Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Alright, so I'm a skeptic. That doesn't mean I inherently disbelieve claims of the paranormal, but I need solid evidence and a convincing argument that either trumps the rational argument against it or proves it wrong, before I believe the claim. The vast majority of paranormal claims can be attributed to completely rational causes, and many others simply lack enough evidence to validate or invalidate the claim.

So what I'm asking for is discussion and debate on anything that would fall into this realm. If you believe in certain paranormal ideas, feel free to say so. Also feel free to say whether or not it is for intuitive reasons (personal "feeling", faith, or personal experiences) or because of data or research. If you don't believe in one or all of them, you can talk about that too.

But what I'm mainly interested in finding (and the reason for this thread) is rational arguments for these phenomenon, if they exist. I'll end up playing the role of the debunk-er more often than not, but I'm interested in the other side of the debate as well, and we can hopefully understand these beliefs better as a result. My goal is understanding, not argument, even if I happen to disagree. Hopefully this aim can keep the discussion civil.

Always remember that the burden of proof is on the claim. A lack of a debunking argument doesn't validate the claim unless empirical evidence also supports it.

Paranormal phenomenon can fall into many categories: ESP, physic powers, telekinetics, dowsing, various forms of magic, power of thought on the material universe (I include this because it seems to be popular on the forum...but let's not let it take over the thread), near-death experiences, reincarnation, a diety affecting the material world via supernatural means, voodoo, out-of-body experiences, prediction, crop circles, the existence of a soul, extraterrestrials, etc, etc. There's many I'm forgetting. Feel free to discuss one, many, or all of them.

Hopefully this isn't too broad to work, but I didn't want to deal with all of them individually, because many won't get any discussion.

I'll ask my Dad, he was a documentarian and worked on a doc about crop circles, I'll get back to you later tommorow.

how about one in the deepak chopra book life after death. a kid was born with a scar that looked like a shotgun spread. he said that he got shot in world war 2 when he was 8, when he could speak. i believe he was 8. he remembered names, dates and people that died. he had the same scar pattern as the person he remembered being, without ever hearing about him. he also remembered his previous wife

kronick i have the book if u wanna borrow it

Originally posted by chickenlover98
how about one in the deepak chopra book life after death. a kid was born with a scar that looked like a shotgun spread. he said that he got shot in world war 2 when he was 8, when he could speak. i believe he was 8. he remembered names, dates and people that died. he had the same scar pattern as the person he remembered being, without ever hearing about him. he also remembered his previous wife

I believe Deepak is referring to the findings of Dr. Ian Stephenson on the subject of reincarnation. Stephenson's work is one of the few entities in paranormal study that I actually find credible and plausible.

Deepak himself loves throwing the word "quantum" in front of things, and attempting to explain why quantum physics validates all sorts of belief structures. It doesn't, and many of his arguments are paper-thin (I once saw him try to justify an omnipresent deity by referring to quantum particles that exist in more than one place until observed...a gargantuan leap of logic) but the public's general lack of knowledge on quantum physics, and general interest in the afterlife and the paranormal, makes it easy to sell such ideas.

Originally posted by superkronick92
I'll ask my Dad, he was a documentarian and worked on a doc about crop circles, I'll get back to you later tommorow.

Cool, sounds interesting.

you didnt address my question, do you believe that?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Alright, so I'm a skeptic. That doesn't mean I inherently disbelieve claims of the paranormal, but I need solid evidence and a convincing argument that either trumps the rational argument against it or proves it wrong, before I believe the claim. The vast majority of paranormal claims can be attributed to completely rational causes, and many others simply lack enough evidence to validate or invalidate the claim.

So what I'm asking for is discussion and debate on anything that would fall into this realm. If you believe in certain paranormal ideas, feel free to say so. Also feel free to say whether or not it is for intuitive reasons (personal "feeling", faith, or personal experiences) or because of data or research. If you don't believe in one or all of them, you can talk about that too.

But what I'm mainly interested in finding (and the reason for this thread) is rational arguments for these phenomenon, if they exist. I'll end up playing the role of the debunk-er more often than not, but I'm interested in the other side of the debate as well, and we can hopefully understand these beliefs better as a result. My goal is understanding, not argument, even if I happen to disagree. Hopefully this aim can keep the discussion civil.

Always remember that the burden of proof is on the claim. A lack of a debunking argument doesn't validate the claim unless empirical evidence also supports it.

Paranormal phenomenon can fall into many categories: ESP, physic powers, telekinetics, dowsing, various forms of magic, power of thought on the material universe (I include this because it seems to be popular on the forum...but let's not let it take over the thread), near-death experiences, reincarnation, a diety affecting the material world via supernatural means, voodoo, out-of-body experiences, prediction, crop circles, the existence of a soul, extraterrestrials, etc, etc. There's many I'm forgetting. Feel free to discuss one, many, or all of them.

Hopefully this isn't too broad to work, but I didn't want to deal with all of them individually, because many won't get any discussion.


"ESP, physic powers, telekinetics, power of thought on the material universe (I include this because it seems to be popular on the forum...but let's not let it take over the thread),prediction ,"

definately. although mostly all of my evidence is anecdotal. and emperical also becomes anecdotal when not in experiments and witnessed by one person.

"the existence of a soul, various forms of magic, a diety affecting the material world via supernatural means, "

some rather unique people told me so/hinted at it, and in one way or another, there were reason to believe in them at its basis.



"dowsing, near-death experiences, reincarnation, , voodoo, out-of-body experiences, crop circles,extraterrestrials, etc, etc."

reincarnation cud be of many types. dunno. vodoo, wud be jsut another form of magic/using mystical powers. prolly all mystical power is similar and the dolls/artifacts/beleifs are only as important as the strength of faith in them of the "influential" person, cause strong fealings like faith can be a tool to bring out such phenomenon. crop circles, MAYBE, but mostly just pranks. extraterrestrial : maybe, looks unlikely nd illogical but then again a lot of other things in this world seem that way"

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you didnt address my question, do you believe that?

I didn't? What was the question?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
...

Your response (cut for brevity) is fairly typical, but it's something I can't quite understand. You can find anecdotal (i.e. no evidence) stories about any of these. Then mix that with a general belief in "something out there" or a desire to find reasons to believe these things, and it adds up to people setting aside their reason in favor of that "something else" that seems comforting or interesting.

I can understand it, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I can't personally espouse it for myself because it seems such a suspension of disbelief for the sake of blind belief.

um lemme rephraise. what do you think about the stories about the kids who remember stuff from "other lives"

Originally posted by chickenlover98
um lemme rephraise. what do you think about the stories about the kids who remember stuff from "other lives"

You probably want a yes/no answer, which isn't applicable in my case. Based on the meticulous and exhaustive research of Dr. Stephenson (not Deepak) I see reincarnation as a possible true phenomenon, since I haven't encountered or been able to formulate a rational rebuttal to the material other than resorting to the possibility that reincarnation exists. His findings span decades of research, numerous countries and cultures, and literally thousands of cases like the one you mentioned (though they are investigated far more in-depth).

The default atheist response of "nothing" to the afterlife question also seems likely and/or possible to me, though I don't consider either one a concrete "belief", merely reasoned hypotheses that are supported by evidence (or lack of evidence for alternative explanations).

Honestly, reincarnation is probably the only one on my list that I "believe" in...though I feel it's entirely likely that life exists elsewhere (extraterrestrials) just not ones that visit Earth.

then you share similar beliefs. i believe reincarnation is possible though unlikely. although bleak the atheist view seems the most likely. i mean if i got slapped in the face by an angel and saw heaven id be like holy **** im converting, but until then im an atheist/agnostic. im open to the idea of god but if he's real he just seems like an absolute dick

and no i didnt want a yes or no answer. i wanted to know what you thought

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I didn't? What was the question?



Your response (cut for brevity) is fairly typical, but it's something I can't quite understand. You can find anecdotal (i.e. no evidence) stories about any of these. Then mix that with a general belief in "something out there" or a desire to find reasons to believe these things, and it adds up to people setting aside their reason in favor of that "something else" that seems comforting or interesting.

