If you are one, how would you respond to the following scenario as a materialist?

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

What they teach might be made up, but I don't know that for sure. Really, I was just looking for anything interesting that could come from it. If it's just a hallucination, like the special technique they gave for having out of body experiences, it doesn't matter if I derive my enjoyment from say, seeing the strangeness of the astral realm, rather than knowing that these are experiences of an astral realm. And I know that I could've found out how to astral project from an internet search, but there are other experiences that it offers and information that, if not true, at least spurs thought, and to me that's worth it.

You seem to just want to believe, and that's entirely up to you, but I don't see the point in coming on here and asking anyone to discuss it with you if you're hellbent on ignoring everything anyone tells you and blindly accepting random nonsense because you fancy it. It's an exercise in futility if ever there was one.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

What they teach might be made up, but I don't know that for sure.........

And you don't know for sure that there isn't a unicorn in orbit around the earth sprinkling fairy dust. See how this works?

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by SOdhner

That's a good start, sure.



Good, get all these excuses out of the way prior to any experiment. Excellent.

Okay so how do we get around this complaint? I'd say we're back to what several of us have asked: does this power give you any information about the world? In other words, does it tell you something you can maybe verify through non-psychic means?

If you're just looking at colorful blobs you're right that your experiment isn't great. But if those colors MEAN something that you can verify some other way you may have a testable claim. That's why I was asking about things like "can you see the aura in the dark?" or whatever at the top of page 2.

Let me give you an example. It's not about psychics, because I think it may be easier to get the concept across if it's about something unrelated.

Years ago, people started doing this thing called Facilitated Communication. They would work with kids that had some sort of serious mental handicap and couldn't communicate, and they would hold this board covered in letters or symbols and gently cradle the child's arm - allowing the hand to drift over and point at different things.

It was an amazing success! These kids started communicating, writing poetry... uh... accusing people of sexual abuse... yeah.

Some people were skeptical. So they set up a test. They had a long table with a divider, so the kid could see along one side and the facilitator could see along the other. Then they would put something at the end of the table and ask, "what is it?" and guess what? The answer was always whatever the facilitator could see.

They were - subconsciously - moving the kid's arm themselves. Writing letters, writing poetry, making up false accusations of abuse. They weren't crazy, or evil, they genuinely thought this was the kid talking.

So think about that. Knowing that people are great at fooling themselves, what is something you could do where the psychic powers could detect something placed by a neutral third party? See an aura, sense an object, etc.? Something that can be confirmed by non-psychic means.

Don't you mean something that can not be verified through mundane means?

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by MikeG

And you don't know for sure that there isn't a unicorn in orbit around the earth sprinkling fairy dust. See how this works?

It may be in your mind that you think this stuff if hooey, but I am willing to give it a chance.

[jond]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

It may be in your mind that you think this stuff if hooey, but I am willing to give it a chance.

Which is fine, as long as you keep your mind open to the possibility that it is all hooey. I strongly recommend checking out Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing, but I will try to support my claim insofar as it is good to do so. What I essentially have to prove is that when you "open your third eye" you "perceive spiritual phenomena" as a result.

What I am essentially arguing for then is that the phenomena you perceive are not produced by the mind. This contrasts it from things your mind mostly receives, rather than actively produces. A good way then, to find out if something is not just being produced by your mind is to have someone look at the same spot or be in the position to perceive the same phenomena you're perceiving, and if they don't perceive, or a group of people don't perceive it, then maybe it is just in your mind. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is not there, as someone could just be perceiving a different aspect of reality than the group. Then perhaps if the group were to gain psychic powers of perception and be in the position to perceive the same thing, they would all perceive it. But this too, can be tricky because different people can have different ways of perceiving. Perceiving the spiritual realm could be inexact, with different people perceiving different things that are there, but not the same thing because they are tuned into the same range that they need to be in tune with. But you could say why go with that explanation when you could go with the easier explanation that they are all just hallucinating? Well, just because it is an easier explanation doesn't mean it's true, and if it is at least coherent as an idea, then it serves to offer an explanation as to why they are not perceiving the same thing and avoids the termination of the discussion that the explanation of "they're hallucinating" brings. But if they are all perceiving different things how can you prove that a phenomena is not just in one persons head and is thus just a hallucination? I'll post later to argue a different point.

