?

Yes, Evoman, you ARE psychic, you're just in denial of it because you refuse to "open your mind" to anything that doesn't fit into your... your... your limited perspective of 3-D linear time... yeah, that's it! :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

44. Well said.

I will never stop being fascinated with REAL wonders.

Leaf-cutter ants, undersea volcanoes, space, carnivorous plants, newly discovered dinosaurs - my gawd, these things hunted in packs, for christ's sake!

Why would anybody need to make anything up ???

Life and money are too short to waste either of them on the what the snake oil salesmen are peddling.

[Evoman]

47. I'm studying the phylogeography of grasshoppers

With new genetic sequence information, we are literally turning older morphology based biogeographic hypothesis concerning their continent of origin on their heads. Using molecular techniques, we can see the migrations of groups of grasshoppers from continent to continent millions of years ago. Right now, we are trying to figure out if a certain subfamily originated in Africa and migrated to South America during the sundering of the Gondwanaland supercontinent or a hundreds million years later after the North american continent joined the South American continent.

People think their is no creativity in science....just a bunch of conservative scientist poo-pooing their "out of mainstream" ideas. The fact of the matter is, there is a unprecedented amount of amazing science happening out there...creative, stimulating, interesting science. Yes, scientists tend to be conservative...they tend to be a bit sceptical, but they are willing to study psychic claims and things like that. BUT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN EVIDENCE OF IT. EVER.

Why do people waste their time with stuff like that, when there are so many things out there to learn about? Why are there so many shows about psychics on TV? I don't get. As an aside, why would anybody watch anything starring Jennifer love Hewitt?

[beam me up scottie]

48. I don't get it either.

It must be part of the whole "open mind" meme.

Skeptics and atheists are cold, unpassionate materialists.

Makes the whole denial thing that much easier if you can dismiss skeptics.

One of my favorites:

The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
by Carl Sagan
from The Demon-Haunted World

How is it, I ask myself, that channelers never give us verifiable information otherwise unavailable? Why does Alexander the Great never tell us about the exact location of his tomb, Fermat about his Last Theorem, John Wilkes Booth about the Lincoln assassination conspiracy, Hermann Goring about the Reichstag fire? Why don't Sophocles, Democritus, and Aristarchus dictate their lost books? Don't they wish future generations to have access to their masterpieces?

---

In our time we have less severe standards. We tell children about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy for reasons we think emotionally sound, but then disabuse them of these myths before they're grown. Why retract? Because their well-being as adults depends on them knowing the world as it really is. We worry, and for good reason, about adults who still believe in Santa Claus.

---

In science we may start with experimental results, data, observations, measurements, "facts." We invent, if we can, a rich array of possible explanations and systematically confront each explanation with the facts. In the course of their training, scientists are equipped with a baloney detection kit. The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. If you're so inclined, if you don't want to buy baloney even when it's reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there's a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

What's in the kit? Tools for skeptical thinking.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbd.htm

Carl Sagan.

Most definitely NOT a cold, unpassionate materialist.

One of the sexiest men that ever lived, IMHO.

[trotsky]

49. LMAO

Yes, I do know what UFO stands for. But apparently YOU do NOT. Unidentified Flying Object. Key word: unidentified. We don't know. A picture of something flying in the air. That's what the show "proved." Didn't prove it was an alien spacecraft, or anything like that. Understand now?

Oh, and your clip of the show proves nothing. It's not a test - it's a sensationalized TV show intended to select the data that will make the audience interested.

No single scientific test has ever proved the existence of psychic powers. Why don't you perform one, and publish it? You'd be famous forever. (Not to mention a millionaire!)

[salvorhardin]

40. Oh no!

Please tell me Amanda Tapping was just in it for the paycheck and isn't really a woowo. x(

[Silent3]

26. "These unseen forces are capable of deception"

I can't read that phrase without thinking, "This way lies madness!" :)

If you start believing in invisible, nearly undetectable entities lurking about trying to deceive you, how much longer can you cling to sanity?

[simonm]

32. madness

LOL, very true.

What made you think we are still clinging to sanity? ;)

[Zhade]

34. Lots of believers in the uproven are good at SELF-deception.

Trotsky asked for proof and received none - I think the issue is settled.