I can understand it, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I can't personally espouse it for myself because it seems such a suspension of disbelief for the sake of blind belief.

actually no. i was{n still am to an extent} a sceptic. to the point of almost being an extremist in the view. i didnt really have any desire to believe in "sumthing out there" at all. n it was not exactly nice to have such expiriences in my life. but the thing about being logical is that you shud give evidence the respect it deserves and not be biased either way or dogmatic. yes the reason for me thinking its highly probable is because of personal expiriences and anecdotal evidence. thats why i dont go out n tell or preach to people to "beleive it", n rightly so, one man's anecdotal evidence can at best be reason for inquiring, never beleief. i accept that. besides, its not like LACK OF BELEIF in such unlikely things is gonna make sumthing bad happen to any1 who doesnt beleive. n there r more important things in life, like trying to find your own peace n love n lessening the suffering of mankind.

and i DO admit of me being deceived but i also understand that then it must have been a plot by various veyr close people to me, over many many years and maticulous planning and perseverance with only one objective, to deceive ME. whihc is also unlikely as i reason the world around me and expiriences.

leon, if i may stray from the topic what exactly are your beliefs. i dont see much of your arguments in the religion forum and i dont know whether ur an atheist or astrong believer

back to topic, i believe in extra terrestrial life. it isnt just a possibility its a truth. considering we cant even make it past fricken pluto and the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of galaxies its almosta garuntee there are other lifeforms. perhaps even ones that look like us. all that would be needed would be similar conditions.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I need solid evidence

Isn't that a contradiction, though?
If something is paranormal, it means it is unexplainable by science (in definition terms anyway).
It also means, if it is paranormal, that it is outside of the realms of what is deemed as 'normal'. Science is natural.
you cannot use scientific evidence which are used to function in natural (normal) environment to prove something which is 'paranormal', no?

Doesn't something become 'paranormal' in eyes of people, when there are no evidence for its occurance?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
leon, if i may stray from the topic what exactly are your beliefs. i dont see much of your arguments in the religion forum and i dont know whether ur an atheist or astrong believer

back to topic, i believe in extra terrestrial life. it isnt just a possibility its a truth. considering we cant even make it past fricken pluto and the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of galaxies its almosta garuntee there are other lifeforms. perhaps even ones that look like us. all that would be needed would be similar conditions.

now thats a hard question. im an agnostic. i beleive that there are mystical things/energies/phenomenon which are more like traditional dreams and fantasies then they are following established scientific guidelines. but i also think that in one way or another part of these phenomenon is physicall like genetics/higher dimension/fate etc, albeit not fully if at all. i do beleive that the phenomenon of BELEIF itself is strong enough to make such things happen for already gifted people but that the CONTENT of beleif is not responsible for it{i.e. if a hindu is suddenly getting vision of the future, and beleives and FEALS like kali is sending them doesnt mean kali is. it just mean th person in question is special and the emotional strength of the beleif brought the thing out. ofcourse its hard to tell that to a psychic whose prolly comprehended more than a normal human ever shud or cud}. i do not know if superhuman entities exist with supernatural powers, but i have heard in one way or another that they do, albeit they might not be stereotypical in nature. same with crystal balls and palm reading and zodiak and stuff. i think its more the PERSON who uses such methods who is gifted and not the method itself.

as far as relegion goes, i beleieve it is empty dogma used to control and manipulate people and causes much suffering in the worls. i think it is based in lack of hope in the real world and fear and dogmatism, a sort of justified vent for humanity's worst characteristics. but i also beleive that FAITH, unadulterated by dogma at times can be a very good thing, n some of it is inevitably present in relegions. i dont beleive an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolant god exists. theres lil probability of a tyrranical egotistical being with great powers existing, who interferes with the world and SEEMS like a god, but its a possibility. i can also imagine a trancendental diety/s, who created the world but are so superior to us in being that they can not understand humanity's suffering and priorities and make the world better. what else, i believe in love, or rather beleived, right now i only KNOW it to be a truth. i also KNOW fate to be an almost inescapeable truth, even though i can not understand it anymore.

as far as the alien thing goes. let me rephrase my reply. logically, there is an almost CERTAINTY, probability wise, that there is alien life sumwhere in the univrse and probably more than one places. however, i really dont know if they VISIT us or anything like that even though theres reason to look into that sort of stuff.

hmm, i think we probably have a soul, whether its sceintific but not understood yet, or comlpetely beyond the bounds of science iand into mysticism, i dont know.

oh yea, n i think this univers,e although generally stable in its laws,{or reality whatever u wanna call it} has a certain tendency to break them at times. thats is why many of my current beleifs wud seem to clash or contradict one another. generally though, im scientific minded and look at evidence and probability. {and the last part about the universe is just a suspicion on my part, not necessarily backed up by any corellative first hand evidence. just extrapolations}

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Isn't that a contradiction, though?
If something is paranormal, it means it is unexplainable by science (in definition terms anyway).
It also means, if it is paranormal, that it is outside of the realms of what is deemed as 'normal'. Science is natural.
you cannot use scientific evidence which are used to function in natural (normal) environment to prove something which is 'paranormal', no?

Doesn't something become 'paranormal' in eyes of people, when there are no evidence for its occurance?

lil's got a good point.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Isn't that a contradiction, though?
If something is paranormal, it means it is unexplainable by science (in definition terms anyway).
It also means, if it is paranormal, that it is outside of the realms of what is deemed as 'normal'. Science is natural.
you cannot use scientific evidence which are used to function in natural (normal) environment to prove something which is 'paranormal', no?

Doesn't something become 'paranormal' in eyes of people, when there are no evidence for its occurance?

Yes but I think your missing the point. If you go by the actual defintion, yes you could say that. Telekinesis for example is an example of paranormal but he would like good evidence to say that it could or does exist.

Telekinesis maybe outside the realm of whats "normal" but if it does exist there should be some evidence for it.

I watched a program where the auidience had to go through some telepathic tests. All the people including myself that believed in telepathy (but didnt think they were telepathic)did better than the people who didnt. Interestingly enough all the people who said they were actually telepathic did the worst (they were full of ****). The person who conducted the tests said that if telepathy wasnt possible the scores should not have ended up that way. Bare in mind im not using this as inconclusive evidence, im just talkign about a program I watcehed.

I do not believe in the Paranormal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not believe in the Paranormal.

Right...ok..have'nt you said you believe in a "god"?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Right...ok..have'nt you said you believe in a "god"?

Yes, but that is only because no one would understand what I really believe. I believe in the Mystic Law. Therefore, God is natural and not paranormal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but that is only because no one would understand what I really believe. I believe in the Mystic Law. Therefore, God is natural and not paranormal.

and that mystic law is measurable empirically?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but that is only because no one would understand what I really believe. I believe in the Mystic Law. Therefore, God is natural and not paranormal.

Ok got yah.

Originally posted by inimalist
and that mystic law is measurable empirically?


Yes, and one day we my discover it in a scientific way.

Bare in mind if you could actually control peoples minds you wouldnt tell a ****ing soul.

I believe in things that are not explainable. To not believe is closed minded. We don't know all the answers. I wouldn't be ignorant to say that I do.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Bare in mind if you could actually control peoples minds you wouldnt tell a ****ing soul.

untrue.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Isn't that a contradiction, though?
If something is paranormal, it means it is unexplainable by science (in definition terms anyway).
It also means, if it is paranormal, that it is outside of the realms of what is deemed as 'normal'. Science is natural.
you cannot use scientific evidence which are used to function in natural (normal) environment to prove something which is 'paranormal', no?

Doesn't something become 'paranormal' in eyes of people, when there are no evidence for its occurance?

Not necessarily. Many currently accepted scientific phenomenon were considered "paranormal" at one point, simply because we didn't have the science to explain them. And if something is affecting the material universe (albeit through non-material means) there should still be an objective way to record it, since there is a tangible affect on the material universe. If something is entirely paranormal according to your definition, there is no effect whatsoever on the material world, and therefore wouldn't exist to us.

It also depends on the defintion. I doubt anyone would consider extraterrestrials non-material. Perhaps I should've called it "strange beliefs" or something, rather than paranormal, if only to avoid confusion. But by paranormal, I don't necessarily mean outside causality or beyond the material...it simply covers a broad range of topics, everything from ghosts to telekinetic spoon-bending.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually no. i was{n still am to an extent} a sceptic. to the point of almost being an extremist in the view. i didnt really have any desire to believe in "sumthing out there" at all. n it was not exactly nice to have such expiriences in my life. but the thing about being logical is that you shud give evidence the respect it deserves and not be biased either way or dogmatic. yes the reason for me thinking its highly probable is because of personal expiriences and anecdotal evidence. thats why i dont go out n tell or preach to people to "beleive it", n rightly so, one man's anecdotal evidence can at best be reason for inquiring, never beleief. i accept that. besides, its not like LACK OF BELEIF in such unlikely things is gonna make sumthing bad happen to any1 who doesnt beleive. n there r more important things in life, like trying to find your own peace n love n lessening the suffering of mankind.

and i DO admit of me being deceived but i also understand that then it must have been a plot by various veyr close people to me, over many many years and maticulous planning and perseverance with only one objective, to deceive ME. whihc is also unlikely as i reason the world around me and expiriences.