Paragraphs are your friend. Your posts have proved to be so insubstantial that I'm not got to try to read that wall of text.

tl;dr version: Break up your text with a little white space to make it readable.

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

You seem to just want to believe, and that's entirely up to you, but I don't see the point in coming on here and asking anyone to discuss it with you if you're hellbent on ignoring everything anyone tells you and blindly accepting random nonsense because you fancy it. It's an exercise in futility if ever there was one.

Yes I want to believe, but like I said, I like to subject my beliefs to doubt and I actually sit down and do that. Now you may say I'm not doing it right, or that because I am biased toward believing I taint the project, but I think, at least, that I try to test my beliefs. And if you mean by ignoring people that I object to what they put forward, then isn't that what you're supposed to do? If I just accept what you say without challenging it, then it could be faulty, but we wouldn't know because it wasn't challenged. I am just seeing where it goes, and right now, you have me a bit puzzled about the James Randi aura experiment.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Don't you mean something that can not be verified through mundane means?

No. Because if it can't be verified, you can't verify it.
If the magic can't say or change anything about the real world, it can't be distinguished from fiction.

If it does give you information about the real world, that information has to correspond with what we know.
Let's say someone says they have ESP, then they should be able to accurately access information they could not get through mundane means.
The verification however (they got the correct number from the hidden card, they drew a correct map of the remotely viewed location, et cetera) is very mundane.

[Wonder234]

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing, but I will try to support my claim insofar as it is good to do so. What I essentially have to prove is that when you "open your third eye" you "perceive spiritual phenomena" as a result.

What I am essentially arguing for then is that the phenomena you perceive are not produced by the mind. This contrasts it from things your mind mostly receives, rather than actively produces. A good way then, to find out if something is not just being produced by your mind is to have someone look at the same spot or be in the position to perceive the same phenomena you're perceiving, and if they don't perceive, or a group of people don't perceive it, then maybe it is just in your mind.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it is not there, as someone could just be perceiving a different aspect of reality than the group. Then perhaps if the group were to gain psychic powers of perception and be in the position to perceive the same thing, they would all perceive it.

But this too, can be tricky because different people can have different ways of perceiving. Perceiving the spiritual realm could be inexact, with different people perceiving different things that are there, but not the same thing because they are tuned into the same range that they need to be in tune with.

But you could say why go with that explanation when you could go with the easier explanation that they are all just hallucinating? Well, just because it is an easier explanation doesn't mean it's true, and if it is at least coherent as an idea, then it serves to offer an explanation as to why they are not perceiving the same thing and avoids the termination of the discussion that the explanation of "they're hallucinating" brings.

But if they are all perceiving different things how can you prove that a phenomena is not just in one persons head and is thus just a hallucination? I'll post later to argue a different point.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Yes I want to believe, but like I said, I like to subject my beliefs to doubt and I actually sit down and do that. Now you may say I'm not doing it right, or that because I am biased toward believing I taint the project, but I think, at least, that I try to test my beliefs.

Even though you kept pretending to not understanding the concept of proving your claim?

Quote:

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing

Then read this: I am god. All things moral in the universe flow from my own values, and from now on you must live your life according to my decrees.

Prove me wrong.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing, but I will try to support my claim insofar as it is good to do so. What I essentially have to prove is that when you "open your third eye" you "perceive spiritual phenomena" as a result.

What I am essentially arguing for then is that the phenomena you perceive are not produced by the mind. This contrasts it from things your mind mostly receives, rather than actively produces. A good way then, to find out if something is not just being produced by your mind is to have someone look at the same spot or be in the position to perceive the same phenomena you're perceiving, and if they don't perceive, or a group of people don't perceive it, then maybe it is just in your mind.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it is not there, as someone could just be perceiving a different aspect of reality than the group. Then perhaps if the group were to gain psychic powers of perception and be in the position to perceive the same thing, they would all perceive it.

