Study shows psychic mediums really can read your deep secrets

[zoobyshoe]

I have claimed no belief; funny that you would assume otherwise.

You have continuously demonstrated implied, albeit nebulously formulated, beliefs in many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, as well as matters of the afterlife.

I only object to the often cited or implied but fallacious conclusion that if it can't be addressed by science there is no reality.

My stance in this regard is that if it can't be addressed by science, there isn't much of a point in getting exited about it. This has nothing whatever to do or say about it's reality. It could be there are fairies. If there are, science hasn't got a clue how to find and study them. My concern is that people not start speculating about fairies from the hoaxed photographs taken by those little girls, or from reports given by someone who has been drinking absinthe.

Nevertheless, I am quite sure that no psychiatry book will ever cite a genuine spiritual experience as the potential explanation for such as claimed.

This isn't a very good example of what you mean, because psychiatry deals with pathological experiences. Someone having a genuine spiritual experience wouldn't be likely to present as nuts and end up with at shrinks office.

By definition, unless something can be measured this must be denied. This is not however an absolute statement of truth. The fact that so many people are annoyed by this point is the evidence that it constantly needs to be made.

I think the many threads you and I have participated in tediously speculating about sketchy newpaper reports of strange events, with enormous gaps in information, ought to have explained why most people have no patience for trying to grasp that which cannot be measured. People, some people, "deny" (ignore) this stuff because there's just nothing to get a handle on. We nearly always end up dropping a subject because we've exhausted the amount of speculation and discussion we could milk out of the sketchy info.

I have claimed no particular belief. Maybe given the experiences of others, you would. Again, since you don’t allow for a spiritual reality, ten million testimonials mean nothing to you. I don’t see this as logical. This is your filter at work [as mentioned below].

It is not correct to view me as not allowing for a spiritual reality. It is quite true that I stumbled across the very interesting information that many experiences that people have taken to be "spiritual" ones are, in fact, simple and complex partial seizure symptoms.

Snide? I say targeted. That's why it bothers you. It addresses again the limits that so many seek to deny.

Actually, the point, which is that there is much disagreement among scientists, and therefore science has not proven to be a perfect tool to describe the world, is perfectly valid. The tone is what bothered me.

Absolutely not. Science can say much about claims that can be tested.

I would describe creationism as a spiritual belief. Why is it not a spiritual belief in your assessment? I also think the Catholic Churchs' former notion that the Earth was the center of the universe counts as a spiritual belief. Hassidic Jews believe the world is only 5000 plus years old, and that carbon dating is inaccurate. Is this not a spiritual belief?

See for starters the philosophy forums; next, the great unanswered questions in physics – like what is a measurement for starters. Then we get into questions like “what came before the Big Bang”, or “who or what made that? Does truth exist? Do we have a soul? Is there an afterlife and on and on. Unless there is some way to test for a certain claim or belief, these questions can never be answered by science; ever - by definition. This is why people are intellectually free to choose their beliefs. This does not mean that anyone should avoid using their brain when making a choice in beliefs.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

To choose no belief is to choose a belief. This then becomes your filter for the world. After all, what else do beliefs really do? I don’t see how you can be different from anyone else. You are a subjective creature; not a logical machine.

I understand the point you're making here, but I don't see how it constitutes a response to what you quoted me saying.

All I was saying is "Take it easy".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You have continuously demonstrated implied, albeit nebulously formulated, beliefs in many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, as well as matters of the afterlife.

I have never stated a belief in any specific or comprehensive explanation of the UFO phenomenon. I have said many times that I don't know what to think except that the explanation is very complicated. If I knew what to think I wouldn't be so motivated to push this issue - especially not here. As for matters of spirituality, I have very few answers. As I admitted in another thread, Tsu and I did experience something unusual at one location that many people would interpret as a ghostly encounter, but even on this point I have no explanation for what happened. Note that I never said that I thought it was a spirit. I am quite sure that the room wasn’t rigged and that Tsu and I weren’t both having temporal lobe seizures, but I have never tried to argue this as proof of anything.

My stance in this regard is that if it can't be addressed by science, there isn't much of a point in getting exited about it.

That’s great. It is one philosophy.