Fair 'nuf.

See, for me though, part of "lessening the suffering of mankind" includes things like this. There's people who live their lives according to, say, their astrological reading. It's absurd (astrology has no credible grounds whatsoever) but it happens because of a belief in the paranormal. I can't do the myriad humantiarisn acts that every person sometimes wishes they could...my life is much more mundane. As such, this sort of thing is part of my "ministry", because a belief in something that is irrational isn't inherently harmful, but it has the potential to be.

And too often people justify their beliefs based on the anecdotal evidence you mentioned, which can usually be explained away and rarely offers valid evidence for belief.

So it's good that you remain skeptical, and I would encourage others to do likewise with all their beliefs. Question everything, and makes sure it "checks out" with the intellectual part of yourself, not just the emotional or intuitive side.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, and one day we my discover it in a scientific way.

wow

Now that you say that, I'm sure I've asked you something similar to that before. Highly interesting and respectable imho.

I'm sure this is the million dollar question, but do you have any idea about what this force may resemble or where we might look to find it?

Originally posted by inimalist
wow

Now that you say that, I'm sure I've asked you something similar to that before. Highly interesting and respectable imho.

I'm sure this is the million dollar question, but do you have any idea about what this force may resemble or where we might look to find it?

I really don't know, but I would guess that the Grand Unification Theory might lead the way.

mab something will happen evolution wise, that will become paranoprmal. such as what happens in heroes. although i dont think it will be quite that drastic

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Not necessarily. Many currently accepted scientific phenomenon were considered "paranormal" at one point, simply because we didn't have the science to explain them. And if something is affecting the material universe (albeit through non-material means) there should still be an objective way to record it, since there is a tangible affect on the material universe. If something is entirely paranormal according to your definition, there is no effect whatsoever on the material world, and therefore wouldn't exist to us.

It also depends on the defintion. I doubt anyone would consider extraterrestrials non-material. Perhaps I should've called it "strange beliefs" or something, rather than paranormal, if only to avoid confusion. But by paranormal, I don't necessarily mean outside causality or beyond the material...it simply covers a broad range of topics, everything from ghosts to telekinetic spoon-bending.



Fair 'nuf.

See, for me though, part of "lessening the suffering of mankind" includes things like this. There's people who live their lives according to, say, their astrological reading. It's absurd (astrology has no credible grounds whatsoever) but it happens because of a belief in the paranormal. I can't do the myriad humantiarisn acts that every person sometimes wishes they could...my life is much more mundane. As such, this sort of thing is part of my "ministry", because a belief in something that is irrational isn't inherently harmful, but it has the potential to be.

And too often people justify their beliefs based on the anecdotal evidence you mentioned, which can usually be explained away and rarely offers valid evidence for belief.

So it's good that you remain skeptical, and I would encourage others to do likewise with all their beliefs. Question everything, and makes sure it "checks out" with the intellectual part of yourself, not just the emotional or intuitive side.

Yes, true, they were considered paranormal, however, in reality, they ever never paranormal.

Paranormal is something which defies the rules of nature (and with that science). If it defies its rules, than paranormal cannot be measured against them, no?

Maybe Im missing your point. Thats the bit I picked up on, so I thought to comment.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, and one day we my discover it in a scientific way. How dare you have faith.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes, true, they were considered paranormal, however, in reality, they ever never paranormal.

Paranormal is something which defies the rules of nature (and with that science). If it defies its rules, than paranormal cannot be measured against them, no?

Maybe Im missing your point. Thats the bit I picked up on, so I thought to comment.

It's a valid point. But my thought is that it should be measurable, because even supposedly paranormal claims (telekinesis, for example) have real-world, material affects. Therefore, they actually are measurable. If something was entirely paranormal according to your definition, it wouldn't affect anything materially, wouldn't be able to be perceived by the senses, and for all practical purposes wouldn't exist in any form.

For example, a "ghost" might be an other-worldly apparition outside of our laws of physics. But if we can see it with our eyes, and therefore perceive it with our mind, there is a change to the material universe by this ghost, so there should be an objective way to investigate the validity of the ghost-claim.

The idea behind this thread is to see if there is this kind of evidence out there for these claims that I'm unaware of...because otherwise, all any paranormal claim has to fall back on are faith-based arguments or personal experiences that are suspect at best.

...


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, and one day we my discover it in a scientific way.

ID advocates are confident we'll one day find scientific evidence for their claims of supernatural involvement in evolution.

I can do magic. Look! bye

Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue.

So you would tell everbody that you could do this, if you had that ability?

Originally posted by Alfheim
So you would tell everbody that you could do this, if you had that ability?

well maybe. since im one of those people who despite trying, cant seem to keep their mouth shut. but i wasnt talking about me. i was saying that the generalisation you made isnt right, cause i know of exceptions in people other than myself.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
well maybe. since im one of those people who despite trying, cant seem to keep their mouth shut. but i wasnt talking about me. i was saying that the generalisation you made isnt right, cause i know of exceptions in people other than myself.

Well lets put it this way if you could control peoples mind and you went and told everybody you would probably whish that you didnt.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well lets put it this way if you could control peoples mind and you went and told everybody you would probably whish that you didnt.

lmao, no. if you cud control people's minds, youd tell your close friends, n they wudnt tell any1 else for fear of ridiculing or their psychic friend getting in trouble/attracting the attention of people who are interested{hint hint}, n if you did feal like telling, or betraying them, theyd see in yur mind and make you forget that they were psychic to begin with.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao, no. if you cud control people's minds, youd tell your close friends, n they wudnt tell any1 else for fear of ridiculing or their psychic friend getting in trouble/attracting the attention of people who are interested{hint hint}, n if you did feal like telling, or betraying them, theyd see in yur mind and make you forget that they were psychic to begin with.

Well this is getting too technical....this is turning into a comic book vs debate.

I see what you saying but I think its more complicated than that.....

I do know there a freemasonry organizations that practice the occult and if you join you have to keep secrets.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well this is getting too technical....this is turning into a comic book vs debate.

I see what you saying but I think its more complicated than that.....

I do know there a freemasonry organizations that practice the occult and if you join you have to keep secrets.

talking about comic books, an easier example. xavier{who for the sake of plot, isnt a public mutant nor wants to be publically known} is my friend. he tells me hes a powerful telepath. he thinks ill be loyal an keep his secret. i wudnt tell anyone 1. because its against my friend's wishes 2.because hes a telepath and would find out if i told or was planning on telling as he has cosmic awareness 3. because of the fear that the government sentinals would kill or kidnapp him for their own devious research or purposes 4. because no1 would beleive me 5. because since after knowing i told, or was gonna tell, xavier would wipe my mind clean telepathically.

now the REASON xavier told was that he cud be more REAL and true to his friends/lover{assuming i was a woman}, maybe he jsut wanted to let a secret out and not be lonely in his existance anymore, maybe he was just excited about whhat he cud do, maybe he wanted to show off, maybe he wanted to explain the reasons behind his actions or the circumstances he was in in life which seemed to hae no normal reason for them.

get it?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
talking about comic books, an easier example. xavier{who for the sake of plot, isnt a public mutant nor wants to be publically known} is my friend. he tells me hes a powerful telepath. he thinks ill be loyal an keep his secret. i wudnt tell anyone 1. because its against my friend's wishes 2.because hes a telepath and would find out if i told or was planning on telling as he has cosmic awareness 3. because of the fear that the government sentinals would kill or kidnapp him for their own devious research or purposes 4. because no1 would beleive me 5. because since after knowing i told, or was gonna tell, xavier would wipe my mind clean telepathically.

now the REASON xavier told was that he cud be more REAL and true to his friends/lover{assuming i was a woman}, maybe he jsut wanted to let a secret out and not be lonely in his existance anymore, maybe he was just excited about whhat he cud do, maybe he wanted to show off, maybe he wanted to explain the reasons behind his actions or the circumstances he was in in life which seemed to hae no normal reason for them.

get it?

Your patronising me I got it first time....to be fair saying that you wouldnt tell anybody is incorrect but you wouldnt broadcast it.

This could explain why in the real world when you join the IOT and OTO you have to keep secrets. This could explain why ceratin occultists have been raided by the police and why the gnostic christians where persecuted ( for their beliefs as well).

This was the point I made in one of my posts you didnt get it either.

i dunno about those, i was only referring to individual psychics.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dunno about those, i was only referring to individual psychics.

Well im talking about the real world. The OTO and IOT are actually freemasonry organisations that teach the occult. Wether or not they actually have superhuman powers I dont know for sure but they do exist and they claim to teach people magick.

