139 replies to this topic

[Simatong]

CakeorDeath,
If I may, I would like to answer your question with my theories
1) I believe that there are those (extremely rare) people who could actually make and control psi-energy in the form of a ball, but since it is purely psi, even if they were to "bounce" it off the wall, it wouldn't do any physical damage. Even though it is a physical manifestation of energy,  I believe it is completely invisible and undetectable by almost everyone except the wielder themselves (obviously) and those others with a sensitive enough psychic ability(it is, after all, psi, aka psychic energy, a force that is truly sensed by only an extremely small percentage of people in the world). However, I believe that it could be used to have a psychosomatic (or perhaps vitakinetic) effect if it were to be channeled at a living being, specifically affecting the neurological areas of a person or their central nervous system. For example, if they sent a psi ball at a person to cause pain in their hand or to give them a headache
2) This question is a little tough, but to start out with an answer, yes. However, again, it is somewhat complicated, because I believe that psychokinetic abilities (for the most part, but see my response to question 3) don't really violate the laws of physics, but rather work with them and bend them. For instance, say I was an aerokinetic or an atmokinetic. If I was inside a house with closed windows, I would basically be unable to affect anything inside the home. Why? The mechanics for wind creation and weather control (such as the Coriolis effect, surface heating, atmospheric pressure, and the Sun) are the things that are outside of the home; a psychokinetic uses the natural laws of the element they are trying to manipulate, the only thing is they kind of give it a push. Think of it as a ball balancing on the edge of a bathtub or counter top. Due to its shape and its current circumstances, it could easily roll or fall over. Think of the psychokinetic as the hand or finger that pushes it. The ball is made to, and eventually will, (obviously due to an outside force) fall or roll. That is in it's "nature", so to speak. In many ways, you can apply that principle to psychokinesis; it is in the "nature" of wind to move (after all, that is basically what it is: air in motion). An aerokinetic does to the wind what a hand does to a ball; they can make it go faster, make it go slower, or make it stop. The same goes with incinerating something. A pyrokinetic may be able to do something such as that if they had the mechanics they would need to do that, or a better example would be an adept thermokinetic (though please don't believe that adept in this case means it can be learned. Psionic talents are like many other gifts; you either are born with them or you aren't, and if you aren't, you will NEVER gain them, I don't care how much you meditate and pray).  An adept thermokinetic could theoretically increase the temperature to such a degree that flammable materials in the outside world (like a tree) would combust, because they can use their ability to increase the temperature to the flash point for the fuel and oxidizer combo. However, do not expect them to necessarily be able to do such things at room temperatures in their living room on a piece of paper. Remember, they are using the heat that is already available from the sun to increase the temperature enough to make the tree or grass burst into flame (assuming that an alleged thermokinetic is that powerful). Now, they may be able to cause something with an stove or a generator, causing those to combust/set on fire, because the heat needed is already there, it is just waiting to be manipulated. You can think of it this way, give fire oxygen, fuel and heat, and it can exists, because it has all the mechanics to work. Take one of those away and you take away the flame. Take a mechanic away that a telekinetic needs, and you will probably weaken their ability in affect something in their current location (Though, I must note, that, going with the atmokinetic/aerokinetic example again, they probably could affect the outside world from the inside of the house, just not the inside of the house, unless maybe by extreme concentration or to a process I will explore in answer 3.
3) I believe levitation is possible, but it is kind of connected to my post in answer 2; you can have this happen, but since there would be no mechanics except for the person's psychic energy/telekinesis energy, I believe it might be difficult, unless there is something I call "Absolute Belief". I believe that even a telekinetic could do this (and this time I am referring to the movement of objects via psychokinetic energy alone, not using psychokinetic energy as a catalyst to move something like the wind, which will in turn move the object,or as I might want to put it "movement by proxy"). But even for a telekinetic with the most advanced capabilities has some doubts in their minds about their abilities. One may wonder, "If you can do it, why the doubts?". Well, even if you can demonstrate your abilities to yourself, and I mean genuine abilities, you are doing something that is said to be impossible; chairs are not supposed to move on their own, people are not supposed to spontaneously levitate. This is what science has ingrained within us, and for the most part it's true, but if you are someone with just telekinesis, you technically ARE violating the laws of physics, and doing something that you are specifically taught you can't do kind of creates conundrum of sorts.(and from now on, I will differentiate between "psychokinesis" or the ability to affect a broad spectrum of things and telekinesis as the ability to just simply affect physical objects with the mind). Even if you may be able to do something, these doubts may plague you and affect your ability, and so the only way I think that a person could truly levitate themselves is by having the aforementioned "Absolute Belief", in which there is no doubt, no fear, no questioning. There is just you and the object you are trying to move, and even if that object is simply yourself, it would be possible.
Sorry for the long-winded response

[Leave Britney alone!]

