blather
psychic_phenomena_and_science
andru235 [continued from a discussion with 42 usc 1983 on the watch_dafreman_lose_grip_on_reality page]

[also i tried blathing this under psychicness_and_science but when i went there the page was blank...(?)]

====I’m testing out my reasonable assumptions [...] Could I be wrong about my assumptions? Sure, but you still haven’t told me whether and how I’m wrong.===

your initial assumptions are mostly incorrect. but if i don't tell you what was wrong, nor why, that doesn't do much to tell you what is, in fact, correct! you could continue operating under those assumptions for years, and i could choose to correct you...or not. if other entities in existence possess the ability to withhold such corrections, we wouldn't necessarily know. as such, we assume that only *humans* could possess the cunning to pull off deception. yet, if something else has such cunning, we wouldn't necessarily know.

====so tell me where I was wrong so I can reevaluate my assumptions.====

the rest of existence isn't necessarily going to do this. that some incorrect assumptions will reveal their erroneousness is no guarantee that others will also. doesn't trial and error depend on this being otherwise? trial and error *assumes* that trial will reveal error. and so, much progress has been made in realms where this is so. but no progress has been made where it is not; at least not by "sci"ence.

====Or don’t, since all I was doing was casually presenting an alternate explanation for your experience that didn’t require us to invent an unseen psychic world.====

and all i am doing is casually presenting an alternate explanation for your experience that doesn't require us to ignore an unseen psychic world.

no, i'm not incredulous that you believe 2/3s of people are wrong. practically everyone believes that about everyone else. welcome to 5326 b.c.

====All I was saying is that if you think about it, thinking about a person just before that person calls is not that strange and requires no psychic ability on your part.====

unless you concede that there is such thing as psychic ability, and declare that it has certain effects and restrictions, you can't really say what does and doesn't require psychic ability, nor what constitutes it. if i don't believe in stalagtites or stalagmites, i'm in no position to make claims about what constitutes one or the other.

====Are _you_ actually saying that if two-thirds of the population believes something it has to be true?====

there is a difference (and oh, how this has been argued about through ages, and oh, how the argument rages on) between things that are true for individuals and things that are true for groups. if i believe that i am abducted by strontium-elephants every night while i sleep, then it is, for me, true. to everyone else, it may be false to say that i am abducted by strontium-elephants. they could watch me all night, and no, i was not abducted. but if i believe it, and experience a corrolary experience, then it is true, if one is to base one's knowledge upon what is observable.

99/100ths of the world's people are religious. i think religion is idiotic. but for them, religion is totally true, while for me religion is totally false.

obviously we disagree on the very matter about which we are arguing. but the difference between us is not our stance, specifically. the difference is this (my turn for some assumptions):

me : i agree that the world you see is the world you see. you're right! but the world i see is also the world i see (which in my case includes a world i don't see), and i am also right. they are two different worlds that have emerged from one common world. cellular mutation and division. "my copy of DNA is more accurate than yours!" compared to what?!?

you : the world you see is the world you see. you're right. the world i see is not the world you see, and so i cannot be right unless you see it also.

====people believe that fire is hot because fire is (demonstrably) hot; fire isn't hot because people believe it is hot.====

but the fire isn't necessarily hot. to plasma, it's frigid. the fire is not inherently hot. it is hot because we believe it to be hot.

====We’re dealing with a situation where in credible studies, psychics have been unable to prove their claims.====

and what methodology is used for such assessments? the scientific method? analysis that works for the physical world? what i am specifically saying is that there may be things that escape the scope of proof, and likewise, faith. the studies assume that people have ultimate power over their 'psychic' power (i have never claimed this). i don't think people have ultimate power over much at all.

now, in such studies, were the psychics selected using a double blind? and can the studies be certain that if these people were psychic, they would be able to demonstrate it on demand? i have erections, and can more or less solicit them of myself if desired, but i'm no porn star, and if there is too much pressure to get an erection, i might not be able to. does that mean an onlooker can assume that i don't have erection powers? the very fact that i was being studied would make it more difficult for me. and if i *didn't* know i was being studied, i would never think to make a demonstration suitable for basing a scientific conclusion upon. it's not that different.

====For instance, researchers have tested self-professed clairvoyants’ ability to “read auras” and said clairvoyants have failed.====




====If psychics could actually see the purported energy fields, one wonders why [...] their composition "is the subject of conflicting opinions." She states: "No two clairvoyants see exactly the same aura...====

some people go to a concert of symphony #X by the composer Y. "such startling dissonance," says one. "such uplifting consonance," says another. "what a work of despair," says one. "what a work of mirthfulness," says another.

for the record, i ran into an 'auras' person some years ago, and i persisted for her to tell me about my aura. at last, she said, "you must look into the depths of your soul and find out for yourself." laughable, indeed!

so i am somewhat empathetic to peoples skepticism. but i don't think this stuff can be solicited any more than we can solicit physical stuff. when i really, really have focussed, i have on a few occasions played the b-flat piano sonata of schubert without any mistakes. but most of the time i make lots of mistakes. and if tomorrow i tried to prove i was able to play it flawlessly, i wouldn't necessarily be able to do it on cue. in fact, i probably couldn't. but i know it is within me to do so. it is an ability i have. but, i cannot say the same of the a-major piano sonata (the late one) of schubert. if i didn't know i was being observed, it would hardly matter. there is a chance, if i really practiced for weeks, that i could play it flawlessly. but maybe not! and similarily, i might sit down tomorrow afternoon, and, not having played it for months, really be feelin' it and get it technically correct (which could still be stylistically all wrong, according to someone else's tastes).

as to the story on the aura study, it does make aura stuff sound bogus. but where does it make mention the possibility that perhaps this stuff cannot be tested for? that perhaps it is an ephemeral event? that perhaps it is something that descends upon people, and think they have control of it, they come to believe it, and it becomes their strontium-elephant, a truth for them that is a false for others?

====If you don’t believe that there is a difference between believing something based on proof and accepting something on faith, then I don’t know what to say to you.====

sure you do. it has been at the core of the discussion all along. perhaps you say, proof constitutes proof of proof. i say, proof constitues faith in provability. so to me, believing something based on proof means having faith that it has been sufficiently proven.

given that 2*2=4, and given the distributive property of multiplication, 2x*2x=4x, since 2x*2x=(2+2)*x. so, if x=0, then 2x+2x=5x, or 6x, or -7x. so 2x*2x=1529x. because of this the property is ammended to not include zero. that's nice: this piece of evidence doesn't suit our little theory, so it must not count!

if something as simple and seemingly provable as 2*2=4 has controversy surrounding it, then i am leary of ever relying too heavily on proof, especially in matters of spiritual or mystic (or whatever) considerations; these considerations are founded in the belief that there is existence external to the physical realm; such an existence cannot be proven nor disproven, at least, not while anchored in a physical existence. lack of evidence, however, is not proof against something.

some say zero isn't a number, it is a state. some say that means all numbers are states. one idea, fifteen stances. everyone sure that they are correct. eventually an ego dominates the discussion and that becomes the accepted truth. later, a different ego dominates the discussion and the truth is again changed from this to that.

====Now, is it seldom or often that someone gets upset when you say something mean?====

you continually use these simplified models to make big declarations. relativity, relativity. for starters, what constitutes mean? i will assume you mean that malicious behaviour will upset the recipient thereof. i'd at best say this is 50% likely. situations vary so greatly. but it also depends how you mean 'upset'. if you mean 'upset' that they feel bad, not necessarily. some people are energized by negativity directed at them; others are delighted to have a fight at hands. if you mean 'upset' in that they change their behaviour, not necessarily. some people are immobilized by something that disturbs them. if by upset you mean that they have a reaction of any sort, well, goody. of course they do. but then, all that really is being said is that people react to stuff. and that reaction isn't always predictable. the fact that people fall into routine isn't evidence of anything other than that they have fallen into a routine. someone might eat bacon every morning, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is their favorite breakfast food. but then, how does one define favorite?

====I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say, but if what you’re saying is that the end result is unlikely, then I both agree and disagree with you.====

yes, yes! now we are getting to the root of things. for i have both agreed and disagreed with you, every step of the way. and i have also both agreed and disagreed with myself, every step of the way as well. i know exactly what you are trying to say, and exactly what i am trying to say. yet, i don't know how to say it. and also, i'm not entirely sure what you or i am saying. so perhaps i don't know what you are trying to say, nor i myself, for that matter.

welcome to the even dimensions of paradoxia. the end result *is* unlikely. and yet, that's the end result, so in fact it is totally probable. but since the probability is improbability, does this mean things are probable or improbable? it seems that the danger is in definition.

====I mean, I will more likely become a lawyer than a rock star===

and i will more likely become a rock star than a lawyer, but only because i am a composer. shoot me, please, if i become either of the others.

====Are you saying that in order to know whether people are psychic I have to be psychic?====

nope. but i am saying you have to be open to the possibiliy that people *can* be psychic. cuz' if you are certain they cannot, of course you won't know if they are. if i don't believe its possible for people to play 'jai alai', and i see some people playing it, i'll write it off as some people catching a ball with nets - defining the event identically, but perceiving the ramifications of the event differently.

====Also, I think the galactic being is supposed to be omniscient, so by definition his perspective is infinite.====

say, hypothetically, that earth is an atom. as you are composed of over 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 pulsating atoms (assuming you are relatively petite), formed into rotative clusters, which form non-rotative clusters, which for double-helixes, which form clumps of this and that, which form bigger clumps, etc, and there you are. are you omniscient? i sure am not. a being built out of galactic-superclusters might know a lot about what it is like to be built out of galactic-superclusters. but what would it know of our tier of existence? either it is the same, or it is different, and either statement is remarkable. but though we might see billions of galaxies, it's hard to know what that looks like from the perspective of something the size of decadillions of galaxies. and if something that size looked at earth with a microscope (or whatever), it would see a little blip orbiting a larger, central blip. in short, it would see atoms. let us hope we aren't the target of it's fission!

====Are you saying I have to believe in psychic ability or be psychic to assess the veracity of psychic claims?====

do you have to believe in sanskrit to develop an ability to read it? can you correctly interpret the meaning of a sanskrit passage if you don't believe sanskrit exists?

is simply believing in sanskrit sufficient to read it? or if you only knew a few words in sanskrit, you might occasionally be able to read it, but if someone demanded you 'prove' that you read sanskrit and gave you a selection of sanskrit to read, you'd be completely at the mercy of whether that selection contained the words you knew.

and if you do not believe in sanskrit, and someone shows you sanskrit, you could say, "oh, that's just messy urdu." and upon evaluating the urdu, you would conclude that it was meaningless, because it doesn't make sense in urdu. and from then on, when people talk about sanskrit, you'd think back on the messy urdu, and recall how sanskrit was a bunch of senseless bullshit.

if there *is* a psychic "language," (and i believe there is, but that there are many) i really doubt anyone has even mastered a single one. why? because it has never been taken seriously. the manipulative have long used 'psychicness' as a tool to influence the gullible, and the concept of 'psychicness' has been maligned. i can't blame people for thinking it's b.s. when i look at how it is portrayed, and the claims people make about it. but many seem to through the baby out with bathwater, so to speak.

i for my part don't have too many specific beliefs about it. all i know is that sometimes knowledge about things pop into my head, and then, there it is. i.e. phone calls. or numeric stuff. there have been many times that i have thought about a piece of music within hours turn on the one classical station here, and that very piece is playing.

are there many possible explanations for this? of course! perhaps we are subconsciously aware of radio waves. and the classical station tends to play standard repetoire stuff (i.e. classical music everyone has heard), which explains the times that it has happened with common music, but makes the occurences with rarities all the more peculiar.

someone i know well takes the words out of my mouth, and i am amazed, but we know each other well, so that could be why. but then, what's the explanation for when that happens with a total stranger?

sometimes simple answers beget complex questions. sometimes simple questions beget complex answers.

====I disagree with that statement [previous quotation], but is it enough that when I was younger I used to believe in God and the Devil and all sorts of magic?====

is it enough for you? it's not for me to say! you are obviously an articulate thinker; you'll make your own conclusions (i hope; it would be shame if you didn't) about stuff.

seems to me that when people are "born again," whether it be into religion, or into science, or into spirituality (or whatever), they come back twice as strong. religions people who switch to science or mysticism become science or mysticism zealots. science people who switch to religion or mysticism become religious or mystic zealots. blah blah blah blah zealots. and there are more than three, of course.

such transitions always fascinate me. between 10 and 20 i believed only in science. i was brought up in a science-type household. no religious bullshit, thank god (ha ha). i was certain, for most of that time, that there was no meaning to anything, that existence was merely a big mathematical-chemical construct, that our feelings were mere chemical reactions, that there was little hope for the resolution of one's torments, that psychic and magic and spirit was ridiculous hoo-ha, etc etc etc. while (for myself) i still disdain religion, i have come to also disdain science (big secret), but only because it presumes to have the only set of keys to knowledge and what is 'real'. on a planet where even identical twins argue; in a galaxy where every star differs; in a universe where every proton has a slightly different weight; i am wary of any claims of there being 'one' true reality or 'one' true path to this or that. the only such claim that makes any sense (to me) is the claim that everything exists, and we are in a finite section of infinity. thus it_all_exists.

likewise, i think there is great danger in homogenization of pretty much anything. that is, the only homogeny i can accept sans souci is that everything be heterogenous. snowflakes. stars. subatomic particles. species. 'identical twins'. plant scions. performances of bruckner symphony #3. the actual score for bruckner symphony #3 (there are several very, very different editions). everything is different! yet i am to believe that there is only one route to knowledge, when i have benefitted from several?!?

====Okay, but science doesn’t claim to capture any subjective perspective. That’s not what science is about. Science is supposed to be objective.====

why do you enjoy [food / sex / drugs]? is it solely because of your objective awareness that these things are serving you a practical purpose? or do you take pleasure from the subjective experience, getting lost in the heat of the moment and forgetting the realities of it? which is more real? the objective reality that no one experiences, or the subjective realities that is every sentient being's sole reality?

====So who cares if I never know what it’s like to be an apple or a quark or Tim Robbins? I really don’t care at all.====

that's fine. hopefully you never transgress against any of them. but if you don't know what it is like to be them, you don't know them. for the core of what someone is is their experience of being themself.

====I want to know whether or not certain chemicals, when mixed together, relieve my headache, but I couldn’t care less what those chemicals were feeling when they were mixed together.====

see? the reason you care about that objective mix of chemicals is because if its effect on your subjective life experience.

====Science is science because it works. It’s not perfect, just like knowledge isn’t perfect, but it gets shit done. It makes medicine, rocket ships, and my computer.====

if science's nukes blow up the planet, it sure works well. glad we relied on that. if carbon life is overwhelmed by silicon *gasp* life, way to go, science. if the science's toxic byproducts cause us a fate worse than death, how super science must be.

these developments are not inherently good. i, for my part, am ready to die and move on with my lives. if i became ill and was forced to accept a medical treatment i did not want, i would not be happy about that. that is my personal truth. and though that may differ from the person truths of others, it remains my personal truth.

=====“b-b-b-billions of people claim to have occasional or regular extra-sensory perception(s).” Is that your best evidence? You’re just going to appeal to numbers without evaluating the plausibility of such claims?=====

you seemed quite comfortable with that same tactic when you listed three things as evidence that science gets things done: medicine, rocket ships, and my computer. surely you meant didn't mean these things to be marks against science? you meant them as examples of science's benefit. but did you just appeal to numbers without evaluating the plausibility of such claims to their benevolence? for you, i don't doubt that you are being quite truthful. but it isn't truthful for me. how can science be the only pure truth when i am sitting right here, aware of other truths? you may not like the truths. you may not agree with the truths. they might be false to you. but they are still true to me, and are truths all the same.

do i believe in jesus? how can i not, when there are a billion people who won't shut up about him, already? there is no need to evaluate the plausibility of such claims. if two billion people believe in such a character, then the character is a truth for two billion people. i see these people at the supermarket and stuff, and they are quite real to me. those people are part of my 'true reality'. so some imaginary person they talk about unceasingly is therefore also a part of my true reality, no matter how implausible or unevaluated jesus might be.

but that doesn't mean i believe in jesus to have any greater effect on my life than his followers inflict upon me. the 'greater' things i *really* believe in are of a very different nature. and since i almost never directly speak of such things, they are not a part of other people's realities. but they are at the core of my reality, and this is (for me) not true of religion or science.

====Wouldn’t an objective test, like the one in that aura study above, be a better way to evaluate whether psychic powers exist or not?====

no. that would be the worst possible way to evaluate psychic powers. objective analysis cannot accrue 'facts' about subjective realtities. it assumes that psychicness is a) a 'power' that can be 'controlled'; b) that if psychic stuff exists it would be reiterative and constant; c) that the subjective reality known inside of the 'psychic' during the 'psychic moment' about the 'psychic target' can be completely known to the researcher and d) accurately compared to the subjective reality of the 'psychic target' itself.

psychic stuff (sixth sense, ESP, whatever) occurs within the subjective individual. the 'psychic moment' is subjective to every single imaginable factor present: mood of the psychic, type of psychic target, wind direction, music playing, itchiness, recent nintendo games played, number of bagels consumed during the past year, etc etc. anything could be a factor, no matter how absurd. abstract consideration cannot be hindered by concrete practicalities. science is too matter-of-fact to accept the nature of certain potential influences, and it lacks the power to even remotely recreate even the corporeal events under which ethereal mysteries (of any nature) occur. and even then it assumes that ethereal mysteries have corporeal manifestations that can be examined, which is completely contrary to the concept of 'ethereal'. ethereal is not synonymous with air, nor does it usually refer to the chemical 'ether' (sometimes, though).

so no, an objective test like the aura study above, is not the best way to study psychicness - nor spiritual auras, for that matter.

what kind of test would be best? a subjective, genuine-belief-in-possibility-of-it test. science would laugh and laugh, which is why science doesn't deserve a monoply on the 'sci' prefix (it is a form of 'sci'-ing, but not the only one). but one cannot fake genuineness; if one doesn't believe, one doesn't believe. in short, i don't think it can be tested for. like many things.

====I remember reading either on this page or another where you spoke of testing psychic ability by guessing playing cards, and how that method is flawed because no one has the psychic power to guess cards====

understandably, you're close but not quite there with what i said. blather can be a maze, i know. and my statement was vague.

these studies (there have been several, if i recall) used a deck of cards specially made for the test. there were five types of cards in the deck: a heart, a square, a pentacle, etc. (how corny). someone might very well have psychic card moments - but if it is unlikely to begin with, it is especially unlikely when you are talking about a uniquely generated deck specifically to test if people are really psychic. and the repeated conclusion was that 'no, there is no evidence of human psychicness', as if it comes in only one form!

====It’s a little different, of course, because I guess you’re supposedly not just able to turn psychic power on and off, but at the same time, isn’t it convenient that psychics aren’t psychic all the time for all purposes?====

i was - and still am - put off by most public claims of psychicness. however, it is only 'inconvenient' if stands to gain by an exploitation of it. else, it is a wash. but it isn't so different from other senses, its just more remote. we are not always aware of touch, or smell, or taste, or hearing, or sight, even while experiencing relevant stimuli. sometimes one person with bad hearing hears something in the distance that goes unnoticed by someone with excellent hearing.

"if you are really capable of hearing brahms third symphony, why can't you hear it right now?" has to be playing somewhere, doesn't it? otherwise one can only imagine or remember.

"oh, you think you're mister funny man? do something funny. say something funny right now." certain skills become inoperable when demanded.

====[...]because a psychic can’t just turn her powers on and off[...]Isn’t that exactly what someone would say if she had no psychic power and were trying to trick you?====

"i love you" (maybe if i say it we'll get married and spend our lives together)

"i love you" (maybe if i say it i can fuck'em later)

sure, people say things to be tricky all the time. doesn't mean the underlying concept is impossible.

i also believe in an endless cycle of existence, tempered by occasional life. but where would one begin testing for previous life? there's no physical evidence, and unless there is some sort of psychic something or other, there can be no memory of it. does this negate the possibility? not at all. you might say the lack of evidence is convenient, and i might say it is inconvenient. or vice versa. we'd both be right, either way. and it would be true to us, whatever we felt. it would be as subjectively true as gravity is objectively true...more or less, anyway.

as a final note, i don't think people can ever be wholly objective, though some like to think it...that is, we can only be objective about our subjectivity, and we tend to deny how subjective we are about objectivity.

paradox, paradox. it is. no, it isn't. oh, yes it is! but how could it be? no. yes. no again. OH YEAH, BABY! 		050904
...
42 usc 1983 “we assume that only *humans* could possess the cunning to pull off deception. yet, if something else has such cunning, we wouldn't necessarily know.”

Okay, so the universe could be tricking us somehow. I guess that’s possible, but if one lived one’s life as if no stimuli one received were reliable enough to base certain fundamental assumptions on, one wouldn’t do very much at all. I think that once one gets past the idea that one’s subjective experience might be false and one can never know anything, one tends to live as if one’s perceptions are basically correct. Do you really live your life doubting even that which seems doubtlessly true because some invisible force might be tricking you at any given moment, or do you just find it amusing to think about unseen forces that invalidate all empirical evidence?

“the rest of existence isn't necessarily going to do this [tell you which of your assumptions are wrong].”

Of course not, which is why I don’t ask the rest of existence questions and expect answers. I asked you because you’re sentient and you’re here. I guess there are other ways I could find out the information for which I asked, but you must admit, asking you was probably the most reasonable method by far. Conversely, the best way to find out if people are psychic would not be to ask them, because even if there were psychic powers, many people who you asked would claim to be psychic when in fact they weren’t. The best way to test for psychic powers would be an objective test.