But this too, can be tricky because different people can have different ways of perceiving. Perceiving the spiritual realm could be inexact, with different people perceiving different things that are there, but not the same thing because they are tuned into the same range that they need to be in tune with.

But you could say why go with that explanation when you could go with the easier explanation that they are all just hallucinating? Well, just because it is an easier explanation doesn't mean it's true, and if it is at least coherent as an idea, then it serves to offer an explanation as to why they are not perceiving the same thing and avoids the termination of the discussion that the explanation of "they're hallucinating" brings.

But if they are all perceiving different things how can you prove that a phenomena is not just in one persons head and is thus just a hallucination? I'll post later to argue a different point.

Haven't you already made this exact same post?

[Belz...]

Reminds me of jabba, a bit.

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

No. Because if it can't be verified, you can't verify it.
If the magic can't say or change anything about the real world, it can't be distinguished from fiction.

If it does give you information about the real world, that information has to correspond with what we know.
Let's say someone says they have ESP, then they should be able to accurately access information they could not get through mundane means.
The verification however (they got the correct number from the hidden card, they drew a correct map of the remotely viewed location, et cetera) is very mundane.

What I'm talking about is using supernatural means to validate mundane things, like perceiving someones aura (supernatural), to find out where they are behind a wall (mundane).
Is that what you mean?

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

I payed for it.



They offer proof for what they can, but in this particular case, the proof was supposed to be you doing the method and seeing what happens.

Comedy gold!

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

Haven't you already made this exact same post?

Yes, one of the posters wanted me to break it up so it's not as unpleasant to read as a wall of text.

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Even though you kept pretending to not understanding the concept of proving your claim?

Sorry about that, but did you read the post where I had tried to do that?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Then read this: I am god. All things moral in the universe flow from my own values, and from now on you must live your life according to my decrees.

Prove me wrong.

OK, I think I get it now.

[Porpoise of Life]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

What I'm talking about is using supernatural means to validate mundane things, like perceiving someones aura (supernatural), to find out where they are behind a wall (mundane).
Is that what you mean?

You weren't, because when SOdhner posted exactly that, you disagreed and said he must have meant something that can't be verified through mundane means.

Now, if you were actually agreeing with SOdhner after all, you were agreeing that if psychic abilities exist, they should be able to say something about what's happening in the real world after all.
Only, you were already making up excuses for how special kinds of magical would be inherently untestable, so I don't believe you.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Just because they don't mention that it has this psychic aspect doesn't mean it doesn't have it.

Just because my bank manager (or anyone else) hasn't mentioned that there's a multi million dollar deposit coming into my account doesn't mean there isn't one.. Should I sign the order for a Ferrari now or wait and see if the money arrives first?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing, but I will try to support my claim insofar as it is good to do so. What I essentially have to prove is that when you "open your third eye" you "perceive spiritual phenomena" as a result.

So far so good.

The next step is to define "spiritual phenomena", and then devise an experiment to determine whether any such are perceived.

For example if an aura associated with a human body is a example of spiritual phenomena then someone who perceives such spiritual phenomena should be able to perceive the aura even if they cannot perceive the body with which it is associated. So the wall experiment is a good way to determine whether the perceived aura is genuine or imagined as a result of suggestion.

[SOdhner]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

If they did, then I would probably say that perceiving auras was kind of unreliable but not non-existent, I can see no other reason why someone capable of perceiving an aura would not perceive the aura in this experiment.

Okay, so now you've established that - for you - nothing is going to count as proof that there's no psychic powers. A positive result would prove they exist, and a negative result would mean they STILL exist but something went wrong.

Honestly, I'm okay with that - that's how most people feel, and at least you're being upfront about it. But here's the question... how many times would it have to be wrong before you'd entertain the idea that it's simply not a real thing. Ten? Fifty? Two hundred? A thousand?

Originally Posted by Wonder234

If they were lying why would they sign up for the experiment?

