|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Robb Inner circle 1291 Posts 
|
Woover, do you see Bob's point? What is "enough" proof?
In any case, psi is real *for me*. There is no doubt *for me*. I depend upon my own experience to draw this conclusion, I could care less about studies. I don't know anyone to tell me whether it's real or not, anymore than I need them to tell me I get dizzy when I drink too much coffee. If you've never had any psi or paranormal experiences, I can understand that your threshold of proof would be quite high. But when you've had dozens of such experiences over the course of your life, you don't need ANY third party proof and such proof as it is merely confirms that others are having similar phenomena happen to them. I wonder too, to what degree does skepticism prevent a person from having or recognizing psi phenomena? That must be a factor. If you're a super skeptic, then even if you had a psi experience of precognition, telepathy or whatever, you might simply dismiss it as a coincidence (no matter how improbable). I am a skeptic when it comes to many things, but I also believe that we don't TRULY understand even a sliver of "what is going on here". This universe and it's contents are all a magical display to me. Dissect and label reality all you want, it doesn't change the basic nature of the miraculous nature of being one iota. Why is there something rather than nothing? Because magic. |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts
|
Someone once said to me if magic really existed then it would not really be magic.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/18256/t......nce.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php There is a reason Philip K Dick is one of my favourite authors - he was a master of the unreliable narrator and narration I love science because pure science never says anything is 100% certain. That is its beauty for me! A true way to grapple with reality. (Hey, if we can talk from MM vs M to science vs. belief and arsenic based life forms... lets get into the nature of reality and philosophy of existence while we are at it (or see the video I posted on previous page and skip it all)
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
WooverM Loyal user 285 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 30, 2015, Robb wrote: Robb, I greatly respect people who see the beauty in the world in the way you do, kodus for that. I have yet to experience, see, or know about anything that provided me enough of a proof for a paranormal claim beyond any reasonable doubt(for instance I'd call the doubts Hyman raises regarding Utts'es claims reasonable), I hope I am mistaken and will at some point or another, it seems like it would be a great experience to have. If you have and it has given you the gift of seeing the world as a magical place, I envy you greatly. My whole point in "fighting" Bob was to show my dissapointment in him for providing quotes that are taken out of context to support a claim from someone that he called a skeptic, and then a page later call him pseudo-skeptic when the quotes were taken back into context, also my point was to represent the truth in a more objective light, as I have failed on that upon first reading the quote and link Bob provided(the truth being the research findings, NOT any other paranormal claim).
Woover
|
|||||||||
jstreiff Special user 701 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 30, 2015, Dr Spektor wrote: Turns out that the nature of reality query naturally brings you to at least a potential understanding of the nature of everything, including psi. I realized this about 3 decades ago and have been pursuing the answer ever since. It has been am arduous, interesting and dare I say, fruitful journey. John
John
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
WooverM seems to be laboring under the misconception that "skeptics" and "pseudo skeptics" are complete opposites. They're not. The difference is simply that "pseudo skeptics'" skepticism is based on a priori conclusions. I was merely being polite when I initially referred to Hyman as a skeptic. He is, after all, a nice guy (I know him- he actually came to one of my early shows with a few other "skeptics" to see if I was making fraudulent claims- and we ended up becoming friends).
It is really difficult to argue with someone whose knowledge of a subject is, at best, superficial. Again- "extraodinary evidence" is clearly not a standard of evidence, but a sliding scale with an arbitrary level of proof determined by the "skeptics" themselves. As has been noted may times- it has already been accepted, that by normal scientific standards, a strong case for psi has been made. |
|||||||||
|
WooverM Loyal user 285 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 30, 2015, mastermindreader wrote: Bob, you can write to me in first person, I promise I won't bite. I could argue about the skeptic/pseudo-skeptic point but I think that is going a bit far off my original point and serves a minor insignificant point, it just seemed odd to me that you would change what you call your friend just a second after his quote is taken back into context, I'm sure you can understand that. I'm not here to argue with you about the case for psi, I'm here to learn. It has really disappointed me you would take a quote out of context and it would make it really hard at least for me to trust you to provide accurate evidence on the matter of psi without checking the sources of those evidence first. However, as I mentioned, I'm here to learn, so I'd love to be directed to a source which by normal scientific standards makes a strong case for psi as you mentioned. I'd be grateful for anyone's help on the matter, including yours Bob.
Woover
|
|||||||||
|
Robb Inner circle 1291 Posts
|
Guys, what is the difference between something being "magical" and something being "science"? Setting aside the old Asiimov quote, "Any technology sufficiently advanced...", etc.