“unless you concede that there is such thing as psychic ability, and declare that it has certain effects and restrictions, you can't really say what does and doesn't require psychic ability, nor what constitutes it.”

Perhaps I misunderstand, but it looks like you’re saying that I must concede psychic ability exists if I wish to argue that it doesn’t exist. I know what psychic ability is supposed to be. For you, it was thinking of a person before she [remember, the sex is irrelevant] called you. I’m saying that can happen without any psychic powers. So I guess you must mean that I have to concede that the _idea_ of psychic ability exists. Well, that concession is a nullity, but sure, I’ll concede that some people think that psychic ability exists.

“if i don't believe in stalagtites or stalagmites, i'm in no position to make claims about what constitutes one or the other.”

Well, I could just bring you to a cave and show you. In fact, I could bring lots of people to the cave and show them, too. I know what you’re thinking, what if they said, “I see no stalagmite!” Well, invite them to touch it. Will they still deny its existence? Will they attempt to walk through the stalagmites and tites, or will they walk around them and duck under them? I bet that most people who deny the existence of physical things like caves formations, which people across all cultures can see and feel, are full of shit and want to prove a point or they are impaired in some way. Oh, but what if we’re just psychically impaired, right? Well, that’s the beauty of not relying on my own experience but rather designing an objective test. Say I’m blind and I want to test whether sight exists. Even though I can’t simply see to confirm the existence of sight, I can design all sorts of tests that would help me come to a reasonable conclusion regarding the existence of the ability to see. I could ask one of these alleged “seers” to tell me how many fingers I was holding up. I would use 2 hands and pick a random number and then see how accurate the “seer” was. I would do this dozens of times with multiple “seers.”

“if i believe that i am abducted by strontium-elephants every night while i sleep, then it is, for me, true. to everyone else, it may be false to say that i am abducted by strontium-elephants. they could watch me all night, and no, i was not abducted. but if i believe it, and experience a corrolary experience, then it is true, if one is to base one's knowledge upon what is observable.
”

Yes, yes, but you don’t believe that, do you? And if people watched you and told you that you hadn’t been abducted, wouldn’t you start to believe that you were just crazy? I mean, some people do see and hear things that are not there. How is it that they come to receive medical help? Isn’t it that they talk to other people and other people say, “No, there are no fucking elephants, Andru. We watched you all night. You were dreaming. Please, for your mother’s sake, get some help”? If you really did believe that elephant thing happened, would you just think everyone else was wrong, or would you rely on the perspectives of others to determine whether or not you had been abducted by magic elephants? In reality, not in theory, would you rely on the perspective of others? (Yes of course, it hasn’t happened so it’s all “in theory.” Simply, which do you think is more likely?)

“you : the world you see is the world you see. you're right. the world i see is not the world you see, and so i cannot be right unless you see it also.”

If you believe in magic elephants, then the world you see is not the world as it is. That’s what I believe. And if you believe in psychics and I don’t, well, then only one of us can be correct. The question of whether or not you subjectively perceive magic elephants or psychic phenomena is not my concern, and not an interesting question to me. My concern is whether the existence of such dubious things can be proven outside of your subjective experience. Yes, yes, on some level every bit of knowledge is filtered through subjective experience. But who do you think has better proof of his subjective experience? The guy who wants to prove the existence of cave formations or the guy who wants to prove that he can see auras? Why is it that the existence of psychic ability is controversial and the existence of cave formations is not?

“but the fire isn't necessarily hot. to plasma, it's frigid. the fire is not inherently hot.”

Okay, so fire is hot to people. Are you saying that psychic ability might be real to plasma? Forgive me for being coarse, but who gives a shit what plasma perceives? It’s my understanding that plasma is a highly charged particle state that has no sense organs and has little to say on the matter. The point you’re making here is really just that we all have different subjective perspectives. Well, of course. I mean, we don’t even need to go outside of carbon-based life forms to say that fire isn’t always perceived as hot. To a person who cannot feel it, fire is not hot. But I wouldn’t say that means that fire isn’t, in fact, objectively hot. If a guy is paralyzed from the waist down and his leg catches on fire, he might not feel the heat of the fire, but chances are when he smells the burning flesh, he’ll know. So even if one lacks the ability to sense that which others can, there remain tests which one can use to determine the truth of the others’ claims.

“[fire] is hot because we believe it to be hot.”

So if you believed it was cold, would it not be cold? Would you touch it and prove that perception is reality? Or would you be the crazy one-handed guy? Of course you don’t really believe this.

“were the psychics selected using a double blind? and can the studies be certain that if these people were psychic, they would be able to demonstrate it on demand? i have erections, and can more or less solicit them of myself if desired, but i'm no porn star, and if there is too much pressure to get an erection, i might not be able to. does that mean an onlooker can assume that i don't have erection powers?”

If only one such study or only a few had been done, then the performance anxiety excuse might work. But every psychic ever tested is always too nervous to deliver the goods? Sounds a little fishy to me. Look, if I never saw you get hard, I would invent a less obtrusive test. If you still couldn’t get hard, I might decide that your ability to get erections was unfounded. I wouldn’t doubt the existence of erections, though, because I have them myself and I show them to others! But If I were a woman and had never seen an erection, and in my pursuit of erection evidence I always came up empty handed, you know what? I would doubt the existence of erections.

You know what was a good test of the ability of psychics? When Houdini told his wife a secret code before he died and then after he died she went to various psychics and none of them could ever tell her the secret code. Were they all too nervous?

“some people go to a concert of symphony #X by the composer Y. "such startling dissonance," says one. "such uplifting consonance," says another. "what a work of despair," says one. "what a work of mirthfulness," says another.”

But they both heard something, didn’t they? No matter what they thought of it, everyone heard something. And I bet if you played them the melody later, they’d agree substantially on that, too. You’re comparing descriptives and normatives. Whether the music was good or not and other things that require a subjective judgment, yes, people will differ on that, but they will agree substantially on the descriptive stuff. Aura color is not a normative, it is a descriptive. It’s supposed to be a color, for god’s sake. Color is not a normative property. (Yes, obviously some people are colorblind and have a different perspective on colors, but psychics have never promulgated the idea that there is psychic colorblindness.)
“as to the story on the aura study, it does make aura stuff sound bogus. but where does it make mention the possibility that perhaps this stuff cannot be tested for? that perhaps it is an ephemeral event? that perhaps it is something that descends upon people, and think they have control of it, they come to believe it, and it becomes their strontium-elephant, a truth for them that is a false for others?”

If it can’t be tested for there’s no point in testing for it. I guess it doesn’t mention that for the same reason it doesn’t mention that some omnipotent being might be manipulating the data behind the scenes. So basically it doesn’t mention that possibility because it is quantitative research that assumes subjective perspective is not reality and cannot change reality and that objective tests can yield meaningful results about the world we actually live in. If it is an ephemeral event then wow, how unlucky of the researchers to collect data just as the aura readers’ abilities disappeared into the ether! Better luck next time! And the strontium elephant can be disproven. Have others watch you. Videotape yourself. Chain yourself to the bed. There are ways to test other than your limited perspective, whether or not you love the scientific method. It’s really just common sense.

“lack of evidence, however, is not proof against something.”

Even if I can’t prove that things can be proved, I can still prove that aura readers are full of shit. Okay, I can’t prove it absolutely, but then, as you said, nothing can be proven absolutely. So if nothing can be proven absolutely, then why resist subjecting psychic phenomena to the same standards as everything else? For instance, fire is hot. Some might not think so, like paralyzed guys and plasma, but the paralyzed guy can see (and smell) the results of the fire’s heat and the plasma, well, the plasma hasn’t said much on the subject. So what’s the burden of proof going to be? Absolutely? Can’t be done, right? So how about beyond a reasonable doubt? By clear and convincing evidence? By a preponderance of evidence? Forget the two lower standards, I think I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that aura readers are liars.

“you continually use these simplified models to make big declarations. relativity, relativity. for starters, what constitutes mean?”

Please spare me. What does it mean to be mean? Are you honestly telling me that you couldn’t tell the difference between being nice and being mean? Of course you aren’t. You’re just telling me once again that different people have different perspectives. Of course we can’t agree on a perfect, absolute definition, but we both know what I meant by “mean.” If our subjective meanings of such fundamental concepts were so different, how would we even have this dialogue? What’s a dialogue? What do you mean by elephant? Your point had been that people were unpredictable, and that this lent some credence to the idea that the world is mysterious and unknowable and improbable and so on. You specifically said that people’s reactions were unpredictable. I was saying that while people’s precise reactions are in a sense unpredictable, they are knowable in a probabilistic way, in that if you say something nice you tend to get one type of reaction, and when you say something mean you get a very different reaction, such that afterward the reactions you elicit make sense.

“but i am saying you have to be open to the possibiliy that people *can* be psychic [to know whether people can be psychic].”

Well that’s a bit oversimplified I think. Maybe I must be open to the possibility at one point, but if I remain perfectly neutral as I evaluate the evidence for and against psychic phenomena, you might start to wonder about my cognitive capacity. Perhaps I need be open to the possibility that as more evidence is collected, my opinion might change. But that to me is more like a good attitude to take toward research rather than a proposition which has any particular relevance to the study of psychic phenomena. Of course, some paranormal proponents essentially say that you can’t experience the paranormal if you don’t already believe in it. By now you must know what I think of such convenient excuses.

“say, hypothetically, that earth is an atom. as you are composed of over 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 pulsating atoms (assuming you are relatively petite), formed into rotative clusters, which form non-rotative clusters, which for double-helixes, which form clumps of this and that, which form bigger clumps, etc, and there you are. are you omniscient?”

Agree with you here. That’s why I said “by definition” a galactic being, or more accurately, _the_ galactic being, is omniscient. That’s just part of the definition of God. For the record, I think that God probably doesn’t exist, and that there is no such thing as omniscience. But if what you say before and after this is true, the galactic being, God, must have an infinite perspective because that’s part of His definition and people (lots of them) believe this to be true. So, do you really think that your argument for God’s lack of a truly infinite perspective (which I agree with, by the way) is any less reliable than my argument that aura readers are liars?

“do you have to believe in sanskrit to develop an ability to read it?”

Bad example. I’m not trying to develop an ability to read auras, I want to know if others can read auras. Whether Sanskrit exists would be the proper analogue. So in the Sanskrit example, people would be telling me that there is this thing called Sanskrit, and I would say, “Prove it.” If they showed me Sanskrit, I would believe in Sanskrit.

“and if you do not believe in sanskrit, and someone shows you sanskrit, you could say, ‘oh, that's just messy urdu.’”

Then it would be a question of semantics? You’d still be showing me
_something_ though, wouldn’t you? I could not in good faith deny that I was seeing some type of written language. And yet with auras, yes, I can make that denial, because no one can show me an ability to read auras at all. Whether the psychics are reading auras _correctly_ would be the proper analogue to the Sanskrit/messy Urdu example, but I don’t care about that question because no one has shown me that auras or aura readers exist at all. With the Sanskrit example, you could show me why it differs from messy Urdu. Or could you not? If not, why not? Could you not show me the characters and distinguish them for me? If not, why not? Performance anxiety again?

“if there *is* a psychic "language," (and i believe there is, but that there are many) i really doubt anyone has even mastered a single one. why? because it has never been taken seriously.”

That’s fine with me if you believe that. I think there is no such thing as a psychic language, that you can’t master something that doesn’t exist, and that plenty of people have wasted too much time taking such nonsense seriously. No offense.

“the manipulative have long used 'psychicness' as a tool to influence the gullible, and the concept of 'psychicness' has been maligned.”

This kind of reminds me of the Mr. Miyagi argument that proponents of traditional martial arts make to defend their chosen art. Mixed martial arts organizations like Pride and UFC have shown that much of what traditional martial arts teaches is not practical for real world fighting. In the early UFCs, some traditional martial artists participated and lost, sometimes brutally, to guys who trained in Brazilian Juijitsu, boxer/wrestlers, or tough brawlers who had no formal training of any kind. So mixed martial arts competition kind of showed which techniques were useful in fighting and which weren’t. When I was a kid I trained in Shotokan and Kenpo karate, both traditional arts that contain techniques that are both useful and useless. Despite what everyone apparently learned from mixed martial arts, some guys who train in traditional martial arts still claim that there are Kung Fu masters out there who, like Mr. Miyagi in _The Karate Kid_, would destroy any opponent. You see, the guys who participated in mixed martial arts representing traditional arts were not _real_ masters. They were mere pretenders. The masters have never been tested. The masters were Shaolin monks perhaps who lived centuries ago. So those who believe in fiction like Mr. Miyagi can hold onto their beliefs just by saying that those who claimed to represent them weren’t the real deal. Well if the psychics we see aren’t the real deal, where are the real psychics? Don’t tell me, performance anxiety.

“numeric stuff.”

I used to see the number 77 all the time when I was about 13. I thought, wow, the number 77 keeps popping up, that’s weird, I wonder if that number has special significance. Then I thought, maybe I just got it in my head that I liked that number and I noticed it more than other arbitrary numbers, but if I really paid attention, I bet it wouldn’t show up more frequently than, say, 43, or 84, or 22.

“someone i know well takes the words out of my mouth, and i am amazed, but we know each other well, so that could be why. but then, what's the explanation for when that happens with a total stranger?”

Random chance. The fact that you’re talking about the same thing and the conclusion you both came to followed logically from what preceded it. Or if not, pure random chance. You won the taking-words-outta-your-mouth lottery.

“is it enough for you? it's not for me to say! you are obviously an articulate thinker; you'll make your own conclusions (i hope; it would be shame if you didn't) about stuff.”

Yes, it is enough for me, but it is also much more than enough. But then that was really a rhetorical question and I just answered it. But mine was a rhetorical question, too, and you answered mine first.

“why do you enjoy [food / sex / drugs]? is it solely because of your objective awareness that these things are serving you a practical purpose? or do you take pleasure from the subjective experience, getting lost in the heat of the moment and forgetting the realities of it? which is more real? the objective reality that no one experiences, or the subjective realities that is every sentient being's sole reality?”

Well, the reason I said that science was supposed to be objective was that you said that science doesn’t account for subjective experiences. I wasn’t saying that subjective experience wasn’t important. But this doesn’t change the fact that the proper way to evaluate the claims of psychics is not subjectively. Again, I haven’t forgotten (nor did I ever) that no perspective is objective in the absolute sense. But which is more real? The real reality, not my drunk reality, because I know that when I’m drunk, my perspective is altered. I have something to compare it to. Kind of the same way that certain crazy people know they need to get help.

“that's fine. hopefully you never transgress against any of them. but if you don't know what it is like to be them [apple, quark, tim robbins], you don't know them. for the core of what someone is is their experience of being themself.”

With all due respect, that’s horseshit. The core of an apple is its core. The core of a quark is god knows what. The core of Tim Robbins is Susan Sarandon, if I’m not mistaken. Tim Robbins’ own perspective on himself might be worthwhile, but what is the point of speaking of a non-sentient being’s perspective? So let’s stick with Robbins for a minute. I can’t know him if I observe him? Once again, in some technical way, you are right, of course, but since nothing is knowable anyway, why draw the distinction at all? Also, even though I might not know Robbins in an absolute sense, I can know a hell of a lot about him if I tap his phones, bug hise house, and keep him under surveillance for several years (much like George Bush probably is). So where is the relevance to psychic ability here? Does psychic ability have its own perspective? Psychics do, but one more time, I don’t care. I just care whether what they claim is verifiable. Verifiable not in an absolute sense, but in the way science verifies things.

“see? the reason you care about that objective mix of chemicals is because if its effect on your subjective life experience.”

Right. I care about its usefulness. If aura reading is bullshit, it isn’t useful. I guess you might say that some people are better off fooled into believing some comforting lie. That’s fine, I guess. Maybe it’s true.

“if science's nukes blow up the planet, it sure works well. glad we relied on that.”

That and I hear Dr. Frankenstein has some insidious plans as well. Overall, I’d rather stick with medicine and technology and live with the possibility that we may die when we blow each other up or Skynet becomes sentient and eradicates us. But that wasn’t really my point. I was trying to say that the scientific method yields results that cannot be denied, whether you agree that science is progressive or not. It is a fact that science makes my computer and rocket ships, even if you don’t think that’s inherently a good thing.

“you seemed quite comfortable with that same tactic when you listed three things as evidence that science gets things done: medicine, rocket ships, and my computer.”

The existence of medicine, rocket ships, and my computer is not in dispute, though. You were saying that the fact that 2/3 of the population believes in the paranormal lends credibility to the claim that paranormal pehomena exist. That’s not at all what I was saying about medicine, et al. I was merely saying that if the scientific method were so fundamentally flawed that we could not rely on the results of studies that use the scientific method, then how do we explain that science uses those same methods to understand various parts of our world heretofore unseen, a necessary step in making medicine, rocket ships, and computers. So once again, I wasn’t saying that science was good (although I think it is, on balance). I was saying that science gets things done, it yields verifiable results, for if it didn’t, my computer, NASA’s rocket ships, and Dafremen’s lithium wouldn’t work.

“do i believe in jesus? how can i not, when there are a billion people who won't shut up about him, already? there is no need to evaluate the plausibility of such claims.”

Huh? Some people believe in Jesus so you have to believe in Jesus? Don’t you just have to believe that other people believe in Jesus? No? So you don’t distinguish between an idea and the objective, verifiable truth of that idea? Of course I’m familiar with the existence of that perspective, but it’s silly and no one really lives or thinks that way, and if that’s what you’re saying, I think you’re a liar. You know that there is a difference on some level between believing in Santa Clause and Santa Clause actually existing. You might say, “Well not from the perspective of a person who believes in Santa Clause,” but I would reiterate that the difference between perception and reality is real and well documented, and furthermore that if someone believes in Santa Clause and wants you to believe in him too, you should probably get some kind of evidence first before you put the cookies out on Christmas Eve.

“if two billion people believe in such a character, then the character is a truth for two billion people. i see these people at the supermarket and stuff, and they are quite real to me. those people are part of my 'true reality'. so some imaginary person they talk about unceasingly is therefore also a part of my true reality, no matter how implausible or unevaluated jesus might be.”

Sure, but again, people believing in Jesus is a part of your life, the character of Jesus is part of your life. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus actually existed or if he was the son of God. I guess the analogue is, well, people believe in psychic phenomena, so insomuch as people believe in psychic phenomena, psychic phenomena is real. Well, okay, if that makes it real, I guess it’s real. A real belief, that is. But as you said, every belief is real. So psychic phenomena is really something that people believe, I guess. But I wasn’t disputing that. I know that there are people who believe in psychic phenomena. What I’m interested in is showing that their beliefs are demonstrably false, because aura readers and other psychics can’t do what they claim.

“objective analysis cannot accrue 'facts' about subjective realtities. it assumes that psychicness is a) a 'power' that can be 'controlled'; b) that if psychic stuff exists it would be reiterative and constant; c) that the subjective reality known inside of the 'psychic' during the 'psychic moment' about the 'psychic target' can be completely known to the researcher and d) accurately compared to the subjective reality of the 'psychic target' itself.”

That would be all well and good if psychics didn’t by and large accept these same assumptions when dealing with the general public, and if they didn’t fall back on such convenient excuses when they were put to the test by someone who didn’t already believe their claims. If psychic powers can’t be controlled, what do you make of all those psychics who say they can read your palm if you come into their shop and pay them 10 dollars? They must not be “real” psychics, I guess. But again, where are the real psychics? If psychic stuff isn’t reiterative and constant, then what kind of results can psychic ability yield? Like, are you saying that one day my aura might be red, the next day blue, and so on? And that another psychic observing me on those same two days might read my aura as green, then orange? If so, what the hell is an aura? Just a random glowing color? I think it’s a reasonable assumption that psychic ability has to be fairly consistent to say anything meaningful whatsoever.

“psychic stuff (sixth sense, ESP, whatever) occurs within the subjective individual. the 'psychic moment' is subjective to every single imaginable factor present: mood of the psychic, type of psychic target, wind direction, music playing, itchiness, recent nintendo games played, number of bagels consumed during the past year, etc etc. anything could be a factor, no matter how absurd. abstract consideration cannot be hindered by concrete practicalities. science is too matter-of-fact to accept the nature of certain potential influences, and it lacks the power to even remotely recreate even the corporeal events under which ethereal mysteries (of any nature) occur.”

How convenient. It’s magic, so ostensibly irrelevant factors make all the difference. It’s magic, after all. Again, psychics claim that the magic happens all the time in their little psychic shops. Why is it that these infinite confounding factors only come up when someone wants to test the supposed psychic? Seems like more excuses to me.

“and even then it assumes that ethereal mysteries have corporeal manifestations that can be examined, which is completely contrary to the concept of 'ethereal'.”

If what you are saying is an aura would be a corporeal manifestation and we can’t expect aura readers to actually see these corporeal manifestations (the auras they claim to see) then I agree with you completely. If you are saying that psychic phenomena yield no measurable results of any kind outside of subjective experience, I would say, Well, what an impossible claim to disprove, yet how unlike actual psychic claims this appears. Your own psychic moment has “corporeal” results, doesn’t it? You thought of a person and that person called. You could test this. See how often you think of a person and that person calls. Think of me and see if I call. Just kidding, I know, I know, you can’t just turn it on and off. Well, at this point, psychic phenomena becomes nothing more than dreams and the invention of little invisible machines that make things work. I think that such invisible machines are superfluous at best, but tha tthey are more likely misleading and distracting.

“so no, an objective test like the aura study above, is not the best way to study psychicness - nor spiritual auras, for that matter. what kind of test would be best? a subjective, genuine-belief-in-possibility-of-it test.”

A subjective, genuine-belief-in-possibility-of-it test? So is this the test where you ask someone if she sees your aura, and if she says yes, you conclude that we have auras and that the psychic can read auras? That’s a hell of a test. Do you really think science would laugh, or would it sit in stunned silence? Personally, I don’t know which I would do.