CakeOrDeath, on 15 January 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

This portion of the forum has over 50+ active psychics professing openly about their various powers, psi-balls, levitation, telekinsis.

You would think atleast one of you would want to share your gift so that you could help others like you (think professor X and the X-men) maybe get rich and start a school where the gifted and talented can go to hone their psi-ballz?

I know alot of psychics are very guarded and feel that they don't want to be exploited and experimented on, so they "feign" the inability to do these things when asked to demonstrate, but I can bet that covert govt ops are reviewing these forums and they will come for you whether you want them to or not.

So why not just zap a psiball up for letterman and get rich ?

Having a psychic gift is not something akin to a stupid pet trick on Letterman and has nothing to do with your entertainment.

Psychics who are real do not advertise or charge.

What you are talking about is a product not a gift.

[Simatong]

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Again I am not talking about transferrable proofs/ There is no such thing as "extraordinary"  merely "uncommon" And it is foolish and dare i say unscientific   to accept common experiences without the same proofs as uncommon ones. Eg how do YOU know you cant walk through a wall ? Because science tells you you can't, because you believed someone else who told you, you could not,  or because you have tried to and found it painful?

Your analogy is illogical. You know you can't walk through a wall because it's common sense. People have known this long before the advent of modern-day science that you can't walk through solid objects. Even an infant would instinctively know that that's not possible, or at the very least would learn through observation.

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

In life we do NOT use scientific method and verificaiton to liveby. Heck thats only been invented for a few thousand years and only refined in the last few hundred, We live by what we know and learn through personal experience An uncommon experience needs no more verifications for an individual, than a common one.

We were not talking about the use of scientific method and verification for everyday life. We were talking about the scientific verification of things that are clearly unusual and that allegedly occur in life.
We do use scientific verifications in our daily lives; many of use sunscreen because scientific verification tell us that lying in the sun too long can lead to such things as melanoma if sunscreen is not applied. Many of us don't smoke because science has verified that smoking can lead to many types of cancer. Heck, kids trying to literally shock each other use what they have learned from scientific verifications of static electricity to stick balloons to their shirts and heads. Even if I we don't use scientific verification in every aspect of our lives, we use it to help us understand the things and/or clarify them. I don't need scientific verification to know why I breathe, but I do need some sort of scientific verification to help me understand why I may suddenly have breathing problems; I need to know if there are pulmonary risks or if it is just a cold like my Mom says . Or I may not need scientific verification to know that my heart beats every second, but I do need scientific verification to help me know whether or not my chest pains are due to exercise like a relative says or if it is a serious coronary issue. Sometimes scientific verification is the only way to truly confirm or refute our suspicions.

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Wwhy on earth should i doubt you speak chinese. I sent last year teaching basic chinese to 25, 13 year olds via open access. I still can hardly speak a word of it but they are doing great guns and moving into year 9 chinese. (We had a chinese speaking tutor online using interactive whiteboards and web cams to actually impart the language skills.)
"Ni hao.  Wo shi Adalyaren." is about my limit. (pinyin)

Better question. Why on Earth would you teach Chinese if you can barely speak it yourself.
Speaking of which, it's 我是澳大利亚人/Wǒ shì Àodàlìyǎrén，not Adalyaren

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

As you point out, the way a person is taught to think predicates their response to a situation. A scientist WILL be more dubious about the uniicorn because he/she is taught to be. But I also would make no assumptions.

However, if something looked like a uncorn acted like a unicorn and fitted the biological parameters of a unicorn, then perhaps it is a unicorn whehter peole believe unicorns exist or not. The next step is to ask how it got here and what it is doing which might alos explain its true nature. But some people get so hung up in doubt and disbelief they cant accept the evidence of their own eyes and senses. Others unquestioningly accept what they sense. Neither will help them get to the truth.

How in the name of destiny's moonbeam can you say that a creature fits the biological parameters of a unicorn if no one knows what said biological parameters are? You can only ASSUME it is a unicorn

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Independent verification includes another independent witness or observer When tens of thousands of humans have see ghosts then something we define as ghosts has an existence. When tens of thousands of people have seen angels, then something which we define as angels exist. This is no difernt to a rare animla or plant seen only by a few people If science does not or can not accept this,  then science is failing in a significant part of human experience.
Angel is only a christian and modern linguistic label, but stories and descriptions of beings of light and  other visitors coming to help and bring messages go back as early as human history and cross all human cultures.