Don't forget the Facilitated Communication thing I talked about. Those people genuinely thought they were helping kids communicate and didn't know it was all their subconscious. Likewise, many people genuinely think they have psychic powers. Some others knew they didn't but thought they could trick the test, which would have been great publicity and potentially a million dollars if they were doing the JREF thing.

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life

No. Because if it can't be verified, you can't verify it.
If the magic can't say or change anything about the real world, it can't be distinguished from fiction.

In case it needed to be said, Porpoise is exactly right about why I said that. (Generally you can assume Porpoise can speak for me, in matters like this that aren't legally binding.)

Originally Posted by Wonder234

perceiving someones aura (supernatural), to find out where they are behind a wall (mundane).

Sure, that's about right. So the mundane thing shouldn't be observable by the psychic except through psychic means, but it should be confirmable by a third party.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Yes, but what if you had someone who had no ideas of what would happen do the method and they still felt the pressure in the area of the third eye? And later on began to experience "ghosts" and "auras"

Great, who was this person, how did you establish that they didn't know what to expect? How were they isolated from that information during the training? How were they interviewed? Did the interviewer know what results were being sought? How did you guard against leading questions?

Or is this just a hypothetical as useful as "What if Superman flew down and told you it was real'?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SOdhner

But here's the question... how many times would it have to be wrong before you'd entertain the idea that it's simply not a real thing. Ten? Fifty? Two hundred? A thousand?

This is a good question. Here's another one:

Wonder234, would it take for you to use this effect to do useful work on a regular basis?

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Yes I want to believe, but like I said, I like to subject my beliefs to doubt and I actually sit down and do that. Now you may say I'm not doing it right, or that because I am biased toward believing I taint the project, but I think, at least, that I try to test my beliefs. And if you mean by ignoring people that I object to what they put forward, then isn't that what you're supposed to do? If I just accept what you say without challenging it, then it could be faulty, but we wouldn't know because it wasn't challenged. I am just seeing where it goes, and right now, you have me a bit puzzled about the James Randi aura experiment.

No, you're not supposed to ignore people and object to what they put forward, otherwise this is essentially a one-man circle-jerk. If you're actually here to test your own beliefs, then you actually need to look at the material that people are offering you and need to consider if it makes sense.

I offered you what I basically, hands-down, think you're doing, Transcendental Meditation, but you don't seem to want to read into it, despite it being a dead-ringer for what you're doing, except it costs nothing and isn't a spiritual revelation, it's just meditation and has even been peer-reviewed.

These "ghosts" and "images" and "emotions" you claim come from "training your third eye" are merely products of a meditating mind, and are all regarded as little more than brain farts in the world of TM, but somehow, you've been told that this is some mystical force that you need to pay for. You don't see the issue with this? Whatever floats your boat, mate.

[P.J. Denyer]

There are some people who claim to be able to feel, rather than see, auras, they got investigated by someone who did understand the burden of proof and the importance of blinded trials in establishing the truth. She was, by the way, nine years old and did the experiment as a forth grade science fair project. Guess what the result was?

(Spoiler) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil...ic_Touch_study

[JesseCuster]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing, but I will try to support my claim insofar as it is good to do so. What I essentially have to prove is that when you "open your third eye" you "perceive spiritual phenomena" as a result.

What I am essentially arguing for then is that the phenomena you perceive are not produced by the mind. This contrasts it from things your mind mostly receives, rather than actively produces. A good way then, to find out if something is not just being produced by your mind is to have someone look at the same spot or be in the position to perceive the same phenomena you're perceiving, and if they don't perceive, or a group of people don't perceive it, then maybe it is just in your mind.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it is not there, as someone could just be perceiving a different aspect of reality than the group. Then perhaps if the group were to gain psychic powers of perception and be in the position to perceive the same thing, they would all perceive it.

But this too, can be tricky because different people can have different ways of perceiving. Perceiving the spiritual realm could be inexact, with different people perceiving different things that are there, but not the same thing because they are tuned into the same range that they need to be in tune with.

But you could say why go with that explanation when you could go with the easier explanation that they are all just hallucinating? Well, just because it is an easier explanation doesn't mean it's true, and if it is at least coherent as an idea, then it serves to offer an explanation as to why they are not perceiving the same thing and avoids the termination of the discussion that the explanation of "they're hallucinating" brings.