“these studies (there have been several, if i recall) used a deck of cards specially made for the test. there were five types of cards in the deck: a heart, a square, a pentacle, etc. (how corny). someone might very well have psychic card moments - but if it is unlikely to begin with, it is especially unlikely when you are talking about a uniquely generated deck specifically to test if people are really psychic.”

And what would have been the excuse if they had used a deck that all the psychics were familiar with, that they had held and looked at before the test? Would it just be that the test wasn’t subjective? Would it be that the test didn’t take account of the number of bagels eaten? Would it be performance anxiety?

“sometimes one person with bad hearing hears something in the distance that goes unnoticed by someone with excellent hearing.”

But if the test were a sight test, even a guy who could barely see would do better than a guy who was completely blind. So in those tests, even if the psychic power only worked for part of the time, we’d still expect the psychics to do better than random chance, right? Shock of shocks, they did not do better than random chance.

“if you are really capable of hearing brahms third symphony, why can't you hear it right now?" has to be playing somewhere, doesn't it? otherwise one can only imagine or remember.”

Here you would say, “You must play it for me to hear it.” That’s reasonable. It’s not reasonable to say, “Well I’m not even sure I ever heard it or if I did ever hear it that I ever will again, no matter what you do with that piano.” At that point I’d start to think you never heard the song.

“oh, you think you're mister funny man? do something funny. say something funny right now." certain skills become inoperable when demanded.”

Comedy doesn’t become impossible when it is demanded. Ever been to a comedy club? The comics go on knowing what’s expected of them and they still make people laugh. They get nervous, too, and sometimes they bomb, but when a guy is a comedian, he will be funny more often than a person who is not funny and not a comedian. Why can’t psychics be held to the same standard? Are they just really nervous people? Again, returning to your erection example: psychics _are_ the porno stars. They are the ones who should be able to get it up on demand. Otherwise, they might be in the wrong profession.

“sure, people say things to be tricky all the time. doesn't mean the underlying concept is impossible.”

But does it make it seem more likely or less likely to you, when there is an obvious ulterior motive?

“i also believe in an endless cycle of existence, tempered by occasional life. but where would one begin testing for previous life? there's no physical evidence, and unless there is some sort of psychic something or other, there can be no memory of it.”

To me that pushes psychic phenomena into the realm of comforting lie. You want to believe that there is an endless cycle of existence, and this belief is premised on the existence of the paranormal. I can’t prove that your metaphysics are wrong, of course. It just smells a little fishy to me.

“as a final note, i don't think people can ever be wholly objective, though some like to think it...that is, we can only be objective about our subjectivity, and we tend to deny how subjective we are about objectivity.”

No doubt that is a valid concern. I just think that we need to make certain reasonable assumptions to say or do anything, and there’s sort of a paralysis that accompanies the technically true statement that every truth is filtered through subjective experience.

Funny if we’re both wrong and end up in Jesus’ hell. 		050905
...
andru235 for the record, the last several paragraphs are a better representation of what i actually think, but who can resist an interesting argument?!? not me, that's for sure. i simply *must* opine.


[[[[[[STRONTIUM ELEPHANTS]]]]]]

====but you don’t believe that, do you? And if people watched you and told you that you hadn’t been abducted, wouldn’t you start to believe that you were just crazy? I mean, some people do see and hear things that are not there. How is it that they come to receive medical help?====

a) one cannot assume that the "visits" from "strontium elephants" are necessarily a detraction from the quality of the person's sentience. while it may be convenient for other people to not have to deal with such silly references, it is folly to assume that such an experience is a "problem" that needs to be "fixed". if the strontium elephants are commanding the person to kill, then of course there is a problem. but what if the strontium elephants are commanding the person to follow their dreams? what if the strontium elephants are this person's only source of hope? absurd, i know. but pertinent!


[[[[[[WHO IS RIGHT?]]]]]]

====If you believe in magic elephants, then the world you see is not the world as it is. That’s what I believe. And if you believe in psychics and I don’t, well, then only one of us can be correct.====

i think it's too easy to say that only one of us can be correct. in a room-temperature, 3rd-empire french drawing room, you sweat while i shiver. who is more accurately perceiving the temp? not the best example, i know. but i still don't think that its as easy as saying only one of us can be right.


[[[[[[PSYCHIC PLASMA?!?]]]]]]

====Okay, so fire is hot to people. Are you saying that psychic ability might be real to plasma?====

oh, do be kidding. i never said anything even remotely close to that. go back and re-read if necessary.

the point was that something we consider so definite, and can be demonstrated (i.e. fire is hot) does not make fire inherently hot to all things.

so, that which is demonstrable may be true to certain types of *subjects* who test it, i.e. humans testing fire. this means that fire's heat is a *subjective* truth. and with it, pretty much all truth based upon demonstration. the same demonstration might prove something totally different to something with different perceptions than us.

====Forgive me for being coarse, but who gives a shit what plasma perceives? It’s my understanding that plasma is a highly charged particle state that has no sense organs and has little to say on the matter.====

how can you even pretend to be objective if you want to completely ignore all possibilities of what "plasma" might perceive, simply because you are apathetic or think it is silly? finding something too absurd to consider is a subjective bias - and frankly, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we call it what it is. but let us not feign objectivity when it is a state foreign to humans.

and if plasma did have sense organs, what would they look like? human organs? procaryote organelles? ha ha ha ha ha, you so silly. of course they would look nothing like anything we had ever seen.

==== The point you’re making here is really just that we all have different subjective perspectives. Well, of course.====

well, of course. and so, our perception of what constitutes 'objective' varies all the same. thus, 'objective' is 'subjective'.

====To a person who cannot feel it, fire is not hot.But I wouldn’t say that means that fire isn’t, in fact, objectively hot.====

but it isn't objectively hot, per plasma. snow is not cold, per solid-helium. an ability to sense it is irrelevant. room temperature is scorching to solid-helium, because it will change states while approaching 72F. room temperature is frigid to all known plasma.

so, if definition is really such a source of objectivity, is room temperature hot or cold? really, it isn't either. nor is it 72, because a different scale gives it a different number. nor is it a certain state, because it varies per molecule. nor is it a certain rate of sub-atomic activity, because that depends greatly upon the atom.

room temperature still refers to something, but any attempt to define exactly *what* it refers to will be partially correct, and partially incorrect. even saying, "well, it's always 72 fahrenheit," relies on the abstract, non-existent, subjective scale of 'fahrenheit'. nature couldn't care less about fahrenheit, nor reaumur, nor kelvin, nor rankine, nor centigrade. they are arbitrarily constructed ideas so that we may attempt to define and interpret our world. but these ideas are not flawless; and if there is something whose 'temperature' exists along some other strata, we won't be able to correctly interpret it with existing scales, no matter how constant the returned value is. relativity, relativity. it's annoying, i know!


[[[[[[TESTING THIS, TESTING THAT]]]]]]

====If a guy is paralyzed from the waist down and his leg catches on fire, [...] there remain tests which one can use to determine the truth of the others’ claims.====

you are keep saying this with regards to things which exist on the physical plane of existence. at the core of the idea of psychicness (to me, anyway) is the idea that it is a non-physicality. why would it be testable by the things that test physicality?

====If only one such study or only a few had been done, then the performance anxiety excuse might work. But every psychic ever tested is always too nervous to deliver the goods? Sounds a little fishy to me.====

it sounds fishy to you because your *belief* is that all things can be tested. again - my experience with 'psychicness' is that it descends upon me; i cannot solicit it. many, including myself, 'claim' to have had a dream and, days later, seen it play out. how could one possibly force this? i have never claimed to be able to spontaneously know what joe is thinking; thats not even what i consider psychicness. psyche - the greek word for soul - is all abstraction. it isn't about concretions. a concrete test for abstraction is as absurd as the reverse.

====But If I were a woman and had never seen an erection, and in my pursuit of erection evidence I always came up empty handed, you know what? I would doubt the existence of erections.====

that's what i keep saying! not finding evidence of something equals zero evidence that it doesn't exist. you, in your search for psychic evidence, have always come up empty handed.

====You know what was a good test of the ability of psychics? When Houdini told his wife a secret code before he died and then after he died she went to various psychics and none of them could ever tell her the secret code. Were they all too nervous?====

oh, how empirical. oh, how objective.

[[[[[[THE CONCERT]]]]]]

====You’re comparing descriptives and normatives===

what is a normative other than a description of a norm?!? we have both been doing this the whole time.

====Whether the music was good or not and other things that require a subjective judgment [...]====

scientific advances are not exempt from this. going to the moon wasn't inherently great. in the eyes of some, it is a glaring example of how fucked up our priorities are. i'm not saying they are right, but n.a.s.a. isn't angelic simply because of scientific advances.

====but they will agree substantially on the descriptive stuff.====

no they won't. a routine problem with police investigations is that ten people who saw the exact same thing describe ten mutually-exclusive situations. correct or incorrect, the descriptions are almost never congruent.


[[[[[[AURA STUDY]]]]]]

====Aura color is not a normative, it is a descriptive. It’s supposed to be a color, for god’s sake.====

no, no, no. only some 'aura-readers' claim to see colors. some claim to see "fields of happy" or "an aura of mischieviousness". the idea isn't that someone exudes a color.

the idea is that there is an intangible aspect to character that emnates from people. for some, this manifests itself as a vague, 'gut' feeling. for others, they recognize a trait that they observed in someone else, and thus induce similarity. and for yet others, they see an aura, perhaps colored, perhaps not.

i have never experienced "seeing an aura". i have had the other two, gut feelings and induction. if my friend said, "hey, watch this. i'll predict the personalities of five strangers based on their auras," i'd snort my drink up my nose. but if my friend suddenly grabbed my shoulder and said, "i'm seeing a creepy aura around that guy over there, let's move" i'd base my response on the moment, not on my previous studies or biases against auras. then again, there is no accounting for tastes, eh?

====If it can’t be tested for there’s no point in testing for it.====

right. but if one believes that everything can be tested for, then may i suggest they conduct an objective study to see if they actually exist? not everything can be tested for.

====I guess it doesn’t mention that [...] manipulating the data behind the scenes.====

has it been ruled out? i don't believe there is an omnipotent being manipulating the data, but that's just what i believe. personally, i think data manipulates itself quite well on its own. (read the book how_to_lie_with_statistics)

for the record, it was recently disclosed that in a study on american studies, data manipulation and misrepresentation was found in over 35% of formal studies. and thats only what was found. on the other hand, does that include the study itself? so studies must be taken with a grain of salt.

198x: study - milk very healthy
198x+2: study - milk not healthy at all
198x+5: study - milk somewhat healthy
199x: study - milk very healthy
199x+2: study - milk terribly unhealthy
199x+5: study - milk healthy for women only

====So basically it doesn’t mention that possibility because it is quantitative research that assumes subjective perspective is not reality ...====

a dangerous assumption. an unprovable assumption. an untestable assumption. we can only guess at the subjective realities of others. there are many realities about myself that no one else who knows me knows of. (such as the dot game: how many dots can i visually keep track of in my mind, without resorting to substituting numbers for dot clusters? i never said i'm mr. cool. but it is a very curious game, and i've gotten much better over the years.)

====... and that objective tests can yield meaningful results about the world we actually live in.====

to you, perhaps. thats a very subjective statement. define meaningful. define the world we actually live in.

another recent study on prayer found that people who were hospitalized recovered no more quickly when prayed for than when not prayed for. the study concluded that prayer didn't affect recovery. note in advance: i am not generally the praying type.

the study didn't ask the patients if they were 'receptive' to being prayed for, and even if they had, patients could have lied. what kind of prayers did the people who prayed pray? are certain prayers more effective than others? how to know what people are actually thinking when they pray? does one have to pray while humming? and on and on.

waaaaaayyyy too many factors to make any conclusions about 'praying', one way or the other. but let's pretend that the study actually 'proved' that prayer had no effect on patients. does that mean people shouldn't pray? what if someone derives a lot of hope from prayer? should they forsake prayer simply to be more connected to 'the actual world', even if it means less hope and more despair (which it may or may not)? would it be better for someone to feel good by praying or by taking a pill? there is no correct answer to these questions. so what is really accomplished with such a study?

and who knows what the relevant factors in these things are? it varies so greatly from person to person, how could one possibly test using the scientific method? there is no pool of constants to be found. even ten anabaptists from the same congregation don't pray the same way, though they might think they do.

the people tested in these psychic studies are like zealots who say, "i'm going to pray, and god is going to listen to me. watch!" and then, god doesn't listen. these aren't things we can command.

====If it is an ephemeral event then wow, how unlucky of the researchers to collect data just as the aura readers’ abilities disappeared into the ether!====

you don't understand 'ephemeral'. "lasting only a brief time; transitory." and you seem to persist in the notion that psychicness is inherently something one controls, and thus can be solicited. admittedly, this *is* what those psychics claim.


[[[[[[STRONTIUM ELEPHANT RETURNS]]]]]]

====And the strontium elephant can be disproven. Have others watch you. Videotape yourself.====

i already covered this, no? at the outset of the strontium elephant example, i said, """ they could watch me all night, and no, i was not abducted ... """

if i believe it, if it seems real to me, then it *is* real to me. the only way this cannot be so is if observation is not a reliable source of data. so, which is it? you deny the psychics in the studies, because they cannot provide an 'objective' example for you to subjectively observe - and yes, that is the only type of observation we humans (or anything) possess. yet then, when someone observes strontium elephants, you argue that observation cannot be trusted. well, i certainly agree! but what does this mean for so many studies based upon observation? and if the strontium elephants are not to be believed because that more people didn't observe them that those who did, isn't that an appeal to raw numbers, which you derided me for earlier? :D

p.s. have you seen any movies recently videotape is no guarantor of truth. it's practically as easy to alter as photography or, for that matter, a painting.

====Chain yourself to the bed.====

i was hoping you'd do that for me. :D


[[[[[[TESTING...TESTING...]]]]]]

====There are ways to test other than your limited perspective, whether or not you love the scientific method. It’s really just common sense.====

it is? is 'common sense' what it's really just? any 'test' other than one's limited perspective can only be interpreted through one's limited perspective, and thus is ultimately still subjected to the very same limits.

====So if nothing can be proven absolutely, then why resist subjecting psychic phenomena to the same standards as everything else?====

go ahead. but what same standards for everything else? every single study must change the parameters of what it considers to be 'standard', else risk ridiculousness. sure, you can effectively study cancer with the same parameters used to study maine congressional voters. that is, such a study will produce 'effects' (thus effectively). but the effects will be bizarre, and dubious.

again, "the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater." (this cliche makes me giggle, yet i find it wonderfully illustrative).

and if nothing can be proven absolutely, why expect that the level of provability of of things would be at all consistent? would some things, surely, be more 'provable' and 'regular' than others? or is everything, by some strange act of divine arbitration, 99.3% provable?

i'm just saying that doing so is sort of (and i know, only sort of) analogous to giving several people a test such as "what did you do yesterday" and concluding that since their answers varied, and couldn't be externally validated, for the video tape could have been forged, that they were obviously all lying.

"show me right now that yesterday you were biking!"

====Some might not think so, like paralyzed guys and plasma,====

:D

====I think I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that aura readers are liars.====

then you surely will. for what we think is what is real to us.


[[[[[[LET'S BE MEAN]]]]]]

====Of course we can’t agree on a perfect, absolute definition, but we both know what I meant by “mean.”====

because of faith in a mutually shared definition.

====If our subjective meanings of such fundamental concepts were so different, how would we even have this dialogue?====

but don't you see? we are just *barely* able to have this dialogue. every point you or i make spawns fifteen thoughts in the other one of us. we are limited by words, and must constantly assume that a definition is shared. for a long, long time, i thought "trite" meant something other than it does, and i have yet to find a replacement word for what i thought it meant. thus, we have within us myriad concepts for which we have no means of expression. struggle though we may in vain, our attempts at conveying our minds to one another is a challenging and near-futile process. i often wonder if this is why people seek a constant and ordered universe? i'll never know.

i imagine a mountain range, and the vision inspires me with feeling. even if i can draw you the mountain range, i cannot convey the inspired feeling(s), or subsequent thought trains.

what is real? an ordered, logical plane of electrical charges that no one will ever know nor actually experience? or the disordered, illogical planes of ephemeral feeling and sensations that every entity experiences? how could the former possibly be what constitutes 'real', when it is never a reality to something experiencing?

====I was saying that while people’s precise reactions are in a sense unpredictable, they are knowable in a probabilistic way,====

probability isn't actuality.

====if I remain perfectly neutral as I evaluate the evidence for and against psychic phenomena, you might start to wonder about my cognitive capacity.====

indeed, i would wonder. it is this neutrality that i find most alarming in other studies, as well. but as i keep saying, if i refuse the possibility that forks exist, i could go through meal after meal, eating with a fork, but finding some alternative explanation for things that better suited my world view. and *that* is something every person does, and shall continue doing. there is no way around it, except to acknowledge that it is so. only by accepting everything is everything knowable. and even then, most of everything remains a mystery. paradox, paradox.

[[[[[[OH, AURAS]]]]]]

===="do you have to believe in sanskrit...." Bad example. I’m not trying to develop an ability to read auras, I want to know if others can read auras.====

you'd still have to believe that there even were auras to be read, no? if you didn't believe there were auras in the first place, why would you wonder if people could read them? i stand by my analogy. but, i also agree with your argument against it, for the most part.

==== And yet with auras, yes, I can make that denial, because no one can show me an ability to read auras at all.====

the sanskrit says: look right

the person claiming to read sanskrit says it reads, "glance not leftward".

everyone recoils with disgust, when the electronic device indicates that in fact it says "appear correctly".

is aura reading not subject to interpretation? can you read the minds of those who claim to see auras? if you can't see auras, how do you know if what they are claiming to see is correct or not? i, too, think that most of them are charlatans, but this does not lead me to discount the possibility. who knows what others can do with their minds? for all i know, something you do that you consider ordinary and common is something that i have never even imagined, and vice versa.

====With the Sanskrit example, you could show me why it differs from messy Urdu. Or could you not? If not, why not? Could you not show me the characters and distinguish them for me? If not, why not? Performance anxiety again?====

first off, performance anxiety is a reality for many people at many times regarding many things. it *is* all too inconvenient, practically no one disagrees with that. don't knock it till you've tried it, but i cannot advocate that you try it.

the difference with sanskrit and urdu, of course, is that they are concrete and tangible (more or less) whereas psychicness, auras, opinions, feelings, esp, etc, are all abstractions. you complain about the convenience of this abstraction only because you demand to see it through concrete lenses. concrete lenses will show you only concretion. the abstract is not set in stone.

====and that plenty of people have wasted too much time taking such nonsense seriously. No offense.====

none taken. that's exactly how i feel about the claims made by religion and science regarding their ability to uncover the truth about existence. no matter how much my consciousness may be affected by chemicals, all the knowledge about subatomics et al doesn't begin to explain why i have a conscioussness in the first place to be so affected. the chemicals build the automaton, but cannot put 'me' inside of that automaton.

you do realize, of course, that if everything comes down to logical, orderly processions, the will is soon usurped and us 'crazy' psychic people are powerless to think otherwise...

====Well if the psychics we see aren’t the real deal, where are the real psychics? Don’t tell me, performance anxiety.====

i sense you are not someone who has experienced performance anxiety, given your willingness to snicker at it. or perhaps it is your coping mechanism? no, you don't seem like a performance-anxiety type. hot!

anyway, let's try something else, since we've already gone around several times about both of those points.

what do you expect psychicness to 'look' like? you are thinking about a dove, and someone says, 'you are thinking about a dove'? that's what most people's perception on the matter seems to be, but it ain't mine.

from the phone call thing - which, as said, has happened with people known well and people known hardly at all - to dreams that 'come to pass', to 'numeric things' (i'll get to that shortly), to vague inexplicable sensations about things, to whatever else i'm forgetting...all of these can be explained quite simply, in various ways. for you, the simple explanation is that there was some other reason. for me, the simple explanation is that it was a psychic moment.

ok. now, if there *was* a spiritual world, and it decided to enact effects upon a physical world, wouldn't those effects necessarily appear to have a physical explanation? granted, this is a rather obnoxious hypothetical. but nevertheless, its there. the spiritual world cannot be proven nor disproven, and if it does exist, there would be no physical evidence, because it isn't physical. so events in the physical realm which some claim to be spiritual in nature *of course* have a physical manifestation. that's what makes it a physical event. and sure, there are other physical precursors.

but science tends to think it is answering 'why' when it is really answering 'how'. electical voltage coarsing through neurons may physically explain 'how' i think, but that does nothing to explain 'why' i think. indeed, the frontiers of neuroscience, quantum physics, and astronomy explain many 'hows', and use that 'how' as a substitute for 'why'. but 'how' is not 'why'.

oh, who am i kidding. that is a semantic mess if i ever created one. however, it does illustrate the ineffectuality of language.

====Random chance. The fact that you’re talking about the same thing and the conclusion you both came to followed logically from what preceded it. Or if not, pure random chance. You won the taking-words-outta-your-mouth lottery.====

how could this universe of order, this studiable, organized universe, which can be understood through testing and testing only, how could there be any room for randomness?!? but there is randomness, as far as we can tell, scattered about here and there. of course, randomness being a pattern, there isn't randomness after all.

====But this doesn’t change the fact that the proper way to evaluate the claims of psychics is not subjectively.====

such a fact has not been established! your subjective reality perhaps says it is, mine says it isn't. given proof's unprovability, we'll have to have faith in our subjective experiences.

====Again, I haven’t forgotten (nor did I ever) that no perspective is objective in the absolute sense.====

i believe you. but that's pretty critical to most of this!