This is not logical to me. During the witch trials, thousands and thousands of people "claimed" to have spells cast on them by witches, which led to the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people, because the authorities in charge solely listened to the accusers without proper verification. One woman had even claimed she had given birth to Satan's spawn, only to be proven mentally disturbed and having had "given birth" to a form of defecation.
Just because a large number of people claim something, it doesn't make it so. The children who accused others in the Salem Witch Trials are an excellent example of this. Now most people claiming to see things don't have such insidious intentions, but the aforementioned examples beg the question "Exactly how much of what they experienced is tainted by bias?" People have even claimed to see something and thought it supernatural, only to be proven wrong or at least forced to rethink their claims after hearing scientific explanation. For example, many people believed will-o'-the-wisps were spiritual or supernatural, but scientific inquiry suggests they may be little more than bioluminescent reactions in swamplands. This is why anecdotes, while helpful, need to also be taken with a grain of salt; there are so many alternate explanations as to what affected that person's perceptions that when hearing anecdotes, one has to consider many, MANY questions before they just accept what the person is saying; Are they of sound mind? Are the extremely eager to see paranormal phenomena, thus being prone to see the extraordinary in the mundane? As they tell the story, are there inconsistencies or natural explanations for what they saw? If they have visual/auditory evidence, is this evidence of good quality? Could have been faked? Could it be explained by normal reactions that occur within electronic devices?
As far as angels go, beings of light who come from the sky and help people sounds like what we have learned about in the western world, but just because something is similar, it doesn't mean it's the same; the sun looks like a fireball. Doesn't mean it is one

[Simatong]

I believe you, on 30 January 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

Having a psychic gift is not something akin to a stupid pet trick on Letterman and has nothing to do with your entertainment.

Psychics who are real do not advertise or charge.

What you are talking about is a product not a gift.

So you can speak for all psychics in all parts of the world then?
There are psychics who seem legitimate, and they charge. Does that make them fake?
What proof do you have to substantiate this claim?

[Simatong]

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

I think my example makes it quit clear. The methodology is ultimately flawed. It works fine and dandy for most things, but ultimately it has a horizon that it cannot cross. Why? Because its fixated on the empirical. Building theories with only pieces of the puzzle dooms the theory to most likely be utterly wrong. If you were living during that epoc, the data about how the universe really works would be completely unavailable to you. Because of this you would probably stack your eggs in a basket that only involved this galaxy, much like was done before galaxies were discovered. And of course you would be utterly wrong.

Science is a process in which pieces of the puzzle are found over time, they are not all given to you in a 5,000 piece set. You use the pieces that you have and you build on them. You make theories based on them and based off of empirical evidence. You may need to modify or completely dismiss a theory, down the line, but eventually you come up with an answer, or at the very least you get closer to an answer.
Science has been using these "puzzle" pieces to help solve the problems concerning many diseases, and the world is better off for it.

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Because of this empirical fundamentalism scientific knowledge is limited.

It is not the empiricism that is limited, but rather your understanding of that very empricism

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Thank goodness courts are not fixated totally on empirical data. A closer truth is obtained through empirical, circumstantial, and anecdotal of credible witnesses.  If I disarmed a bad guy that just killed Somone  and he got shot in the process, empirical fundumentalism would throw me in jail for two murders, even if three Witnesses saw exactly what happened. It would be my finger prints on the gun and powder burns on my arm. It would be a slam dunk. A falsifiable theory backed up by solid evidence, but of course missing key pieces of information because they cannot be empirically verified.

You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no one on the sun to tell us about the mechanics that run it, nor are there little magic men in our blood to tell us how we came to be in this world. The only thing we can go on is empirical evidence. When it comes to parapsychology, there seems to be a divergence when it comes to what is claimed and what is actually witnessed (or in many scientists' case, not seen), and so the only way to solve this conundrum is through the use of empirical evidence; You can argue that Jenny can read your mind, while Andy says she can't, but only hard evidence can really determine whether or not she can. But there needs to be proof of some kind. Plain and simple. People can lie. People can get confused. Proof is the only thing that has no risk of bias (as long as it is properly obtained)
When it comes to court cases, you obviously are missing some key factors. Gunpowder residue will obviously be on the perpetrator's body, not to mention there is also the consideration of height, blood splatter, trajectory, and obviously, DNA. Circumstantial evidence is itself based in part on empirical evidence (DNA, fingerprints,etc,), and if the anecdotal evidence is seen in line with the other types of evidence, it will be considered probably. However, even with just the empirical evidence, it is extremely unlikely you would be convicted of double murder.