This has nothing whatever to do or say about it's reality. It could be there are fairies. If there are, science hasn't got a clue how to find and study them. My concern is that people not start speculating about fairies from the hoaxed photographs taken by those little girls, or from reports given by someone who has been drinking absinthe.

How many people have you met that believe in fairies?

This isn't a very good example of what you mean, because psychiatry deals with pathological experiences. Someone having a genuine spiritual experience wouldn't be likely to present as nuts and end up with at shrinks office.

How would you know? The science of spirituality, again?

I think the many threads you and I have participated in tediously speculating about sketchy newpaper reports of strange events, with enormous gaps in information, ought to have explained why most people have no patience for trying to grasp that which cannot be measured. People, some people, "deny" (ignore) this stuff because there's just nothing to get a handle on. We nearly always end up dropping a subject because we've exhausted the amount of speculation and discussion we could milk out of the sketchy info.

The way that I see it, here we have a forum to present, debunk, and /or discuss popular claims, interesting events, or unusual claims of phenomena. In some cases I see the value strictly in the debunking. Other times I see something as interesting, entertaining, or just unusual, but on rare occasion we do find a diamond in the rough. I’m not sure what else you think I expect….I think the evidence shows that in fact most people have beliefs that they can’t defend in any scientific sense.

Actually, the point, which is that there is much disagreement among scientists, and therefore science has not proven to be a perfect tool to describe the world, is perfectly valid. The tone is what bothered me.

You said:

If you look at things carefully and study them, as, say, Galileo did, you discover information that conflicts with people's beliefs.

I guess I found this a little insulting. I am pretty sure that I learned about this about 40 years ago. It goes right along with your choice of fairies as an example. It also implies that the same is not true of science; otherwise there would be no reason for making the point. If we are going to cite the imperfection and limits of humans and their beliefs by using science, then it is only fair to recognize the imperfections and limits of science at the same time. Neither are perfect so one really can’t be used as an absolute hammer on the other.

I would describe creationism as a spiritual belief. Why is it not a spiritual belief in your assessment? I also think the Catholic Churchs' former notion that the Earth was the center of the universe counts as a spiritual belief. Hassidic Jews believe the world is only 5000 plus years old, and that carbon dating is inaccurate. Is this not a spiritual belief?

Yes it is a belief, and like all beliefs it can be taken on faith; meaning accepted without proof. If we don’t reqwuire proof then science doesn’t apply and a person can simply choose to have faith. On the other hand if I make scientific “claim” that the universe was created and that there was no big bang, and I claim this as a fact not taken on faith, then I am liable to produce evidence to support my claim.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

So why bother?

 

[Andre]

Just for your information,

that psychic mediums that really can read your deep secrets as the study shows

should report to James Randi, to collect that million bux. it's waiting for years now, to happen.

 

[Jeebus]

Just for your information,
should report to James Randi, to collect that million bux. it's waiting for years now, to happen.

I remember reading someone tried and they failed, Andre? But, I believe that was before the money issue was spoken. I think the topic was about aura's... can't remember.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have claimed no belief; funny that you would assume otherwise.

Allow me to focus on this one thing before addressing anything else.

My response to this was:"You have continuously demonstrated implied, albeit nebulously formulated, beliefs in many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, as well as matters of the afterlife."

Your response to this was: "I have never stated a belief in any specific or comprehensive explanation of the UFO phenomenon."

Are you denying that you have continuously demonstrated implied, albeit nebulously formulated, beliefs in many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, as well as matters of the afterlife?

Note, to be quite specific, quite clear, that I am not asking about any statements of belief you may or may not have made. I am asking about unstated beliefs which are apparent from several aspects of your posts, one of which is your impatience with skeptics. (What was the name of that thread you started on two different forums about the skeptics being motivated by fear?)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

First, I support arguments for many possibilities that I do not believe in myself.

I don't believe that ET is here but neither do I accept prosaic explanations as the source for all UFO phenomena; and I do understand why so many people believe ET is here. Still, until I see one or have definitive proof of such, no, I don't believe that ET is flying spaceships around Oregon. Still, it is possible. To simply argue for this undeniable possibility - and that we don’t have all of the answers - is what drives so many skeptics up the wall and must be what gives you the impressions of me that you seem to have.