[[[[[[SOLIPSISM? WHO KNOWS?]]]]]]

====With all due respect, that’s horseshit. The core of an apple is its core. The core of a quark is god knows what. The core of Tim Robbins is Susan Sarandon, if I’m not mistaken.====

you say that because of what you know, based on having been yourself. i can't say that you are wrong, i haven't been you. the core of what someone is is their experience of being themself. i stand by it. there are a zillion aspects of myself that i haven't shown to other people. some of which i don't even know *how* to show to people. some of these aspects are very critical to the sentient experience i have been having now for several decades.

====I can’t know him if I observe him?====

not entirely.

====Once again, in some technical way, you are right, of course, but since nothing is knowable anyway, why draw the distinction at all?====

because if the destinction isn't drawn, then people forget, and assume that what they know is the absolute fact, and so begin the transgressions. thinking that one 'knows' may open several doors, but it also closes doors to alternate knowledge.

====Also, even though I might not know Robbins in an absolute sense, I can know a hell of a lot about him if I tap his phones, bug his house, and keep him under surveillance for several years====

it's hard to say what you'd really know about him. you'd have to have knowledge of his absolute self to compare it with. and the only way absolute knowledge about him can be accrued is by being him.

====Tim Robbins’ own perspective on himself might be worthwhile====

*MIGHT* BE?!?

====but what is the point of speaking of a non-sentient being’s perspective?====

who knows where sentience begins and ends?

consciousness_without_a_brain

====I just care whether what they claim is verifiable. Verifiable not in an absolute sense, but in the way science verifies things.====

it probably isn't verifiable. i can't imagine how one would possibly verify it. that's what i've been saying all along.

you're perfectly justified in thinking it a sham; likewise, i am perfectly justified in thinking it an ethereal eventuality.

====I guess you might say that some people are better off fooled into believing some comforting lie.====

it could be argued that that is every one of us...but no one would admit it! everyone thinks themselves the lone exception.

out of curiousity, if you have kids, what would you tell them about santa claus and the easter bunny?

====I was merely saying that if the scientific method were so fundamentally flawed...====

i've never once said it was fundamentally flawed.

====...that we could not rely on the results of studies that use the scientific method, ... in making medicine, rocket ships, and computers.====

they're all physical! i've never denied that the scientific method works particularily well for physical processes.

the only reason i'm even in this argument is because that - from my perspective - the mystery of life is that this huge pile of chemicals houses a sentient entity who is more than mere automaton. as thus, there is either a lot more to those chemicals than we seem to think, or there is something ethereal about us. so, things such as psychicness and other phenomena which claim to stem from an ethereal realm (call it what you will) are not likely to be discovered nor manipulated with science as we know it.

====Huh? Some people believe in Jesus so you have to believe in Jesus? Don’t you just have to believe that other people believe in Jesus?====

how is that *not* believing in jesus? how can i believe in someone and deny a core tenet of their life? i don't have to agree, nor do i have to take it seriously. but if i believe in sally, and sally believes in jesus, or silvery grapefruit, for that matter, then 'jesus' is at least slightly real to me, because sally is real to me. hopefully she will choose silvery grapefruit, however. i simply cannot handle much more jesusization.

====You know that there is a difference on some level between believing in Santa Clause and Santa Clause actually existing.====

if i have a kid, and my kid spends forty hours during the month of december thinking about santa claus, wondering about santa claus, and drawing santa claus, then santa claus is real. is only that which is corporeal real? for then, 36.271 is not real. no, santa claus is 'not real' to me. but my kid would be real to me, and thus, the things my kid dreams of would be real, since i would believe in my kid's dreams. how could one *not*? to not believe in someone's dreams, be they tangible or absurd, is to not fully believe in them.

if mere belief is so useless, explain the mystery of placebos.

====If psychic stuff isn’t reiterative and constant, then what kind of results can psychic ability yield?====

perhaps the question is really one of, would you accept any results that weren't reiterative and constant? if it *does* exist, psychicness could come in many, various forms.

====If you are saying that psychic phenomena yield no measurable results of any kind outside of subjective experience, I would say, Well, what an impossible claim to disprove, yet how unlike actual psychic claims this appears====

i haven't once aligned myself with such psychics. i have only spoken of it in irregular, obtuse terms. nevertheless, it is incon

====That’s a hell of a test. Do you really think science would laugh, or would it sit in stunned silence? Personally, I don’t know which I would do.====

i'm not sure either.

====And what would have been the excuse if they had used a deck that all the psychics were familiar with, that they had held and looked at before the test? Would it just be that the test wasn’t subjective? Would it be that the test didn’t take account of the number of bagels eaten? Would it be performance anxiety? ====

point taken.

====Why can’t psychics be held to the same standard? Are they just really nervous people?====

that's really what it is, yes.

====psychics _are_ the porno stars. They are the ones who should be able to get it up on demand. Otherwise, they might be in the wrong profession.====

i agree.

====To me that pushes psychic phenomena into the realm of comforting lie. You want to believe that there is an endless cycle of existence, and this belief is premised on the existence of the paranormal. I can’t prove that your metaphysics are wrong, of course. It just smells a little fishy to me.====

isn't the idea of death a comforting lie? what makes you think you're getting any rest, buster?

in the west, we say, "where is there any evidence of reincarnation?"

in the east, they say, "where is there any evidence against reincarnation?"

but i don't believe in reincarnation, per say. i just think there are endless permutations, and that anything could potentially exist, somehow, somewhere (not in this realm, of course).

====Funny if we’re both wrong and end up in Jesus’ hell.====

fearmongering at its finest (not you, them). don't believe in it, and it won't ever be your reality. i'm not worried in the least.

====I just think that we need to make certain reasonable assumptions to say or do anything, ====

i really do agree. it's just that, i think there are exceptions to every rule. that is what my life has shown me, and it seems like whenever i start to forget that, i'm made painfully aware of it again.

as i said previously, half of my brain agrees with nearly everything you have said (not quite everything, but 90% +).
it's just that, as i also said previously, i agree with what have been saying, also. paradoxic, it is. i see paradox everywhere. maybe that is my madness, i guess i don't care. i see what i see. and i sense there is a lot i am not seeing, no matter how hard i look.

it was paradox that made me first start to wonder if there wasn't perhaps more going on than mere science. i'll never know, of course. i guess, i hope there is. and if that hope leads me to delusion, i would rather have delusion and hope than reality and despair. when i only believed in science and logic, i was very nihilistic, and very unhappy. does prefering hope, at all costs, to despair, make me crazy? maybe, but it also makes me human.

when i was in 6th grade and we learned that we were just a big pile of atoms, i became totally depressed. how meaningless, i thought. yet, to my dad, that's great, what a source of meaning. tastes, i guess.

years later, it dawned on me that, while chemicals can explain 99% of my corpse, they cannot explain my prescence within it. i cannot be sure that everyone else is not an empty automaton, but i know - if i know anything at all - that i am not *empty*. automaton, who knows.

i am a composer, and there have been multiple times that i have gone and researched the score of a piece of music i really liked, only to find that once i knew what was going on, i didn't enjoy it as much. now, when i feel an urge to study scores, i really think about it beforehand. am i willing to lose the mystery of this?

yet, i always find the pieces i write to be someone mysterious, even though i know exactly what's going on musically. that is, despite knowing how to construct harmonious polyphony, i'm still amazed that it sounds so cool (not just my music, all music).

and as to the belief-determines-reality thing, i've seen so many people say, "oh, i'm not musical. i'd never be good at music." well, then they aren't. i only started to get good at writing music when i began lying to myself, deluding myself into believing that i could do something that, based on all prior evidence, i couldn't. now i write music all the time, and am quite confident about my skills at it. so i cannot say that delusion is without value. of course, its quite relative.

lastly, do i really consider myself psychic? i don't know. i'm not sure. there have been a lot of tough-to-explain-otherwise little events in the past several years, some of which involved prescience. others were strange, highly improbable coincidence.

i'm very aware that it could be mere chance. or that perhaps i am crazy. or that perhaps i am sane, and there is a logical explanation. or that perhaps there is something going on here. all i know is that i don't know enough to rule out any of them, and that there is really no means for me to go back and test them. i can only wonder.

as far as those who proclaim themselves psychic, or aura-readers, i too am very skeptical. "that's nice," i think, "but if you're after money or wealth, wouldn't it be better not to tip your hand, and keep such skills secret?"

and when i see scientists (this is irrelevant to our discussion) who claim to merely be interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake, i always wonder why they bother attaching their name to the idea.

i'll respond one more time after this, and then i'll let you have the last word. this has been very enjoyable. 		050906
...
42 usc 1983 “one cannot assume that the "visits" from "strontium elephants" are necessarily a detraction from the quality of the person's sentience. while it may be convenient for other people to not have to deal with such silly references, it is folly to assume that such an experience is a "problem" that needs to be "fixed". if the strontium elephants are commanding the person to kill, then of course there is a problem. but what if the strontium elephants are commanding the person to follow their dreams?”

My point wasn’t about whether the visits from the elephants were good, but whether they were true, whether they were an accurate representation of reality. If they were delusional fantasies, they might be good or bad, but hey cannot be true. You were saying essentially that perception is reality, because subjective truth is equivalent to objective truth or that there is no such thing as objective truth. My point was that you can’t just look at a person’s individual perceptions and say that’s the person’s reality because that’s not how it works in real life. When I’m dreaming, I often don’t know that I’m dreaming, so while what I experience in my dream seems real while I’m asleep, when I wake up I know that what went on in my dream did not actually happen. Similarly, when I’m drunk, I don’t really think the world has become all blurry and fuzzy, because I know my perception is skewed by alcohol. My point is that real people recognize that their perceptions are not reality.

“i think it's too easy to say that only one of us can be correct. in a room-temperature, 3rd-empire french drawing room, you sweat while i shiver. who is more accurately perceiving the temp?”

Again with the relativity? Psychics are liars. That’s my position. If you say otherwise, only one of us can be right. Of course, maybe some psychics are liars. Yes, maybe others genuinely believe they have powers. Maybe there is one psychic that actually has powers. Maybe we both don’t understand what psychics are, etc. But the claims of psychics are either substantially right or wrong. Anyway, you haven’t really argued some middle ground. I don’t see you arguing that psychics can’t predict things or read auras. If you are saying that then we have no argument.

“oh, do be kidding. i never said anything even remotely close to that. go back and re-read if necessary.”

Kidding of course, but my point was that I thought that it was absurd to speak of understanding things from the perspective of a state of matter. I thought the whole relativity point there was a distraction. I was saying that fire is hot, saying that people think fire is hot because it is hot, not the converse, and you were saying, well, fire is hot because people think so and you used plasma as an example of something that, I guess, wouldn’t think fire is hot.

“the point was that something we consider so definite, and can be demonstrated (i.e. fire is hot) does not make fire inherently hot to all things.”

Obviously, it’s the same relativity point you keep making. So in that light, you were talking about the perspective of plasma, which I think is silly because plasma doesn’t have a perspective.

“fire's heat is a *subjective* truth.”

Well look, in a technical sense, everything is a subjective truth, but some things are more objectively true. Like the hotness of fire. That’s why I used it as an example. Are you arguing that there is no such thing as degrees of subjectivity? Are you arguing that everything is just subjective, period, without distinction between that which is demonstrably true and that which is contentious and the matter of speculation and yopinion? I think that’s an unrealistic point of view. In reality, you know that fire is hot. So you call it a subjective truth while knowing it is a fact. That’s why you don’t stick your hand in fire hoping that you, like the plasma, won’t find fire all that hot, right?

“how can you even pretend to be objective if you want to completely ignore all possibilities of what "plasma" might perceive, simply because you are apathetic or think it is silly?”

Is plasma an analogue for something that could possibly have sentience and therefore could possibly have a point of view? If so, then of course you’re right and we don’t disagree. I like to consider the perspectives of others. Looking at others’ points of view is important; it helps a person be unprejudiced against others. But if plasma is just plasma, then it doesn’t have a point of view. It may have a point of view as a thought exercise, I guess. But you used plasma as a way to say that not all people have the same perspective. So beyond that, I’m not convinced there’s much of a point in speculating about plasma’s point of view. Oh, of course there’s a point in everything, I know.

“and if plasma did have sense organs, what would they look like? human organs? procaryote organelles? ha ha ha ha ha, you so silly. of course they would look nothing like anything we had ever seen.”

If we have no evidence that plasma is sensing, then speculating about the mechanisms of plasma’s sentience seems a bit pointless to me. Once plasma says something interesting, I’ll start wondering about how it did that.

“well, of course. and so, our perception of what constitutes 'objective' varies all the same. thus, 'objective' is 'subjective'.”

Oh, okay, so let’s just stop using the word “objective,” then, since there is no such thing. Look, while what you are saying is technically correct, this is the point I’ve been making: It is probably more accurate to say, rather than “everything is subjective,” that there is a spectrum between objectivity and subjectivity. While nothing may be completely objective, some things are more concrete than others. Like the heat of fire. That’s the way people actually live, anyway.

“but it isn't objectively hot, per plasma. snow is not cold, per solid-helium. an ability to sense it is irrelevant. room temperature is scorching to solid-helium, because it will change states while approaching 72F. room temperature is frigid to all known plasma.”

Saying that the heat of fire is subjective, while technically true, is a nullity and a distraction. To argue that everything is subjective is a cheap way of arguing against anything and it doesn’t really say anything about whether aura readers’ claims are true. You can argue against any truth claim that way. Say I kill a guy. I murder a man. Let’s say I set him on fire. At my trial, could I or should I be able to exculpate myself if I say, “Well, to plasma, fire isn’t hot, and I don’t think fire is hot either, so I couldn’t have intended to murder this man, and furthermore, to me, the guy isn’t even dead because I talk to him in my dreams every night!” To me, arguing that there is no such thing as objectivity is like saying, “Well, that’s, like, your opinion, man.” It’s not a useful way to deal with truth claims. The idea that every supposedly objective perspective is really just a subjective one is a caveat, not a proper way of disposing of a truth claim, because it would dispose of every truth claim and we’d never be able to say anything or get anything done. Like I said before, it leads to paralysis. So thank Allah that no one actually believes that (including you).

“so, if definition is really such a source of objectivity, is room temperature hot or cold?”

The room temperature example is so silly. You take something that will vary greatly from person to person and from room to room and then say, See, this means that everything is subjective. Well, if we were in the same room, I bet we’d agree substantially. If you just came in from the heat and I was hanging out in the frozen food aisle, we might disagree, but that’s pretty obvious. And the heat of fire is way more objective than this. Think about it: a spectrum. If you don’t want to oversimplify things, why oversimplify the idea of objectivity/subjectivity by saying, simply, that everything is subjective? We (both you and I, in reality) would both agree on the heat of fire; it’s something about which we can agree (unless you’re actually made of plasma, you tricky devil). But look, here’s probably a more important point: Even if you were plasma, you would know that fire is hot to people, so we could agree on the heat of fire (relative to humans, which was really implicit in the statement anyway) even if we couldn’t sense it ourselves. Just like the guy who is paralyzed from the waist down knows that fire is hot although he can’t feel it. Fire is demonstrably hot. There is evidence for this. Like the paralyzed guy’s burning flesh. Are the claims of psychics demonstrably true in a similar way? Let’s use the same standard as we do for the heat of fire, or anything else for that matter. Can psychic phenomena be demonstrated? Can psychic phenomena be shown to be true to a person who doesn’t sense it, just as fire can? Where’s the analogue to the smell of burning flesh? Similarly, let’s take supposed psychic phenomena like you thinking about a person before that person calls you. There’s an alternate explanation for that which requires no paranormal phenomena. Is there such an example to “explain away” the heat of fire? Would such an explanation convince you? Would you put your hand into fire after hearing such an explanation?

“you are keep saying this with regards to things which exist on the physical plane of existence. at the core of the idea of psychicness (to me, anyway) is the idea that it is a non-physicality. why would it be testable by the things that test physicality?”

It tests the results, though. It’s not like someone is trying to design a meter to detect psychic phenomena. Some claims cannot be verified, like your feeling that you used psychics ability to anticipate a phone call. I mean, you could test your psychic ability by thinking about people and seeing if they call you, but as you said, these dubious psychic powers don’t work all the time. But what about aura readers? They say they can see auras. There was this other study where people stood behind sheets that ended just above their heads. Supposedly the aura emanates from a person’s body such that one would see a glowing light at least a few inches past a person’s head. So in this study, the purported aura readers’ task was simple: determine if there’s a person behind the sheet. If the aura reader could see or sense in some other way a person’s aura (which, keep in mind, despite your contention that there is no physical evidence of psychic phenomena, is supposed to be a glowing color of some kind), then the psychic should know when there is a person behind such a sheet and when there is no person behind the sheet. Guess what the results of this experiment were. Yep, the aura readers failed. You keep saying that psychic phenomena can’t be detected directly or indirectly, but the actual claims of psychics contradict this.

“that's what i keep saying! not finding evidence of something equals zero evidence that it doesn't exist. you, in your search for psychic evidence, have always come up empty handed.”

Except that when you take into account the research of others, it becomes more than neutral. Once all credible evidence says that something doesn’t exist, you start to form an informed opinion. If psychics are continually exposed as frauds, it says something other than, “Well, I guess we don’t know one way or the other!” Like I said, it’s not just a question of having no evidence for, it’s having lots of evidence against. Lack of evidence for is not always evidence against, but let’s stop with the misleading generalizations. This is about whether the claims of psychics are true. If aura readers are liars, if psychics can’t do what they claim because they’re supposedly too nervous, this is evidence against psychic phenomena. It is not evidence that supports such claims, is it? Of course not. Even you wouldn’t argue that. So what kind of evidence is it? Is it completely neutral as you claim? All you’re really saying is, Well, that doesn’t prove in an absolute sense that psychic phenomena doesn’t exist. And that’s obvious, but as you’ve said yourself over and over again, we can’t know anything in an absolute sense anyway! We can only know things in a probabilistic sense, so what becomes more probable as psychics fail to substantiate their claims, as aura readers and the like are shown to be liars? Which way does it cut? You may want to say it cuts no way at all, but in reality this obviously can only be bad for the position that psychic phenomena exists.

“[in reference to the Houdini example] oh, how empirical. oh, how objective.”

Oh how unjustifiably dismissive. It is empirical and objective, first of all. Maybe not to plasma, though, I haven’t the means to check. But to me it is empirical and objective. Again, it’s evidence, and which way does it cut? If people could speak to the dead, wouldn’t one of these mediums be able to contact Houdini and couldn’t he speak the code? Oh, maybe ghosts can’t talk. Dubious and convenient, but okay. But then why do mediums pretend that the dead are speaking through them if the dead can’t speak? Not even a passable job of explaining why you think this was bad evidence, though. You can use sarcasm, you can use those sentences (“oh, how empirical. oh, how objective”) but back up what you say. Or don’t. Maybe plasma wouldn’t think you should back up such a summary dismissal.

“what is a normative other than a description of a norm?!? we have both been doing this the whole time.”

A normative is a value judgment, ie whether something is good or bad. A descriptive describes a property of something. While at times it is possible to blur the distinction between the two, it is obtuse and silly to pretend the distinction simply doesn’t exist. There is a difference between saying that a stop sign is red and an action is immoral.

“scientific advances are not exempt from this. going to the moon wasn't inherently great. in the eyes of some, it is a glaring example of how fucked up our priorities are.”

Of course, that wasn’t what I was saying at all. In distinguishing between normatives and descriptives I was clarifying what my point had been regarding the accomplishments of science. Again, my point was not a normative about science, but a descriptive. I was saying that science gets things done, not that it gets good things done. You confused the issue by talking about whether science was good or not. Hence the clarification and the discussion of normatives and descriptives, which you now confuse further by saying that there is essentially no distinction between the two.

“no they won't. a routine problem with police investigations is that ten people who saw the exact same thing describe ten mutually-exclusive situations. correct or incorrect, the descriptions are almost never congruent.”

Of course, congruence implies that they would be exactly the same, which, even in the quote you pulled out, I did not say. I said they would be “substantially” the same. This doesn’t mean congruent. Now, in the example you choose, there is less agreement about the descriptive stuff, sure. But what about fire? Would we agree on that descriptive? My point is that descriptives are less open to interpretation than normatives, which are by their very definition about value judgments. You can pick and choose examples to show that sometimes a normative might be less contentious than a descriptive, but all things considered, it is an obvious truth that normatives are more contentious than descriptives, and it is a distraction to say otherwise. It is also disingenuous. Again, maybe not to plasma, I’m not sure.

“no, no, no. only some 'aura-readers' claim to see colors. some claim to see "fields of happy" or "an aura of mischieviousness". the idea isn't that someone exudes a color.”

Nice contradiction. “It’s not a color, it’s a _color_.” Oh, I see now. Recognize this simple truth that you seem to miss completely: there is a difference between saying, “I see fields of X” or “I see an aura of X” and “I see good fields of X” and “I see a good field of X.” There is a difference between saying “Your aura is good” and “your aura is red.” Colors are descriptives, so are other descriptions about mischievousness or happiness. Value judgments are different things. I think what you are trying to say is that auras are open to interpretation. Well, okay, but if they’re so open to interpretation that no two aura readers will ever agree more than random chance dictates, then auras are essentially meaningless. You might as well make up a random color and go with that. Anyone can see an aura of something if they get to just make up some random shit that doesn’t have to be consistent with other aura readers or with the person whose aura is being read. You could just say anything. And then the only truth claim that remains to be tested is whether the professed psychic actually sees a color. The aura sheet test described above is good evidence that aura readers don’t really see anything. The readers that see mischievousness or happiness rather than an emanation of light are really just trying to read the person’s nonverbal cues just like anyone else could who wasn’t powered by psychic magic.