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

What if that same person from my example said, come on I'll show you? It's going to be a bit of work, you are going to have to meditate for several years maby more, you are going to have to develop a skill, but ultimately you will see and learn things that you never thought possible. Would you take him up on it?  An opertunity to verify for yourself. You did say "show me"? Right?

Wrong, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person claiming these abilities. It is not the observer's job to prove the claimant's statement for them. Rather it is up to the claimant to prove their own person. Besides, you are not being asked to teach an ability, you are being asked to show your abilities

[Leave Britney alone!]

Simatong, on 30 January 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

So you can speak for all psychics in all parts of the world then?
There are psychics who seem legitimate, and they charge. Does that make them fake?
What proof do you have to substantiate this claim?

No, I can't, you know this, as much as you can't either.

Those who do charge will lose part or all of their gifts.

[CakeOrDeath]

Simatong, thanks again for your explanatory post, I really enjoyed reading it, not saying agree with everything therein but still a well grounded response worth a read!

@ I believe you, my post is purposefully NOT directed at "psychics" or people with "sensitive cognitive skills" for a reason, while I don't believe "most" psychic's claims, there are investigations and some new lines of research that are touching on the subjects of "collective conscious" and I'm watching with great interest.  This thread is mainly to question/address the gobs of people here at UM and many many other paranormalish forums where folks post about their various, what I call super-powers as listed in my 3 questions.

Believe it or not, I'm in no way asking for proof, my question, which remains unanswered by anyone with such claims (how odd), is simply, why none of them have chosen to share these skills/powers with the public or even the scientific community at large.

A few people have tried to offer some explanation: Mr. Walker who seems like an intelligent fellow, but I do believe his "reality" is vastly different from your everyday Joe, and Seeker79 who I have alot of respect for and have read other threads in which he has helped some very troubled posters, as well as Simatong, who I am not familair with prior to this thread, but I like his method and discourse.

The common response thread seems to be - 1) The special people had to be so special to get to that point, that they are above sharing with mundane silly heads.   2) If they share, regular folks will turn them into lab rats or weapons of mass destruction and of course my personal fav 3) Because they are so awesome, they have ALL developed this altruistic mental state where they would never ever want to profit from their gifts nor share them with others...

Edited by CakeOrDeath, 30 January 2013 - 09:28 PM.

[Mr Walker]

Chrlzs, on 30 January 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

[/size]
Forgive me for just picking out this gem, but... not more than a few posts ago, I was reprimanded by MW for accepting the story about the jumping dolphin...  Anyone spot the irony?

Anyway, I shall not keep trying to walk through walls.  I am quite satisfied that the chances of positive results of that experiment are insufficient to justify the pain and embarrassment, and I'm happy with what the scientific establishment, close minded they may be, tells me about those chances.

The irony was deliberate There are two sides to this. Why should i doubt for one moment that you  speak chinese? Anything is possible. I've been teaching nearly 40 years and last year was asked to teach chinese for the first time.

On the other hand, my personal perspective informs my ability to believe you. Another person might doubt BOTH our statements.

My point about the walls is this. As a child, long before you knew any science, you learned  (or you came to believe) that you could not walk through walls, both by observing the behaviours of others and (if you had the beginning of a scientist in you ) by persoanl experimentation and confirmation. If you never tried to walk through a wall, then you acted on belief based on observation and other people's opinions. If you experimented yourself, then you were (and remain now) informed by knowledge.

[Simatong]

1) I have talked with people who seem to possess demonstratable psychokinesis. they don't think they are superior to other people. In fact, their power sometimes scares them, for the simple reason that they don't ever want the power to go to their head. They are no more or less special than anyone else. They are just different. CakeorDeath, any buffoon who thinks they are all that in a bag of potato chips (American 1990's colloquialism) need to be brought down a peg
2)While they (the person I know) wouldn't take any money for what they do (psychically/psychokinetically), they wouldn't see anything wrong with doing that. Psychic/psychokinetic abilities are a gift, and just like any other gift, making a profit off of it would not be a bad thing. I have a gift for foreign languages. Do I profit from my gift. You bet your a** I do! And haven't lost my gift yet. Talents and gifts are, to me, a combination of spiritual and genetic factors. They are a manifestation of our soul, our very essence. Trying to take a talent from someone is like trying to take heat from a flame, and if there is a deity or "supreme" power that would take away a gift simply because one tried to profit from it, I would have to tell that deity to go suck my b******s!
3) My friend had told me that when he did try and share his gifts with others, it felt good (once he got over the friggin' fear, which is very very hard for him to do)
Honestly, I sometimes just wanna tell these Jean Grey-wannabes (henceforth known as "Jeanies") to go shove off. You make the real ones look like a joke.
Actually, I think I may actually write about an anecdote I have heard about from someone who at least seems to possess some psychokinetic abilities. because testing process and journey seems to be more believable

