Reading on Lost Possessions

consider the we that is true . shall yooz in the sum time ?

 

Fingermouse, you only believe in what can be proven. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement as I try to live by it myself, but perhaps you don't have the tools to prove the existence of the paranormal. Many people who believe in it claim to have these tools, a "sixth sense" so to speak. If there really is such a thing, paranormal abilities won't be proven in the same sort of manner that the laws of physics or some similar topic can be because the tools to do so aren't as readily available. In time advanced mathematics or physics may show there is more to the universe than is immediately perceived, but just as psychics can't 'prove' that they have a heightened senses beyond the telling of stories neither can you disprove their experiences or prove that the stories are hogwash.

The two of you bickering over something that neither of you can prove seems foolish.

I have plenty of stories to tell but that doesn't mean I believe all of them are exactly as they seem. For example some things may seem like some sort of paranormal talent but in fact the person had other means of knowing this information.

One of the weirdest I've encountered was somebody telling me my father struck my sister during an argument before I even knew myself. She had no way of knowing that my father "hit a little girl" yet she did and it was true. Almost every other one of my so called "psychic experiences" could be passed off as something less than psychic but that one continues to bother me. You could infer that behavioral patterns could predict this outcome of the conflict. The problem with that is I can think of maybe 3 times in 15 years she's been hit by him, so it's not a regular occurrence. Another is that neither myself or this informant were in any sort of visual or auditory contact with my father. She's never met my father, sister, or any of my family including myself (with the exception of some online chat). Yet, she still knew my sister was hit before I was able to confirm it by placing a phone call myself. That blows my mind.

I know my argument doesn't prove much and my potentially fabricated story doesn't mean anything to anyone except for me, but it seems like people are forgetting that everyone is entitled to their own view on what happened, what events were caused by and since we don't have the instruments yet to measure such a thing beyond reasonable doubt it would be nice if these viewpoints are respected.

 

I think this is the bottom line for me, too.

 

Great stuff tikoo.

 

I respect a person's right to believe whatever they want. I wont respect the belief itself unless it is well thought-out, open to criticism and has some basis in reality beyond coincidence or superstition, because it would have no reasonable foundation. I respect ideas without evidence. I don't respect deeply held beliefs which are spouted as the true way of things without it.

You can only truly respect what you deem to be worthy of respect. If someone believes that all white people are going to burn in a fiery pit after death, I will not respect that belief. They can believe it, it's their choice and I wouldn't want to take that choice away, but the belief is clearly hateful nonsense. If someone tells me they believe they have a spirit guide who talks to them and they provide no evidence for such a thing, I wont respect that belief either. I'm far more likely to tell them to see a doctor, as any sane friend would.

I love people, I love the human mind, and I love rational discussion. Open-mindedness is about considering new ideas, which is what science depends on. Those ideas must then be evaluated and analysed before any definitive decisions can be reached.

Yet I suspect that the majority of believers, whether their belief lies with the paranormal, healing crystals or Jesus, are the ones who often do not have an open mind. They have decided on the cause of their experiences before any testing has even been done, and stubbornly defend that position. When other, more tangible explanations are suggested, rather than considering them, they play the "open your mind!" or "you think you know it all!" card. Somehow it seems to make sense to people that someone doubting the existence of ghosts because testing has shown no proof for them is closed-minded, while the person who decided they definitely saw a ghost before they even considered a psychological explanation is not.

 

On the point of scientific methods of measurement, I realise that it is probable that there are many more instruments yet to be invented, many more phenomena we are yet to uncover.

Yet some cases we definitely can test already with even basic methods.

Take telepathy as an example. The claim is that these people can hear eachother's thoughts beyond what would happen naturally by coincidence. We can test whether or not this is true by getting the subjects to try and send eachother messages and seeing if they are "received". If the subjects claim they need to feel like they're in the mood or it has to be a Tuesday at 2pm, tests can be redone and redone still with new times, new subjects, "non-telepathic" subjects for comparison, new settings. This has indeed been carried out, as with psychics and mediums, and no correlation has been found beyond what would be produced anyway by coincidence. MRI scans have also played a role in this research, again with no strong connections being found.