But if they are all perceiving different things how can you prove that a phenomena is not just in one persons head and is thus just a hallucination? I'll post later to argue a different point.

You're not essentially arguing for the thing you say you're arguing for in the highlighted text. You're simply making excuses. You're giving us some ways in which your claims might be tested, and then then immediately saying that the tests don't mean anything anyway, because they might be true in ways that aren't prone to be tested.

You're just asserting that you're right and stating that if your claims fail any tests to shoe they're right, then maybe they're still right in a way that can't be tested.

Have you any idea how many fringe proponents argue in this way? They bend over back and get into all sorts of intellectual knots trying to argue that [insert supernatural phenomenon here] is true and real and has all sorts of cool effects and implications that are most def real and can be perceived and felt by people. It's amazing. But it's also subtle and crafty and when you try to test it or demonstrate or show people non-believers how cool and real it is, then it won't do anything at all. Because of whatever ad-hoc reason you can think of.

Nothing new here. You've got this cool awesome supernatural ability that does cool stuff which you've experienced. But you can't show us that it's real because it doesn't do anything at all when you try to show it to people who don't believe in it. Heard it a thousand times before.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing, but I will try to support my claim insofar as it is good to do so. What I essentially have to prove is that when you "open your third eye" you "perceive spiritual phenomena" as a result.

What I am essentially arguing for then is that the phenomena you perceive are not produced by the mind. This contrasts it from things your mind mostly receives, rather than actively produces. A good way then, to find out if something is not just being produced by your mind is to have someone look at the same spot or be in the position to perceive the same phenomena you're perceiving, and if they don't perceive, or a group of people don't perceive it, then maybe it is just in your mind. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is not there, as someone could just be perceiving a different aspect of reality than the group. Then perhaps if the group were to gain psychic powers of perception and be in the position to perceive the same thing, they would all perceive it. But this too, can be tricky because different people can have different ways of perceiving. Perceiving the spiritual realm could be inexact, with different people perceiving different things that are there, but not the same thing because they are tuned into the same range that they need to be in tune with. But you could say why go with that explanation when you could go with the easier explanation that they are all just hallucinating? Well, just because it is an easier explanation doesn't mean it's true, and if it is at least coherent as an idea, then it serves to offer an explanation as to why they are not perceiving the same thing and avoids the termination of the discussion that the explanation of "they're hallucinating" brings. But if they are all perceiving different things how can you prove that a phenomena is not just in one persons head and is thus just a hallucination? I'll post later to argue a different point.

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing, but I will try to support my claim insofar as it is good to do so. What I essentially have to prove is that when you "open your third eye" you "perceive spiritual phenomena" as a result.

What I am essentially arguing for then is that the phenomena you perceive are not produced by the mind. This contrasts it from things your mind mostly receives, rather than actively produces. A good way then, to find out if something is not just being produced by your mind is to have someone look at the same spot or be in the position to perceive the same phenomena you're perceiving, and if they don't perceive, or a group of people don't perceive it, then maybe it is just in your mind.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it is not there, as someone could just be perceiving a different aspect of reality than the group. Then perhaps if the group were to gain psychic powers of perception and be in the position to perceive the same thing, they would all perceive it.

But this too, can be tricky because different people can have different ways of perceiving. Perceiving the spiritual realm could be inexact, with different people perceiving different things that are there, but not the same thing because they are tuned into the same range that they need to be in tune with.

But you could say why go with that explanation when you could go with the easier explanation that they are all just hallucinating? Well, just because it is an easier explanation doesn't mean it's true, and if it is at least coherent as an idea, then it serves to offer an explanation as to why they are not perceiving the same thing and avoids the termination of the discussion that the explanation of "they're hallucinating" brings.

But if they are all perceiving different things how can you prove that a phenomena is not just in one persons head and is thus just a hallucination? I'll post later to argue a different point.

Spot the difference.

Is this copypasta from elsewhere?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Spot the difference.