[Simatong]

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

The irony was deliberate There are two sides to this. Why should i doubt for one moment that you  speak chinese? Anything is possible. I've been teaching nearly 40 years and last year was asked to teach chinese for the first time.

On the other hand, my personal perspective informs my ability to believe you. Another person might doubt BOTH our statements.

My point about the walls is this. As a child, long before you knew any science, you learned  (or you came to believe) that you could not walk through walls, both by observing the behaviours of others and (if you had the beginning of a scientist in you ) by persoanl experimentation and confirmation. If you never tried to walk through a wall, then you acted on belief based on observation and other people's opinions. If you experimented yourself, then you were (and remain now) informed by knowledge.

How about the fact that their are just some things a creature instinctively knows to avoid. I believe running or walking into a wall is one of them

[Seeker79]

Simatong, on 30 January 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Science is a process in which pieces of the puzzle are found over time, they are not all given to you in a 5,000 piece set. You use the pieces that you have and you build on them. You make theories based on them and based off of empirical evidence. You may need to modify or completely dismiss a theory, down the line, but eventually you come up with an answer, or at the very least you get closer to an answer.
Science has been using these "puzzle" pieces to help solve the problems concerning many diseases, and the world is better off for it.


It is not the empiricism that is limited, but rather your understanding of that very empricism


You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no one on the sun to tell us about the mechanics that run it, nor are there little magic men in our blood to tell us how we came to be in this world. The only thing we can go on is empirical evidence. When it comes to parapsychology, there seems to be a divergence when it comes to what is claimed and what is actually witnessed (or in many scientists' case, not seen), and so the only way to solve this conundrum is through the use of empirical evidence; You can argue that Jenny can read your mind, while Andy says she can't, but only hard evidence can really determine whether or not she can. But there needs to be proof of some kind. Plain and simple. People can lie. People can get confused. Proof is the only thing that has no risk of bias (as long as it is properly obtained)
When it comes to court cases, you obviously are missing some key factors. Gunpowder residue will obviously be on the perpetrator's body, not to mention there is also the consideration of height, blood splatter, trajectory, and obviously, DNA. Circumstantial evidence is itself based in part on empirical evidence (DNA, fingerprints,etc,), and if the anecdotal evidence is seen in line with the other types of evidence, it will be considered probably. However, even with just the empirical evidence, it is extremely unlikely you would be convicted of double murder.


Wrong, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person claiming these abilities. It is not the observer's job to prove the claimant's statement for them. Rather it is up to the claimant to prove their own person. Besides, you are not being asked to teach an ability, you are being asked to show your abilities

I agree with your first part. Case in point our understanding of the universe based on empiricism is probably wrong. I'm not saying its not the best guess at the moment, but it highlights the failure of empiricism because if key data cannot be known empirically then the truth is eternally elusive, hence beings during the epoc I described will never know that other galaxies exist.

Other types of empirical data are besides the point. If it pointed at me being the murderer, and we threw out the whitenesses the data would be interpreted wrongly. I once had a friend who's daughter passed out from seeing blood from a bad cut. She collapsed and managed to hit her head at the very bottom of the wall. She suffered a concussion. Both of them had the hardest time convincing nurses and doctors that it was an accident.

Who are you or any instutution to decide who's burden of proof it Is. I say I saw a flying spaghetti monster, you say no way that's impossible they don't exist, I say bull**** I saw one. You say you are dellusional or mistaken... I say ok proove that I'm mistaken or delusional, you say no you have to proove that you saw one. Around around the merry go round we go. Often the excuse is because people can be delusional or lie then you probably are without haveing any real basis for the probability.

Your last statement is a clear bias. If you are unwilling to learn to use the medium in which something can be expressed, then how can someone show you. It's like refusing to learn to read or do math when Somone presents you with a scientific paper. If the hypothetical person in the example above tells you that there is a concious medium in which you can actually see distant galaxies but you have to learn the language to understand it, but you still keep your arms crossed parroting "proove it" how can you possibly know. You can't. Your bias limits your potential.

[Mr Walker]

Simatong, on 30 January 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Your analogy is illogical. You know you can't walk through a wall because it's common sense. People have known this long before the advent of modern-day science that you can't walk through solid objects. Even an infant would instinctively know that that's not possible, or at the very least would learn through observation.


We were not talking about the use of scientific method and verification for everyday life. We were talking about the scientific verification of things that are clearly unusual and that allegedly occur in life.
We do use scientific verifications in our daily lives; many of use sunscreen because scientific verification tell us that lying in the sun too long can lead to such things as melanoma if sunscreen is not applied. Many of us don't smoke because science has verified that smoking can lead to many types of cancer. Heck, kids trying to literally shock each other use what they have learned from scientific verifications of static electricity to stick balloons to their shirts and heads. Even if I we don't use scientific verification in every aspect of our lives, we use it to help us understand the things and/or clarify them. I don't need scientific verification to know why I breathe, but I do need some sort of scientific verification to help me understand why I may suddenly have breathing problems; I need to know if there are pulmonary risks or if it is just a cold like my Mom says . Or I may not need scientific verification to know that my heart beats every second, but I do need scientific verification to help me know whether or not my chest pains are due to exercise like a relative says or if it is a serious coronary issue. Sometimes scientific verification is the only way to truly confirm or refute our suspicions.


Better question. Why on Earth would you teach Chinese if you can barely speak it yourself.
Speaking of which, it's 我是澳大利亚人/Wǒ shì Àodàlìyǎrén，not Adalyaren


How in the name of destiny's moonbeam can you say that a creature fits the biological parameters of a unicorn if no one knows what said biological parameters are? You can only ASSUME it is a unicorn


This is not logical to me. During the witch trials, thousands and thousands of people "claimed" to have spells cast on them by witches, which led to the death of thousands and thousands of innocent people, because the authorities in charge solely listened to the accusers without proper verification. One woman had even claimed she had given birth to Satan's spawn, only to be proven mentally disturbed and having had "given birth" to a form of defecation.
Just because a large number of people claim something, it doesn't make it so. The children who accused others in the Salem Witch Trials are an excellent example of this. Now most people claiming to see things don't have such insidious intentions, but the aforementioned examples beg the question "Exactly how much of what they experienced is tainted by bias?" People have even claimed to see something and thought it supernatural, only to be proven wrong or at least forced to rethink their claims after hearing scientific explanation. For example, many people believed will-o'-the-wisps were spiritual or supernatural, but scientific inquiry suggests they may be little more than bioluminescent reactions in swamplands. This is why anecdotes, while helpful, need to also be taken with a grain of salt; there are so many alternate explanations as to what affected that person's perceptions that when hearing anecdotes, one has to consider many, MANY questions before they just accept what the person is saying; Are they of sound mind? Are the extremely eager to see paranormal phenomena, thus being prone to see the extraordinary in the mundane? As they tell the story, are there inconsistencies or natural explanations for what they saw? If they have visual/auditory evidence, is this evidence of good quality? Could have been faked? Could it be explained by normal reactions that occur within electronic devices?
As far as angels go, beings of light who come from the sky and help people sounds like what we have learned about in the western world, but just because something is similar, it doesn't mean it's the same; the sun looks like a fireball. Doesn't mean it is one

See my post above. No one knows anything when they are born. We either learn things through personal experience or we come to believe them in faith from listening to others opinions or as you say observing their behaviour.

So an infant sees  all others bowing when they enter church, and imitates this behaviour. Does this mean it is impossible to enter a church wthout bowing? How does the infant know, unless he tries for himslef. And again, why ditinguish between common and uncommon events at a personal level. It is more comon for people to see an angel than for people to see a platypus, for example. Ok so platypi can be more easily photographed, but that doesnt go to commonality of personal experience.  If you see either a platypi or an angel walking down your street, you should apply the same procedures to establish its reality.

Good question about chinese Id never heard a word of it when asked to teach it. And i didnt use a translator for my short piece, i just wrote it phonically from memory. My job was to supervise and support, to maintain discipline and to work with the students,  while a chinese speaker gave online lessons
. I also had to take children in wha tis called "moodle" or a computer based teaching program . Nick name "chinese moodle"
I picked up a few bits but  due to lack of relevance for me persoanlly i didnt bother storing them in my long term memory, despite using them in class with the kids
Humas define the parameters of everything, from real to mythological creatures. It is how our brain works. Even if you have never seen paris hilton in real life you will recognise her from a photo because our memory does not distinguish imagery  that is real from that which is pictorial, or even that which is mentally constructed. So ghost angel unicorn etc. their parameters are as well written up and defined as a dogs or a cats. And one can recognise them all in the same way.

Yes humans once found supernatural explanations for many things because they had no better way of explaining them. Science gives us a better way i am waiting for scientific confirmation and explanation of things like ghosts angels and god In everythng there is boththe menatlly perceived and constructed and the reality  ps there are real "witches" Some even appear ocasionally on Um. Their nature and effectiveness is unproven but they exist. There are also "real" vampires A couple of australian women killed a bloke and drank his blood because they believed they were vampires  But i doubt they are immortal or can only be killed with a stake through the heart. There are also real  clair voyants, mind readers, prophets etc. To believe otherwise goes against too many evidences.

But i must admit that my opinion is strongly informed by my own experiences in this area.  One without similar personal proofs might hold a different opinion.

[Mr Walker]

CakeOrDeath, on 30 January 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Simatong, thanks again for your explanatory post, I really enjoyed reading it, not saying agree with everything therein but still a well grounded response worth a read!

@ I believe you, my post is purposefully NOT directed at "psychics" or people with "sensitive cognitive skills" for a reason, while I don't believe "most" psychic's claims, there are investigations and some new lines of research that are touching on the subjects of "collective conscious" and I'm watching with great interest.  This thread is mainly to question/address the gobs of people here at UM and many many other paranormalish forums where folks post about their various, what I call super-powers as listed in my 3 questions.

Believe it or not, I'm in no way asking for proof, my question, which remains unanswered by anyone with such claims (how odd), is simply, why none of them have chosen to share these skills/powers with the public or even the scientific community at large.

A few people have tried to offer some explanation: Mr. Walker who seems like an intelligent fellow, but I do believe his "reality" is vastly different from your everyday Joe, and Seeker79 who I have alot of respect for and have read other threads in which he has helped some very troubled posters, as well as Simatong, who I am not familair with prior to this thread, but I like his method and discourse.

The common response thread seems to be - 1) The special people had to be so special to get to that point, that they are above sharing with mundane silly heads.   2) If they share, regular folks will turn them into lab rats or weapons of mass destruction and of course my personal fav 3) Because they are so awesome, they have ALL developed this altruistic mental state where they would never ever want to profit from their gifts nor share them with others...

Every single individuals reality is different. How could it be otherwise? We live in differnt environments, have different experiences and possess a singular and isolated brain. Thus from birth we all grow to be entirely differnt people. And we perceive our internal and external environments via that person we are, So, even twins living in the same environment will be different and live in different realities.

Also chemical biogical and genetic differences can impose different relaities on us. A deaf blind or colourblind person lives in a different reality. So does someone with autism or aspergers.  But asos so does the person with an eidetic memory or an ability to play music by ear.

[Simatong]

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

I agree with your first part. Case in point our understanding of the universe based on empiricism is probably wrong. I'm not saying its not the best guess at the moment, but it highlights the failure of empiricism because if key data cannot be known empirically then the truth is eternally elusive, hence beings during the epoc I described will never know that other galaxies exist.

As I stated previously, science collects the pieces of the puzzle over time. Our knowledge and theories of the universe is based on this empiricism you speak of is based off of supported evidence. However, your statement implies that scientists see these their theories as being set in stone. No scientist worth a grain of salt would ever state that. However, they base their theories and methods on years and years of corroborative data and methodology, and they are more likely to be right based on this empiricism than you or I would be by merely guessing. Speaking of which, who are you to say our understanding of the universe based on empiricism is wrong? Would you mind backing that up, or is that an empty statement?
Key data can be learn over time, as I have said about the puzzle pieces before.
Obviously, the people of the epoch would not know about the galaxies because they didn't have the technology, but they did have a piece of the puzzle when they started to study the Milky Way thousands of years ago. It is illogical to assume in any way that empiricism is limited because of what is not known. There always has, and always will be, limits to what we know, but as time goes on, we learn more and our skills become more and more refined when it comes to empiricism. There is no method on Earth that would make it otherwise

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Other types of empirical data are besides the point. If it pointed at me being the murderer, and we threw out the whitenesses the data would be interpreted wrongly. I once had a friend who's daughter passed out from seeing blood from a bad cut. She collapsed and managed to hit her head at the very bottom of the wall. She suffered a concussion. Both of them had the hardest time convincing nurses and doctors that it was an accident.

Since your guilt or innocence is decided upon said empirical data, it is not beside the point, it is, without question, the main point. How else would they figure out what truly happened? While some assumptions might have to be made, your guilt or innocence will be discussed using ballistics and DNA. Case closed. Even without the witnesses. Concerning the data itself, if you truly did not kill both individuals, gunpowder residue would probably be on the actual assailant as well, implicating them in the process, especially if we consider all the parameters. If the assailant was close enough to the victim, their blood (the victim's) would have gotten on the assailant. But there are way too many possible scenarios to go into. The bottom line is, unless the judge, jury and scientists are idiots, most of them are not going to assume you killed both individuals
Concerning your friend, it was indeed a tough ordeal to go through, but there is a difference between doctors and nurses who see signs that make them suspicious of your story and forensic scientists who would actually be able to check out your story. The doctors and nurses only know what they see in front of them in the patient's room, a forensic scientist can actually go and get data that would actually corroborate (or refute) a claim.

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Who are you or any instutution to decide who's burden of proof it Is. I say I saw a flying spaghetti monster, you say no way that's impossible they don't exist, I say bull**** I saw one. You say you are dellusional or mistaken... I say ok proove that I'm mistaken or delusional, you say no you have to proove that you saw one. Around around the merry go round we go. Often the excuse is because people can be delusional or lie then you probably are without haveing any real basis for the probability.

Why on Earth should I have to prove whether or not you actually saw a flying spaghetti monster. YOU are the one who claimed it. Therefore, you are the one who needs to prove it, because it is your How the heck can I provide proof of something you saw. I will use my experience today as an example. I told the woman interviewing me that I could speak Mandarin Chinese and Japanese. She wanted me to prove it (possibly because she wanted to know whether or not I was BSing her).  Let's assume we had been confrontational with each other, and she said I was lying or delusional about being able to speak Mandarin or Japanese. According to your logic, I should've said "prove that I can't speak Mandarin/Japanese" or it would be like if I told someone that I saw a ghost, and they said I am delusional, and I said "prove that I'm delusional". Why the hell should they do the work for me? It is MY claim, not THEIRS. Common sense dictates that a person making the claim is responsible for the burden of proof. If you don't want the burden of proof to be on you, then don't make a claim. Common sense.

Seeker79, on 30 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Your last statement is a clear bias. If you are unwilling to learn to use the medium in which something can be expressed, then how can someone show you. It's like refusing to learn to read or do math when Somone presents you with a scientific paper. If the hypothetical person in the example above tells you that there is a concious medium in which you can actually see distant galaxies but you have to learn the language to understand it, but you still keep your arms crossed parroting "proove it" how can you possibly know. You can't. Your bias limits your potential.

Again, I am not interested in being taught something. You say you have a power that you can show me, so I want you to show me what you can do. If you have this conscious medium to see distant galaxies using another language, then just freaking demonstrate your ability! If I told someone that there is a method that can be used to study 30 or so Chinese characters in an hour, and that I would be willing to teach them and if they crossed their arms and said "prove it!", I would simply show them what I can do and the methods I use, and if and when they were convinced, and they thought they could do the same, then I would show them how to use the method for themselves.  You don't tell a child that swimming is easy and expect them to just jump in without seeing what you yourself can do. That's just basic common sense

[Simatong]

Mr Walker, on 30 January 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

Every single individuals reality is different. How could it be otherwise? We live in differnt environments, have different experiences and possess a singular and isolated brain. Thus from birth we all grow to be entirely differnt people. And we perceive our internal and external environments via that person we are, So, even twins living in the same environment will be different and live in different realities.

Also chemical biogical and genetic differences can impose different relaities on us. A deaf blind or colourblind person lives in a different reality. So does someone with autism or aspergers.  But asos so does the person with an eidetic memory or an ability to play music by ear.

I was born with a mild form of hemophlegic spastic cerebral palsy due to the left side of my brain being underdeveloped, meaning that doing certain tasks is a little (sometimes a lot) more difficult. I am an amateur composer and arranger able to compose music "by ear" if you will, I am an amateur poet and writer and I learn foreign languages extremely fast due to being a mnemonist with high memory recall. I do not live in a reality that is different from anyone else around me due to these traits. Whether you are blind or deaf, have compromised motor skills or suffer from certain developmental issues, you live in the exact same reality as everyone. The reality is not different. How you experience and interpret it, is