There may be some grain of truth in what im saying in the fcat that when you join there are certain things you cant tell people. There is one occultist called Carl McCoy who whenever asked about the occult refused to talk about it either hes full of **** or its because he doesnt want to reveal anything. When you think about it logically if you did have superhuman powers you could get yourself into big trouble depending on how you conduct yourself.

no, no, im talking about the REAL world too. i know individual psychics exist in the real world. however i do not know whether the paronormal ORGANISATIONS you speak of are authentic practitioners of paronormal phenomenon or not.

n i do know that a few of those individuals do tell other people who are close to them. n some even do go into the fortune telling business/consultation etc etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I



The only thing I wonder about is if that guy knew he was a fake or really thought he had powers.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i know individual psychics exist in the real world.

Care to elaborate?

Originally posted by DigiMark007


The only thing I wonder about is if that guy knew he was a fake or really thought he had powers.


I don't know, i think there was probably some mass delusions going on there, but I could be wrong.

There is another video, I haven't seen it, of a guy who believes he can use chi energy to block a shortsword from slicing into his arm.

So, he domonstrated on TV and had his friend embed a sword in his forearm down to the bone.

Maybe I shouldn't laugh at anothers misfortune, but its sooooo funny.

There are paranormal experiences. I've experienced some of them as do others I know also.

Originally posted by debbiejo
There are paranormal experiences. I've experienced some of them as do others I know also.

such as?

Getting direction when you ask, if you listen.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't know, i think there was probably some mass delusions going on there, but I could be wrong.

There is another video, I haven't seen it, of a guy who believes he can use chi energy to block a shortsword from slicing into his arm.

So, he domonstrated on TV and had his friend embed a sword in his forearm down to the bone.

Maybe I shouldn't laugh at anothers misfortune, but its sooooo funny.

I found a great website that has all kinds of "instructions manuals" for telekinetic and/or telepathic effects. Chi is mentioned liberally. Then they have "real" videos of people spinning cell phones and such telekinetically. I was going to try them sometime just for the sh*t of it (not because I actually believe in any of them) but I haven't gotten around to it.

The kicker was that they mentioned spoon-bending as one of their primary activities. It's a popular mind-over-matter excercise, and people usually end up legitimately thinking they are influencing the bending process with their minds, not just their physical strength. Spoon-bending has been debunked by a number of popular sources, so it was a bit disappointing to see they didn't really do their homework before posting it.

http://www.psipog.net/home.html

Originally posted by debbiejo
Getting direction when you ask, if you listen.

Direction for what? Life decisions and such, like when Christians ask God for a sign or guidance? If there is a "response" it would presumably have to come from some sort of paranormal sentience, though not necessarily the god of any religion. I would have a hard time with that, only because where did this sentience come from? What are your grounds for believing in it? And is it more likely that you simply formulated the response on your own through some sort of intuition, but aren't attributing the answer to yourself but to something else?

...it's like a Oigia (sic) board, but for adults.

And if you get rid of the idea of sentience, and are just tapping into....I dunno what exactly, maybe an energy field. Then how would such a non-personified force create enough semblance in its being to give a person direction in their life?

I can understand attuning oneself to your surroundings, and as a result being able to think more clearly and discern things you wouldn't otherwise be able to. But that's just a thought-meditation, and is entirely intrinsic.

...

Dumb men...lol
Are you left brained too?

You do have to understand that you need to tap into your right brain to experience this, right?

I also think people want to believe in the paranormal, and are willing to put aside their critical thinking to believe it. Or, more likely, they just don't have access to dissenting opinions, so they believe it tacitly because there's no rational alternative.

Many people are upset if their belief is debunked. I'd see it as a gradual process of educating oneself, so it's hard for me to see the negative in, say, having psychic readings debunked. We understand a bit more about the world around us and also the people that we share the planet with (because the reasons people believe in things and the techniques used often make for a delicious character study).

Originally posted by debbiejo
Dumb men...lol
Are you left brained too?

You do have to understand that you need to tap into your right brain to experience this, right?

I took a right/left quiz one time, but I forget the results. I think I'm mixed. As rigid and rational as I seem on this forum, I'm an English teacher (eventually, at least), where subjectivity and creativity is the name of the game.

But does this explain your point? Maybe it's because I'm a dumb man ( ) but I can't find the connection.

Nah, you're not dumb at all.......I was just kidding. But it is said that left brained people cannot experience such things because they are too analytical for it. Some try exercises to train their minds to experience more of the right brained experiences. I, myself have always been very right brained, so maybe that is why I see things differently. Sometimes I am forced to see things more dramatically from the other side..i.e. left brained. I can, though I am not comfortable in that place. To me, it lacks fun and spontaneity and wonder. People of this sort, though I don't mean it to apply to all, seem very reserved, too cautious, too worried.

They need to loosen up, and have fun with things.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Nah, you're not dumb at all.......I was just kidding. But it is said that left brained people cannot experience such things because they are too analytical for it. Some try exercises to train their minds to experience more of the right brained experiences. I, myself have always been very right brained, so maybe that is why I see things differently. Sometimes I am forced to see things more dramatically from the other side..i.e. left brained. I can, though I am not comfortable in that place. To me, it lacks fun and spontaneity and wonder. People of this sort, though I don't mean it to apply to all, seem very reserved, too cautious, too worried.

They need to loosen up, and have fun with things.

KMC Digi is very right-brained. But that's because I'm either dealing with problems in the comic forums or debating with theists here.

The trend in my life has probably been gradually toward right-brain. But I just re-watched Moulin Rouge and had a conversation with a friend about crying during the last episode of Dawson's Creek (that's right, b*tches, and damn proud). Then I ate cheeze-its while watching football all day and didn't have 1 intelligent thought all day. I'm not sure if that balances out right/left, but it's something.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I I feel like a worse person for watching that. That's embarrassing.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
KMC Digi is very right-brained. But that's because I'm either dealing with problems in the comic forums or debating with theists here.

The trend in my life has probably been gradually toward right-brain. But I just re-watched Moulin Rouge and had a conversation with a friend about crying during the last episode of Dawson's Creek (that's right, b*tches, and damn proud). Then I ate cheeze-its while watching football all day and didn't have 1 intelligent thought all day. I'm not sure if that balances out right/left, but it's something.

Maybe your hemispheres are reversed. I'm only saying this because I want to be wrong, but it is possible.

personality is NOT controlled by either brain hemisphere. It comes from the interaction of many brain regions in both hemispheres.

The idea that people are either right or left brain dominant is not real psychology or even just not real period.

Originally posted by inimalist
personality is NOT controlled by either brain hemisphere. It comes from the interaction of many brain regions in both hemispheres.

The idea that people are either right or left brain dominant is not real psychology or even just not real period.

Well, yes there's interaction between areas of the brain. But there is a clear division between opposite sides of the brain, and the connective tissue between them deteriorates unless used (using both "sides" of the brain). Women have thicker connective tissue, which makes men more at risk for becoming one-tracked to one side or the other.

In either instance, both sides are still used, but there is a definite trend toward one side or the other depending on our thought patterns. People probably read too much into it, but it's not entirely pseudo-science.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
but it's not entirely pseudo-science.

correction, it is ENTIRELY pseudoscience

There are hemespheric dominances, much like people can be right or left handed, and there are some functions that are specialized to each side of the brain. However, when talking about personality differences between individuals (and ESPECIALLY for men and women) you are NOT talking about left vs right brain. It is entirely bunk. There is absolutly no evidence to support it.

In fact, from a strict neurological perspective, saying an individual is either left or right brained has no real meaning. There is no possible mechanism for how one hemisphere could "dominate" the other so ambigiously.

Originally posted by inimalist
personality is NOT controlled by either brain hemisphere. It comes from the interaction of many brain regions in both hemispheres.

The idea that people are either right or left brain dominant is not real psychology or even just not real period. The first is correct. But dominance of one side is very possible although it is usually very mild. McGlone and Kansaku, Yamaura & Kitazawa have done some interesting things in the area. I also seem to remember something involving lateralization due to the position of the fetus in the womb, but I can't quite remember.

Well all you have to do it pull over and ask!

Originally posted by inimalist
correction, it is ENTIRELY pseudoscience

There are hemespheric dominances, much like people can be right or left handed, and there are some functions that are specialized to each side of the brain. However, when talking about personality differences between individuals (and ESPECIALLY for men and women) you are NOT talking about left vs right brain. It is entirely bunk. There is absolutly no evidence to support it.