What drives me nuts is when really smart people dismiss complex phenomena by using paper arguments that result from ignorance and/or ego; the need to dismiss anything they can’t explain. This attitude is like a kill shot to the very heart of science. I see one heck of a lot of debunking by people that know very little about the subject that they seek to debunk.

As for the rest, I really don't believe much of what we discuss here. Even so, subjects or claims that I have strongly defended, such as the possibility that Astrology might really somehow work, are claims that I don't believe are true but I can still imagine reasonable mechanisms by which they might be true. As long as I can imagine possibilities that have not been rule out I refuse to allow a closed mind be my guide.

Then there is the issue of testimonials. It is fine to say that a personal observation does not qualify as scientific evidence. What I strongly object to is the fallacious conclusion that we can therefore logically ignore all testimonials that are not supported with physical evidence. To me this is the height of silliness and arrogance. There may be no science to be done, but people often deserve to be heard and treated with respect even if I can’t explain their claim. It is really all about respect. Very few skeptics or debunkers ever bother to show respect. This is often my real objection: Many skeptical arguments effectively end with an unspoken “therefore you are either nuts, a liar, or even too stupid to give an accurate representation of the facts” To me, this is not logical to assume without proof.

As for my personal beliefs about an afterlife, since we are free to choose our beliefs I tend to go with Pascal’s approach. It is logical. I would be hard pressed to give any specific explanation of what I believe. I make the conscious choice to believe in a higher power and that I am accountable for my actions. I choose to adhere to a sort of "broad spectrum" Christian belief system that I am sure most churches would find objectionable in one way or another. I do fear the possibility of a hell more than the certainty of death.

 

[Esperanto]

I was just trying to make fun of pharmaceutical pillpushers.

Could someone explain to me the extent of the boundaries of science and why it's important? The same with spirituality? I wonder if all this categorizing is really getting us anywhere.

Many, many people report one or two isolated paranormal experiences, and that's it.

Do you think the current amount of paranormal research is bad or good? I know it's narrow-minded to say just because everyone thinks so that it must be right, but I turn into the hulk whenever I tell it to a braindead friend. Do I want to imagine millions of people on the Earth say they believe they have magic powers when they don't? No, and that's probably going to keep me from liking anyone. I would think that people are not giving enough attention to something that needs fixing, that people who say they can bend spoons are just very depressing individuals, and that I would get into the pharmaceutical drug business.

I prefer to imagine ideas are suppressed by people in white cowboy suits who eat steaks and drink cheap wine and tip according to how much they have to defecate. Everything just seems to connect when I assume money is most people's muse. And skeptics are like my braindead friend I mentioned who says "When you're dead you're just dead, O.K.? God, Jesus, there is no ******[cut by Ivan] thing as afterlife" etc. blah blah all the while twitching like a bug because he thinks it's cool, and I can just reassure myself he's a heckler of nature brought about by bad cultural conditioning.

I think the many threads you and I have participated in tediously speculating about sketchy newpaper reports of strange events, with enormous gaps in information, ought to have explained why most people have no patience for trying to grasp that which cannot be measured. People, some people, "deny" (ignore) this stuff because there's just nothing to get a handle on. We nearly always end up dropping a subject because we've exhausted the amount of speculation and discussion we could milk out of the sketchy info.

Fieldwork on the paranormal =P. Forget all the newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and millions of loonies and their vain testimonials. Debunkers and believers, I don't like any of you very much so lock yourself in a reputedly haunted house and settle the issue once and for all. Please don't give someone a gruesome death to see if he'll turn into a ghost.

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochiwoci
Peter Cole
'Twas Barry and the Swansea Trapp
Did Gwalchmai Gwbert in the Porth;
All Merthyr were the Blaenavon
And the Caersws Aberporth.

Beware the Llanfairpwll my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Dolgellau and shun
Ffestiniog Ystrad.

He took his Talgarth sword in hand:
Long time the Maesteg foe he sought
So rested he by the Tenby tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And as in Harlech thought he stood,
The Llanfairpwll, with eyes of flame,
Came Nefyn through Tredegar wood,
Beddgellert as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The Ebbw Vale went Clynog-fawr!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went Llanrwst Brynmawr.