[simonm]

36. That is why protocols are necessary

See post # 35 for my response. It took some time tracking down a video example.

[squarepants]

3. I have heard people

say pretty much the same thing. I can't speak for the "ghost" portion of what you said, but as far as the religious aspect of it, yeah, I've heard people say you have to believe something in order to experience it. Sadly, long ago, I used to tout off that stuff, too. I've since come to realize that experience must come first. I use a lot more logic now, and logic dictates that one can't really truly believe in anything without experience coming first. It's kind of like someone telling you that if someone hits you, it's going to hurt. You may believe what that person told you but if you've never been hit before, how do you TRULY know if it hurts or not. Once someone hits you, and you've EXPERIENCED it, then you could truly say hitting hurts, but only because you experienced it. Crappy example, but I guess it works. lol.

[Teaser]

4. Why should I believe you HAVEN'T seen ghosts?

nt

[Sinti]

6. In this incarnation you only need the logical. Next time, maybe more.

Why do they feel the need to "enlighten" you? They should really mind their own minds.

Of course, some of us like a little romance in their life -- so we believe in ghosts, or angels, or faeries, or whatever. It makes the world a more interesting place, like the books we read as children. :P

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. oooooh I love this kind of stuff

Here's what I think. Don't go looking for it. It will hit you in the head if it wants to find you. and if it doesn't, it doesn't. Maybe you are supposed to be one of the doubters who keeps the rest of us from floating up in space and who cures diseases and builds bridges.

I know one thing. Talking to a pastor is not going to help you believe. Pastors can be nice when you need some help, but they can't bring you belief.

My faith is not based on my five senses. I haven't seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled God. But I have sensed Him with other senses, my intuitive, emotional senses. Somehow I know, though, that we are not all supposed to be at the same level. So don't ever lie to yourself and pretend to believe. Just be what you are naturally.

Now..about the ghost. For THAT I'd want evidence.

And this is kind of off the subject, but here's an interesting little story about the possibility of past lives, or genetic memory, whatever. My daughter told me she was pregnant with my grandson a day or two after my dad died. We have always joked, therefore, that the new baby (now 2.5) is my dad reincarnated. Well, my dad was kind of a jokester. Every time we'd travel together and he'd see a big house, he'd always say "That's where the doctor lives." Just kind of a low-key little family joke (we have lots of doctors in our ranks) and I haven't thought of it in years. I certainly haven't said it to my grandson. The other day we drove by a church and the little boy said "Look! That's where the doctor lives!"

So keep an open mind, but hold onto your skepticism as well, if that makes any sense. Flexibilty is the goal.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Oddly enough, I am writing a book using that theme

It is a supernatural thriller, and main character asks: If magic exists, why don't we see it?

My solution is a fictional quote I attribute to René Descartes: "To the rational mind, there is no magic." Basically, people apply whatever rationalizations best fit their worldview; if that worldview does not include magic, then neither do the rationalizations. And so, magic does not exist.

The character who explains this also notes that there is a corollary: To the irrational mind, there is no science. He then jokes that this explains "Intelligent Design."

[varkam]

13. What I was trying to get at

has to do with the objective, external nature of such things. I do take it that there is an objective reality, though our perceptions of it certainly differ. That objective reality does not change, regardless of what you or I believe. Subjective reality (once the objective reality is filtered through our perceptions, beliefs, and interpretations) is another matter altogether. To a "ghost advocate", ghosts may be part of that subjective reality (though many fool themselves into believing it's objective) - whereas I have never seen a Ghost nor seen convincing evidence that they exist - therefore they are not part of my subjective reality.

Whether or not they (or God for that matter) actually do exist.....

[BoneDaddy]

11. I think that some of this is true

but their conclusions are wrong. There is soooo much about human life and experience that we do not know or is shrouded in mystery. I am an agnostic by definition because I think everything is suspect and open to further discovery.

Consider what a person living 2 thousand years ago would think of our modern world... They would think it is magic. Think about what we have witnessed in such a short period of time such as the past 100 years. Star Trek of the sixties has become the reality of the 21st centurty. To think we KNOW really anything is ridiculous.

I think people have incredible experiences and then try to make sense of them based upon their particular belief/religious/spiritual system. I do think that there are invisible realms, states of being, aspects of consciousness that supercede, influence and affect the physical world, we just do not have the ability yet to quantify them.