In fact, from a strict neurological perspective, saying an individual is either left or right brained has no real meaning. There is no possible mechanism for how one hemisphere could "dominate" the other so ambigiously. Personality is not thought to be side dominated, but there is some evidence of personality dominance suggested by the results of hemispherectomies. Language can definitely be. McGlone's study was very interesting. Male left-hemisphere stroke victims suffered deficiency on WAIS verbal subtests and male right hemisphere stroke victims had deficits on WAIS performance subtests. Female stroke victims did not suffer any significant disruptive effects on those tests. The general conclusion is that males are more lateralized than females. Then Kanaksu, Yamaura, and Kitazawa showed that females tend to use both hemispheres more than males in language related tasks. They did that with brain imaging btw.

Have you ever been given solid evidence before...on anything?

(My line of thought is sort of Descartes here.)

dreeeeeeeeeam dream dream dream

Yeah, after I eat I get sleepy too.

thats because you eat to few and too large portions, many meals but small portions

What??

so called nutritious expert claims the reason you get sleepy after you eat is that you eat to few times a day, and when you eat you eat to large a portions

I'm different. I get sleepy after I eat cooked meal.

well if you eat few meals a day the major ones usually are coocked

coocked? LOL

I eat one meal a day.

Originally posted by inimalist
correction, it is ENTIRELY pseudoscience

There are hemespheric dominances, much like people can be right or left handed, and there are some functions that are specialized to each side of the brain. However, when talking about personality differences between individuals (and ESPECIALLY for men and women) you are NOT talking about left vs right brain. It is entirely bunk. There is absolutly no evidence to support it.

In fact, from a strict neurological perspective, saying an individual is either left or right brained has no real meaning. There is no possible mechanism for how one hemisphere could "dominate" the other so ambigiously.

Actually, I conceded you most of your points in my earlier posts, because we're generally in agreement. My only point was that there are those hemispheric dominances (as you nicely put it) with a variety of brain functions. I never claimed to believing in personality being affected by brain location....mainly because a "personality" is such an amorphous thing anyway, and it would be next to impossible to categorize it by brain function.

But when I was exchanging banter with debbie earlier, I was just using left/right brain in a functional sense, the way the world defines it, regardless of scientific theories that support (or deny) it.

Nellinator actually mentioned some of the research I was alluding to, including the penchant for women being able to "multi-task", so to speak, with different areas of the brain better than men.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Alright, so I'm a skeptic. That doesn't mean I inherently disbelieve claims of the paranormal, but I need solid evidence and a convincing argument that either trumps the rational argument against it or proves it wrong, before I believe the claim. The vast majority of paranormal claims can be attributed to completely rational causes, and many others simply lack enough evidence to validate or invalidate the claim.

So what I'm asking for is discussion and debate on anything that would fall into this realm. If you believe in certain paranormal ideas, feel free to say so. Also feel free to say whether or not it is for intuitive reasons (personal "feeling", faith, or personal experiences) or because of data or research. If you don't believe in one or all of them, you can talk about that too.

But what I'm mainly interested in finding (and the reason for this thread) is rational arguments for these phenomenon, if they exist. I'll end up playing the role of the debunk-er more often than not, but I'm interested in the other side of the debate as well, and we can hopefully understand these beliefs better as a result. My goal is understanding, not argument, even if I happen to disagree. Hopefully this aim can keep the discussion civil.

Always remember that the burden of proof is on the claim. A lack of a debunking argument doesn't validate the claim unless empirical evidence also supports it.

Paranormal phenomenon can fall into many categories: ESP, physic powers, telekinetics, dowsing, various forms of magic, power of thought on the material universe (I include this because it seems to be popular on the forum...but let's not let it take over the thread), near-death experiences, reincarnation, a diety affecting the material world via supernatural means, voodoo, out-of-body experiences, prediction, crop circles, the existence of a soul, extraterrestrials, etc, etc. There's many I'm forgetting. Feel free to discuss one, many, or all of them.

Hopefully this isn't too broad to work, but I didn't want to deal with all of them individually, because many won't get any discussion.

So you're open to the possibility, Digi? That's cool. I had you pegged for a pig-headed, hard-nosed skeptic. (Like Boris)

You've never met anyone who was precognistic or psychometric in all your years?

And aliens would fall under mainstream science, since they have a physical existence unlike ghosts.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So you're open to the possibility, Digi? That's cool. I had you pegged for a pig-headed, hard-nosed skeptic. (Like Boris)

You've never met anyone who was precognistic or psychometric in all your years?

And aliens would fall under mainstream science, since they have a physical existence unlike ghosts. Boris isn't a skeptic. He doesn't think things through.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So you're open to the possibility, Digi? That's cool. I had you pegged for a pig-headed, hard-nosed skeptic. (Like Boris)

You've never met anyone who was precognistic or psychometric in all your years?

And aliens would fall under mainstream science, since they have a physical existence unlike ghosts.

Open, yes, but it doesn't mean I believe in something without evidence, or even if there's a lack of evidence one way or another.

And I know what precognistic (precognitive?) means, but what exactly is psychometric? Sounds like an insane Canadien to me ( ).

As for aliens, yes they would fall under quantifiable science, but so should most of these if they have tangible affects on the material world, which they would need to in order to exist at all. But alien hoaxes abound, and the investigation lacks any credible evidence for us having made contact with extraterrestrials so far, so I included it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
what exactly is psychometric?

Psychometry is the psychic ability in which a person touches a physical object (or person) and instantly they know everything about the object; it's history, where its been, what its done and so on.

It's been in a few movies and tv shows like Unbreakable and The Dead Zone.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
insane Canadien Eh? What's wrong with crazy canucks?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Psychometry is the psychic ability in which a person touches a physical object (or person) and instantly they know everything about the object; it's history, where its been, what its done and so on.

It's been in a few movies and tv shows like Unbreakable and The Dead Zone.

Gotcha. Thanks.

So you're asserting that you've known people like this, and have been able to remove possible confirmation bias to look at it objectively and determine whether or not they actually have these supposed powers?

I'd be interested to hear your justification, for this or the precognitive ones.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Gotcha. Thanks.

So you're asserting that you've known people like this, and have been able to remove possible confirmation bias to look at it objectively and determine whether or not they actually have these supposed powers?

I'd be interested to hear your justification, for this or the precognitive ones.

No, I've never known anyone like that.

Ah, nevermind then.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


The only thing I wonder about is if that guy knew he was a fake or really thought he had powers.



Care to elaborate?

not really. its personal, anecdotal, and a sceptical third person can point out many holes in it which cud be explained, n the only thing ud have against it is my word. which frankly isnt very significant if you want to look at things scientifically and wanna establish them to multiple people. in short you dont have any reason to beleive me.

but its still my statement. psychics exist. and as an INDIVIDUAL i have significant amount of evidence to base it on. and what is anecdotal to a third person like you, is emperical to a first person like me.

just keep an open mind, thats all. specially when the phenomenon is question isnt indirectly being linked to potentially negetive things like organised relegion or heaven/hell etc, to try and justify them based on leaps of hollow logic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
not really. its personal, anecdotal, and a sceptical third person can point out many holes in it which cud be explained, n the only thing ud have against it is my word. which frankly isnt very significant if you want to look at things scientifically and wanna establish them to multiple people. in short you dont have any reason to beleive me.

but its still my statement. psychics exist. and as an INDIVIDUAL i have significant amount of evidence to base it on. and what is anecdotal to a third person like you, is emperical to a first person like me.

just keep an open mind, thats all. specially when the phenomenon is question isnt indirectly being linked to potentially negetive things like organised relegion or heaven/hell etc, to try and justify them based on leaps of hollow logic.

See, empirical is empirical, and anecdotal is anecdotal. Perspective shouldn't matter if it's a convincing argument...if it's logical enough to persuade you, it should be able to persuade others as well....or else you don't really have a credible claim to begin with.

You even stated yourself that holes could be poked in it by a 3rd party, so why not acknowledge those holes (or at least hear them from someone else) and see if your evidence can hold up against them? Because saying "psychics exist" is complete bunk unless it can stand up to counter-arguments. And until you critically view your beliefs, you won't be able to assert them confidently, and the rest of us won't know whether you just don't want to have your beliefs challenged for fear of being wrong, if you just hate conflict and would rather not discuss it, or if you're just stubborn in your beliefs....which you may or may not be, but what's the point of asserting something like that if you aren't going to even attempt to defend it?

And I do keep an open mind. It's why I make threads like this. From my perspective, you're the close-minded one because you aren't willing to put your beliefs up to a critical eye. Not believing in something doesn't = not being open-minded. Not questioning and challenging beliefs does.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
See, empirical is empirical, and anecdotal is anecdotal. Perspective shouldn't matter if it's a convincing argument...if it's logical enough to persuade you, it should be able to persuade others as well....or else you don't really have a credible claim to begin with.