“the idea is that there is an intangible aspect to character that emnates from people. for some, this manifests itself as a vague, 'gut' feeling. for others, they recognize a trait that they observed in someone else, and thus induce similarity. and for yet others, they see an aura, perhaps colored, perhaps not.”

So the ones that say they see colors, that can be tested and has. They’re liars. The ones that claim to see something else are reading nonverbal cues and guessing. That’s the most reasonable explanation based on all the available evidence. And an “intangible aspect ot character” is just a good cover for making inaccurate statements about a person. “You have an aura of happiness,” says the aura reader. “But my parents just died in a horrible train accident,” you say. “Well, uh, that’s just your happiness bottled up and, uh, waiting to get out, then,” says the aura reader. Good job aura reader. I mean, I could be a really good aura reader, because I’m good at coming up with bullshit like that. I mean, it’s really not that hard. And the people who come to you, as an aura reader, are going to eat up any flattering bullshit that you tell them, or eat up any hope that you’ll give them. (By the way, I’m not saying hope is bad. That would be a normative. What I’m saying is that the hope is based on statements that are false. That’s all I’ve said thus far. This is why it is helpful to recognize the distinction between things like normatives and descriptives rather than trying to reason everything into sameness.)

“i have never experienced "seeing an aura". i have had the other two, gut feelings and induction. if my friend said, "hey, watch this. i'll predict the personalities of five strangers based on their auras," i'd snort my drink up my nose. but if my friend suddenly grabbed my shoulder and said, "i'm seeing a creepy aura around that guy over there, let's move" i'd base my response on the moment, not on my previous studies or biases against auras. then again, there is no accounting for tastes, eh?”

You’ve had gut feelings? Well so has everyone. Sometimes that shit is random and sometimes it’s based on perhaps unconsciously detecting various nonverbal cues, etc. Well if aura reading is just gut feelings, then we have no problem. If it’s seeing colors and shit, yeah, we have a problem. What you seem to do is move from the actual claims of psychics to more reasonable claims. Lots of psychics out there claim to be able to see colors around people. They would have you believe that these colors are descriptives rather than normatives and would only fall back on a lesser claim if someone called them on their shit.

“right. but if one believes that everything can be tested for, then may i suggest they conduct an objective study to see if they actually exist? not everything can be tested for.”

That old gem. Someone asks for prrof of something and you say, “Well. You can’t prove you exist!” Touché. Really. I think that argument is stupid because you can use to for anything.

“has it [data manipulation] been ruled out? i don't believe there is an omnipotent being manipulating the data, but that's just what i believe. personally, i think data manipulates itself quite well on its own. (read the book how_to_lie_with_statistics)”

I read that book about 4 years ago in an undergrad statistics class. Has it been ruled out? I guess not. Is it likely and worth the distraction? Not if you can’t make a specific plausible argument that it is. You can’t, and so no.

“data manipulation and misrepresentation was found in over 35% of formal studies. and thats only what was found. on the other hand, does that include the study itself? so studies must be taken with a grain of salt.”

Is this qualitative or quantitative studies or both? Look, you can’t just say that data manipulation exists and then discount all studies. What was that study that found 35% data manipulation, what was the sample?

“198x: study - milk very healthy
198x+2: study - milk not healthy at all
198x+5: study - milk somewhat healthy
199x: study - milk very healthy
199x+2: study - milk terribly unhealthy
199x+5: study - milk healthy for women only”

195X – aura readers full of shit
196X – aura readers full of shit
197X – aura readers full of shit
198X – aura readers full of shit
See the difference?

“[Quantitative research assumes we can know objective reality] a dangerous assumption.”

A necessary assumption. To get things done.

“to you, perhaps. thats a very subjective statement. define meaningful. define the world we actually live in.”

Please spare me. Define “to,” define “you,” define “perhaps,” define “that’s,” define “a,” define “very,” define “subjective,” define “statement,” define “define,” define “meaningful,” define “the,” define “world,” define “we” define “actually,” define “live,” define “in.” What a silly game to play.

“but let's pretend that the study actually 'proved' that prayer had no effect on patients.”

No, let’s do what the scientific method actually dictates we do, which is take this as evidence that prayer, the kind that was studied in this study, doesn’t affect recovery. Then let’s replicate, let’s check for other variables. Let’s see if we get the same results. The scientific method doesn’t ever “prove” something just from one study, but one study can be a very good starting point and can be some very good evidence. But seriously, define “pretend,” define “patients.” I have no idea what you’re saying if you don’t define those terms.

“the people tested in these psychic studies are like zealots who say, "i'm going to pray, and god is going to listen to me. watch!" and then, god doesn't listen. these aren't things we can command.”

These are nevertheless the prople to which this research pertains, whether you like it or not. Lots of people have that idea, that they pray and get what they want. This study shows that the people prayed for by others who prayed didn’t recover faster. What, they didn’t pray correctly? Do another study where you tell people to pray a certain way, or you only use as subjects people who pray a certain way, speak certain words and have certain attitudes about how prayer is supposed to work. Then we’ll have more evidence. But I’ll bet you that people don’t recover based on any type of prayer.

“you don't understand 'ephemeral'. "lasting only a brief time; transitory." and you seem to persist in the notion that psychicness is inherently something one controls, and thus can be solicited. admittedly, this *is* what those psychics claim.”

I know what ephemeral means, Actually, I used to teach this word and 5 synonyms to the SAT classes I taught. Ephemeral, evanescent, transitory, transient, fugacious, fugitive. So with all due respect, maybe you need to reread what I said if you didn’t understand it. What I said was that even if psychic power isn’t “on” all the time, if it is on at all there would be a difference in ability to guess cards, at least greater than random chance. Got that? Has nothing to do with the definitions of words that you think are impressive. Again, even if psychic power disappears into the ether, isn’t it convenient that it _never_ appears when a study is being done? Oh, it appears sometimes, just not when anyone is bothering to look. Right. If psychic power were operative for once or twice when psychcics were being tested, for just a brief disappearing-into-the-ether moment, then there would be a statistically relevant increase in correct guesses. One last time, it doesn’t have to be something that the psychic controls, it does not have to be on all the time for it to make a difference in the results of such studies.

“====And the strontium elephant can be disproven. Have others watch you. Videotape yourself.====
i already covered this, no? at the outset of the strontium elephant example, i said, """ they could watch me all night, and no, i was not abducted ...”

No, you didn’t cover it.

“if i believe it, if it seems real to me, then it *is* real to me. the only way this cannot be so is if observation is not a reliable source of data.”

Just like when you’re dreaming or high. How does one know when one is dreaming or high? Hmmm… When you wake up you know the dream was only a dream. There are ways of collecting evidence to verify the accuracy of your perceptions. Examples of instances where you truly would not be able to separate perception from reality by appealing to extrinsic evidence are usually unrealistic, novel, or devoid of context. In reality, the magic elephant thing would be verifiable in such a way.

“you deny the psychics in the studies, because they cannot provide an 'objective' example for you to subjectively observe - and yes, that is the only type of observation we humans (or anything) possess.”

The “subjectively observe” part is implied and unnecessary, if it is the only observation power we possess. Once again, technically true, but misleading and in practical terms useless, a nullity, and a distraction.

“when someone observes strontium elephants, you argue that observation cannot be trusted. well, i certainly agree! but what does this mean for so many studies based upon observation?”

Nothing whatsoever. Your individual perception can’t be trusted if what you are perceiving is, based on all other evidence, a delusion.

“and if the strontium elephants are not to be believed because that more people didn't observe them that those who did, isn't that an appeal to raw numbers, which you derided me for earlier?”

Quite a distortion. It’s not just because more people didn’t see them. It’s because there’s no evidence of them other than your perception. Sightings by others is evidence. Previously, I asked you if your best evidence for psychic phenomena was that people believed it. There is a difference between observing something and believing it. Observing the elephants is evidence, believing in the elephants without even claiming to have ever seen them is not evidence. See the difference?

Now, what would be better evidence of the elephants? Pictures. Footprints. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, though not the best. Evidence that someone believes in something, having never seen it, is probably the worst evidence I can think of. Now you might say, “Well people claim to have seen psychic phenomena in action. What about the aura readers, they claim to see auras! They saw that! What about me, I have psychic gut feelings!” Well, as for the aura readers, they have credibility issues. If you can’t see that this makes their “witnessing” the psychic phenomena of auras less credible, then I don’t know what else I can say to you. As for your psychic gut feelings, well, at best what can be said of those (as well as your psychic ability to occasionally think of a person before that person calls you) is that there are reasonable explanations for these occurrences that require no psychic power on your part. If you see elephants, what are the other reasonable explanations? If there are, or if you have reason to lie, your eyewitness testimony is less valuable as evidence.

“p.s. have you seen any movies recently videotape is no guarantor of truth. it's practically as easy to alter as photography or, for that matter, a painting.”

If you have a budget of millions and hire Industrial Light and Magic, that is. But then, there would be a record of your manipulation out there. The money trail, the animators, etc.

“it is? is 'common sense' what it's really just? any 'test' other than one's limited perspective can only be interpreted through one's limited perspective, and thus is ultimately still subjected to the very same limits.”

“Yes, it is common sense. That is what it’s really just. And the rest of what you say there is more technically true bullshit that doesn’t actually change the way we actually measure and observe, and shouldn’t because if what you said meant much of anything we could never build upon our knowledge of anything, knowledge being so amorphous and unknowable and inconsistent.

“but what same standards for everything else?”

The standard where you say, Let’s see if we can empirically prove this and not stop at the line, “But everything’s subjective!” That’s the standard.

“and if nothing can be proven absolutely, why expect that the level of provability of of things would be at all consistent? would some things, surely, be more 'provable' and 'regular' than others? or is everything, by some strange act of divine arbitration, 99.3% provable?”

You’re making my point now. Some things are more provable. Some things are more objective, some things more subjective. That’s why it’s misleading to just say that everything’s subjective and stop there.

“i'm just saying that doing so is sort of (and i know, only sort of) analogous to giving several people a test such as "what did you do yesterday" and concluding that since their answers varied, and couldn't be externally validated, for the video tape could have been forged, that they were obviously all lying.”

Dumb example. That’s not what the aura test was about. If you do a test where aura readers look at a person and researchers see if their observations match, an accurate analogue would be having a bunch of people look at a person to see what color his skin was. If someone guesses that Jesse Jackson is white, then he might be blind. That would be a better analogue.

“then you surely will. for what we think is what is real to us.”

No, I didn’t say that I could prove it to myself, I said I could prove it to anyone who would look at the evidence.

“[we can only know what we mean by “mean”] because of faith in a mutually shared definition.”

It’s not so much faith as it is practical necessity. But no, seriously, define “mutually.”

“we are just *barely* able to have this dialogue.”

That’s because you insist on making this a discussion about the nature of subjectivity and objectivity when it is actually about whether the evidence supports the claims of psychics. Of course, part of the game is that you insist that the nature of subjectivity and objectivity is essential to the discussion.

“probability isn't actuality.”

Never implied so. But since we can’t know in an absolute sense, probability is the best we can do. Unless your “gut feelings” lead you to actuality? Maybe plasma knows “actuality.” Just kidding. But seriously, define “actuality.”

“but as i keep saying, if i refuse the possibility that forks exist, i could go through meal after meal, eating with a fork, but finding some alternative explanation for things that better suited my world.”

But that wouldn’t be reasonable. The non-fork explanation is just plain not as good as the fork explanation. The non-psychic explantion is just as good or better than the psychic one, in terms of reasonableness.

“you'd still have to believe that there even were auras to be read, no? if you didn't believe there were auras in the first place, why would you wonder if people could read them?”

Because that’s what people claim. You test whether auras exist and whether people can read them at the same time, since auras can only be seen by aura readers. So thanks for another distraction. It was just a bad analogy you used, and I explained why previously.

“is aura reading not subject to interpretation? can you read the minds of those who claim to see auras? if you can't see auras, how do you know if what they are claiming to see is correct or not?”

If one aura reader says blue and another says red, then these are not consistent. It’s evidence that they’re making it all up, that they don’t see anything.

“the difference with sanskrit and urdu, of course, is that they are concrete and tangible (more or less) whereas psychicness, auras, opinions, feelings, esp, etc, are all abstractions.”

Again, that’s my point and that’s why the Sanskrit thing is a bad example. Define “abstractions.” I’m serious this time, because I’m not sure that psychic phenomena are supposed to be abstractions in the sense that they leave no imprint on the physical world. An aura is a color, which is concrete, which represents some abstract quality. Still, aura readers should be able to see the concrete color that represents the abstraction if what they claim is true.

“what do you expect psychicness to 'look' like? you are thinking about a dove, and someone says, 'you are thinking about a dove'? that's what most people's perception on the matter seems to be, but it ain't mine.”

Well your view of psychicness seems to be gut feelings and deciding that coincidences are meaningful. It doesn’t seem like your psychic ability can do much of anything. Your psychic moments are just things you’ve labeled psychic moments. They are functionally equivalent to non-psychic moments, except for the label.

“the spiritual world cannot be proven nor disproven, and if it does exist, there would be no physical evidence, because it isn't physical.”

But unless it leaves some imprint, unless it changes some things in the physical world, unless it can be manipulated for some benefit, then what is the point? It’s like imagining invisible gremlins pushing everything down instead of gravity pulling things down. Everything’s the same except you invented some invisible machinery. You can never verify the invisible machinery. Or can you? You can if someone claims to see this invisible machinery. Like if I say that I see the invisible gravity gremlins, you can test me. Videotape a box with a white background. Drop the box, but stay zoomed in and let the camera move with the box. This could be done so that moving footage of the stationary box will look the same as the box that is actually falling. The only difference would be that the invisible gravity gremlins would be pushing the box that is actually falling. So if I claimed to see gravity gremlins, but I couldn’t tell the difference between the stationary box and the falling box, I would probably be a liar and the gravity gremlin theory would be bullshit. But wait, not so fast, gravity gremlins don’t appear on camera! I have to “sense” them and photographs don’t capture them. That was a close one.

“====I can’t know him if I observe him?==== not entirely.”

I never said I could. You simply said I couldn’t know him or anything else and left it at that. My point was that to know something very well, you don’t need to experience its perspective, especially if it doesn’t have one.

“because if the destinction isn't drawn, then people forget, and assume that what they know is the absolute fact, and so begin the transgressions. thinking that one 'knows' may open several doors, but it also closes doors to alternate knowledge.”

True in the general sense, but not for the purposes of this dialogue. Otherwise, show how I transgressed with regard to the psychic question, or stop beating a dead horse. Or don’t. That’s just a suggestion.

“it's hard to say what you'd really know about him. you'd have to have knowledge of his absolute self to compare it with. and the only way absolute knowledge about him can be accrued is by being him.”

Is it hard to say? I think I know what I’d know about him and what I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t know his secret desires, not entirely, but I might actually know them better than most people he knows. I could see hear what he says to his closest companions, see where he goes online. That’s valuable information in discerning what’s inside of him. It’s not absolute, but once more, no knowledge is absolute.

“====Tim Robbins’ own perspective on himself might be worthwhile==== *MIGHT* BE?!?”

It could also be misleading, of course, because just as your delusions about elephants are misleading as to your reality, so to might Tim Robbins’ perceptions regarding himself. Of course, this example now has nothing to do with whether psychic phenomena is true.

“who knows where sentience begins and ends? consciousness_without_a_brain”

I agree with Stork Daddy there, especially when he says “the step between the objective and subjective aspects of consciousness is a hard one to make, but that does not mean it can't be made.”
“it probably isn't verifiable. i can't imagine how one would possibly verify it. that's what i've been saying all along.”

Then I want to show that aura readers and all other psychics ever tested were liars. If you agree to that, then we’re done I suppose.

“you're perfectly justified in thinking it a sham; likewise, i am perfectly justified in thinking it an ethereal eventuality.”

You can say you’re justified, but I’d say that by a preponderance of the evidence, psychic phemonena do not exist. So I’m more justified.

” out of curiousity, if you have kids, what would you tell them about santa claus and the easter bunny?”

No kids. I’d tell them the Easter Bunny and Santa existed. If they didn’t outgrow the belief on their own, then I’d tell them it was fake. What’s your point?

“i've never once said it [scientific method] was fundamentally flawed.”

Good. It’s not.

“[computers, medicione, rockets] they're all physical! i've never denied that the scientific method works particularily well for physical processes.”

Yeah, and when I cited those things it was to explain that the scientific method gets things done. You can use it to figure stuff out. You give reasons why the scientific method shouldn’t apply to psychic phenomena, but none are convincing for the reasons already amply stated.

“things such as psychicness and other phenomena which claim to stem from an ethereal realm (call it what you will) are not likely to be discovered nor manipulated with science as we know it.”

Invisible gremlins. At best we’re dealing with invisible gremlins. Believe in them if you want because they can’t be disproven. What can be disproven, though, are individual claims of an ability to see invisible gremlins. Such tests can use the scientific method.

“how is that *not* believing in jesus? how can i believe in someone and deny a core tenet of their life? i don't have to agree, nor do i have to take it seriously. but if i believe in sally, and sally believes in jesus, or silvery grapefruit, for that matter, then 'jesus' is at least slightly real to me, because sally is real to me.”

You’re onca again arguing that the idea of something and something are the same thing. You have to believe in the idea of Jesus, not the divinity of Jesus. To argue otherwise is absurd. I’ve already explained this in greater detail.

As for the Santa example, same thing. Your kid believes in Santa Clause. Santa is real to your kid. The fictional character of Santa is still not real, and you don’t have the same belief as your kid. That is, you and your kid believe different things. Kid believes in Santa, you don’t believe in Santa. You know (or believe, if you want) tat your kid believes in Santa. Two very different things.

“isn't the idea of death a comforting lie? what makes you think you're getting any rest, buster?”

Nothingness. No sense organs, no sense. Just like before you were born.

You can have the last word if you want. I had fun, too. If I seemed a douchebag at all I apologize. 		050906
...
Doar wow debaters heaven. 050906
...
42 usc 1983 One suggestion, though: maybe we should each do one more post but forego quoting and responding. It takes a long time! 050906
...
andru235 if someone's perceptions aren't necessarily their reality, then what is their reality? something that they aren't perceiving? something that they are totally unaware of? if so, given that no one can perceive the 'exact' state of things (tell me the location of every molecule right now! i mean, now! no, i mean...now!), then no one can perceive reality. and if no one can perceive reality, then i must ask what is so real about it? if what we experience isn't real - whether it corollates with what others experience or not - then what, and where, is there any reality? how should anyone know what is or isn't real?

fifty people could show up tomorrow and tell me that what i was experiencing wasn't real, that i was totally delusional. in that case, i would say, "you're right, people," and ignore them completely, because what i was experiencing (fifty people telling me i'm delusional) might be merely another delusion.

moreover, if a group of people told me that i was delusional in only a certain facet of my life, whatever it may be, i would still have to wonder what role opinion was playing in such an allegation.

say the strontium elephants told the person an excellent recipe for pancakes. after telling the cook that strontium elephants aren't real, the friends of the cook enjoy a fabulous plate of pancakes. they ask where the person got the recipe. the person says, "from the strontium elephants." now, let's just say that the person really read the recipe years ago and forgot it until later, the memory manifesting itself in the form of a discussion with strontium elephants.

did the person think they saw a strontium elephant? yes. did they think they cooked some pancakes for their guest? yes. is the only condition for what makes either of those real is someone else's experiencing it?

in that case, most of the music i write isn't real. so, say it has to actualize itself in the physical world, then. what does that mean if i write a piece of music in my head? that the piece of music is not real, nor was my experience of having written it? where is the line between what thoughts/feelings/experiences are real or unreal? if the requirement for an experienced thought to be real is that others can simultaneously experience the same, then the entirety of pain and pleasure - the core of our human existence - is unreal. if i sprain my ankle, and it hurts, it doesn't cause you pain. thus, you could say my pain isn't real. but it is very real to me. why is it suddenly different if its a delusion of a strontium elephant or a psychic intuition, especially if the intuition is about something abstract? pain, or a strontium elephant, or psychicness, are merely brain phenomena. if these things are not real, then what makes the other mental considerations (such as [fill-in-the-blank]-ology) suddenly real, if it must be routed through the brain? again, we are back to the subjective-objective debate. there is a reason for this.

let's say that everything is mere physics. everything radiates. the radiation from the big-bang still lingers in the air we are breathing, it is thought by some. our brains emit a field of radiation. is it not possible that at certain times our brain might spontaneously interpret a various wave of this or that, and it comes across as the psychic moment? if so, it would be impossible to recreate the identical circumstances - nor anything remotely similar, for that matter - owing to the constant change present in the micro- and macro-cosms.

in quantum physics there is a principle called the 'uncertainty principle' you may have heard of it, but i'll explain it anyway, as best as i can: one can never know both the speed and location of a particle; the more one knows about the former, the less one knows about the latter, and vice versa. in trying to determine either one, the very test itself changes the situation.

if that's true of tiny little blips, and our minds are huge piles of those same blips...

so what's with those particles, hmm? performance anxiety? this is what i mean by the very attempt to test for something makes it partially untestable. if one tests for the speed, one changes the location. if one tests for the location, one changes the speed.

i agree with you that there are varying degrees of subjectivity. we have agreed that subjectivity is an inevitability. thus, subjectivity is the dominant trait here. objectivity takes a back seat, or perhaps the trunk.

apparently i *am* a tricky devil, because i *am* made of plasma. plasma, and other things too, of course. and not the same plasma we were talking about, but plasma nonetheless. now i feel bad! i know i was a devil, but i thought i was a 'snuggly' devil, not a 'tricky' one. darn! drats! CONGRATULATION!

regarding auras, i checked a few sites _and_ a book at the library and was very surprised to find that all four said the aura thing was about seeing colors, like you claimed. i thought most aura-seers were concerned with something spiritual, not physical. i now find myself at a loss to find other examples of the 'spiritual' version of the claim, although there was that girl i knew (whom i mentioned earlier). but maybe she, too, was making a claim regarding color. who knows.

