Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why do people get so mad when questioned ?


Sakari

Recommended Posts

Probably because their "facts" are not based off of anything more than faith. And any questioning simply leads to the shattering of that faith, and why would any devout believer want to lose that? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because their "facts" are not based off of anything more than faith. And any questioning simply leads to the shattering of that faith, and why would any devout believer want to lose that? :P

Sometimes it is because people know something others do not. It is a part of their knowledge, not faith.

And yet people without that knowledge refuse to believe its reality. Not only that, they claim the knowledge must be false or deluded because they do not possess it.

I dont get mad, but very amused and ironic, when people challenge things I KNOW to be true, based purley on their belief that they are not and cnnot be true. It would be easy to get angry at someone who is calling you a liar or a fool, but I understand the limitations of their own experiential knowledge base. I might be the same in their position, and with the same limitations on my knowledge.

For example i know that carrying a tin of spare petrol in your car significantly increses your risk of cancer. But why should someone who doesnt have any knowledge about carcinogens believe such a silly idea. I know that power lines do NOT cause cancer but try convincing "a believer" of this. Vaccinations DO NOT cause autism, but try telling a believer this is not the case.

God is real, physical and of indpendent existence. I KNOW this, but gee a lot of people believe differently, because they have never encountered god, nor convincing evidences for his existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I dont get mad, but very amused and ironic, when people challenge things I KNOW to be true, based purley on their belief that they are not and cnnot be true. I.

.

God is real, physical and of indpendent existence. I KNOW this, but gee a lot of people believe differently, because they have never encountered god, nor convincing evidences for his existence.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

fullywired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

fullywired

And then there are "The Doors" (long drum roll and guitar riff)

We know what we know, but it is true that there are many things we do not know, and thus we cannot know we do not know them. But to acknowledge that there are "unknown unknowns" at least opens our minds to the potentiality of their existence, and our ability to recognise them when we encounter them..

In theory, ANYTHING is potentially feasible.

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont get mad, but very amused and ironic, when people challenge things I KNOW to be true, based purley on their belief that they are not and cnnot be true.

I don't see that happen here very often here at least. I don't believe you not because what you say 'cannot' be true, but because you don't provide good reason or evidence to actually believe you, and I question whether you are consistent and really believe other people based on the same 'reasoning' you provide for your supposed knowledge. A lot of your statements are 'justified' by the same reasoning that a lot of people use for their religious or paranormal beliefs, and unfortunately some of those directly conflict, so that leads me to believe that maybe people's interpretations of their experiences is not very reliable. I know you try to exempt yourself from that because you have special powers, but I don't believe your special powers, assuming you actually have them, enable you to interpret your unexaminable personal experiences any more clearly necessarily than anyone else. Because again you haven't provided any evidence of that, merely assertions which anyone can do.

For example i know that carrying a tin of spare petrol in your car significantly increses your risk of cancer. But why should someone who doesnt have any knowledge about carcinogens believe such a silly idea. I know that power lines do NOT cause cancer but try convincing "a believer" of this. Vaccinations DO NOT cause autism, but try telling a believer this is not the case.

God is real, physical and of indpendent existence. I KNOW this, but gee a lot of people believe differently, because they have never encountered god, nor convincing evidences for his existence.

The first part of your paragraph provides a great rebuttal to your last two sentences. People KNOW things to be true that are actually untrue all the time. I think chances are pretty good that applies to you (and everyone to be fair) to some extent, partly because I haven't really seen much indication that you are skeptical at all about what you 'KNOW', and you have mentioned previously that some of your special abilities are true because you yourself have tested and evaluated them, which is profoundly unskeptical. Gee, I wonder what grades people would give themselves for their schoolwork or their work performance if they were the ones doing the grading...

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that happen here very often here at least. I don't believe you not because what you say 'cannot' be true, but because you don't provide good reason or evidence to actually believe you, and I question whether you are consistent and really believe other people based on the same 'reasoning' you provide for your supposed knowledge. A lot of your statements are 'justified' by the same reasoning that a lot of people use for their religious or paranormal beliefs, and unfortunately some of those directly conflict, so that leads me to believe that maybe people's interpretations of their experiences is not very reliable. I know you try to exempt yourself from that because you have special powers, but I don't believe your special powers, assuming you actually have them, enable you to interpret your unexaminable personal experiences any more clearly necessarily than anyone else. Because again you haven't provided any evidence of that, merely assertions which anyone can do.