There comes a point where you can say with a level of confidence "we should probably look into other causes behind the feelings of supernatural power these people possess"...

 

Not threatened, Fingermouse - I think "harassed" might be a better description.

As the old punchline goes, "What you mean 'we,' paleface?" Shall I do a quick overview of the current state of the field of epistemology? As my spirit guide Deanna once told me out loud, "You know too much." I think I now know less than I used to, which seems like progress.

Blather, Fingermouse. Unsupported conjecture, insinuation, and posturing. I'm still waiting for you to get around to the logic...

It seems you have assumed this about me. It also seems that you're being defensive about my statement that you "ridicule and oppose the views of people who believe in psychic phenomena." I was merely stating an observation for the purpose of explaining why I have taken particular notice of your posts.

The defensiveness continues...

So you claim objectivity on this subject. However I'm still waiting for your actual argument...and waiting...

Ah, I seem to have been startled from my reveries by an actual argument on the subject at hand. Very well then, let's get down to business.

I think we have a slight confusion as to what it is we're talking about. Let's delineate this point before proceeding.

The passage I bolded in your quoted statement encompasses two unstated questions:

(1) Does the particular event I describe constitute a supernatural phenomenon?

(2) Do supernatural phenomena exist?

In order to answer question 2 in the affirmative, we would need to find at least one event for which we decide the answer to question 1 is "yes."

The way we would decide on the answer to question 1 is by examining and evaluating evidence. The evidence we would need to examine consists of the circumstances surrounding the event in question.

This is the crux of the issue I'm trying to discuss. I'm going to leave off any commentary on the rest of your post, and try to stick with this line of thought. I'm also leaving off any continuation of this line of thought pending your agreement to the points I've stated. Do you agree with what I've said so far?

 

the existence of ghosts ...

i'm still thinking a bit about the original post from hodad - it seems
written by a novelest portraying the cares and character of a ghost .
in the context of this forum the ghost has existence - a skeletal
pathos . has it touched you ?

.

 

You can respect the human being even if you don't respect the opinion.

 

And then there's the whole question of: Do these scientific studies constitute generalizable evidence that people who claim telepathic communications are mistaken?

Here's a possibility some of the scientists might not have considered: What if there were people with actual telepathic abilities who happen to have goals very different from, and possibly even opposed to, the goal of establishing scientific proof of those abilities?

What if people don't respond to ads for research subjects?

What if people pretend not to have abilities that they in fact have?

What if people lie?

How are you going to get scientific proof of telepathy if the telepathic people just refuse to cooperate? I'm currently experiencing the telepathic laughter of someone who sometimes claims not to believe in telepathy - and sometimes confirms actual telepathic communications out loud - depending on her goals at any given time.

 

OMG tikoo...I get that!

 

sunshine kisses

 

:sunny:I got that too:sunny:

 

I can see this, too...kind of a wistful yearning after lost objects. God, I can almost feel it.

 

After I read tikoos' post, I reread hodads'...yes, wistful, yearning...sad kinda...
I'm glad I don't miss my stuff like that.

 

Yes, kinda sad...haunting and haunted.

 

hodad wrote mostly about old lost friends . she only had the address of one ,
wrote , hasn't received a reply . oh , hodad memory . dear past-life .
now toward within . a farewell . a new hello to the now ? i don't know

 

Here is the crux of the problem. There appears to have been an assumption made that I don't respect the human being simply because I do not respect the opinion. It is always the opinion which I intend to challenge. It is always an equal adult level conversation based on reason and intelligence of both the intellectual and emotional varities I wish to achieve. If my statements sometimes throw people into a state of cognitive dissonance or defensiveness, that is not my fault and does not mean that I must have malicious intent. This misconception is partly why I believe we have not been communicating to eachother very effectively.

 

Fingermouse - my friend - I would like to submit to you one question, for your due consideration as pertains to this particular point - and that question is: What about the epileptic dogs?

 

Humour is one of Emotional Intelligence's best friends. I love Flight of the Conchords.