[[[[If aura readers are liars, if psychics can’t do what they claim because they’re supposedly too nervous, this is evidence against psychic phenomena.]]]]

via what? some sort of mystical wand of evidence-transmutation? it is evidence only of those specific persons tested, and under the conditions of that test. for those tests to be accurate, it assumes that the conditions of those tests are representative of all (or at least, most) conditions present at during the 'psychic moment'.

'effective' theories: a) accurately accounts for many observations accrued from a base with a *minimal* set of variables, and b) make specific predictions about future related observations.

in any tests made thus far, there have been WAAAY too many variables. how can i be sure? because by the very nature of the concept, psychicness, is based in the human mind (of which there are over 6-billion variations) and nearly any number of other possible factors (which may vary person-to-person).

there are many, many more variables present in such a test than simply the claim of being psychic and the specific test being taken!

additionally, any such test must necessarily rely upon a mechanism which allows for defined tabulation (a rubric). else, the accuracy of the psychic's claim is merely a matter of the tester's opinion.

now, in tests with a defined mechanism for tabulation (i.e. guessing x out of y cards correctly), one of three things will necessarily happen. one, x/y is greater than the range expected by merely guessing (based in probability). two, x/y is within that range. three, x/y is beneath that range.

none of these prove anything, nor is evidence of much at all! in the situation of #1: even if 95% of people's responses were correct it would be impossible to know whether or not they were guessing, employing a tool (psychic skill), channelling, receiving the data from Shiva, or just plain cheating : variables that cannot be controlled, ever. the tests can only assume that the variable has been controlled because the testee says so.

in the situation of #2: say the average number of results are within the range predicted by sheer probability. it would be impossible to know whether they got the correct answers from guessing, employing a tool (psychic skill), channelling, receiving the data from Shiva, or just plain cheating. can one look into the testee's brain to verify the source of a correct or incorrect response?

in the situation of #3: say most of the results are less than those predicted by sheer probability. this is as peculiar as #1, unless probability was included results of zero correct answers (in which case i would again have to wonder about the test's design). why were so many results low? guessing? nervousness? Shiva? testers knew but were throwing the results?

sometimes two highly improbable events coincide in an improbable way. some say that it is meaningless; though statistically improbable, its nothing more than a freak event. others say there are no freak events; that when such coincidences occur, there is any of myriad reasons for it (varying by the person, of course). either way, it's impossible to test effectively. there is no way to contrive a genuine coincidence. that is, a contrived coincidence is not coincidental at all. and while someone may be falsely impressed by a contrived coincidence, that has no inherent bearing on the significance of a genuine, not-contrived coincidence; a significance that may or may not be evident to the outside observer.

you say that a normative is a value judgement. i know it as a norm, or a standard. an average. an expected qualifier. a bad, albeit quick, example of my associations with 'normative' would be that '7' is the normative of rolling two six-sided dice. i do not know it as a value judgement. i'm not saying you are wrong to call it that; i'm just saying i've never encountered that before. so i looked it up in the gargantuan o.e.d. and we are both correct.

if i didn't back up the houdini dismissal it was because the lack of objectivity in such a test was so glaring that i thought you were perhaps joking? although you didn't seem to be joking.

you said,

====You know what was a good test of the ability of psychics? When Houdini told his wife a secret code before he died and then after he died she went to various psychics and none of them could ever tell her the secret code. Were they all too nervous?====

a good scientific test has many controls and few variables. variables present: each psychic and all related personal factors (right there, the number of variables spirals out of control). the 'contactability' of 'houdini's soul' (how to calculate...?). was the code genuinely solveable (pretty critical that that isn't a variable before judging the psychics!). etc.

====So the ones that say they see colors, that can be tested and has. They’re liars.====

call them names all you like; unless you are them, and have stared through their eyes, you simply don't know what they see. personally, i don't see what makes you so mad about their claims. i'm not going to consult them, nor am i going to base my decisions off of unsolicited input from them. but i also am not going to presume to know what is real to them, even if to myself and the other fifty million people in the room, they are quite obviously not reflecting reality as the others here see it. people lie all the time about all sorts of things. this doesn't make the underlying potential inherently impossible. extrapolation is a good tool for math, but a bad crutch for prejudice.

====That old gem. Someone asks for prrof of something and you say, “Well. You can’t prove you exist!” Touché. Really. I think that argument is stupid because you can use to for anything.====

that it can be used for anything should tell you something. first you diss the psychics because usually their claims do not hold at any level. now you dismiss my gem of oldness because its presence at every level makes it impassible.

====A necessary assumption. To get things done.====

i smell an agenda.

====No, let’s do what the scientific method actually dictates we do, which is take this as evidence that prayer, the kind that was studied in this study, doesn’t affect recovery. Then let’s replicate, let’s check for other variables.====

yes, let's check for variables, shall we? per person, you will end up with a many-page list of variables. how they pray. why the pray. what they pray. what they believe about praying. what they believe about being prayed for. and on and on. and then there is location, and time, and nearly anything else imaginable. the number of tests that will need to be conducted, based upon the near-infinite number of possible permutations of variables will occupy humanity well into the year 23,250,521 A.D.. that you readily uptake this as evidence that prayer - "the kind that was studied in this study, doesn’t affect recovery" indicates a bias on your part. the variables are simply too numerous to conclude anything without incorporating bias. indeed, the variables are too numerous to even begin limiting future variables. it would take millenia of constant testing.

the scientific process is simply too unsuited for testing such things. i agree that the scientific process is not fundamentally flawed. this does not mean that it is fundamentally suited to approach all possible possibilities.

for the scientific method to proceed, variables must be minimized BEFORE results are predicted. in the case of prayer, or psychics, or metaphysics, or the soul, there is no limit to what may or may not be a factor. both corporeal and ethereal may be factors. the scientific process is only suited to things that are anchored in the physical realm. and at the fringes of the physical realm (micros and macros) it's effectiveness also becomes limited (uncertainty principle; singularities). this only indicates a fundamental flaw if it claims to be something it isn't; i don't think it makes that claim.

and per that annoying ancient jewel, the broach of yesteryear, the old gem, subjectivity is all over the place. why, every known law of physics becomes completely useless in the infinite density of a black hole or pre-big-bang-conglomeration (singularity)!

====What I said was that even if psychic power isn’t “on” all the time, if it is on at all there would be a difference in ability to guess cards, at least greater than random chance. Got that?====

but it wouldn't necessarily mean that. the annoying old gem is right there. simply saying "got that?" doesn't make it so. sorry! you are assuming that random chance will inherently yield probable results. that's not random chance. it's probable that it will yield probable results; but it's not inherent.

====Again, even if psychic power disappears into the ether, isn’t it convenient that it _never_ appears when a study is being done?====

isn't it convenient that one can never know the exact speed _and_ location of a subatomic particle? darn, that must mean subatomic particles don't exist.

isn't it convenient that all things quanta are uncertain? isn't it convenient that the very forefront of 'science's factual ways' is a shifty and uncertain physic who's laws disappear into the void regardless of whether the universe(s) had a beginning, whether it has an end, or whether it keeps on permutating until a point of infinite density occurs somewhere? isn't it convenient that a special addendum to math's laws must be made for 0^0 and the square of -4 and for 2x*2x=4x so that the laws don't break, given that they fail to adequately explain all circumstances? isn't it convenient?

no, it's totally incovenient. it turns provability into an article of faith and has the horrible, volcanic effect of reincarnating old gems.

====“====And the strontium elephant can be disproven. Have others watch you. Videotape yourself.====
i already covered this, no? at the outset of the strontium elephant example, i said, """ they could watch me all night, and no, i was not abducted ...” No, you didn’t cover it.====

*sigh*. i did cover it, right there in the quote, too. in the very first strontium-elephant-thing i addressed this situation. someone watches all night and no, i am not abducted by strontium-elephants, but i believe that i am, and feel that i am, and sense that i am, and 'know' that i am. it's whats real to me. you might tell me otherwise; if i believe you and it seems less real, then it seems less real; but if i don't believe you, and it still seems real, then it is still real, to me. it doesn't really matter whether it is real to you or not. if you think otherwise, your ego is overextending itself. that's sexy and i like it. :P

the only living-moments that are real to anyone are those that they genuinely think are real to them. belief determines reality.

====There are ways of collecting evidence to verify the accuracy of your perceptions.====

and in all cases, the final filter for such evidence becomes the self who is already subjective to such perceptions. you acknowledge the old gems, then ignore the rings they are set in.

====And the rest of what you say there is more technically true bullshit that doesn’t actually change the way we actually measure and observe, and shouldn’t because if what you said meant much of anything we could never build upon our knowledge of anything, knowledge being so amorphous and unknowable and inconsistent.====

first you deride this and that for its lack of truth. then you deride the only technical truth we have agreed upon. what a nice day.

knowledge *is* amorphous and unknowable and inconsistent. the 'uncertainty principle' is at the core of quantum physics. 'general relativity' is at the core of macro-cosmology, and since macro-cosmology leads to black-holes, or closing wormholes, or endless other causes of 'singularity' (whereby infinite density occurs), the laws simply vanish into irrelevance. as to what laws occur at those points, there is no way to test.

====“but as i keep saying, if i refuse the possibility that forks exist, i could go through meal after meal, eating with a fork, but finding some alternative explanation for things that better suited my world.” ====But that wouldn’t be reasonable.====

agreed. ;]

====If one aura reader says blue and another says red, then these are not consistent. It’s evidence that they’re making it all up, that they don’t see anything.====

i played a piece music for a few guests once, and one said it was festive and another said somber. the third didn't hear it owing to deafness. clearly, it is reasonable to conclude that the piece of music didn't exist.

====It doesn’t seem like your psychic ability can do much of anything. Your psychic moments are just things you’ve labeled psychic moments. They are functionally equivalent to non-psychic moments, except for the label.====

at this point you are substituting hostility for arguments. an ability isn't inherently something that creates an external result. i.e., the ability to hear. internal result. i.e., the ability to smell. internal result. i am watching as you make these proclamations about my reality, a reality you know nothing about aside from rudimentary extrapolation. more evidence that belief determines reality.

====It’s like imagining invisible gremlins pushing everything down instead of gravity pulling things down. Everything’s the same except you invented some invisible machinery.====

gravity, functional and frequent though it may be, is invisible machinery. it, in and of itself, cannot be viewed (invisibility). it is a 'system of rigid bodies' (a machine), or alternatively, an 'intricate natural system' (a machine).

====True in the general sense, but not for the purposes of this dialogue. Otherwise, show how I transgressed with regard to the psychic question, or stop beating a dead horse. Or don’t. That’s just a suggestion.====

"liars! their all liars!" = transgression: the exceeding of due bounds or limits.

an old gem that is also a dead horse continues to live, right before our eyes, making the 'liars!' claim into a limit exceeded, for one cannot be certain of the lie. i was going to concede that 'due' might be subjective and thus open to interpretation. but earlier you mocked the idea of such subjectivity so thoroughly that one hesitates to offer such an escape route. but the old gem prohibits the denial of such an escape. merely denying the presence of the old gem and/or finding its omnipresence irritating doesn't make it any less present.

====Is it hard to say? I think I know what I’d know about him and what I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t know his secret desires, not entirely, but I might actually know them better than most people he knows. I could see hear what he says to his closest companions, see where he goes online. That’s valuable information in discerning what’s inside of him.====

you take a lot for granted. the situations people find themselves confronted with - even simple, seemingly open situations - readily lead to decisions and behaviors that don't directly reflect what they felt inside.

====It could also be misleading, of course, because just as your delusions about elephants are misleading as to your reality, so to might Tim Robbins’ perceptions regarding himself. Of course, this example now has nothing to do with whether psychic phenomena is true.====

if someone has delusions, it is a reality to them. that's half of what makes them delusions! so you would be extra-unable to know them, if you refused to acknowledge their delusions as being something real, because such delusions are a part of their reality.

====You can say you’re justified, but I’d say that by a preponderance of the evidence, psychic phemonena do not exist. So I’m more justified.====

you can put a crown on your own head, and call yourself a king. just realize that it is your own self who has created the justification for such a title. "but see? i have a crown on!" well, you put it there. that's as true for you as it is for i. belief
determines reality. 		050913
...
The Heretic THE ABOVE IS A WHOLE LOT OF BLATHER WHICH, TO ME, SHOUTS "I'M AFRAID TO BE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE!"

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT YOUR SEARCH FOR ABSOLUTES HAS BECOME ALMOST PHOBIC AND THAT YOU HAVE INVERTED YOUR PHOBIA INTO A FETISH FOR TOTAL RELATIVISM. AM I WRONG? 		050913
...
42 usc 1983 “if someone's perceptions aren't necessarily their reality, then what is their reality?”

What I was trying to get across was that a person’s _isolated_ perceptions don’t make up their reality. That’s why people don’t ultimately believe that their dreams or drug-induced hallucinations are real.

“given that no one can perceive the 'exact' state of things (tell me the location of every molecule right now! i mean, now! no, i mean...now!), then no one can perceive reality.”

So because I can’t tell you the exact location of all molecules, I can’t tell you with any certainty whether or not, say, ice is colder than fire? Well, no, that wouldn’t make much sense (unless maybe our good old friend plasma perceives fire as colder than ice). So what does it mean to actually say, “no one can perceive reality”? In one sense, in the example that you use, you are correct. We can’t know the location of all those molecules. But so what? That’s not the reality I’m trying to perceive. If I’m interested in knowing whether ice is in fact always, sometimes, or never colder than fire, it doesn’t matter too much to me that I don’t know the location of all molecules in the universe. I wanted to know the former; I did not want to know the latter. Why not show me ways in which I can’t know the things I actually want to know rather than giving me examples of things that I can’t know and hoping that the mystery of the latter transmutes to the former? My basic point is that the general subjectivity of knowledge says nothing about the relative subjectivity of any specific bit of knowledge.

Yes, we can’t perceive reality. But that statement alone, while true in one sense, is more misleading than illuminating unless one provides the following clarification: While we can’t know reality in an absolute sense, some things are more knowable than others, and some things which we perceive together over time (that is, not our isolated, ephemeral perceptions, but our perceptions that we accumulate, collectively and separately over time, and which we submit to other objective tests) are so certain that we are justified in assuming them to in fact be reality. That is basically my point with regards to the whole objective/subjective thing. While it’s in one sense true to say that everything is subjective and no knowledge is absolute, it is in another sense misleading to say merely that without saying that some things are more knowable than others and that reliance on knowledge is often reasonable. At this point, you might say, “Well I never said anything other than that!” I would disagree, because I think what you’ve tried to say is, “See, in general nothing is knowable and everything is subjective, so therefore science can’t evaluate psychic phenomena.” I have argued that while it is in one sense true that absolute knowledge is unattainable, this says nothing about specific tests used to evaluate psychic phenomena, which cannot be summarily dismissed as too subjective since (based on the premise upon which you rely, that all knowledge is subjective knowledge) all of science is subjective. If all scientific knowledge is subjective, then there’s no use in saying that tests used to evaluate psychic phenomena are “too subjective.” For this to mean anything, there must be a distinction between things which are subjective and objective, or at least between degrees of greater and lesser subjectivity. (I believe you’ve stated that you agree with this, that some things are more or less subjective than others.) Furthermore, for a statement about the relative subjectivity of the psychic tests to be meaningful, there must be a distinction between good and bad science. I fail to see how this can be reconciled with your general dismissals of science as so much subjectivity. Anyway, you’ve also argued in a more conventional way (and essentially in the alternative) that some of the specific tests used to evaluate psychic are flawed. I believe that these criticisms are more relevant.

“fifty people could show up tomorrow and tell me that what i was experiencing wasn't real, that i was totally delusional. in that case, i would say, "you're right, people," and ignore them completely, because what i was experiencing (fifty people telling me i'm delusional) might be merely another delusion.”

With this example you are essentially arguing that the perceptions of others are merely one’s own perceptions. But if that’s true then why make the distinction between our perceptions and others’ perceptions? My point was that the truth of our perceptions is more accurately evaluated when it’s filtered through the perceptions of others and evaluated over time. If you are arguing that you accept your immediate perceptions as reality in all cases despite what anyone else says then I think that you are arguing in bad faith. Are any delusions really so robust that they are forever indistinguishable from reality? And if such all-encompassing delusions are so robust that they never fade, then I suppose such delusions may operate by the same logic as reality, and as such you could still determine truths within that system, no?

“moreover, if a group of people told me that i was delusional in only a certain facet of my life, whatever it may be, i would still have to wonder what role opinion was playing in such an allegation.“

Wait a second, I thought every perspective was a mere opinion, all knowledge being subjective. But seriously, of course it is important to evaluate the perceptions of others for bias. But looking for bias in the perceptions of others assumes that there are other people with other perceptions (ie, you’re not just imagining the others and their perceptions) and that a biased (ie, subjective) opinion is different from an unbiased (ie, objective) opinion. Now, those parentheticals don’t mean one opinion represents objective reality and the other has no similarity to reality whatsoever. Such opinions are also distinguishable from evaluative, or normative opinions. What I’m saying is that you are acknowledging that there are distinctions between opinions which are biased and therefore less likely to be true and opinions which are unbiased and therefore more likely to be true. So this makes it hard for me to swallow your arguments that we can dismiss the claims of science in general and therefore summarily dismiss any tests for psychic ability. I think that a perspective of total relativity is interesting, but unrealistic. I believe that no one, including yourself, actually lives as if all truths are equally mysterious. Furthermore, and more pertinent to this discussion (or at least the discussion that the title of this page indicates), I believe that in order to say anything meaningful, one must abandon the total relativity view, as you did when you suggested that those who tell you you’re wrong about your belief in psychic phenomena are less than reliable because they have an agenda of some kind. I guess my point here is that you are saying “We can’t know reality,” my response is, “Yeah, I guess so, in a way,” and then we both go on evaluating truth claims like people normally do. I understand that it is your position that psychic claims can’t be evaluated like other truth claims. But if that criticism stands on its own to discredit any scientific inquiry into psychic phenomena, then it requires no further elaboration. If that criticism does not stand on its own, then it relies on the same sort of analysis that is normally used to evaluate scientific studies. As such, general statements about the unreliability of science in general are hardly helpful; such statements are a distraction and a nullity, since we both tend to ignore them and you move on to offer specific challenges to specific studies of scientific phenomena. To me, it’s kind of like when Christians claim that their religion is based on faith and not empirical evidence, then argue that a boat on a mountain proves that the story of Noah’s ark is true. Not a perfect comparison, I know, but what I’m saying is that your position doesn’t seem to be genuinely based upon a position that knowledge is unknowable, that our perceptions are the same as reality, and so on. I think there is an element of bad faith to your arguments. You argued previously that if you believe in a person who believes in Santa Clause, you therefore believe in Santa Clause. I think this is silly, and that you don’t really believe this. I think you know that there is a difference between believing in something and dealing with the practical consequences of someone else’s belief. Yet you argue otherwise.

“say the strontium elephants told the person an excellent recipe for pancakes. after telling the cook that strontium elephants aren't real, the friends of the cook enjoy a fabulous plate of pancakes. they ask where the person got the recipe. the person says, "from the strontium elephants." now, let's just say that the person really read the recipe years ago and forgot it until later, the memory manifesting itself in the form of a discussion with strontium elephants. did the person think they saw a strontium elephant? yes. did they think they cooked some pancakes for their guest? yes. is the only condition for what makes either of those real is someone else's experiencing it?”

I honestly don’t get your point here. A guy thinks he got a pancake recipe from somewhere but he really got it from elsewhere. And so the condition that makes the pancake eating real is the perception of someone else? I don’t get your point. It seems like you’re just saying that sometimes one’s immediate perception is the only thing one has to determine reality. This can be true, I suppose, but it’s not even true for your example. Say I was the guest. This guy tells me he got a recipe from elephants. I ask him if he’s serious. He says yes, he is serious. I ask, “Are you crazy?” The guy says, “No, I’d dead serious.” I say to the guy, “Well you know that elephants can’t communicate with people, right? And you know that even if they could communicate they sure don’t know anything about pancakes, right?” And the guy says… what? What does he say? What he says depends on how crazy he is. But let’s imagine that this elephant thing was an isolated delusion, and that otherwise this guy is not psychotic. So in that case he would probably say, “Yeah, I know that elephants can’t talk to people but I know that I got this recipe from an elephant.” And I say, “Okay, okay, when did this happen? When did you talk to an elephant?” And he answers, “Last night, while I was sleeping.” And I say, “Oh, I get it, so it was a dream, right?” And the guy says, “Well, I don’t know, I mean, it seemed so real.” And I say, “Well, were you on anything or what?” And the guy says, “No, man, I was completely sober.” And I say, “Well it had to be a dream, right? I mean, you can have really vivid dreams sometimes.” And he says, “Well, okay, but if it’s all a dream then how did I get this recipe?” And I say, “I have no idea how you got the recipe. Maybe you made it up in your dream or maybe you read it somewhere a long time ago. I don’t know, but either of those explanations sound more plausible than a talking elephant coming to you in your sleep and giving you a goddamned pancake recipe.” And what does the guy say? Maybe he says, “Yeah, you’re right” or maybe he says, “No, I know it was real,” but either way there was a process where this guy’s reality was influenced not just by his immediate perceptions, but by the perceptions of others and by reason. As I’ve said before, in reality, not in far-fetched and skeletal examples, we don’t just rely on our immediate perceptions. Yes, everything is filtered through someone’s perception and ultimately your own, but this is not to say that a person’s perceptions are simply their reality, period. That’s not the way it works in real life. In real life, people listen to the opinions of others, they listen to reason. Such things shape a person’s reality.