The first part of your paragraph provides a great rebuttal to your last two sentences. People KNOW things to be true that are actually untrue all the time. I think chances are pretty good that applies to you (and everyone to be fair) to some extent, partly because I haven't really seen much indication that you are skeptical at all about what you 'KNOW', and you have mentioned previously that some of your special abilities are true because you yourself have tested and evaluated them, which is profoundly unskeptical. Gee, I wonder what grades people would give themselves for their schoolwork or their work performance if they were the ones doing the grading...

This is priceless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see that happen here very often here at least. I don't believe you not because what you say 'cannot' be true, but because you don't provide good reason or evidence to actually believe you, and I question whether you are consistent and really believe other people based on the same 'reasoning' you provide for your supposed knowledge. A lot of your statements are 'justified' by the same reasoning that a lot of people use for their religious or paranormal beliefs, and unfortunately some of those directly conflict, so that leads me to believe that maybe people's interpretations of their experiences is not very reliable. I know you try to exempt yourself from that because you have special powers, but I don't believe your special powers, assuming you actually have them, enable you to interpret your unexaminable personal experiences any more clearly necessarily than anyone else. Because again you haven't provided any evidence of that, merely assertions which anyone can do.

The first part of your paragraph provides a great rebuttal to your last two sentences. People KNOW things to be true that are actually untrue all the time. I think chances are pretty good that applies to you (and everyone to be fair) to some extent, partly because I haven't really seen much indication that you are skeptical at all about what you 'KNOW', and you have mentioned previously that some of your special abilities are true because you yourself have tested and evaluated them, which is profoundly unskeptical. Gee, I wonder what grades people would give themselves for their schoolwork or their work performance if they were the ones doing the grading...

I do not have special powers. I have abilities available to every human through practice, experience, education and logic (and some granted through acces to a universla consciousness which transcends my own)

So My "normal powers" learned through an excellent formal education, good genetics and parenting, allow me to perceive things clearly and accurately and force me to evaluate all things using the same evidences and criteria rather than on prior belief or disbelief about wha tis possible.

THEN i "catalogue" things for future data extraction and cross referencing, either using my own system and choices or using established human taxonomies. SO a being that acts and looks like an angel i might catalogue as an angel, or as a being of light or as an alien entity.

How i speak about it depends on whom i am speaking to In a church I might call it an angl in a group of atheists i might call it an alien intelligence.

Now if we allow that I have had similar physical encounters to other humans (who attribute them to religious beings) of course these entiies appear physically similar when i talk about them, because they are they are the same form of entitiy.

But i do not necesarily attribute the same origin or purpose that a person from 1000 or 100 years ago would do. i am not superstious. I am not afraid and i do not hold beliefs. The experiences of which i speak occur in the real physical world not my head or they would not be worth speaking about .

Of course you do not believe That is inconsequential. But for you to claim that these things are impossible is a statement of your belief which runs counter to wha tI KNOW. Just because you do not believ has no bearing on what is real or possible. And so to bolster your belief position you argue that i am working from belief also. But that is factually wrong. I had no beliefs. I still have no beliefs except those i invest in peole as my belief inmy wife.

I can only draw logical conclusions from the real, physical, solid evidences of my life. I do not create or base belief structures around them. I do not have beliefs about god or his nature in my head, i simply deal with him as he exists as a physical entity. I do make some extrapolations based on logic but these are only hypotheses not facts. Hence or as an example, the way god deals/interacts with me , protects, mentors and educates me is similar to how god deals etc with many people through history. And so i see a pattern and think ,"Well then that is probably at least one aspect of the nature of god."

We test everything in our experience using the same tests and evidences. One doesnt need scientific knowdge to know one cant walk through a wall, only experiential knowdge. Special powers or normal powers, all are capable of the same logical analysis and testing.

I KNOW I can read a page in a second and then write it out verbatim if i do this entirely by myself a number of times. I KNOW i can "read" anothers mind when i extract information from it and use that information to find a lost object ot tell them something i could not have known because it existed only in their mind. If i can travel to a place "see it" in my mind and write down its characteristics THEN use google earth to check and find that what i saw and recorded are identical with photographic reality, no other scientific confirmation is required.

There is nothing mystical or "paranormal" about this any more than reading or speaking are paranormal gifts They are innate potential abilities of the human mind which can be learned and practised, just like speaking and reading are.

And actually knolwedge is a data base of known things. They cannot be false although they might be innaccurate or incomplete Eg i KNOW the height of mt everest but not to the last millimetre. Facts we believe we know may be true or false, but knowledge is factual materiall proven to be true. The examples I gave you have all been scientifically proven to be true or false and so they form a part of my data base of knowledge God is known to me to be true in the same way I know all other things. A combination of physical experience and learned data.

So, for example, i have my own personal experiences with god which include normal physical evidences and verifications. And then i can read about other people's encounters with god fro across the whole hstory of human experience and compare the experiences and understandings with my own making nores of similarities and difernces in physical things, as well as the understandings which grow in the minds of people from different places cultures and times.

One can do this for any "paranormal" event, from a ghost, to mind reading or clair voyance and audience.

I am neither skeptical nor non skeptical about things I deliberately keep an open and unbiased mind on all things And have a continuum of likelihood on everything i do not have personal experience with So leprachauns low probability, telekinsis a medium, Poltergeist (what ever that is) high, Alien visitors high, a hole through the centre of the earth from pole to pole very low.

Gravity is a non universal constant ,almost certainly

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ps tests show that adolescents give them selves almost the same grade as their teachers when marking their own work, and some are harder on them sleves than their teachers.

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have special powers.

<snip>

I KNOW i can "read" anothers mind when i extract information from it and use that information to find a lost object ot tell them something i could not have known because it existed only in their mind.

If you believe you have telepathy, then you believe you have special powers. That you of course cannot actually demonstrate or apparently submit to scientific testing. I know quite a few people and none of them have telepathy or claim to, nor have I seen anything in the media about anyone demonstrating that they can read people's minds. That would make you special by definition.

If i can travel to a place "see it" in my mind and write down its characteristics THEN use google earth to check and find that what i saw and recorded are identical with photographic reality, no other scientific confirmation is required.

Uh, wrong, yes, lots of other scientific confirmation is required. Remember when cold fusion was 'discovered'? Only it really wasn't, because 'other scientific confirmation' failed to reproduce it and they found problems with the experiment? I really don't think you quite understand fully the purpose of the scientific method and why it is constructed the way that it is, and despite the abundance of scientific studies concerning the fallibility of perception and cognition you just assert that you are immune to these commonplace failures in interpretation. Because you say so.

Am I supposed to believe your claimed abilities, would that be rational of me? Am I being closed-minded? I don't think so, you're just one of countless number of people who claim to have special powers who can't actually provide evidence of it, let alone those who have been tested and have failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe you have telepathy, then you believe you have special powers. That you of course cannot actually demonstrate or apparently submit to scientific testing. I know quite a few people and none of them have telepathy or claim to, nor have I seen anything in the media about anyone demonstrating that they can read people's minds. That would make you special by definition.

Uh, wrong, yes, lots of other scientific confirmation is required. Remember when cold fusion was 'discovered'? Only it really wasn't, because 'other scientific confirmation' failed to reproduce it and they found problems with the experiment? I really don't think you quite understand fully the purpose of the scientific method and why it is constructed the way that it is, and despite the abundance of scientific studies concerning the fallibility of perception and cognition you just assert that you are immune to these commonplace failures in interpretation. Because you say so.

Am I supposed to believe your claimed abilities, would that be rational of me? Am I being closed-minded? I don't think so, you're just one of countless number of people who claim to have special powers who can't actually provide evidence of it, let alone those who have been tested and have failed.

No.

Telepathy is a normal ability of humanity. New science is allowing humans to remotely read a mind using the intervention of machinery. Human thoughts are picked up in one brain and remotely /wirelessly transferred to another person who can then know what the first person is thinking (see the iages understand/know the words being said in the mind as one thinks.

This means two things. Scientifically, thoughts are words and images which physically exist in our mind as concrete things. And second, what occurs in one individaul's mind is completely comprehensible and understandable when it is transferred to another persons mind,

Hence, telepathy is a natural ability of humanity. Nothing special. It is unusual but not extraordinary for the cross over of thoughts pictures ideas and information to occur without electronic assistance.

And many people have telepathic abilities. I suspect more people could demonstrte telepathy than could show that they can read a page of text on sight instantly and remember it verbatim (which i could also do after several years of training myself to do)

So not special, if uncommon. My brother in law can hear a complete piece of music once and then play it perfectly from memory without music. My broher can split his mind into 3 compartments and for example read a book, carry on a complex converstaion and watch a telvision show all simultaneously, and have perfect recall of every aspect of each function.

i believe from my background that i inherit part of this abilty fromm my mother who also had the abilty and emonstrted it Inmy life dozens of observerd and confirmed examples prove to me tha this abilit is very real if spamodic and not really under my control

A wel known austrlain scientist withthe same real name as my own said on national radio today that anecdotal evidence was not scientific evidence. But of, course, it is. An anecdote is the report of an observed phenomenum. Scientific observation is the same Science however sets further parameters on the control and regulation of experimentation which simpyoften do not work or cannot be applied in real life. That DOES NOT invalidate experintial knowledge based on personal observation If i cannot walk throguh a brick wall, that is scientific evidence of the walls solidity.

Scientific testing will confirm the solidity but i do not need that validation to know it is solid. Science cannot claim unique ability to determine what is real/unreal or known/ unknown.

Humans knew these things long before scientific method was formalised, or science was developed as a discipline.

If i lived on an island, alone, I could apply many skills and techniques, and a huge data base of personal knowledge and comparative experiential knowledge, to know with absolute certainty, the quantitative and qualitative nature of all things on that island. No, you are not expected to BELIEVE me, only to keep an open mind and not claim that such things are impossible. As it happens, they are both quite possible and also very real, but of course you do not have a good reason to believe this..

I expect you to say, " I do not believe you." but if a person says " i know that such things are impossible " just because they have no experience of them, then they are making a foolish claim of fact, which is actually only belief.

I am not immune to failure of perception but having been trained in many disciplines and practised this for over 50 years, I dont make many mistakes Tjis is confiremd by tsts and obsevations in my professional world And if i can do this so can any other human Tha tis my point I have NO special qualities Those i have are natural and the result of genetics study hard work and a lifetime of practice

My connection to the cosmic consciousnes or overmind is something entirely different and does confer abilities one might consider special but certainly not unique. There are three or four regular contributors to this forum alone with very similar experiences and abilities, and some historical documentaon of it in humans.

Again, I see no reason why every single human being could not make ths connection, if they really wanted to, but i am judging this from within my own life history and perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a genetic, or other, factor which gives some humans this ability and prevents its operation in others, just as some humans are colour blind and some have perfect colour sight. Ps I KNOW I can read peoles minds at times because i have done so hundreds of times acurately precisely and easily But often it just doesnt "work" I would love to know why. But i have found many lost or stolen objects by picking information from people's minds for example. I often just accurately know things that are only known in the minds of one other person for example.

Believ it or not It is no skin off my nose either way. I have to live with it and it defines how i relate to and speak to every one i know, because you cannot just blurt out stuff from anothers mind without causing a real problem but sometines you are obliged to act n such information and sometimes you cn help others. I've been dealing with this since before puberty,and especaily inmy younger years I have had more than a few people physically run away from me in fear or incredulity when I've told them things only they could know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Telepathy is a normal ability of humanity. New science is allowing humans to remotely read a mind using the intervention of machinery. Human thoughts are picked up in one brain and remotely /wirelessly transferred to another person who can then know what the first person is thinking (see the iages understand/know the words being said in the mind as one thinks.

This means two things. Scientifically, thoughts are words and images which physically exist in our mind as concrete things. And second, what occurs in one individaul's mind is completely comprehensible and understandable when it is transferred to another persons mind,

Hence, telepathy is a natural ability of humanity. Nothing special. It is unusual but not extraordinary for the cross over of thoughts pictures ideas and information to occur without electronic assistance.

And many people have telepathic abilities. I suspect more people could demonstrte telepathy than could show that they can read a page of text on sight instantly and remember it verbatim (which i could also do after several years of training myself to do)

So not special, if uncommon. My brother in law can hear a complete piece of music once and then play it perfectly from memory without music. My broher can split his mind into 3 compartments and for example read a book, carry on a complex converstaion and watch a telvision show all simultaneously, and have perfect recall of every aspect of each function.

i believe from my background that i inherit part of this abilty fromm my mother who also had the abilty and emonstrted it Inmy life dozens of observerd and confirmed examples prove to me tha this abilit is very real if spamodic and not really under my control

A wel known austrlain scientist withthe same real name as my own said on national radio today that anecdotal evidence was not scientific evidence. But of, course, it is. An anecdote is the report of an observed phenomenum. Scientific observation is the same Science however sets further parameters on the control and regulation of experimentation which simpyoften do not work or cannot be applied in real life. That DOES NOT invalidate experintial knowledge based on personal observation If i cannot walk throguh a brick wall, that is scientific evidence of the walls solidity.

Scientific testing will confirm the solidity but i do not need that validation to know it is solid. Science cannot claim unique ability to determine what is real/unreal or known/ unknown.

Humans knew these things long before scientific method was formalised, or science was developed as a discipline.

If i lived on an island, alone, I could apply many skills and techniques, and a huge data base of personal knowledge and comparative experiential knowledge, to know with absolute certainty, the quantitative and qualitative nature of all things on that island. No, you are not expected to BELIEVE me, only to keep an open mind and not claim that such things are impossible. As it happens, they are both quite possible and also very real, but of course you do not have a good reason to believe this..

I expect you to say, " I do not believe you." but if a person says " i know that such things are impossible " just because they have no experience of them, then they are making a foolish claim of fact, which is actually only belief.

I am not immune to failure of perception but having been trained in many disciplines and practised this for over 50 years, I dont make many mistakes Tjis is confiremd by tsts and obsevations in my professional world And if i can do this so can any other human Tha tis my point I have NO special qualities Those i have are natural and the result of genetics study hard work and a lifetime of practice

My connection to the cosmic consciousnes or overmind is something entirely different and does confer abilities one might consider special but certainly not unique. There are three or four regular contributors to this forum alone with very similar experiences and abilities, and some historical documentaon of it in humans.

Again, I see no reason why every single human being could not make ths connection, if they really wanted to, but i am judging this from within my own life history and perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a genetic, or other, factor which gives some humans this ability and prevents its operation in others, just as some humans are colour blind and some have perfect colour sight. Ps I KNOW I can read peoles minds at times because i have done so hundreds of times acurately precisely and easily But often it just doesnt "work" I would love to know why. But i have found many lost or stolen objects by picking information from people's minds for example. I often just accurately know things that are only known in the minds of one other person for example.

Believ it or not It is no skin off my nose either way. I have to live with it and it defines how i relate to and speak to every one i know, because you cannot just blurt out stuff from anothers mind without causing a real problem but sometines you are obliged to act n such information and sometimes you cn help others. I've been dealing with this since before puberty,and especaily inmy younger years I have had more than a few people physically run away from me in fear or incredulity when I've told them things only they could know.

1351127188Kfetin.jpg
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker has certainly outdone himself this time. I look forward to him demonstrating his "normal" telepathic abilities under scientific conditions, and not the conditions he incorrectly believes are scientific.

This would be one of the most amazing feats in human history however I'll be he'll choose instead to type and type and type on the Internet about it instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least in the USA we no longer teach "civics" in school, much less "how to be civil" in, yes, civil discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taken the freedom of bolding some quotes of your last two posts, but we both know you are smart enough to understand what you are doing. We both also know that you are doing this intentionally, and that it is not the first time.

1) Didn't you claim that demons do not exist and you have facts to prove such?

2) I will touch more of this a bit later.

3) Same as above.

4) While it is true that people may get offended seemingly for no reason, it is quite uncommon. For every example you can demonstrate of this occurring I will demonstrate 3 of them actually being disrespected.

5) The same as 4 applies, most people do not get offended by disbelief but by disrespect towards their beliefs.

6) Same as number one.

7) See numbers two and three? Where you said people accuse you of being condescending or mocking them and no quotes of such can be demonstrated? Here is your demonstration, this is not your first sneaky wordplay shot at me either.

Note: Nobody said it was just you, it is many people who have adapted this whole mentality of "Someone posted their experience, it's time to go mock them".

The bold one... I think there's two sides to it.

Sakari's side (and those' who are likeminded to him in this): I just write what I do, there's no special tone to it, I just state things as I see them and if you get offended of that it's your issue. I'm not always politically correct.

Felix's, Skaterdude's and mine and the likeminded's side: When you say things like "Ghost are fairytales" we see it offensive, because there's clearly insulting tone to it there. You could say "Ghosts do not exist" or "I do not think ghosts exist" or "I do not believe ghosts exist" or "I do not believe in ghosts". But you just had to use the word fairytales. You just had to imply we're believing to it on the same basis we believed on santa when we were kids, you just have to indirectly insult us.

Ghosts are fairytales - implies ones who believe in ghosts are child and should be treated as such.

Ghosts do not exist - better but still arrogant, because you claim it's a fact everyone should know.

I do not think ghosts exist - nothing wrong with this nor the two after this. Your personal view, must respect it or hold your tongue. I hold my tongue even if you pick worse words because a lot of people just dont think about these kind of things it seems, and it's easier for me to hold my tongue and write it off in other ways than to go to these lengths with every single person. But you bothered to think about it, so you do deserve a honest response. And the world ain't a perfect place so even if you didn't like the two ways above people use to say these things, you should tolerate it at least at times, because world and emotions ain't perfect in their nature.

I've held my tongue because I know this might be beyond your understanding. I know it's not beyond Scowl's understanding, would be surprised if it was beyond him with how condescending he can get, he's a far better agitator than you Sakari. And if you really dont know why people have gotten mad at you, then you should start considering believing in astrology because your chart tells it dead-on, even if I can't put it to good enough words. I mean, then I hope this clears up some things for you. We attach emotions to words where you dont seem to do that. Have you ever tried to write a nice poem?

And just to note, this topic wasn't started with the question whether paranormal and psychic and all that exists or not so I wont go there because it's derailing and so overchewed part anyhow. We all obviously have our views and we're obviously bent on sustaining them until something profound enough allows you to change your views. That profound enough, people have different standards for it in heaviness and quality both, what kind and how impactful. A suggestion or a very hard fact which would be the last thing on earth you'd suspect, always something in-between. I see a lot of people trying to bend the persons, as if you could do that. Especially with so little effort you give to it. But even with great effort, you can't, one way or another. Only their views can be bent, if they so choose. If you agree, you should realise it's just pointless to argue and more fruitful to actually study things.

Edited by Mikko-kun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Telepathy is a normal ability of humanity. New science is allowing humans to remotely read a mind using the intervention of machinery. Human thoughts are picked up in one brain and remotely /wirelessly transferred to another person who can then know what the first person is thinking (see the iages understand/know the words being said in the mind as one thinks.

This means two things. Scientifically, thoughts are words and images which physically exist in our mind as concrete things. And second, what occurs in one individaul's mind is completely comprehensible and understandable when it is transferred to another persons mind,

Hence, telepathy is a natural ability of humanity. Nothing special. It is unusual but not extraordinary for the cross over of thoughts pictures ideas and information to occur without electronic assistance.

To quote you, "No". The science you are describing above is not what we typically call telepathy, which according to wiki is, "the transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels or physical interaction." When you involve machinery and wireless signals, you are dealing with physical interaction. By your logic you are in a way correct above, telepathy is normal we just happen to also refer to it as 'reading' and 'having a conversation'. But true telepathy, with no 'electronic assistance' is not only unusual, it has never been convincingly demonstrated. I don't know what possible definition you could be using of 'unusual' and 'extraordinary' that would not include telepathy.

And many people have telepathic abilities. I suspect more people could demonstrte telepathy than could show that they can read a page of text on sight instantly and remember it verbatim (which i could also do after several years of training myself to do)

You keep bringing up your speed reading (I refer to it as 'skimming') as if it's relevant at all. Please provide some study or even a basic argument that people who can speed read are immune to cognitive biases, perception inaccuracies, etc.

So not special, if uncommon. My brother in law can hear a complete piece of music once and then play it perfectly from memory without music. My broher can split his mind into 3 compartments and for example read a book, carry on a complex converstaion and watch a telvision show all simultaneously, and have perfect recall of every aspect of each function.

Incredible abilities, and exceedingly rare at best. They sound a lot like savants although savants typically have a cognitive disability also. Regardless the people with these supposed abilities are not very numerous, seems kinda odd that you have two other people in your family in addition to your own abilities. But maybe.

i believe from my background that i inherit part of this abilty fromm my mother who also had the abilty and emonstrted it Inmy life dozens of observerd and confirmed examples prove to me tha this abilit is very real if spamodic and not really under my control

Which is of course incredibly convenient. If for any reason your telepathy fails you, well that isn't an evidence point against the idea that you actually have your abilities, it's just a spasmodic ability. It sounds a lot to me like you've pretty much insulated your belief in your own telepathy from any possible falsifiability.