Is this copypasta from elsewhere?

Read the thread. He was asked to reformat it by someone in this thread.

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by MikeG

And there you go again. Stop doing this stuff. You've been told: the onus is on you to provide evidence in support of your claim, and "you haven't proved that it can't happen" isn't even a kindergarten-level response.

If you haven't got any evidence for something for which there are simple prosaic explanations, sane people will accept those simple proven explanations until or unless something comes along to either show that was in error, or that the proven explanations aren't the whole story.

Now, see if you can avoid making that same stupid argument again, OK? We're on page 3 of you doing it, and it's getting more than a little irritating.

I am not trying to irritate anyone, and I do not currently know of any way to prove that to you, so I don't know what you do with that. And I may not be able to prove to you that at least I think I am trying to do my best, or at least trying not to do lousily.

And I don't want to irritate you further, but if this conversation is to continue it may be a little frustrating, not because I am willfully being manipulative but because I don't fully know what I'm doing in arguing for this and that there will be mistakes. I may not be able to prove to you (emphasis on "may") that I am not trying to be deceitful (emphasis on "trying") but to be honest I have no interest in doing that.

Another reason this conversation may get irritating is that I'll probably be asking for you to explain things because, even right now, I don't fully get what you are saying (and I do re-read it to try to understand) so if this is irritating you and you want me to stop, I'll stop posting, but I am interested in this "conversation" and would like to see it progress.

So, if this is irritating, I'll either stop posting, or try to do better. But be warned, even if I try to do better I may not manage to do it perfectly (despite effort) and so there may still be a source of irritation.

As far as my saying that "it might be true because you don't know" about the spiritual properties of the pineal gland, I would instead switch the focus to showing that the perceptions of the third eye are not hallucinations or arguing for it in various ways.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

I am not trying to irritate anyone, and I do not currently know of any way to prove that to you, so I don't know what you do with that. And I may not be able to prove to you that at least I think I am trying to do my best, or at least trying not to do lousily.

And I don't want to irritate you further.........

All you need to do is stop repeating the same mistakes time after time after you've been told they're mistakes. One of the most irritating is this "you haven't proved that there's no such thing as......" nonsense. You cannot prove a negative, and it is therefore just ludicrous for the person making the claim (ie you) to say that sceptics of that claim have to prove the claim wrong. If you stop doing that, you'll take a large part of the annoyance away (oh, and stop pretending you don't understand the very very simple concept of where the onus lies, because that is also annoying).

[xterra]

Wonder234,

(I am deliberately not following the usual practice of quoting posts, simply because there will be too many to link. Instead, I am copy/pasting sections and referring to the post number, although I am using quote boxes to distinguish your posts from my responses.)

These are serious responses to you, not an attempt at sarcasm or humor.



In post #1, you say

Quote:

All of a sudden I see what looks like auras, see what looks like ghosts

Please tell me what auras look like, and what ghosts look like. How do I know that what I am seeing looks like an aura? Do different people have different auras? How do you know whether you are seeing the aura belonging to the person you are looking at, and not to some other person behind the first one? Do auras change depending on the person's mood, or the weather, or the phase of the moon?



#28

Quote:

Just curious, what would having a definite definition of ghosts or auras do in regards to this question?

It would help you to answer the questions I asked in the previous response, and would help me to understand what you think is happening.




#30

Quote:

I think if you were to tell someone who didn't know what the effects would be to try this method they would feel a pressure in that area too.

The first time I had a non-exercise stress test, I felt all the symptoms of exercising vigorously, without actually exercising. Would feeling "a pressure in that area" always mean the third eye is opening? Could it mean something else? How would someone know the difference?



#31, in your response to Argumemnon

Originally Posted by

I think if you were to tell someone who didn't know what the effects would be to try this method they would feel a pressure in that area too.

How would you know that what someone is feeling is the result of what you tell them to do, and also that the sensation is in exactly the same place? Suppose they misunderstood you and chanted "Ummmm." Would that have the same effect?



#34

Quote:

What is the point of a burden of proof? Can we not just drop that?