You even stated yourself that holes could be poked in it by a 3rd party, so why not acknowledge those holes (or at least hear them from someone else) and see if your evidence can hold up against them? Because saying "psychics exist" is complete bunk unless it can stand up to counter-arguments. And until you critically view your beliefs, you won't be able to assert them confidently, and the rest of us won't know whether you just don't want to have your beliefs challenged for fear of being wrong, if you just hate conflict and would rather not discuss it, or if you're just stubborn in your beliefs....which you may or may not be, but what's the point of asserting something like that if you aren't going to even attempt to defend it?

And I do keep an open mind. It's why I make threads like this. From my perspective, you're the close-minded one because you aren't willing to put your beliefs up to a critical eye. Not believing in something doesn't = not being open-minded. Not questioning and challenging beliefs does.

i wont go into answering all that. its imply that the perceived HOLES can only be explained due to pointless planning to fool me and ONLY ME. which would have to deal with the occurance of the most unpredictable situation and would have to be thorough enough to last for YEARS with no purpose in sight. it wud require significant amounts of time of interaction with me of several people who are always well coordinated and know me inside out.

again, its personal.

edit. didnt feal like there was a need to reveal all that.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i wont go into answering all that. its imply that the perceived HOLES can only be explained due to pointless planning to fool me and ONLY ME. which would have to deal with the occurance of the most unpredictable situation and would have to be thorough enough to last for YEARS with no purpose in sight. it wud require significant amounts of time of interaction with me of several people who are always well coordinated and know me inside out.



No, that's a decent start. Don't feel bad for sharing it. That's the kind of info I was talking about when I wanted you to share the details of your experiences.

I'm not sure if you think I'm going to pounce on you now because I believe differently, or what. My point is to understand peoples' beliefs, and occasionally turn a critical eye to them in order to further everyone's understanding. I'm not in the business of attacking beliefs for no better reason than because I disagree. But we can only get to the truth by critically analyzing both sides, which was my point all along.

Anyway, those are some bold psychic claims. If you'd like, I'd be interested to hear the circumstances surrounding your encounters with these psychics, and how you came to hear these various predictions.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, that's a decent start. Don't feel bad for sharing it. That's the kind of info I was talking about when I wanted you to share the details of your experiences.

I'm not sure if you think I'm going to pounce on you now because I believe differently, or what. My point is to understand peoples' beliefs, and occasionally turn a critical eye to them in order to further everyone's understanding. I'm not in the business of attacking beliefs for no better reason than because I disagree. But we can only get to the truth by critically analyzing both sides, which was my point all along.

Anyway, those are some bold psychic claims. If you'd like, I'd be interested to hear the circumstances surrounding your encounters with these psychics, and how you came to hear these various predictions.

yea, about that. wud u mind editting the parts u quoted? just that i dont wana announce it to the world. ur right theyr bold, but then again, there is documentation etc involved. death certificates n the like. but as i said, i have no reason to substantiate or go into it. its quite close to home n personal. i was just trying to say for a FACT that psychics exist. im not extremely happy with the realisation either. n i was alwasy a sceptic{Still am} never beleived in this stuff. but being sceintific means looking at evidence. n theres evidence.

anyway, please edit ur post.

Er, ok. You don't have to reveal personal info to describe the psychic encounter though. But if you really don't want to go into it, that's fine.

I'll just echo your advice of remaining open-minded. Any documented attempt at proving psychic power has utterly failed, and most known psychics have been formally debunked by numerous sources. I'm happy to hear you remain skeptical and require evidence for belief, but many times their methods are aimed at confounding normal logic unless you understand their tactics and methods. If you still remain convinced, good for you...I'm sure the reasons are valid. But always remain open.

...

You also mentioned things like this not being negative or tied to organized religion. Let me reiterate that any belief, in a paranomral force, God, or organized religion, isn't negative. But they all have the potential to be. And the number of fake psychics who prey upon peoples' credulity and willigness to believe is a perfect example of this. My goal isn't to attack but to question, in order to pursue a form of truth that is agreeable with reason. Debunking claims that are unsupported is part of this, because if it is inherently false it has the potential for negative consequences, even though many cases are not like this (yours among them, likely).

well it isnt so much concerned with ME as a person as other people. i dont have a right to talk about the lives of other people. n i hold those people dear.{even if that sentiment isnt reciprocated }

lol, if it was "ME" that was that special id be actively trying to take control of the entire world and purge it of its hypocritical corruption n suffering. on top of researching physical theories over theories to advance science. ALAS beggars cant be choosers . plus i wudnt have a problem with bearing all n giving hard evidence etc.

yea, because very few special people in their right mind would wanna advertise their gift. just like no normal buddha would like to show off to other people about his/her state of nirvana/enlightenmet. because showing of is not part of being enlightened. im always open.

john constantine had a nice quote "beleive everything, DOUBT EVERYTHING"

...



over 99% of claimed psychics are frauds. besides, for the overwhelmingly greater part, i do not think humanity requires psychics to solve its problems either. n to top it off, if a person has vastness of mind enough to have psychic insight, theyd atleast have insight enough to know that.

also, you would be surprised as to how easily "gifted" people themselves can fall prey to the grasps of organised relegion. i guess some evils really dont differentiate between their victims. and that is also the reason why sumthings like divination/tarot/pentagrams etc {in the few genuine instances} can work. it isnt the PRACTICE itself that exists, as percieved, but it is the ability of the person doing it and "beleiving" in the practice.

reguardless, this is a screwed up topic.

Being a psychic doesn't = being enlightened. Saying "they don't want to be known" doesn't equal proof, nor is it anything but a scapegoat for evidence. If it actually existed, I'd like to think we would've managed at least 1 test in the course of human history that objectively asserts evidence for belief. The common phrase among the credulous is "an absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence"...fair enough, but it's also not rational grounds for belief.

Your tacit acceptence of things like divination and tarot also make you anything but a skeptic, despite your claims to the contrary. It still seems like you're open to belief, but not to questioning that which you believe...since you're very quick to say "well sure, 99% of the time..." but you will neither offer evidence nor field critical questions about teh 1% you consider valid.

And I'm not sure what you mean about a person "believing" in some sort of power, and that making it more likely to happen. A self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps, where people will believe what they want to regardless of the methods involved. But that's my point...it's not the paranomral phnomenon that's true, it's that the people want to believe and form the argument to fit their beliefs.

no being a psychih makes u less egocentric. simply being able to see sum1 else's point of view firsthand isnt sumthing every1 can do. you either learn to grow from it/become open mineded. or alternately, go mad/hate /become indifferent towards others. either way, u know more than an average man, not enlightened but still
. that much is true. im not saying it is proof. and i do not tacitly accept divination/tarot etc. but there is atleast one instance of this type that to me can not be accounted for by purely physical. and more for beleiving that its the person who us unique.

in so far as the BELEIF of the person goes. ill only say this, emotional states have an affect on how these things manifest themselves. a gifted person who BELEIVES truly or has faith or is mentally disturbed at times can make things happen. that is all, it isnt the CONTENT of beleif or faith that causes it but the emotional states associated with it.

in so far as experiments etc go. i dunno. a possibble explanation is that those who have do not share the experiments with us{both the nazia and russians have had definite and rather huge experiments/research into this. ofcourse OFFICIALLY they say they found nuthing, but based on my personal expirience, i have reason to doubt. i cud be wrong though}

You still dodged the question. "They understand things we don't." Ok. Fine (though that seems dubious as well). But it still doesn't explain away the lack of an objective example.

A popular escape clause for people who believe in, say, remote viewing (but you could insert any number of beliefs) is that it won't happen in a controlled setting because it is in the presence of people who do not believe, and so their negative energy causes the experiment to fail.

Right.

I understand how a person with a positive outlook toward completing something will be more likely to succeed. But explain to me how an emotional state has a physical effect on an outcome or power. It's complete bullocks, because thought doesn't have any tangible affect on the physical world except indirectly through our actions and intrinsic cognitive state. Not only does that kind of claim lack empirical evidence, but it's also just not a reasonable argument and is only advocated by intuitive or emotional belief systems that don't require proof.

And once again, you have your "this one instance" but you aren't willing to extrapolate or open the idea to questioning. That's the very definition of close-minded, and makes it impossible to have discussion.