And hast thou slain the Llanfairpwll?
Come to my arms, my Blaenporth boy!
O Fishguard day! Conwil! Conway!
He Llantwit in his joy.

'Twas Barry and the Swansea Trapp
Did Gwalchmai Gwbert in the Porth
All Merthyr were the Blaenavon
And the Caersws Aberporth.

 

[Evo]

I have to side with Ivan. I believe that it is more sensible to keep an open mind to what we don't understand or cannot explain as opposed to just sweeping it under the rug and dismissing it as nonsense simply because we can't explain it.

Sure there are a lot of crackpots out there, but I think any sensible person can see through them.

I am on the fence on a lot of things. Is it wiser to blindly object to anything that we cannot currently explain or is it wiser to be open to the fact that what we don't understand today could be easily explained tomorrow?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't believe that ET is here but neither do I accept prosaic explanations as the source for all UFO phenomena; and I do understand why so many people believe ET is here.

If this is your current stance, isn't it accurate to say your stance has changed since, say, last July? Weren't you much more on the ET believers side of the fence at that time?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I waiver between degrees of certainty about various interpretations, and on occasion I have briefly toed the line of belief - esp immediately after talking with someone who is otherwise credible and who claims intimate knowledge of a major event - but I have never said that I "believe" or "I am convinced" that ET is here. I have said many times that I don't know how else to account for some of the best evidence and testimonials.

Edit: Thinking about it, my opinion has not really changed much since about the first week of my exposure to the core evidence nearly 20 years ago. At first, like many people I was thrown by the real story of UFO's. You may also remember Zantra going a bit ballistic for a while when he saw Greer's site, but in my experience this is a normal and transient reaction for most people.

I have cited the words of the anthropology professor at OSU, I think his name was Kranz...we have talked about him before. For a long time he was one of the more respectable Bigfoot researchers. He liked to say that on Mon, Wed, and Fri, he believes in Bigfoot. On Tue Thu, and Sat he doesn't. On Sun he rests. Hopefully it was clear that this was a joke. I am flexible but not that flexible.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I waiver between degrees of certainty about various interpretations, and on occasion I have briefly toed the line of belief - esp immediately after talking with someone who is otherwise credible and who claims intimate knowledge of a major event - but I have never said that I "believe" or "I am convinced" that ET is here. I have said many times that I don't know how else to account for some of the best evidence and testimonials.

This then:

I have claimed no belief; funny that you would assume otherwise.

Was a deliberately misleading thing to say, wasn't it, since I never said you had openly claimed a belief, and my obsevation that you were operating on tacit, nebulous ones, which put you at odds with the skeptics, was correct.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have said time and time again that I don't "believe". What is nebulous about that? Why do you feel so compelled to show otherwise?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

when you start picking things apart like this in spite of what I say, it makes it seem like you need to make a true believer out of me in order to justify my position in your own mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have said time and time again that I don't "believe". What is nebulous about that?

Is that what I said was nebulous? Yes or no?

 

[zoobyshoe]

when you start picking things apart like this in spite of what I say, it makes it seem like you need to make a true believer out of me in order to justify my position in your own mind.

No, I pick things apart when your responses are evasive, when I percieve your logic to be flawed, and when I percieve you to be employing debate tactics at the expense of genuine discussions of the issues.

I am, in all honesty, not out to cast you in the mold of a "true believer". I am picking on this little thing out of sheer irritation with the fact you used such a transparent evasion to slip away from my point. This becomes important to the discussion as a whole when you resort to the same sort of thing on many points: your stance becomes based on many small evasions, pieces of flawed logic, and irrelevant debate tactics that are mixed in with the rest of what you have to say.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well it seems that you have drawn one heck of a lot of conclusions with no real understanding at all. I evade nothing. I simply consider information without the requirement for an immediate explanation. It is my perception that since you have failed to find a flaw with my logic, like so many debunkers you have started with the personal attacks.

I have stated my position on this subject time after time. If you don't understand it by now then either you don't read what I write, or you are determined to hang me with something no matter what it takes. I see your position as being completely insincere at this point.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you honestly see me as being evasive then I completely misunderstand your position. I have no idea why you think I evade anything. Nor can I understand how my position on this could not have been clear to you long ago.