No you can't drop it -- it is the basis for what you are asking.

Please see this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot to help you understand "burden of proof."


I have read through the entire thread, and see repetition and more repetition. I haven't quoted anything beyond the first page, because I think this covers it.

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

So far so good.

The next step is to define "spiritual phenomena", and then devise an experiment to determine whether any such are perceived.

For example if an aura associated with a human body is a example of spiritual phenomena then someone who perceives such spiritual phenomena should be able to perceive the aura even if they cannot perceive the body with which it is associated. So the wall experiment is a good way to determine whether the perceived aura is genuine or imagined as a result of suggestion.

Spiritual phenomena would be something you would not perceive with normal senses, but is perceptible because of the spiritual augmentation of the senses or a spiritual sense. What a spiritual sense is... I can not say if it is an organ of the body functioning in a way that is not covered by science, and I can not say that it would have to have a physical basis. But if it does have a physical basis, then I would say that it is not an entirely physical organ.

It may be, when the body is just a body as when the person is dead, if being dead leaves the body as just a body, that the organ is just physical, or mundane, but when the person is alive, this organ connects with something spiritually and through the conjunction of physical and spiritual, psychic perception is permitted.

I'll leave the speculation about a purely spiritual sense to the side for now.

But, even if phenomena were things that were not described in our culture, because you don't perceive it with your physical senses, and because you perceive it with your "spiritual sense", I would say that what you were perceiving is a spiritual phenomena.

As for particular spiritual phenomena, those would be things that fit the description of that phenomena. So if you say you see a ghost, and the description of a ghost is a slightly transparent, sometimes humanoid (in case there are animal ghosts) figure of a white-ish color, sometimes various colors, and that is what you perceive, then I'd say you are seeing a ghost. The same goes for other perceptible spiritual phenomena; auras, ghosts, orbs, etc. If it is not perceptible with normal senses and it fits the description, I would label it spiritual phenomena.

[Wonder234]

Originally Posted by MikeG

(oh, and stop pretending you don't understand the very very simple concept of where the onus lies, because that is also annoying).

Who said I was pretending?

Originally Posted by MikeG

All you need to do is stop repeating the same mistakes time after time after you've been told they're mistakes. One of the most irritating is this "you haven't proved that there's no such thing as......" nonsense. You cannot prove a negative, and it is therefore just ludicrous for the person making the claim (ie you) to say that sceptics of that claim have to prove the claim wrong. If you stop doing that, you'll take a large part of the annoyance away

I'll try.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Spiritual phenomena would be something you would not perceive with normal senses, but is perceptible because of the spiritual augmentation of the senses or a spiritual sense. What a spiritual sense is... I can not say if it is an organ of the body functioning in a way that is not covered by science, and I can not say that it would have to have a physical basis. But if it does have a physical basis, then I would say that it is not an entirely physical organ.

It may be, when the body is just a body as when the person is dead, if being dead leaves the body as just a body, that the organ is just physical, or mundane, but when the person is alive, this organ connects with something spiritually and through the conjunction of physical and spiritual, psychic perception is permitted.

I'll leave the speculation about a purely spiritual sense to the side for now.

But, even if phenomena were things that were not described in our culture, because you don't perceive it with your physical senses, and because you perceive it with your "spiritual sense", I would say that what you were perceiving is a spiritual phenomena.

As for particular spiritual phenomena, those would be things that fit the description of that phenomena. So if you say you see a ghost, and the description of a ghost is a slightly transparent, sometimes humanoid (in case there are animal ghosts) figure of a white-ish color, sometimes various colors, and that is what you perceive, then I'd say you are seeing a ghost. The same goes for other perceptible spiritual phenomena; auras, ghosts, orbs, etc. If it is not perceptible with normal senses and it fits the description, I would label it spiritual phenomena.

None of this helps me (a) determine whether spiritual phenomena and spiritual senses actually exist or (b) determine whether the aura someone might see after chanting for a while is a spiritual phenomenon perceived by a spiritual sense.