What science does is a) confirm that a phenomenon exists, b) discovers the details about how said phenomenon functions and c) produces new technologies and knowledge based on the predictability afforded to us through science's findings. What science does NOT do is explain WHY there is ANY phenomenon at all to begin with. It does not and it cannot because science presupposes that there is phenomena and that there are conscious beings, i.e., independent observers, to investigate the phenomena. And who would argue that science is a process of discovering, dissecting, labeling and reconfiguring reality but not *explaining* reality's spontaneously present emergence of something from nothing. Therefore, it is my view that at the "ground level" of reality EVERYTHING is "magic" in that it is beyond our ability to ever capture it's true nature in any conceptual terms, scientific or otherwise. This is the basis of true wonder and mystery. Science doesn't ever remove this wonder except for those who, in my opinion, do not understand the real function of conceptual constructs and the scientific pursuit. How does this pertain to our discussion about the reality of psi? Why, I'm not even sure. ;-) |
|||||||||
|
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts
|
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke - Not Asimov..... as WooverM might say - check the sources  (or something like that)
(I use Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, Dick etc. quotes for most of my presentations - so I must stand up for Clarke to get the proper crediting).... Favourite Asimov Story: Nightfall - which may have metaphorical meaning for this thread
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
|
Robb Inner circle 1291 Posts
|
Oh yeah, the one they call that.
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Here's the thing- the burden of proof cannot be a sliding scale that's totally dependent on what a skeptic (or pseudo-skeptic) believes to be an extraordinary claim. The early claims of quantum mechanics, for example, were VERY extraordinary by any standard, but were proven by normal scientific standards.
The significance of Hyman's statement that he could identify no flaws in Dr. Utt's protocol is that no skeptic, to my knowledge, had ever acknowledged that before. But he did, nonethess, go on to say that the fact that he couldn't find a flaw didn't mean there weren't any. Which, of course, is disingenuous as it could be applied to any test that you've already decided cannot be true. (That is his a priori conclusion.) Here is an interesting hypothetical that illustrates my point about the burden of proof: A known mobster shoots a man and kills him. The standard of proof to find him guilty will be proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the ordinary standard of proof in criminal cases. Now assume that the Pope is accused of shooting and killing a man, a far more extraordinary claim than a run of the mill mob killing. Should be fact that the prosecution's claim is extraordinary require them to prove the defendant's guilt by a higher standard of proof than that required in the mobster's case? |
|||||||||
|
WooverM Loyal user 285 Posts
|
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2015, mastermindreader wrote: I understood your point earlier. I agree, it is significant. To claim it proves it's accuracy because he only raises doubts is understandable as well, but I think his doubts are valid and he explains why in detail, in a likely case that has been proven before that could happen I would understand if someone wouldn't want to give much consideration to his doubts, but on a study that has never gotten those results without flaws in protocol trying to prove an "extraordinary" claim I would take his doubts into consideration, of course you may disagree, it might be a proof for you. I think your hypothetiical situation is not comparable to our case, we do not know how likely is the pope to do such a thing, it depends on many factors(his current psychological state, the person that was killed etc...), we do not know the evidence that would indicate so, and a case of shooting has been proven numerous times before, even by people who are far less likely to do that, but even then there are people who have been proven to do things which they never did.
Woover
|
|||||||||
|
WooverM Loyal user 285 Posts
|
Who are far less likely to do so than the norm*** not saying anything about the pope obviously.
Woover
|
|||||||||
|
jstreiff Special user 701 Posts
|
Remember that we have no contact with objective reality. Hence we always operate in uncertainty. This is not about quantum physics alone - this speaks to all reality and every aspect of our existence. This is why, as a species, we know nothing for absolute certain. And that is why experiments prove nothing, but rather raise or lower our confidence in our perceived understanding of reality. AS Sheldrake has commented 'Science is all about falsifiable unproven assumptions, not proofs.'
John
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Exactly. That's why I always smile when someone says they require "conclusive proof."
There's no such thing. |
|||||||||
|
WooverM Loyal user 285 Posts
|
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2015, jstreiff wrote: Experiments provide proof to a certain point of certainty, but I agree and would like to think I have the same position towards objective reality as you do.(I have actually stated something similar a page or two ago)
Woover
|
|||||||||
|
Robb Inner circle 1291 Posts
|
"All sciences begin with attempts to define.
Nothing ever has been defined. Because there is nothing to define.” Excerpt From: Fort, Charles. “The Book of the ***ed.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright. |
|||||||||
|
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts
|
So what are you all talking about? There is nothing to define! Yet, there seems to be an ongoing debate of some sort. What is the point if there is no level of evidence or proof or whatever to confirm or deny anything?
Not that I actually necessarily or not agree with that concept - but if you do.... why are you bothering? You could be out sitting in the sun reading a good book with a beverage and etc. instead.
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
|
Robb Inner circle 1291 Posts
|
Ha, ha! Right you are Dr. Spektor! This is one of those "down the rabbit hole" threads. Some good thoughts but mostly two groups of people with incompatible world views (or "reality tunnels", as I prefer) trying to convince the other that their view is the MORE real one. That's fine, it's even fun, but if we don't know or don't remember that there really is no-thing to define, such discussions can be quite cantankerous and painful.
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Fnord
Robb- Sounds like you're a fan of Robert Anton Wilson, His "The New Inquisition" provides interesting insights into the efforts of modern pseudo-skeptics. |
|||||||||
|
Robb Inner circle 1291 Posts
|
A fan of RAW? Let's just say I cried for hours when I heard he had left us.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » The Mental Magic Tide (43 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 30, 2015 11:34 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|