In lieu of being able to actually discuss this stuff, I'd reccommend many of the works of James Randi or Michael Shermer. I have a feeling their explanations of cold reading and/or the way the human mind perceives patterns would be able to debunk many of your beliefs. You'll probably claim otherwise, or get upset that I'm asserting this so confidently....but without knowing what your beliefs actually are (and why you believe them) I can't say for sure, only make educated guesses. But it's quite obvious, at least from where I'm sitting, that you aren't familiar with many of he counter-arguments to your ideas.

As for government funded research, produce something tangible and credible for me to read that shows they have results and I'll consider it. Articles, books, etc...anything, really. I like to see the best counter-arguments out there, so I can compare them with my own thoughts. The American gov't did their own testing over a period of years with remote viewing and psychic reading, neither of which had any quantifiable results.

...

I hate being this harsh, but anecdotal means for belief can become epidemic. If you want me to be quiet, show me why I should be. True skepticism means looking at a claim, either for or against something, and saying "Ok, cool. Now show me why." That's all I'm trying to do. Otherwise, we've probably reached the end of any productive discussion in this thread.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Isn't that a contradiction, though?
If something is paranormal, it means it is unexplainable by science (in definition terms anyway).
It also means, if it is paranormal, that it is outside of the realms of what is deemed as 'normal'. Science is natural.
you cannot use scientific evidence which are used to function in natural (normal) environment to prove something which is 'paranormal', no?

Doesn't something become 'paranormal' in eyes of people, when there are no evidence for its occurance?

The thing to keep in mind is that science is defined by method*, not by nature of proof. To insist on purely empirical evidence not only is a contradiction in terms of validating nonempirical phenomena, but then one is practicing, not science, but scientism, whose edict is basically, "Only empirical evidence counts." This is self-contradicting because there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of the sentence "Only empirical evidence counts."

This being the case: theoretically one can apply scientific method to transcendent phenomena as long as one is fair about it. That is, the tools used and the data collected should reflect the domain being studied (eg, you wouldn't use a microscope to study logic). If one can further correlate transcendent evidence with empirical evidence, all the better.

((*For simplicity's sake, scientific method can be summarized as an A-B-C format:
A: Action. This means acquiring whatever knowledge and equipment is necessary to run an experiment, including knowing how to use the equipment and knowing how to form a viable hypothesis.
B: Behold. Do the experiment, see what you get.
C: Consensus. Do the experiment again, preferably with other experimenters. If you get the same results, you can be reasonably sure that you are dealing with a real phenomenon.))

My understanding is, the statistical evidence for paranormal phenomena is compelling, but hardly convincing or rock-solid. Personally, though, I have had occurrences which appear to be best explained through paranormal phenomena, though again coincidence could not necessarily be ruled out.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You still dodged the question. "They understand things we don't." Ok. Fine (though that seems dubious as well). But it still doesn't explain away the lack of an objective example.

A popular escape clause for people who believe in, say, remote viewing (but you could insert any number of beliefs) is that it won't happen in a controlled setting because it is in the presence of people who do not believe, and so their negative energy causes the experiment to fail.

Right.

I understand how a person with a positive outlook toward completing something will be more likely to succeed. But explain to me how an emotional state has a physical effect on an outcome or power. It's complete bullocks, because thought doesn't have any tangible affect on the physical world except indirectly through our actions and intrinsic cognitive state. Not only does that kind of claim lack empirical evidence, but it's also just not a reasonable argument and is only advocated by intuitive or emotional belief systems that don't require proof.

And once again, you have your "this one instance" but you aren't willing to extrapolate or open the idea to questioning. That's the very definition of close-minded, and makes it impossible to have discussion.

In lieu of being able to actually discuss this stuff, I'd reccommend many of the works of James Randi or Michael Shermer. I have a feeling their explanations of cold reading and/or the way the human mind perceives patterns would be able to debunk many of your beliefs. You'll probably claim otherwise, or get upset that I'm asserting this so confidently....but without knowing what your beliefs actually are (and why you believe them) I can't say for sure, only make educated guesses. But it's quite obvious, at least from where I'm sitting, that you aren't familiar with many of he counter-arguments to your ideas.

As for government funded research, produce something tangible and credible for me to read that shows they have results and I'll consider it. Articles, books, etc...anything, really. I like to see the best counter-arguments out there, so I can compare them with my own thoughts. The American gov't did their own testing over a period of years with remote viewing and psychic reading, neither of which had any quantifiable results.

...

I hate being this harsh, but anecdotal means for belief can become epidemic. If you want me to be quiet, show me why I should be. True skepticism means looking at a claim, either for or against something, and saying "Ok, cool. Now show me why." That's all I'm trying to do. Otherwise, we've probably reached the end of any productive discussion in this thread.

sigh, im not gonna reply to all that today.

http://www.xkcd.com/808/

lulz. and true.

I saw one show where the police went to a psychic woman and she sketched an extremely accurate image of a suspect that they had no description for. The story seemed well publicized. I'll look for more details...

Originally posted by The MISTER
I saw one show where the police went to a psychic woman and she sketched an extremely accurate image of a suspect that they had no description for. The story seemed well publicized. I'll look for more details...

TV show?

Originally posted by The MISTER
I saw one show where the police went to a psychic woman and she sketched an extremely accurate image of a suspect that they had no description for. The story seemed well publicized. I'll look for more details...

Even if you found that stuff and it turned out she produced an accurate image of the suspect it wouldn't prove anything. It would be pretty cool, certainly, but in order to prove that she had psychic powers we would have to go through all of her predictions/sketches and see what percentage turned out to be accurate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
TV show? I guess I should have added that it was supposed to be factual. Even then I've learned to be a real skeptic about anything on tv. That's why I wanted to check and see if it really happened. From what the program suggested the police were very skeptical but also very desperate and now they get her assistance continually. Still I have to be convinced with credible evidence. I haven't googled this story yet but I'm gonna check it out now...

Originally posted by The MISTER
I guess I should have added that it was supposed to be factual. Even then I've learned to be a real skeptic about anything on tv. That's why I wanted to check and see if it really happened. From what the program suggested the police were very skeptical but also very desperate and now they get her assistance continually. Still I have to be convinced with credible evidence. I haven't googled this story yet but I'm gonna check it out now...

Look up Cold Reading.

The psychic detectives program seems credible. When I googled "psychic helps police" the search produced some convincing evidence.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The psychic detectives program seems credible. When I googled "psychic helps police" the search produced some convincing evidence.

It may not have anything to do with psychic ability. Just the fact that they have someone outside the "box", look at the information, could lead to the same results. That is why you can't say it works without a control.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The psychic detectives program seems credible. When I googled "psychic helps police" the search produced some convincing evidence.

Well there's certainly several shows that exist with that premise but that's not evidence of psychic powers.

What's more interesting is actual studies of psychics. Take Sylvia Browne, one of the best psychic detectives in the business. She's worked on 115 cases and has a success rate of 85%! Incredible right?

Except that the 85% number comes from Sylvia. When people sat down to study her work they found that in 25 cases she predicted almost the exact opposite of the truth (so 21% of the time she does as badly as it is concievably possible to do). Of the remaining cases most lacked enough information to investigate but in 14 the police of family members described her as useless or otherwise unhelpful.

So Sylvia Browne, the best psychic money can buy, is ineffective or worse at least 33% of the time.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failur
e/

They also note that she tends to tell families horrible things when she gets her stuff wrong. In one instance telling a woman her grand daughter had been sold into a child sex slave ring.

Tempting...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It may not have anything to do with psychic ability. Just the fact that they have someone outside the "box", look at the information, could lead to the same results. That is why you can't say it works without a control. My question is are the individuals consistent. Pshycic connections may actually be physical rather than paranormal but whether they do conclusively exist is what I wonder. Considering that the police would likely prefer not to have to depend on someone who calls themselves a psychic, their praise is pretty convincing. Especially if they're willing to go on record that it was not simply a case of someone thinking of an angle that they hadn't thought of. I can see how that might be the case for some sort of con artist but I feel that conning the trained detectives consistently is probably not all that easy.

Originally posted by The MISTER
My question is are the individuals consistent. Pshycic connections may actually be physical rather than paranormal but whether they do conclusively exist is what I wonder. Considering that the police would likely prefer not to have to depend on someone who calls themselves a psychic, their praise is pretty convincing. Especially if they're willing to go on record that it was not simply a case of someone thinking of an angle that they hadn't thought of. I can see how that might be the case for some sort of con artist but I feel that conning the trained detectives consistently is probably not all that easy.

My opinion on the subject of Psychics:

There are two types:

1. Con-artists.
2. Delusional people.

Sometimes both types are right, and sometimes the most respected people believe them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well there's certainly several shows that exist with that premise but that's not evidence of psychic powers.