Let's try this: how would you tell the difference between this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillating_scotoma

and the kind of aura you would classify as a spiritual phenomenon perceived by a spiritual sense.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

None of this helps me (a) determine whether spiritual phenomena and spiritual senses actually exist or (b) determine whether the aura someone might see after chanting for a while is a spiritual phenomenon perceived by a spiritual sense.

Let's try this: how would you tell the difference between this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillating_scotoma

and the kind of aura you would classify as a spiritual phenomenon perceived by a spiritual sense.

Thank you for posting that link, I've actually experienced these a few times in the last three or four years, I knew they were related to migraines (although I don't get the pain, just occasional fatigue) but I didn't know what they were called.

[BobTheCoward]

Wait, how do you not understand burden of proof?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

I agree. But what I was getting at is though the scenario can be explained by hallucination, is that really probable? It may be probable to you, but it is not probable to me. To exaggerate a bit and illustrate what I mean, it's like saying that there are no aliens in the universe. While that may be true, it does not seem very probable to me.

How are you calculating probability? What numbers are you using for your formula?

As I've said, a belief can be widely held but be wrong. The earth is not flat.

Here's one that's a little closer to the problem of perception: What is the probability that two parallel lines meet? It's not as simple as it seems. The human eye cannot perceive parallel lines. They appear to converge. And, in fact, if you want to represent 3D space in a drawing, you have to make your parallel lines merge at what is called the vanishing point.

The reason that parallel lines appear to meet is that the eye is round. Flat images projected onto a round surface become distorted. One need only to look at a world map that makes Greenland look as large as all of Canada.

Does the fact that parallel lines appear to converge for every single person on earth now and at all times in history affect the probability that they actually merge? No. They don't ever meet.

You keep harping on the fact that many people in history have shared a delusion. That doesn't affect the probability it's true. Otherwise, please show your math.

Originally Posted by Wonder234

What is the point of a burden of proof? Can we not just drop that?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense would have you believe that we have the burden of proving the crime took place. But what is the point of the burden of proof? Can we not just drop that?"

The point of the burden of proof is to make sure we don't believe things without the appropriate level of evidence. If you want to say something exists, you should have no trouble finding objective evidence. If all you have are people's feelings, you should have no trouble agreeing that the evidence does not exist.

Quote:

That doesn't follow necessarily. It is just probable.

Once again, please explain the numbers you're using to calculate the probability.

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Just curious, what would you think if you were to do this method and have your third eye opened and saw unusual things?

I would think, "Hey, my brain's ability to imagine things is really nifty!"

If I honestly felt that the things I saw were objectively true, I'd think, "Hey, I should be able to devise a falsifiable test that shows these things are objectively true!"

You keep asking what materialists would think. You've been told several times by several people. Yet you're still arguing. Perhaps you didn't intend to ask so much as to lecture us about how much more in tune you are with the universe than the rest of us, even though you won't participate in a test that would demonstrate your abilities.

[JoeMorgue]

Okay I'm calling it. "Materialist" is officially a Woo Term from now on. It's basically a shifted burden of proof version of Solipsism.

Reality exists. If I throw a rock at your head you duck. You don't get to question in an intellectual discussion anymore.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Okay I'm calling it. "Materialist" is officially a Woo Term from now on. It's basically a shifted burden of proof version of Solipsism.

Reality exists. If I throw a rock at your head you duck. You don't get to question in an intellectual discussion anymore.

I think you can be a materialist, admit you don't know if reality exists, and accept it.

My favorite thing about materialism is that we cannot know if we have existed our whole lives or created instantaneously a minute ago with all our memories. But materialism I'd the compelling reason it doesn't matter.

[xterra]

Originally Posted by Wonder234

Alright, I still don't understand this burden of proof thing

Here is a pretty standard, pretty easily-understood explanation for this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


The Wikipedia article mentions that the analogy is usually invoked in discussions about whether a god exists, but in many ways, your claim is equal to that.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Okay I'm calling it. "Materialist" is officially a Woo Term from now on. It's basically a shifted burden of proof version of Solipsism.

Reality exists. If I throw a rock at your head you duck. You don't get to question in an intellectual discussion anymore.