“in that case, most of the music i write isn't real.”

No. Songs are ideas. Ideas are real simply if you think them because that’s all an idea is--a thought. An idea can be actualized in a more concrete way, but an idea is real in itself. Other things can’t be made real just by thinking of the idea. Santa is not real because someone thought of him. The idea of Santa is real. And there’s a difference.

“if i sprain my ankle, and it hurts, it doesn't cause you pain. thus, you could say my pain isn't real.”

I would have no reason to doubt you probably, but if I did have reason to believe that you were faking your injury we could have a doctor check you out to see if your ankle had been indeed physically damaged. The existence of some pain is debated. Like sometimes people have back pain but doctors tell them that they can’t find any evidence of the pain, and sometimes in this situation doctors will believe that the patient is making up the claim. Some pain is purely subjective, but other pain is objectively verifiable. All your example does here is state that some things are only knowable through subjective experience. Fair enough, I’ve never argued otherwise. But stating this generally and making a convincing argument that psychic phenomena are similarly only knowable through subjective experience are two completely different things. While I agree that certain phenomena may be knowable only subjective experience, I struggle to think of an example where that is always the case. Even the most subjective pain, say grief, is evidenced through certain changes in behavior, if not open weeping. Some people may hide their pain though, and in such cases they are in pain and no one else knows it. But if a person claimed to be in pain, maybe we could devise a test to see if he were telling the truth. I mean, I’m not willing to foreclose the possibility that there exists such a test that would tell us whether the person is lying or not. There’s always a lie detector test. Yes, they’re not accurate. But that doesn’t mean there can’t ever be an accurate lie detector test. I guess we could at least ask the guy questions and see if his answers are consistent with a guy in pain. At least we could do that. I guess my point is that just because this guy’s pain is subjective, that doesn’t mean that we gain nothing by asking the guy question, that is, if we’re interested in whether his claims are true. But much more importantly than this, I don’t believe that psychic phenomena are only knowable or verifiable through subjective experience. Certainly many psychics would argue otherwise. So to sum up my point here, it is quite a leap from arguing that some phenomena might only be knowable through subjective experience to the conclusion that psychic phenomena are such phenomena only knowable only through subjective experience.

“let's say that everything is mere physics. everything radiates. the radiation from the big-bang still lingers in the air we are breathing, it is thought by some. our brains emit a field of radiation. is it not possible that at certain times our brain might spontaneously interpret a various wave of this or that, and it comes across as the psychic moment?”

I guess that’s possible. But then couldn’t we devise some type of machine to intercept such signals? And why would only certain people receive such signals? And wouldn’t these signals often be meaningless? Why wouldn’t skeptics receive such signals? Why don’t I get these signals occasionally? If I don’t receive these signals because I’ve conditioned myself to ignore them, then what about people who never think of psychic phenomena and have no opinion of it whatsoever, and yet receive no such signals? If this were really the explanation for psychic phenomena, why would psychic phenomena have to do so heavily with contacting the spirit world and such? If this were the case, doesn’t it seem likely that “psychic” phenomena would just be seen as a natural phenomenon and become part of science? You may think that you can answer some or all of these questions, but to me, this explanation isn’t very convincing. But it’s possible, sure.

“in quantum physics there is a principle called the 'uncertainty principle' you may have heard of it, but i'll explain it anyway, as best as i can: one can never know both the speed and location of a particle; the more one knows about the former, the less one knows about the latter, and vice versa. in trying to determine either one, the very test itself changes the situation. if that's true of tiny little blips, and our minds are huge piles of those same blips...”

Yes, I know about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and I’m familiar with the point it supposedly makes about the nature of testing. But the conclusion here is a bit of a fallacy, I think. We can’t know X about the blips, so therefore we can’t know X about that which the blips make up. So that would be like saying, bits of sand are small, and therefore so is the beach, since it’s made up of bits of sand. Overall, what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says about particles is interesting, but what it supposedly says about everything else is dubious. Of course, sometimes the test itself, the very instrument used, can affect the results of a test. This is just common sense, and while the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is illustrative of this common sense notion, I don’t find it more helpful or persuasive than other examples that actually involve testing people. I mean, why reason from particles to people when you can use an example involving people and make the same point? (Personally, I think it’s because some people are particularly impressed with the mystery of natural phenomena and science and find such examples more persuasive, as if they speak more to the very nature of reality… but this is a digression). So anyway, if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says something about the nature of testing in general, it still says nothing about specific instances where specific tests are used, unless you can offer a plausible reason why the test invalidates its own results. You can’t just call “Heisenberg uncertainty principle!” and invalidate all tests; you have to apply that principle to the specific test and explain why a specific test invalidates its results. To be fair, you have done this with explanations of performance anxiety, for example. My point is that in my estimation, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn’t really add anything to your argument.

“so what's with those particles, hmm? performance anxiety? this is what i mean by the very attempt to test for something makes it partially untestable. if one tests for the speed, one changes the location. if one tests for the location, one changes the speed.”

And where’s the specific analogue to psychic phenomena that makes this comparison between particles and people meaningful? Performance anxiety is a more plausible explanation when you’re dealing with people. Again, all you’re saying is that it’s possible in some instances that the test itself invalidates its results or makes it impossible to obtain results. You have yet to show that this is the case with psychic phenomena. All you’ve said is that it is possible that the test invalidates its results. It does not follow that the aura test invalidates its results.

“i agree with you that there are varying degrees of subjectivity. we have agreed that subjectivity is an inevitability. thus, subjectivity is the dominant trait here. objectivity takes a back seat, or perhaps the trunk.”

Not at all. Maybe absolute objectivity, but you might say the same about absolute subjectivity. I mean, is anything truly subjective? Even stuff that goes on only in your head can be evidenced by your behavior or your brainwaves. Maybe one day it will be possible to read your brainwaves and know exactly what you’re experiencing. What then of absolute subjectivity? My point is that when you acknowledge that there are varying degrees of subjectivity, which on one end looks awfully close to objectivity, then you can’t say that objectivity takes a backseat or whatever. “Objectivity” then becomes just a way of referencing something that is more objective than something which is relatively subjective. So let’s just call it “objectivity” for short and stop denigrating it.

“apparently i *am* a tricky devil, because i *am* made of plasma. plasma, and other things too, of course. and not the same plasma we were talking about, but plasma nonetheless. now i feel bad! i know i was a devil, but i thought i was a 'snuggly' devil, not a 'tricky' one. darn! drats! CONGRATULATION!”

But that’s blood plasma. And so it’s a difference in semantics. This maybe says something about communication, but nothing about psychic phenomena.

“regarding auras, i checked a few sites _and_ a book at the library and was very surprised to find that all four said the aura thing was about seeing colors, like you claimed.”

I don’t know why you were so surprised. That’s all I’ve ever heard about aura reading, that it was about seeing colors and that those colors meant something. Those are the claims of many aura readers, anyway. And those are the claims that the aura test proved false. If you want to come up with some other kind of aura reading where it’s harder to detect cheaters and liars, then fine, but that’s not aura reading in reality, as it is practiced by people who call themselves aura readers. You are saying essentially that there is some form of “real” aura reading out there somewhere, and conveniently enough we can’t test for it or find anyone who actually claims to practice it.

“i thought most aura-seers were concerned with something spiritual, not physical.”

Well it is supposed to be spiritual, in the sense that the color appears to those with a magical connection to the spirit world and its supposed to tell you something about yourself. To you, something spiritual seems to unverifiable physically, but tell that to all the people who claim to have taken pictures of ghosts.

[I argued that aura readers’ inability to perform as they claimed they could is evidence against psychic phenomena] “via what? some sort of mystical wand of evidence-transmutation? it is evidence only of those specific persons tested, and under the conditions of that test. for those tests to be accurate, it assumes that the conditions of those tests are representative of all (or at least, most) conditions present at during the 'psychic moment'.”
\
No, it’s not via the use of an evidence wand, but via a series of justified inferences. In no particular order, one inference is that those specific persons tested are representative of people who make such claims in general. Another inference is that the results of the aura test were not anomalous. Yet another inference is that aura readers claim to experience psychic phenomena. There may be more inferences, but it’s tedious to identify all of them. Basically, that aura readers are bogus makes it more likely that all such psychics are bogus. But it’s a series of justifiable inferences on which I rely. This series of inferences is not unassailable, but then, I only said it was evidence, not conclusive evidence. Would you have me believe that the fact that aura readers failed a test actually helps the credibility of other psychic claims? The best you can say is that it doesn’t hurt such claims.

“in any tests made thus far, there have been WAAAY too many variables. how can i be sure? because by the very nature of the concept, psychicness, is based in the human mind (of which there are over 6-billion variations) and nearly any number of other possible factors (which may vary person-to-person).”

So I guess that means that it’s impossible to test for heart disease, since the heart is made up of so many cardiac cells. Your argument here is that there are “too many variables” because psychic ability is “based on the human mind.” Schizophrenia is “based on the human mind.” Can we test for that or not? What does it mean to be “based on the human mind”? And why assume that it has anything to do with the mind? Just because it’s something that people claim to perceive? And what about this “over 6 billion variations” business? Because there are “variations of the human mind” we can’t test any phenomena “based on the human mind”? Is this the most convincing argument you can make? I mean, there are a million variations of skin tone. Does this mean we can’t test for skin tone? And just because certain aspects of the human mind are mysterious doesn’t mean that we can’t say anything meaningful about the human mind.

“there are many, many more variables present in such a test than simply the claim of being psychic and the specific test being taken!”

Well give an example of such a variable in one such actual test. If there are so many, it shouldn’t be hard.

“additionally, any such test must necessarily rely upon a mechanism which allows for defined tabulation (a rubric). else, the accuracy of the psychic's claim is merely a matter of the tester's opinion.”

I know what a rubric is. Still, to say generally that a tester in quantitative research needs a rubric says nothing about any specific test. You’re not alleging the absence of a specific rubric.

“now, in tests with a defined mechanism for tabulation (i.e. guessing x out of y cards correctly), one of three things will necessarily happen. one, x/y is greater than the range expected by merely guessing (based in probability). two, x/y is within that range. three, x/y is beneath that range. none of these prove anything, nor is evidence of much at all!”

Well, if the psychics could guess the cards and the non-psychics couldn’t, it would probably prove something.

“even if 95% of people's responses were correct it would be impossible to know whether or not they were guessing, employing a tool (psychic skill), channelling, receiving the data from Shiva, or just plain cheating”

Let’s run through those possibilities: (1) Guessing: It is unlikely that the psychic would get 95% of the cards correct just by guessing. But it is possible. So do the test over. If the psychic fails to perform similarly, either the first test was a fluke or the psychics powers left him at just the right time. (2) Psychic skill: possible. (3) Channeling: Isn’t this the same as psychic skill? I mean, I get the distinction but it’s still some form of invisible paranormal magic. (3) Receiving the data from Shiva: Again, this is a paranormal explanation. I don’t think researchers are so much interested in which magic powers in particular would allow a purported psychic to guess cards correctly. (4) Cheating: Very possible, so you make cheating more difficult, test multiple times and test multiple psychics.

“[guessing, psychic skill, channeling, Shiva messages, and cheating are] variables that cannot be controlled, ever.”

Variables that can’t be controlled?? Cheating can’t be controlled? How about the ways I mentioned: making cheating difficult and testing multiple times and testing multiple psychics? Guessing can’t be controlled? What about, oh, I don’t know, testing multiple times and testing multiple psychics? If you tested a hundred psychics a hundred times and they got 95% of the cards right every time, I’d say you could pretty much rule out guessing, no? And as far as the paranormal explanations, that’s what you’re left with when the other explanations are ruled out. None of these might be _perfect_ ways to rule out cheating or plain dumb luck, but so what? You’re not satisfied with a 99.9999% chance that the results weren’t due to guessing?

“the tests can only assume that the variable has been controlled because the testee says so.”

If they tested one guy and asked him to guess one card, and he guessed right, you’d have a point. But researchers test multiple subjects, using multiple cards, multiple times. So no, you don’t rule out random chance just because the tester says so, you rule it out because you can be over 99% sure that the results were not due to pure chance. Random chance can never be fully ruled out, of course. But once we get to the point where the chances are, say, one out of a hundred billion that the results can be explained due to random chance, then we’re pretty well justified in ruling out random chance, wouldn’t you say?

“sometimes two highly improbable events coincide in an improbable way. some say that it is meaningless; though statistically improbable, its nothing more than a freak event. others say there are no freak events; that when such coincidences occur, there is any of myriad reasons for it (varying by the person, of course). either way, it's impossible to test effectively. there is no way to contrive a genuine coincidence. that is, a contrived coincidence is not coincidental at all. and while someone may be falsely impressed by a contrived coincidence, that has no inherent bearing on the significance of a genuine, not-contrived coincidence; a significance that may or may not be evident to the outside observer.”

I don’t understand the leap from controlling for random chance to ascribing meaning to coincidences. Of course you can’t test to see if coincidences are meaningful. No researchers to my knowledge have attempted to devise any such test. Because there is no difference between a coincidence and a psychic coincidence, really, other than the meaning one ascribes to it. Synchronicity, as some call it, is just a magic coincidence. It’s a coincidence you deem meaningful. To me, since meaning is manmade, you can decide which coincidences are meaningful. I don’t think you have to call them magical for them to be meaningful, though. I think that’s where we differ.

“my associations with 'normative' would be that '7' is the normative of rolling two six-sided dice. i do not know it as a value judgement. i'm not saying you are wrong to call it that; i'm just saying i've never encountered that before. so i looked it up in the gargantuan o.e.d. and we are both correct.”

Well, okay, I’m glad you found a definition that justified your understanding of what normative meant. That still doesn’t explain why you confused or couldn’t distinguish between examples of normatives and descriptives. In attempting to explain why aura readers might see different colors, you used an example of people’s disagreement about whether a musical piece was good or bad. I argued that this was a poor comparison, because color is not a normative, or a good/bad value judgment, but a descriptive. So I disagree that we’re both right, obviously. That normative might have multiple meanings is pretty irrelevant, because first of all, when it’s used as a word that contrasts with descriptive, it pretty much means what I said. Second of all, from the context of what I wrote you should have known that I was distinguishing between value judgments and descriptions. Maybe I’m making too big a deal of this, but you were pretty insistent on not recognizing the difference between normatives and descriptives. Check above if you disagree. A lot of my previous words were devoted to the distinction between value judgment and description, specifically with respect to the examples you chose to make your points.

“i didn't back up the houdini dismissal it was because the lack of objectivity in such a test was so glaring that i thought you were perhaps joking? although you didn't seem to be joking.”

Not joking at all. If people could talk to the dead, and if Houdini’s widow went to channelers who claimed that the deceased Houdini spoke through them, and if Houdini actually spoke through those channelers, why wouldn’t Houdini be able to speak the secret code which only Houdini and his wife knew? You reference some glaring lack of objectivity but fail to substantiate your claim. Are you claiming that Houdini’s widow wanted to prove channelers wrong and that she actually did hear the code but lied? Tell me why this isn’t a good test.

“a good scientific test has many controls and few variables. variables present: each psychic and all related personal factors (right there, the number of variables spirals out of control).”

“[E]ach psychic” is not a variable, but a subject. As for the “all related personal factors,” which of these would be relevant other than the supposed ability to speak to the dead? Are you telling me that if one channeler is, say, homosexual, this affects his ability to channel Houdini’s ghost? If so, how? You can’t just say, “Look, everyone is really different. See? Too many variables!” Tell me what these personal variables are and why they confound the results of the test. As far as I’m concerned, the only relevant “personal factor” was that all these people claimed that the dead could speak through them.

“[other variables are] the 'contactability' of 'houdini's soul' (how to calculate...?). was the code genuinely solveable (pretty critical that that isn't a variable before judging the psychics!). etc.

Okay, so maybe Houdini’s soul can’t be contacted. That’s your most decent criticism so far. But still, mediums claimed that Houdini was in fact speaking through them, and on what basis would one conclude that a soul was “unreachable”? Still, I guess you could just say Houdini’s soul was in hell or heaven or just wasn’t interested in speaking to his wife. Maybe he was at the ghost gym, or got a ghost divorce from his wife and was hooking up with all the ghost babes in the spirit world. Of course, that would still make frauds of the psychics who claimed to be channeling Houdini. As for the genuine solvability of the code, well, it wasn’t a code that one needed to solve, it was merely a string of text that Houdini and his wife agreed upon before he died. So if the dead Houdini could speak through a medium (as mediums claim that the dead can) then the code would have been solved.

[I call aura readers liars] “call them names all you like; unless you are them, and have stared through their eyes, you simply don't know what they see.”

But it’s an accurate name to call them. And it’s not as simple as “I don’t see what they see.” Like I have detailed endlessly, there are ways to test whether a person is seeing anything or not.

“personally, i don't see what makes you so mad about their claims.”

I’m not mad about their claims, but I’m not fond of people who make stuff up to tell vulnerable people. Psychic phenomena to you is something that is too subtle and fleeting to be detected and is a subjective phenomena which tells no verifiable truth claims (I think you contradict this definition frequently, but let’s just assume). However, to actual, practicing psychics, like aura and palm readers and mediums like that asshole from that “Crossing Over” show on television, psychic phenomena is a way to see magic colors and speak to the dead, to leap out of one’s body and tell the future. And these people make money doing this. I mean, police employ psychics to find missing persons, for God’s sake. So I don’t think this is a harmless fraud.

“people lie all the time about all sorts of things. this doesn't make the underlying potential inherently impossible.”

Of course it doesn’t make it impossible, but no amount of evidence for one proposition makes the opposite proposition “impossible.” It does, however, make it less likely that the underlying claim is possible. As I’ve said before, the failure of psychics to perform before a critical audience is certainly not evidence that supports the claims of psychics.

“extrapolation is a good tool for math, but a bad crutch for prejudice.”

What about for statistics? I mean, that’s pretty much what we’re dealing with here. For this to be a good point for you, you have to be saying essentially that we can’t generalize from a sample. A sample of any size, mind you. Multiple samples, too. None of the psychics chosen for any number of studies are or can be representative of the psychic community., because that’s extrapolation which is only good for math. Well, that’s fine, because all you really need is to produce one psychic that can pass the test. This hasn’t happened yet. And as far as the prejudice line, well, if I’m prejudiced against psychics it’s only because their claims are false and they take advantage of people.

[I express my dislike of the rejoinder (used to counter any and all attempts to prove a truth claim, “Well prove you exist!” I say it’s bad because it can be used for anything] “that it can be used for anything should tell you something.”

Yes, but it tells you more about the person arguing this way than anything else. It’s a stupid way to counter an attempt to prove something. It supposedly shows you that you can’t prove anything, but what it really shows you is that the person using this as an argument doesn’t have better proof and so relies on the idea that nothing can be proven to force a stalemate. And plus, it’s dumb for other reasons. I mean, I could prove that I exist by meeting with you, shaking your hand and saying, “I exist.” That’s good evidence that I exist, but whether or not I’ve “proved” that I exist depends on whether I’ve satisfied the burden of proof. But you don’t really mean this type of proof of existence, anyway. You mean a logical, supposedly absolute proof. But then this is an even lamer challenge, because why do I have to prove metaphysical truths when I just want to prove physical, contingent truths? And you’ll say, “Well, psychic phenomena IS a metaphysical truth!” Okay, that may be, but psychics and psychic phenomena are supposedly the link between the physical world we live in and the underlying metaphysical world. If there were no link between worlds, there would be no aura readers to speak of. Perhaps aura readers and the like are only the tip of the iceberg, but we can learn a lot by looking at the iceberg tip.

“first you diss the psychics because usually their claims do not hold at any level. now you dismiss my gem of oldness because its presence at every level makes it impassible.”

Well, circular reasoning is always true. Does that make it, like, the best reasoning out there? I guess I should speak more precisely: the “prove you exist” gambit can be used for anything, but it actually works for nothing. It’s like if the prosecution says, “We have OJ’s blood at the crime scene and in the Bronco, therefore we prove that OJ is guilty,” and Cochran says, “Oh really, you proved it? Well, counselor… Prove that you exist!” Maybe this strikes you as great reasoning, but to me it sounds dumb. I don’t always have to prove something harder to prove what I actually want to prove.

“====A necessary assumption. To get things done.==== i smell an agenda.”

Well, if by agenda you mean perspective, I suppose you’re correct, but then, why the revelation now that I have a perspective? Did you just now realize it? As for the out of context quote, I think what I was saying there was that we need to assume that things are provable in order to speak or think, which is really obvious and not really that someone who is actually thinking and speaking should attempt to contradict, in my opinion… or, in my agenda, I guess.

“yes, let's check for variables, shall we? per person, you will end up with a many-page list of variables. how they pray. why the pray. what they pray. what they believe about praying. what they believe about being prayed for. and on and on.”

So it’s your contention that some types of prayer heals magically but other types of prayer don’t? Like, say, if you pray to the wrong God your prayers won’t be answered? Well, the funny thing is that you don’t actually know if the study included, say, religion or prayer style as variables. If they did, the researchers certainly controlled for them, because it’s easy to do using a statistics program. Anyway, if they didn’t control for such variables, then the study can be replicated either using a larger sample and controlling for those variables or focusing on one religion, for instance. However, that a different study can be done does not invalidate the effects observed in the study actually done. What this study evidently looked at was whether prayer, in general, heals, as many claim it does.

“and then there is location, and time, and nearly anything else imaginable.”

So God only answers prayer in the evening, or what? Location and time are pretty questionable as variables, and “nearly anything else imaginable” are not variables about which the researcher should be concerned. I mean, if we’re testing the efficacy of a Spanish tutoring program, we might control for variables such as previous fluency in Spanish, but we would not concern ourselves with trivialities such as what color socks students wore while they learned. You need a certain sample size for your effect size to be adequate, and if you include “nearly anything else imaginable” as variables you’ll need an innumerably large sample size to be able to control for all those trivial variables. The bottom line is that some variables are relevant and others aren’t. Now, if only the Mormon God answers prayers, for instance, then perhaps the praying person’s religion is relevant, and it would be interesting to see if there’s a difference in effect between religions in prayer effect. I don’t think there would be a difference. I think that all religions would be found wanting in the prayer effect department. But it’s funny that you think there would be a difference, because if you believe in some vague spirituality then I would think that to you, any prayer would do. To sum up, as far as religion as a variable, that could be done in subsequent studies. As for many of the other variables you mention, they’re not likely relevant.

“the number of tests that will need to be conducted, based upon the near-infinite number of possible permutations of variables will occupy humanity well into the year 23,250,521 A.D.”

As I’ve said, this would apply to any statistical study. You can always add more variables, especially if you choose ones that aren’t relevant.”

“that you readily uptake this as evidence that prayer - "the kind that was studied in this study, doesn’t affect recovery" indicates a bias on your part.”

Everyone has bias, remember? Now you’re surprised that I’m biased? I like to think that I’m biased toward reason and common sense. What I was saying there was kind of what I said above: The researchers tested prayer in general, because a lot of people will tell you that any time of prayer will help others. So that’s what they tested for. Could they have controlled for type of religion? Sure, and if, say the fundamentalist Christians are correct in their beliefs then only Pat Robertson style fundamentalist prayers would be answered. But that’s another study, not this study.

“the variables are simply too numerous to conclude anything without incorporating bias.”

Yes, without a bias toward reason and common sense. But the relevant variables actually are not so numerous as you claim.

“indeed, the variables are too numerous to even begin limiting future variables. it would take millenia of constant testing.”

More silliness. That’s only if you include irrelevant variables. The variables have to be relevant for them to be controlled for. To control for irrelevant variables would be an obscene waste of time.

“the scientific process is simply too unsuited for testing such things.”

You keep saying so, but you haven’t supplied a good reason yet.

“i agree that the scientific process is not fundamentally flawed. this does not mean that it is fundamentally suited to approach all possible possibilities.”

I don’t know what it means to “approach all possible possibilities.” What the scientific method is doing here is testing whether psychic claims are true, whether aura seers can see auras, for example. There is nothing really mystical about the process. You’re getting caught up in saying how the process itself is ill-suited to test psychic phenomena but you can’t articulate clearly or convincingly why that is. You resort to vague talk about infinite variables and possibilities, but those infinite variables are largely irrelevant and we’re not interested in the infinite and infinitesimally small possibilities, but merely the most reasonable probability. That’s all science can offer for anything, so why expect more from studies of psychic phenomena simply because such phenomena involve magic and the human mind?

“for the scientific method to proceed, variables must be minimized BEFORE results are predicted.”

Relevent variables, yes. You seem to think that every variable is relevant. Every variable is not relevant. If I’m testing the efficacy of a cold medicine, I’d want to take into account variables such as age, overall health, and other medications taken. I probably wouldn’t take into account eye color. Why? I mean, technically I can’t rule out that this cold medicine might work better for people with brown eyes. So why wouldn’t I control for this variable when I can’t rule it out. Well, you can’t rule it out in a technical sense, but reason tells you that this variable most likely doesn’t affect a person’s ability to effectively use a cols medication. And if I were to control for such a variable, I’d have to control for other most likely irrelevant variables as well, such as where the subject parts his hair, and so on. This would be a complete waste of time, and as you’ve said yourself, the list of variables is basically infinite, so I’d actually never be able to do my study, whereas if I ignored the irrelevant variables I’d be able to do something worthwhile with my data. So basically, I’d be willing to take the very small chance that eye color affects ability to use cold medicine. It’s not as big a risk as you seem to think. It’s kind of like playing Russian roulette with a billion chambered gun.

“in the case of prayer, or psychics, or metaphysics, or the soul, there is no limit to what may or may not be a factor.”

You say this without providing reasons. Your implied reasons are something like this: the soul is infinite, therefore the variables are infinite. That’s not very persuasive reasoning to me (or anyone else paying attention, I would guess).

“the scientific process is only suited to things that are anchored in the physical realm.”

Psychic phenomena are anchored in the physical realm because psychic phenomena supposedly affect people. Aura readers see auras, mediums speak to the dead. The aura is seen around a person who is anchored in this world, the medium speaks words which are audible in this world.

“and at the fringes of the physical realm (micros and macros) it's effectiveness also becomes limited (uncertainty principle; singularities).”

Then it’s a good thing we’re not concerned with physics within subatomic particles. As I’ve said, the effects lie in the regular world where we normally test such truth claims. Psychics represent a link between the magical underworld and the world we live in. If there were no link, we’d only be able to guess at the invisible machinery. You can speculate about the invisible machinery all you want and I won’t disagree. The only reason that I and others disagree is that psychics do claim to experience psychic phenomena _in this physical world_. They claim that they know things, facts, which describe and relate to _this physical world_, that they could not know but for their supposed psychic powers.

“and per that annoying ancient jewel, the broach of yesteryear, the old gem, subjectivity is all over the place. why, every known law of physics becomes completely useless in the infinite density of a black hole or pre-big-bang-conglomeration (singularity)!”

The fact that physics doesn’t do what we think it should on the macro or micro level doesn’t add much to this discussion. I don’t want to know the principles of how psyhic phenomena work, I merely want to know if it works at all. As I’ve said before, those who do any sort of research on psychic phenomena (and other quantitative research) aren’t interested in finding absolute truths or underlying laws, but rather likely truths. That’s all science does and all it really can do. That said, the truths we discover using the scientific method are the best that are out there. I’ll take them over metaphysical speculation any day. At least there’s evidence that the process works. If there weren’t, then we wouldn’t be able to develop new medicine or evil biological weapons. Again, I’m not saying that science is good, but that it works. Psychic phenomena and magic does not work, or at least that’s where the best available evidence points, and you’re really almost admitting so by saying that psychic phenomena can’t be measured in this world. And on a side note, the inability of physics to find a unified theory that works on the macro and mirco level doesn’t mean that one can’t be found, or at least better approximated.

“but it wouldn't necessarily mean that. the annoying old gem is right there.”

Let me see if I can unpack this. You said that psychic powers are fleeting, and so tests where psychics are asked to guess cards are unfair, since such tests assume that a psychic’s powers are working all the time for all purposes. I said that it doesn’t matter if the psychics powers are on all the time for all purposes, because for a statistically relevant difference to show up in the analysis between psychic card guesses and non-psychic card guesses, psychic powers would only have to work part of the time. So even if the psychic could only read the mind of the guy holding the card 10% of the time (that is, if his powers were working only 10% of the time) this difference would show up in the analysis. And you respond by saying that the annoying old gem, the “prove your existence” gambit, is right there? In what way is it right there? I mean, it’s not like you explain it or anything.

Then you say this right after:
“simply saying "got that?" doesn't make it so.”

Doesn’t make what so? Your obscure statement about the “prove your existence” gambit being “right there”? What does any of that even mean? You probably meant that saying “Got that” didn’t make my assertion about the card thing (which I explain again for your convenience, above) true. Well, let’s see how you try to substantiate that:

“you are assuming that random chance will inherently yield probable results. that's not random chance. it's probable that it will yield probable results; but it's not inherent.”

I don’t know what you are saying. I’m assuming that a person who can read minds at least sometimes, then he will be able to guess cards correctly more frequently than a non-psychic. That’s the assumption. It’s a perfectly reasonable assumption. I have no idea what you’re saying above. Nevertheless, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you said above does indeed make sense, and I’ll try to figure out what point you’re trying to make. Maybe what you are saying is that the results could be anomalous, that even if it appears that the psychic has guessed correctly, this might be due to random chance alone. Well, a few things about that: (1) Of course that’s possible, but it’s not probable, and the probability gets lower and lower as repeat testing is done. (2) This is more of a concern for finding an effect an effect that is not there rather than not finding an effect that is there. If the psychic didn’t have powers, random chance might show that he did have powers if he got lucky and guessed correctly more frequently based on chance alone. However, the opposite comes into play only if the psychics misses (due to guessing, when his powers weren’t working, let’s say) were greater than random chance dictates, and so the actual effect of his psychic power (which resulted in him correctly guessing using his mind-reading ability) was obscured. This would only come into play, though, if the psychic’s ability had only a very small effect on cards guessed due to psychic power (which isn’t actually guessing, but you know what I mean). For example, say I use a deck of 52 cards, and shuffle after each guess. There is a 1 in 52 chance of guessing a card correctly without psychic power. If I test a non-psychic 52 times, he will be right by random chance only once. Obviously it’s less likely that the guesser will be right twice, three times, and so on. So if a psychic’s mind-reading power works for even a few times, the difference will be statistically significant. It’s possible that a psychic might psychically intuit the identity of a card but not guess his one out of 52 correct, and in such a case the effect of his glorious, albeit very small, power will be hidden. But again, the way to solve this is by repeat testing. By repeat testing, results become less likely the result of Type I or Type II error.

“===Again, even if psychic power disappears into the ether, isn’t it convenient that it _never_ appears when a study is being done?==== isn't it convenient that one can never know the exact speed _and_ location of a subatomic particle? darn, that must mean subatomic particles don't exist.”

This is another of your poor comparisons. With particles, there’s no reason to suspect motive. It’s not like they are trying to conceal their speed or position. With psychics, there is reason to suspect an explanation which says, essentially, “My psyschic powers don’t work when you are looking.” That is just one of the many differences between people and particles which you are evidently unable to see, and why this is a poor analogy.

“isn't it convenient that all things quanta are uncertain? isn't it convenient that the very forefront of 'science's factual ways' is a shifty and uncertain physic who's laws disappear into the void regardless of whether the universe(s) had a beginning, whether it has an end, or whether it keeps on permutating until a point of infinite density occurs somewhere? isn't it convenient that a special addendum to math's laws must be made for 0^0 and the square of -4 and for 2x*2x=4x so that the laws don't break, given that they fail to adequately explain all circumstances? isn't it convenient?”

Well, the whole “can’t factor zero” rule isn’t exactly arbitrary. I’m pretty sure it’s there because you can’t divide by zero. Anything divided by zero is undefined, which makes a bit of sense since how do you divide something zero times? Conversationally, it sounds like you would be just leaving it intact but that would be dividing by one, so really, it doesn’t make sense to divide something zero times, or say, between zero people…

Wait a second…! None of this is relevant to this discussion at all! What exactly do you think that the old 1 = 2 proof has to say about whether or not a psychic can read minds or talk to the dead? That the universe is mysterious? That we don’t know everything? Okay, so what? We don’t have to know everything to know that psychics are full of shit. And as for the repetition of “isn’t it convenient,” take a look at what my “isn’t it convenient” refers to. It refers to ulterior motives of psychics and their apologists in saying, “My powers disappeared because you were observing me.” There are no such ulterior motives to be found in the universe, as I’ve already stated. So basically, the repetition and the analogy were meaningless.

“no, it's totally incovenient. it turns provability into an article of faith and has the horrible, volcanic effect of reincarnating old gems.”

Turns provability into an article of faith? So the 1 = 2 proof means that we can’t prove anything and we must accept everything on faith? Well, that’s pure horeshit, but if you want to believe it, go right ahead. There is a difference between believing based on faith and believing based on proof, even if the proof isn’t perfect (because after all, no proof is). It’s the difference between believing that Jesus is lord and fire is hot. You can only refuse to recognize the difference between faith-based and proof-based belief in bad faith. And as for the old gem, you’re the one bringing it up, not the discourse volcano or whatever. The old gem, in case you’ve forgotten, is the silly challenge, “prove you exist.” Of course, I called it an “old gem” that sarcastically, because it’s really more of a turd than a gem. It’s equivalent to me saying, “Look, I found some giant bones, proof that dinosaurs exist,” and you responding, “Oh yeah? Do a thousand pull-ups.” What I mean by that is one thing has no relevance to the other.

“*sigh*. i did cover it, right there in the quote, too. in the very first strontium-elephant-thing i addressed this situation. someone watches all night and no, i am not abducted by strontium-elephants, but i believe that i am, and feel that i am, and sense that i am, and 'know' that i am. it's whats real to me.”

My sigh is a thousand times louder, believe me. No, you didn’t cover it, and my point was that no one just believes their immediate perceptions in all situations. I describe in much greater detail why this is earlier in this post.

“you might tell me otherwise; if i believe you and it seems less real, then it seems less real; but if i don't believe you, and it still seems real, then it is still real, to me. it doesn't really matter whether it is real to you or not. if you think otherwise, your ego is overextending itself. that's sexy and i like it. :P”

Outside of your contrived hypotheticals, though, people do take into account other peoples’ perspectives. Plus they use their reason. Again, I describe this earlier in much more detail.

“the only living-moments that are real to anyone are those that they genuinely think are real to them. belief determines reality.”

But people don’t just rely on “living moments” to decide realty, which is why when you drop acid you know (for the most part) that their walls aren’t actually melting. Again, I describe why this is earlier in much greater detail.

“There are ways of collecting evidence to verify the accuracy of your perceptions.====
and in all cases, the final filter for such evidence becomes the self who is already subjective to such perceptions. you acknowledge the old gems, then ignore the rings they are set in.”

Jesus Christ. The old gem (“prove your existence”) is now set in a ring? Remember, I now prefer to refer to it as a turd. Anyway, okay, the final filter is perception? Well, not really. I mean, say you perceive a whole lot. Like you drop acid and watch your walls melt. Now imagine yourself no longer perceiving. Say all your senses are turned off. So it’s just you and your mind. In that case, you’d have your previous perceptions, your memory and your reason and that would determine your reality. And you’d probably conclude that your walls had not indeed been melting. Reason is always there along with perception, so really it ties for final filter. The rings they are set in. Unbelieveable.

“first you deride this and that for its lack of truth. then you deride the only technical truth we have agreed upon. what a nice day.”

The important part is that we disagree about whether it’s significant. And yes, it was a nice day today.

“knowledge *is* amorphous and unknowable and inconsistent.”

Not to the extent that we can’t say meaningful things, even if those things are only probabilistic. I mean, would it make you feel better if instead of saying, “aura readers are liars” I said, “Aura readers are most likely liars, although there is an infinitesimally small chance that my perceptions might totally be misleading me on that”?

“the 'uncertainty principle' is at the core of quantum physics. 'general relativity' is at the core of macro-cosmology, and since macro-cosmology leads to black-holes, or closing wormholes, or endless other causes of 'singularity' (whereby infinite density occurs), the laws simply vanish into irrelevance. as to what laws occur at those points, there is no way to test”

Oh my God, this again? Yeah, I learned about this in high school. I get it, there’s no unified theory to explain how everything works. So what? Physics works well enough to get us to the moon and all sorts of other good and evil stuff. Again, not interested in absolute truths or underlying principles. I’m interested in probabilistic truths (which is all we can reach anyway).

“====If one aura reader says blue and another says red, then these are not consistent. It’s evidence that they’re making it all up, that they don’t see anything.==== i played a piece music for a few guests once, and one said it was festive and another said somber. the third didn't hear it owing to deafness. clearly, it is reasonable to conclude that the piece of music didn't exist.”

Oh, more analogies for me? I’m pretty sure this is just a slight variation of one you offered before, but okay. Well, my, what a silly conclusion to come to that the music didn’t exist. I guess if the deaf guy relied only on his perception he might conclude that music didn’t exist. But he could test for it. Maybe he could feel the vibrations through an amp. And he could ask others and determine whether they would have reason to make up the existence of music. If there were no ulterior motives, perhaps he would conclude that music did exist even if he couldn’t hear it. Absent any evidence, plus ulterior motives, and perhaps he would be justified in concluding that music didn’t exist. Now, as for the other two divergent opinions, well, musical interpretation is pretty subjective. Some things are more or less subjective. Like when aura reader says blue and the other says red, it’s supposed to be objective, like they can see into the nature of your existence, and they should both come up with the same color. If aura reading were mere interpretation, why would the colors signify anything? And this still wouldn’t explain why aura readers failed the sheet test, which doesn’t require them to see any color in particular, but only to see a glowing color around a person.

[I say your interpretation of psychic phenomena doesn’t do anything]“at this point you are substituting hostility for arguments. an ability isn't inherently something that creates an external result. i.e., the ability to hear. internal result. i.e., the ability to smell. internal result. i am watching as you make these proclamations about my reality, a reality you know nothing about aside from rudimentary extrapolation. more evidence that belief determines reality.

Well, even if it was hostile, it was a hostile argument and not mere hostility. The underlying point is this: You said that one example of what you call psychic phenomena is thinking of a person shortly before that person calls you. What I’m saying is that this isn’t an example of psychic power doing anything, such as seeing an aura or talking to the dead or seeing the future or reading a mind. See the difference? That is, it is not necessary for you to invent a psychic world for you to think of a person and for that person to shortly thereafter call you, at least not if it doesn’t happen very often (and I believe that you’ve indicated that it happened infrequently). So your psychic moments to me are kind of like looking at the sun rising and saying, “See? Magic.” It can happen without magic. Or a better example would be you guess one out of the 52 cards correctly and say, “See, I knew exactly what you were thinking.” If something can be explained by chance, there’s no need to invent a paranormal explanation.

[I talk about invisible gremlins] “gravity, functional and frequent though it may be, is invisible machinery. it, in and of itself, cannot be viewed (invisibility). it is a 'system of rigid bodies' (a machine), or alternatively, an 'intricate natural system' (a machine).

Right, but it seems you’ve missed the point again. We have gravity, which is a natural phenomena, so we don’t need to invent invisible gremlins. Invisible gremlins are completely superfluous. But why don’t you believe in invisible gremlins? Not your cup of magical tea? You know, actually I believe that invisible gremlins are the inscription on the ring in which the old gem is set, if you follow the analogy.


{I say “show how I transgressed”]” "liars! their all liars!" = transgression: the 		050914
...
Id. [I say “show how I transgressed”]” "liars! their all liars!" = transgression: the exceeding of due bounds or limits.

Okay, I meant how I transgressed in terms of logic and such, not propriety. But I disagree that calling liars what they are exceeds any bounds or limits for 2 reasons: (1) liars generally deserve to be called liars and (2) there are no defined bounds or limits here with respect to propriety.

“an old gem that is also a dead horse continues to live, right before our eyes, making the 'liars!' claim into a limit exceeded, for one cannot be certain of the lie.”

Then should I say, “In all likelihood they are liars”? But since absolute knowledge is impossible, as we both agree it is, then I’d have to say “In all likelihood” before anything. So for the sake of brevity, let’s just factor out the “in all likelihood” (no factoring-out limitations here!).

“i was going to concede that 'due' might be subjective and thus open to interpretation. but earlier you mocked the idea of such subjectivity so thoroughly that one hesitates to offer such an escape route.”

Escape route? From what would I be escaping? The mighty turd ring with the invisible gremlin inscription?

“but the old gem prohibits the denial of such an escape. merely denying the presence of the old gem and/or finding its omnipresence irritating doesn't make it any less present.”

The “old gem” is irritating because it is stupid, not the converse.

“you take a lot for granted. the situations people find themselves confronted with - even simple, seemingly open situations - readily lead to decisions and behaviors that don't directly reflect what they felt inside.”

Well you assume that inner feelings are always relevant. If what you are interested in is inner feelings, then inner feelings are the most relevant thing of all. But if what you’re interested in is how those inner feelings manifest themselves outwardly, then inner feelings become much less relevant.

“if someone has delusions, it is a reality to them. that's half of what makes them delusions! so you would be extra-unable to know them, if you refused to acknowledge their delusions as being something real, because such delusions are a part of their reality.”

Not the way it works in reality. You have the perceptions of others and reason as well to rely upon. No one just accepts their current sense perceptions when something seems off about their perceptions. Like a nearsighted guy doesn’t assume that the world itself gets blurry when he removes his glasses, even though the blurriness of the workd is his immediate perception. I’ve already explained this in more detail, but there’s another example for you to deal with.

“you can put a crown on your own head, and call yourself a king. just realize that it is your own self who has created the justification for such a title. "but see? i have a crown on!" well, you put it there. that's as true for you as it is for i. belief determines reality.”

And you can wear the turd ring. But there you are trying to affect my perception, right? And here we are both using reason, right? Where do reason and the perspectives of others fit in in determining reality? You know that in real life these mean plenty.

So that about does it I suppose. Basically, you’ve argued that perception is reality. In order to prove that psychic phenomena is real. What I find incredibly obtuse about that is what you’re essentially arguing is (1) perception is reality, (2) I perceive psychic phenomena, (3) therefore psychic phenomena is true. But by “true” in number three you must only mean “subjectively true,” since you claim that subjective truth is really the only reality we have. But then all you’re saying is that subjective reality is subjective truth, and that doesn’t mean much of anything. No matter how you philosphize, you can’t bring something, save an idea, into existence just by believing it. You can’t make Santa Clause drop presents by Believing in Santa Clause, even if you believe real hard. But this is really beside the point. All this discussion about the subjective nature of reality and this silly attempt to erase the distinction between faith-based and proof-based truth is just a distraction. But really it is your best evidence, because it’s more tricky to deal with than your attempts to question the validity of psychic studies by declaring irrelevant variables (and sometimes non-variables) to be confounding variables. Like it or not, the claims of psychics are testable, they are tested, and psychics fail again and again. It is a fact that the great weight of the evidence is against psychic phenomena being true. 		050914
...
egger i wish i had a printer. 050915
...
The Heretic PSYCHIC PHENOMENA IS AN OXYMORON. 050915
what's it to you? blather
who go from