What's more interesting is actual studies of psychics. Take Sylvia Browne, one of the best psychic detectives in the business. She's worked on 115 cases and has a success rate of 85%! Incredible right?

Except that the 85% number comes from Sylvia. When people sat down to study her work they found that in 25 cases she predicted almost the exact opposite of the truth (so 21% of the time she does as badly as it is concievably possible to do). Of the remaining cases most lacked enough information to investigate but in 14 the police of family members described her as useless or otherwise unhelpful.

So Sylvia Browne, the best psychic money can buy, is ineffective or worse at least 33% of the time.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ psychic_defective_sylvia_brownes_history_of_failur
e/

They also note that she tends to tell families horrible things when she gets her stuff wrong. In one instance telling a woman her grand daughter had been sold into a child sex slave ring.

As soon as I hear that she's extremely high priced I put her credibility in question. Miss Cleo comes to mind.

Originally posted by The MISTER
As soon as I hear that she's extremely high priced I put her credibility in question. Miss Cleo comes to mind.

It shouldn't alter her credibility. After all if psychics are really effective then the best ones would also be the most expensive to hire. Unless you ad some bizarre factor like "effectiveness decreases by 1% per $10,000 of net worth" into the way psychic powers work.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My opinion on the subject of Psychics:

There are two types:

1. Con-artists.
2. Delusional people.

Sometimes both types are right, and sometimes the most respected people believe them. If none of them are consistent then I'd have to agree. As it stands for the moment I leave room for the possibility that psychics exist. I wonder about the instances where psychics go on record about explaining detailed events about the deaths of people in supposed haunted houses. Especially if the psychic is not privy to the history of the home. Understandably if the history of the area is common knowledge then I see the potential for a con.

Originally posted by The MISTER
If none of them are consistent then I'd have to agree. As it stands for the moment I leave room for the possibility that psychics exist. I wonder about the instances where psychics go on record about explaining detailed events about the deaths of people in supposed haunted houses. Especially if the psychic is not privy to the history of the home. Understandably if the history of the area is common knowledge then I see the potential for a con.

*sigh* Wasn't going to get involved but heres some interesting stuff.

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/telepathy/index.html

Originally posted by The MISTER
If none of them are consistent then I'd have to agree. As it stands for the moment I leave room for the possibility that psychics exist. I wonder about the instances where psychics go on record about explaining detailed events about the deaths of people in supposed haunted houses. Especially if the psychic is not privy to the history of the home. Understandably if the history of the area is common knowledge then I see the potential for a con.

I am only closed to the possibility because some years back I studied the topic. I learned about cold reading and even used it. People were convinced I was a psychic. An old friend of mine still thinks I'm a psychic even though I told him I was using cold reading. So, I'm not closed minded for no reason.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am only closed to the possibility because some years back I studied the topic. I learned about cold reading and even used it. People were convinced I was a psychic. An old friend of mine still thinks I'm a psychic even though I told him I was using cold reading. So, I'm not closed minded for no reason.

Cool story bro.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It shouldn't alter her credibility. After all if psychics are really effective then the best ones would also be the most expensive to hire. Unless you ad some bizarre factor like "effectiveness decreases by 1% per $10,000 of net worth" into the way psychic powers work.

Or that there is some sort of random chance or secondary factor involved in deciding the "top" psychics, so that your rule may be true for most psychics, except for the ones that somehow got their ass unnaturally well exposed.


Lol...exposed ass.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It shouldn't alter her credibility. After all if psychics are really effective then the best ones would also be the most expensive to hire. Unless you ad some bizarre factor like "effectiveness decreases by 1% per $10,000 of net worth" into the way psychic powers work. The worlds best is not always the worlds most highly paid. McDonald's is the worlds most successful restaurant but who would argue that McDonalds is providing quality meals. On the other hand some of the best food you will ever eat will probably be home-made and not cost you anything at all. When money is concerned presentation is more important than quality. That's why I think that expensive psychics are more than likely just successful con-artists that are very good at putting on convincing airs.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The worlds best is not always the worlds most highly paid. McDonald's is the worlds most successful restaurant but who would argue that McDonalds is providing quality meals. On the other hand some of the best food you will ever eat will probably be home-made and not cost you anything at all. When money is concerned presentation is more important than quality. That's why I think that expensive psychics are more than likely just successful con-artists that are very good at putting on convincing airs.

If you go to a restaurant and want good food you'll have to pay a lot more than McDonalds charges, food made at home is a red herring.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you go to a restaurant and want good food you'll have to pay a lot more than McDonalds charges, food made at home is a red herring. I see what you're saying so let me put it like this...

McDonalds' food is not the best simply because Mcdonalds makes the most money. Likewise high-priced food is not always considered tastier than the cheap stuff at McDonalds.

The main point would be that McDonald's is not as interested in serving amazing food as it is interested in making amazing profits. They have targeted children for years to get where they are today.

imo The expensive psychic you spoke of seems more likely interested in making money and putting on a good show than being a psychic that just wants to provide assistance for a police force or person in need.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I see what you're saying so let me put it like this...

McDonalds' food is not the best simply because Mcdonalds makes the most money. Likewise high-priced food is not always considered tastier than the cheap stuff at McDonalds.

The main point would be that McDonald's is not as interested in serving amazing food as it is interested in making amazing profits. They have targeted children for years to get where they are today.

imo The expensive psychic you spoke of seems more likely interested in making money and putting on a good show than being a psychic that just wants to provide assistance for a police force or person in need.

*sigh*

If you look at things on the whole "the best" almost always costs more, no one has ever said that McDonalds produces the best food anyway (so I'm not sure where you're going with that), just that they're the most popular and that is mainly because they're cheap. We can use people as an even more salient example. Free clinics don't have doctors that are as good as an expensive private practice.

Or cars. I can get a crappy car for like $2000 or I can spend a half million and get some ultra-luxury sports car. Or houses. Or horses. Or computers.

So if psychic detectives have any merit we should see high quality among the most costly (if they can save people then their time is valuable and thus they'll be able to charge more, on the other hand if they fail especially often their time is not valuable and they can't charge much). Instead what we see is that psychics are about equally effective no matter how popular they are. Either this means that all people with psychic powers have them at almost exactly the same level or that none of them have psychic powers or that even the best powers are uselessly imprecise.

Fake psyching is very very simple.
It includes the following steps :
If subject is female,

-check hair
-check makeup level
-check clothes
-check purse
-check fingernails
-check ring finger
- check shoes.
Look for brand names and knock offs. Is hair cut/makeup high maintenance? How long are fingernails? Are they well shaped? Look at cuticle care. Any nail polish? What color?
Look at clothes : check top for neckline and jewelry. Check bottom for hemline. Legs - are they shaved? Shoes - Are they sneakers? ****-me pumps? Flip-flops? Pedicure?
.... bleh. it goes on and on. You just have to know a teeny tiny bit about pop culture.

I remember hearing a statistic that no police agency believes they have ever been significantly assisted by a psychic

/shrug

Sylvia Brown is low hanging fruit though, sad she is amongst the "best psychics have to offer"

Originally posted by Deadline
...heres some interesting stuff.

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/telepathy/index.html That is interesting.

Ever come across any psychic studies done with yogis, eg, as subjects, or shaolin monks?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
-check makeup level

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
*sigh*

If you look at things on the whole "the best" almost always costs more, no one has ever said that McDonalds produces the best food anyway (so I'm not sure where you're going with that), just that they're the most popular and that is mainly because they're cheap. We can use people as an even more salient example. Free clinics don't have doctors that are as good as an expensive private practice.

Or cars. I can get a crappy car for like $2000 or I can spend a half million and get some ultra-luxury sports car. Or houses. Or horses. Or computers.

So if psychic detectives have any merit we should see high quality among the most costly (if they can save people then their time is valuable and thus they'll be able to charge more, on the other hand if they fail especially often their time is not valuable and they can't charge much). Instead what we see is that psychics are about equally effective no matter how popular they are. Either this means that all people with psychic powers have them at almost exactly the same level or that none of them have psychic powers or that even the best powers are uselessly imprecise. Damn good point.

Originally posted by Mindship
That is interesting.

Ever come across any psychic studies done with yogis, eg, as subjects, or shaolin monks?



Yea especially the telephone telepathy experiment.

Nah not yet, but I think I did read some where that the in the Stargate project people who were good at meditating did better in tests.

There are many guides for reproducing all of the tricks used by "professional" psychics, mediums, and telepaths. It just takes a little time and effort.

Remembering hits (and publicizing them, in the case of commercial psychics) and forgetting misses is also a common practice among the credulous. Any psychic's success in terms of percentages is horrible. They're just skilled at moving past them and glorifying the correct guesses.