I have had too many bizarre, interesting, at times frightening experiences that have no rational or logical explanation and I cannot simply dismiss them out of hand.

I do think that it has alot to do with what type of person you are and whether or not the two sides of the brain are integrated or not. I know many "logical and rational" people who simply cannot be open to strange phenomenon and because of that, they do not experience it or shut it off in some way.

My martial arts instructor says something similar. If you believe you cannot do something, you can't. First and foremost there needs to be the belief that you can accomplish the task at hand otherwise, we have closed ourselves off to the very basic part of this... imagination. Not fantasy, but visualization, active imagining. Everything that has EVER been made by man existed in the mind first before it came into reality.

[Evoman]

16. Buddy...I get the same shit

If I had a dime for every time someone told me I had a closed mind, I would be able to buy my way into heaven. I had a work-mate try to convince me that Mesmer---yes, I just said FUCKING MESMER!!!--was really onto something, and people right now were discovering he wasn't wrong. When I told her, in detail, how Mesmer was descredited by Antoine Lavoisier and Franklin, she told me that I had a closed mind. Then she tells me that that I was being too "3-dimensional" because that stuff works on more dimensions and that the experiments didn't test for that.

I kicked her in the teeth.

No, I didn't. But I felt like it.

This same girl believes that people have learned to fly or levitate or heal with their auras. So I told her...well, have you ever seen anybody levitate or heal someone else (because she claims she has met people who can do these thing). She said No...these people won't demonstrate for her, but are willing to teach her to do it herself. "Evoman, they are beyond feeling the need to prove themselves...instead, they are willing to help us reach their level"

WELL ISN'T THAT FUCKING CONVENIENT. I HAVE TO SPEND 20 YEARS TRYING TO LEARN SOMETHING THAT I'VE NEVER SEEN MY SUPPOSED TEACHER DO. After that 20 years, I probably would be unable to do it, feel stupid, then try to teach the next idiot the same thing I was taught...but I can't demonstrate it..cuz...um...I don't feel the need to prove it.

GAH!

I'm not even completely discounting Aura healings and stuff....but if I've never seen it happen, and I've never seen it properly documented...well, then I just can't buy it. I'm not close minded, I'm just not fucking naive.

Whats worse is that I've had FUNDIES tell me I'm close minded. Thats rich...the same person who won't look at evidence for evolution because it contradicts his favourite book is telling ME I'm close minded. Please, Mr. Fundie, take off your Jesus-Colored glasses so I can pop you one in the face.

You ask somebody if they believe in ghosts, they will say yes. You ask them...have you ever seen a ghost, they will tell you ...no, but I heard footsteps downstairs and no on was there. Um..bud, ever think that maybe that was just something way crazier than ghosts...like the floor settling, or the sound of your heart beating as you hide under your pillow. No, its a ghost. Never mind that there has never been well-documented pictures of ghosts. Or aliens. Or bigfoot. Or lochness. Or levitation. Or a study showing them to actually exist.

Do what I do when people tell me that I can't experience something because I'm not "open" to the experience.....


WELL THAT PRETTY FUCKING CONVENIENT!

[varkam]

18. Haha

Please, Mr. Fundie, take off your Jesus-Colored glasses so I can pop you one in the face.

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

And on ghosts: interestingly enough, a lot of the people I've talked to who have seen ghosts have seen them in their bedroom when they were in bed - either falling asleep or having just woke up. Lots of people who claim alien abductions also are in bed at the time...I just think it's interesting that certain aspects of sleep and arousal could explain it - e.g. hypnogogic hallucinations.

[Evoman]

19. No doubt

How come nobody ever see ghosts in the day time, while fully awake, while there are other people around? Why are people always alone when these things happen? I understand it with aliens, i.e. they don't want to be seen, but what about ghosts? If you wanted people to know for sure your there, why not appear in front of a group of people, instead of banging away at the wood under the floor and at the water pipes. Ghosts are stupid.

Evoman

[CarbonDate]

72. As Carl Sagan wrote....

If millions of people are being abducted by aliens on a daily basis, it's amazing that the neighbors haven't noticed.

[sutz12]

20. Here, drink this Kool-aid

All will be explained. :evilgrin: