Thread: No Evidence of the paranormal?

Originally Posted by O'nus

See this is you projecting the onus of proof onto me. It is not up to me to prove or disprove these things. You have not proven anything and neither has the Ouija. It is malarkey and has no justifiable grounds at all. Just saying, "It is unreliable to prove or disprove" makes it on logical par as cotton candy fairies. How are you so intelligent yet unable to see that?

-

So are flying donkey angels - they too are unfalsifiable. Prove me wrong that they exist in space or outside of our tangible realm. You cannot.

Or, on another way of reasoning; I think you are either delusional or lying. You cannot prove me wrong. So, does that mean I am right?

-

Again, you are relying on things that have no base or reason at all. Just saying, "astral" does not necessitate some magical entity that just magically explains everything away. This is non-thinking and only involves the magical imagination that only a fool would really buy into. How do you really justify the truth in these things basing them on such flimsy rationale? You could apply this exact logic to intangible flying donkey angels - prove me wrong that they exist.

O'nus, I get it already. I know what "unfalsifiable" means; you don't need to repeat yourself for fun. I am telling you that being "unfalsifiable" is just one thing, it is not the only fact you will come across. Because you're so orientated to seeing everything within a logical construct, this can be a major distraction. But I'm saying there is more to it than meets the eye, and more than just your sketchy example.

Do you know about the astral realm or are you just brushing it off?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Does this not affect your rationale in your beliefs just a twinge? Do you really just buy into this so unyieldingly? If you are bought buy this reasoning, go ahead. Personally, I like to question things and use a system to find truth rather than apply a reasoning process that can allow for even the most inane things to be true.

~

I question things much more than you realize, and although I don't negate the validity of the Ouija, I have little to no interest in it. I don't "buy into it" but neither do I say it is false. But I'd like to point out where logic falls short, because in this particular case it has little ground. Unless of course, you believe in a strictly materialistic universe.

Originally Posted by really

O'nus, I get it already. I know what "unfalsifiable" means; you don't need to repeat yourself for fun. I am telling you that being "unfalsifiable" is just one thing, it is not the only fact you will come across. Because you're so orientated to seeing everything within a logical construct, this can be a major distraction. But I'm saying there is more to it than meets the eye, and more than just your sketchy example.

Do you know about the astral realm or are you just brushing it off?

No, I do not know of it, and I am confident in saying that no one else does. If we did, then it would be known as fact along the lines of other facts. But it is not.

I am perfectly open to the idea of anything, and give the possibility of anything, but will not accept it as truth until it comes to terms with logical proof.

Forgive me for looking for truth via logic. You may use other means to attain it, but logic seems to be the only tool we really have.

I question things much more than you realize, and although I don't negate the validity of the Ouija, I have little to no interest in it. I don't "buy into it" but neither do I say it is false. But I'd like to point out where logic falls short, because in this particular case it has little ground. Unless of course, you believe in a strictly materialistic universe.

You ought to realize that I too am open to the idea that Ouija could be proven. However, it has yet to be proven. When the means to prove it come up, I will follow suit. It simply has not yet to happen.

And please do not be so prejudicial in labeling me a materialist as such. You ought to be more insightful and know better.

~

The ouija board? Isn't that the odd little game that stoners and girls at sleepovers play? I have little confidence in this, especially since the users can SEE. At best, I would call it a means of interpreting your subconscious, or that of others.

Originally Posted by Mario92

The ouija board? Isn't that the odd little game that stoners and girls at sleepovers play? I have little confidence in this, especially since the users can SEE. At best, I would call it a means of interpreting your subconscious, or that of others.

It also appears that spirits can travel through astral realms, interact through dimensions, speak to our unconscious..

..but cannot see through our eyelids.

~

My friend's brother was using a ouija board with his friend for a couple weeks. They were using it every day in different places and trying a lot of different things out to get different effects, trying to summon what ever they could. One time they were doing it in the forest and it said something about fire, they realized there were ashes all under the leaves they were sitting on. The next thing it said was that death was coming. That scared them pretty good and they stopped using it, I don't think they ever used it again. Also the kid's sister died of a heroin overdose a week later.

Originally Posted by O'nus

No, I do not know of it, and I am confident in saying that no one else does. If we did, then it would be known as fact along the lines of other facts. But it is not.

[...]


You ought to realize that I too am open to the idea that Ouija could be proven. However, it has yet to be proven. When the means to prove it come up, I will follow suit. It simply has not yet to happen.

It is not necessarily untrue if it is not known by science. Reasoning from this realm can be erroneous in others. What about remote viewing and psychometry? These are known and very well valid, but they are extremely difficult to prove due to the nature of their existence.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am perfectly open to the idea of anything, and give the possibility of anything, but will not accept it as truth until it comes to terms with logical proof.

Forgive me for looking for truth via logic. You may use other means to attain it, but logic seems to be the only tool we really have.

I respect that, but I'm saying there are limitations.

Originally Posted by O'nus

And please do not be so prejudicial in labeling me a materialist as such. You ought to be more insightful and know better.

~

I hope you get my point, I wasn't "labeling" you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It also appears that spirits can travel through astral realms, interact through dimensions, speak to our unconscious..

..but cannot see through our eyelids.

~

Seems unreasonable, doesn't it? But that is merely from your point of view. You could criticize it continuously, and even ask why Ouija boards need to exist right from the beginning. Logic doesn't hold water, here.

Originally Posted by really

Logic doesn't hold water, here.

o.O

...............................................Did someone honestly just say that? Someone is really going to take poor evidence of the supernatural over reasoning and level-headed thinking? Holy crap. And here I was thinking the human race had progressed further than this.

There is nothing to these diviniation rituals...Ouija Boards, Pendulum scrying....It all works on the same bullshit trick. Using tiny muscle twitches guided by the conscious mind to create whatever the viewer wants to see. This is why when doing either of these things blindfolded you get totally random and retarded outcomes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I would absolutely collect the million dollars and go celebrity. As far as things to do to win a million dollars in a very short amount of time, there really is not much I would not do. There is close to nothing. Some things would mess with my conscience too bad, and some things are too disgusting, but I don't think there are any limits beyond those. Pain and the threats of humiliation and loss of anonymity wouldn't have any chance of stopping me. I would speed down the interstate and sprint to where I could win $1 million for moving a needle with my mind. I would be seen as a freak or devil worshipper for the rest of my life by some people and would probably get hounded by obnoxious idiots every time I went out in public, but they can screw off. I want my money.

You know, you use a lot of satire in many of your posts - and even though I can tell you're being genuine, in this one, I didn't expect this to be your honest answer. I'm truly surprised.

Well, my question(s) to you is; do you think you'd be treated like a movie star? Like just another "special" person, like all the others in Hollywood or at the tops of the Billboard charts? Either you're too naive, or I'm over-analyzing, but apparently I see such an admission to the public as much more problematic, in the long run, than you do. I mean, think about it. You're not just coming out as someone with a talent, or a 'skill', that is just unlike any other. You're coming out - confessing to the entire world (and all world governments) - that you can do what centuries of human experience has led us to believe is not possible. You're not just a celebrity. You're a walking piece of natural history. You're a living scientific breakthrough. You're a potential military asset.

Don't you have just the slightest bit of apprehension that revealing who you are and what you can do (that apparently nobody else can do) might reduce you to more of a specimen than a celebrity? That's why I said, think of the worse-case scenario. I, personally, don't believe that it would be all talk-shows and TV interviews. People are going to want to know how you do what you do, and if it is possible for other people, too. Experimentation on you would possibly be billed as the new frontier of physical science, which - in turn - would be a precursor to your "ability" being pursued for possible military applications. Is this not how discovery works (and has worked, for decades) around here?

Would that million dollars seriously be worth your life being so probably subject to a whole world of (potentially very unpleasant) testing; either as a scientific turning point of the era, or even - militarily - as a threat?

Originally Posted by really

It is not necessarily untrue if it is not known by science. Reasoning from this realm can be erroneous in others. What about remote viewing and psychometry? These are known and very well valid, but they are extremely difficult to prove due to the nature of their existence.

References?

I respect that, but I'm saying there are limitations.

Of course there are limitations - do you think I am saying otherwise? The problem is when you start giving freedom and no limitations to everything.

Seems unreasonable, doesn't it? But that is merely from your point of view. You could criticize it continuously, and even ask why Ouija boards need to exist right from the beginning. Logic doesn't hold water, here.

Logic doesn't hold water..

...

I do not think you realize the idiosyncrasy of your thought processing. You seem to love the idea that you have found an all encompassing and unfalsifiable concept. However, you fail to see how you inexorably apply logic and, because of that, you severely use flawed reasoning.

But you do not use logic or reasoning.

So how can anyone debate with you.

~

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Would that million dollars seriously be worth your life being so probably subject to a whole world of (potentially very unpleasant) testing; either as a scientific turning point of the era, or even - militarily - as a threat?

I would be too famous for the government to get away with that. They wouldn't try it. I guess there would be some risk of others trying to test me, but I could afford good security for life because I could write a book and make millions of more dollars.

You might not like how it all sounds right now, but if you were in the situation of being able to collect a million dollars for exposing your power, I would be surprised if you didn't do it. Imagine having access to that much money and just saying, "Nah, I'll work jobs for the rest of my life and and have concerns about money."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I would be too famous for the government to get away with that. They wouldn't try it. I guess there would be some risk of others trying to test me, but I could afford good security for life because I could write a book and make millions of more dollars.

You might not like how it all sounds right now, but if you were in the situation of being able to collect a million dollars for exposing your power, I would be surprised if you didn't do it. Imagine having access to that much money and just saying, "Nah, I'll work jobs for the rest of my life and and have concerns about money."

I guess that's just something else we disagree on, then. Sure, everyone has their price for pretty much everything, but $1,000,000 would not be enough for me to submit myself to what kind of consequences I believe divulging such a secret to the world would bring.

To each, his own, I guess.

Originally Posted by O'nus

References?

I can't give you specific references at the moment, I was generalizing from past research. Though, you should probably check out Russell Targ, Lee Sannella and Robert Monroe, who have researched and investigated related phenomena.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course there are limitations - do you think I am saying otherwise?

Then tell me what are the limitations?!

If you know what they are, you'd have a better chance to realize I'm not encouraging "giving a whole lot of freedom" nonsense, but merely describing critical properties, which is in fact, an exercise of logic for the purpose of discussion.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The problem is when you start giving freedom and no limitations to everything.

Yes but I'm not doing that, please don't generalize. The problem is: not understanding the paradigm in which logic is useless! Otherwise, it is simply naive to say that everything in all Reality can be solved and understood with linearity. In this case, the non-linear paradigm that is beyond time and space dimensions cannot be followed by principles of time and space! Similarly, subjective dimensions and paradigms in consciousness are at best related to quantum physics, which illustrates non-linear phenomena. Edit: Even so, I wouldn't say quantum mechanics are much use regarding astral domains.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Logic doesn't hold water..

...

I do not think you realize the idiosyncrasy of your thought processing. You seem to love the idea that you have found an all encompassing and unfalsifiable concept. However, you fail to see how you inexorably apply logic and, because of that, you severely use flawed reasoning.

But you do not use logic or reasoning.

So how can anyone debate with you.

~

I don't have "flawed reasoning," it's a simple recognition of paradigm. You admit there are limitations, so what are you dodging here?

How can anyone debate with me - well it would help if you actually had some idea(s) about the topic, but so far you seem to just pass it off as nonsense before looking into it, and worse, arrogantly state that nobody must really know what it is about.

No Evidence of the paranormal?

ehhh that's a problem for non believers.
I actually don't care if someone doesn't believe me lol.

Originally Posted by really

I can't give you specific references at the moment, I was generalizing from past research. Though, you should probably check out Russell Targ, Lee Sannella and Robert Monroe, who have researched and investigated related phenomena.

All this work is still under scrutiny and some even classified. I would not be as confident as you in saying that they are fact when the evidence is still shrouded if not there at all.

Then tell me what are the limitations?!

If you know what they are, you'd have a better chance to realize I'm not encouraging "giving a whole lot of freedom" nonsense, but merely describing critical properties, which is in fact, an exercise of logic for the purpose of discussion.

Logic and reason are limited in their own framework for the very purpose of validity and soundness. If they were not so limited, then there would be no barriers restricting invalid and unsound claims which would then give anything truth. Limitations exist to reveal and encourage the endeavor for truth, not to be confused with the opposite.

Yes but I'm not doing that, please don't generalize. The problem is: not understanding the paradigm in which logic is useless! Otherwise, it is simply naive to say that everything in all Reality can be solved and understood with linearity. In this case, the non-linear paradigm that is beyond time and space dimensions cannot be followed by principles of time and space! Similarly, subjective dimensions and paradigms in consciousness are at best related to quantum physics, which illustrates non-linear phenomena. Edit: Even so, I wouldn't say quantum mechanics are much use regarding astral domains.

If you are going to claim that logic is entirely linear, then you are claiming ignorance to logic. Non-linearity is clearly capable in logic and you abundantly illustrate your ignorance, or perhaps negligence, of that truth in favour of your own idyllic philosophy that you like to preach pretentiously under the premise that it is non-dual truth but unfalsifiable. Of course, however, that is only a proponent of it which only reinforces my argument that there's no point in using logical linguistics to debate something that claims to be outside of it.

Furthermore, even in quantum theory you still excuse all your concepts outside of human reason while simultaneously using human reasoning to do so.

There's no point in discussing anything with someone of this mentality, which is ironic because you use it to propagate your own relative truth. That is fine for you, but I like to look for truth with an efficient system; not fallacious.

I don't have "flawed reasoning," it's a simple recognition of paradigm. You admit there are limitations, so what are you dodging here?

My limitations are the very reason why I am able to seek truth and why you are not. Your flawed reasoning is demonstrated every time you use logic and linguistics to try and speak of an unfalsifiable concept that exists outside of human reasoning.

You are still a venomfangx wannabe and we have already addressed that. Struggle all you like to be unique and different than such, but the argument is sophomoric and boring. It is the type that brings about either a giggle or a groan in a academic debate.

How can anyone debate with me - well it would help if you actually had some idea(s) about the topic, but so far you seem to just pass it off as nonsense before looking into it, and worse, arrogantly state that nobody must really know what it is about.

You claim to know what you are speaking of but you simultaneously say that it is outside of human reasoning. Also, you add that it is also all encompassing and within all things. The contradictions are only utilized in your eyes to reinforce its truth as God all encompassing. However, you neglect your flawed reasoning for the very sake of simply boasting your own glorified ego. Do you really believe you are part of a group of people that have thought or think in a way that others cannot?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

All this work is still under scrutiny and some even classified. I would not be as confident as you in saying that they are fact when the evidence is still shrouded if not there at all.

I am not saying they are facts, I’m saying they are extremely difficult to prove, yet there has been positive investigations that complement spiritual validity. Sure they may not critically blend well with society/standards, but this is what you should be looking out for.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Logic and reason are limited in their own framework for the very purpose of validity and soundness. If they were not so limited, then there would be no barriers restricting invalid and unsound claims which would then give anything truth. Limitations exist to reveal and encourage the endeavor for truth, not to be confused with the opposite.

-

If you are going to claim that logic is entirely linear, then you are claiming ignorance to logic. Non-linearity is clearly capable in logic and you abundantly illustrate your ignorance, or perhaps negligence, of that truth in favour of your own idyllic philosophy that you like to preach pretentiously under the premise that it is non-dual truth but unfalsifiable. Of course, however, that is only a proponent of it which only reinforces my argument that there's no point in using logical linguistics to debate something that claims to be outside of it.



Furthermore, even in quantum theory you still excuse all your concepts outside of human reason while simultaneously using human reasoning to do so.



There's no point in discussing anything with someone of this mentality, which is ironic because you use it to propagate your own relative truth. That is fine for you, but I like to look for truth with an efficient system; not fallacious.

Well that’s obvious, but these are not the limitations I’m speaking of. I’m speaking of limitations by paradigm. Logic and reasoning “In-and-of-itself” cannot reveal deeper truths of existence. It can conceptualize it in abstract, but that is not truth itself. I want you to tell me why. How can logic not reveal the truth itself? Again, excuse me if I sound pretentious, but I think this leads to a critical understanding.

Now, to address the topic of astral domains, which are connected to my point of limitations of logical reasoning (above paragraph). Not the parameters of logic, but the intrinsic limitations, which are indirect to logic’s purpose. Often logic is exercised to be very superficial and categorical – but this pertains only to certain contexts of reality. In other contexts, such as spiritual domains, logic ultimately doesn’t mean anything. That does not subsequently mean that spirituality is fallacious, but rather, that it is transcendental to an intellectual understanding. I can’t stress this enough, and I know it’s very difficult to grasp.

Originally Posted by O'nus

My limitations are the very reason why I am able to seek truth and why you are not. Your flawed reasoning is demonstrated every time you use logic and linguistics to try and speak of an unfalsifiable concept that exists outside of human reasoning.

That’s not flawed reasoning. Sounds like semantics to me.

Have you heard of “concepts”; reasoning through utility and representation? How does a traveler realize that the map is not the territory?

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are still a venomfangx wannabe and we have already addressed that. Struggle all you like to be unique and different than such, but the argument is sophomoric and boring. It is the type that brings about either a giggle or a groan in a academic debate.

-

You claim to know what you are speaking of but you simultaneously say that it is outside of human reasoning. Also, you add that it is also all encompassing and within all things. The contradictions are only utilized in your eyes to reinforce its truth as God all encompassing. However, you neglect your flawed reasoning for the very sake of simply boasting your own glorified ego.

Seems to me like you’re going off on a tangent. Don’t mix up our debates; what I’m talking about in this thread/topic has little to do with God. I’d also appreciate if you kept your opinions to yourself, especially this “venomfangx” nonsense. Mature debate, ok?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Do you really believe you are part of a group of people that have thought or think in a way that others cannot?

No not at all. But I do know that the understandings are uncommon and overlooked by the vast majority of mankind.

Originally Posted by really

I am not saying they are facts, I’m saying they are extremely difficult to prove, yet there has been positive investigations that complement spiritual validity. Sure they may not critically blend well with society/standards, but this is what you should be looking out for.

Fair enough. This is true. I do not want you to mistake me for someone who is fundamentally against paranormal; it is difficult to prove because it is a difficult topic.

Well that’s obvious, but these are not the limitations I’m speaking of. I’m speaking of limitations by paradigm. Logic and reasoning “In-and-of-itself” cannot reveal deeper truths of existence. It can conceptualize it in abstract, but that is not truth itself. I want you to tell me why. How can logic not reveal the truth itself? Again, excuse me if I sound pretentious, but I think this leads to a critical understanding.

I'll leave this for our other forum.

Now, to address the topic of astral domains, which are connected to my point of limitations of logical reasoning (above paragraph). Not the parameters of logic, but the intrinsic limitations, which are indirect to logic’s purpose. Often logic is exercised to be very superficial and categorical – but this pertains only to certain contexts of reality. In other contexts, such as spiritual domains, logic ultimately doesn’t mean anything. That does not subsequently mean that spirituality is fallacious, but rather, that it is transcendental to an intellectual understanding. I can’t stress this enough, and I know it’s very difficult to grasp.

That’s not flawed reasoning. Sounds like semantics to me.

Have you heard of “concepts”; reasoning through utility and representation? How does a traveler realize that the map is not the territory?

Seems to me like you’re going off on a tangent. Don’t mix up our debates; what I’m talking about in this thread/topic has little to do with God. I’d also appreciate if you kept your opinions to yourself, especially this “venomfangx” nonsense. Mature debate, ok?

No not at all. But I do know that the understandings are uncommon and overlooked by the vast majority of mankind.

I am beginning to think now that you just have a severe problem admitting that you are wrong or even could be wrong. Everything you say stinks with unfalsifiable arguments and you reinforce that. I cannot debate with you on anything really other than this point.

Honestly, I just think now you have a personal problem with the idea of being wrong.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I'll leave this for our other forum.

You still missed it. (Unless you were talking about another thread, but I doubt that.)

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am beginning to think now that you just have a severe problem admitting that you are wrong or even could be wrong. Everything you say stinks with unfalsifiable arguments and you reinforce that. I cannot debate with you on anything really other than this point.

Honestly, I just think now you have a personal problem with the idea of being wrong.

At the moment, again, it isn't about being right or wrong, since the nature of most of my claims are merely asserting the nature of certain ways of discerning truth and thus, how other ways are insufficient. I am not 100% certain about this particular subject topic, but I think I have a pretty good idea on account of evaluating fundamental limitations of paradigms.

Originally Posted by really

At the moment, again, it isn't about being right or wrong, since the nature of most of my claims are merely asserting the nature of certain ways of discerning truth and thus, how other ways are insufficient. I am not 100% certain about this particular subject topic, but I think I have a pretty good idea on account of evaluating fundamental limitations of paradigms.

I don't think you quite right know which paradigm I apply..

I try to utilize interactionism as my primary paradigm in anything. Also described as evolutionary, it adapts and changes as the context does. But logic is still a fundamental truth that must be applied to all. Anything illogical is just that and nothing can really exist outside of logic. Logic is intangible and immaterial. I do not think we disagree on this really, I think you may be inclined to think I apply it in a denigrating way to your paradigm.. but I am not.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I don't think you quite right know which paradigm I apply..

I try to utilize interactionism as my primary paradigm in anything. Also described as evolutionary, it adapts and changes as the context does. But logic is still a fundamental truth that must be applied to all. Anything illogical is just that and nothing can really exist outside of logic. Logic is intangible and immaterial. I do not think we disagree on this really, I think you may be inclined to think I apply it in a denigrating way to your paradigm.. but I am not.

~

Hmm, I've never heard you speak of "interactionism."

But you think I'd agree with it, why's that? What's the point of saying that logic is intangible and immaterial? I think I'm new to this.

Originally Posted by really

Hmm, I've never heard you speak of "interactionism."

But you think I'd agree with it, why's that? What's the point of saying that logic is intangible and immaterial? I think I'm new to this.

QED; can you hold logic in your hand? Where does logic exist?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

QED; can you hold logic in your hand? Where does logic exist?

~

Yes, true, but where's this coming from? Again, what's the significance of this?

Originally Posted by really

Yes, true, but where's this coming from? Again, what's the significance of this?

In an existence of infinite subjective perspectives in an objectively existing reality, we need to employ an interactionist approach to understand, iterate, and illustrate our subjective realities of the objective to each other. These justifications can be prone to flaws, so it is best we take the most flawless and efficient system.

What would you say that is?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

In an existence of infinite subjective perspectives in an objectively existing reality, we need to employ an interactionist approach to understand, iterate, and illustrate our subjective realities of the objective to each other. These justifications can be prone to flaws, so it is best we take the most flawless and efficient system.

What would you say that is?

~

I generally believe interactionism or science best fits this, but I still have to look further into it. What kind of science would vary depending on specifics. A great deal of reality is not as simple as "perspectives of the objective", but whole kaleidoscopes of varied information in the field of mind and dominated by consciousness.

This brings up the about the notion of the "subject vs. object" dichotomy. Isn't it obvious how this construct cannot stand forever? I think you should finally address my question of intrinsic limitations of logic/reason. Do you think that all subjective perceptions have relationships with objective phenomena?