A wel known austrlain scientist withthe same real name as my own said on national radio today that anecdotal evidence was not scientific evidence. But of, course, it is. An anecdote is the report of an observed phenomenum. Scientific observation is the same

You are not mentioning though the relevant difference between anecdote as usually used and scientific observation, namely the interpretation. The awesome Skeptic's Dictionary says it much better than I:

http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

It's all appropo, but here's a good summary, emphasis mine:

Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled.

Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy.

Thus, stories of personal experience with paranormal or supernatural events have little scientific value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claim made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was interpreted correctly.

Science however sets further parameters on the control and regulation of experimentation which simpy often do not work or cannot be applied in real life. That DOES NOT invalidate experintial knowledge based on personal observation If i cannot walk throguh a brick wall, that is scientific evidence of the walls solidity. Scientific testing will confirm the solidity but i do not need that validation to know it is solid. Science cannot claim unique ability to determine what is real/unreal or known/ unknown.

It doesn't make that claim, nor do I. I will claim that science is the best method we have of determining what's true, if you know of some other ability that has a thousandth of the evidence as science does to demonstrate its efficacy, I'm all ears. To your example, you don't need scientific testing to determine solidity, but we needed scientific testing to understand why you cannot walk through it; it is the interpretation that is the issue. The observation part of your ability is, 'occasionally I have accurately thought of what other people were thinking'; the problem is in the interpretation part, 'thus, I have telepathy (occasionally)', this is the level where science mainly does it's informing.. You can't walk through a wall, but it's not because there is a layer of tiny fairies on the surface of the wall pushing you back.

Humans knew these things long before scientific method was formalised, or science was developed as a discipline.

And humans 'knew' things that turned out to be utterly wrong also.

I am not immune to failure of perception but having been trained in many disciplines and practised this for over 50 years, I dont make many mistakes Tjis is confiremd by tsts and obsevations in my professional world And if i can do this so can any other human Tha tis my point I have NO special qualities Those i have are natural and the result of genetics study hard work and a lifetime of practice

I appreciate you admitting that you are not immune to perception biases. Your powers are special though by definition; so many people, scientists included who have put in plenty of study, hard work and practice, cannot read people's minds.

My connection to the cosmic consciousnes or overmind is something entirely different and does confer abilities one might consider special but certainly not unique. There are three or four regular contributors to this forum alone with very similar experiences and abilities, and some historical documentaon of it in humans.

Can any of them demonstrate their powers?

Again, I see no reason why every single human being could not make ths connection, if they really wanted to, but i am judging this from within my own life history and perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a genetic, or other, factor which gives some humans this ability and prevents its operation in others, just as some humans are colour blind and some have perfect colour sight. Ps I KNOW I can read peoles minds at times because i have done so hundreds of times acurately precisely and easily But often it just doesnt "work" I would love to know why. But i have found many lost or stolen objects by picking information from people's minds for example. I often just accurately know things that are only known in the minds of one other person for example.

But you've mentioned gigantic red flags that, I think, should make you skeptical about your conclusion: "I can read peoples minds at times" and "often it just doesn't work". I may have powers then also, I've won small amounts in various lotteries at various times, maybe I'm clairvoyant but often it doesn't work. Or maybe my interpretation is wrong. So which is more likely, I've made a misinterpretation, which are beyond entirely common, or have discovered evidence of something that if true would be the biggest scientific discovery this century? I know what my money's on.

Thanks for the conversation, I think I'll let you have the last word if you like unless you have some question for me or something, I think we're retreading the same ground here. I'm really not trying to pick at or pick on you, I just happen to disagree with a majority of what you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1351127188Kfetin.jpg

I am sure a person blind from birth would have the same reaction when a sighted person described to them the ordinary and mundane things which they saw every day. Why SHOULD a person, blind since birth, just accept that another human can perceive things totally invisible to them?

When a blind person is granted sight, they do find it amazing, but a person used to it from birth takes it for granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Walker has certainly outdone himself this time. I look forward to him demonstrating his "normal" telepathic abilities under scientific conditions, and not the conditions he incorrectly believes are scientific.

This would be one of the most amazing feats in human history however I'll be he'll choose instead to type and type and type on the Internet about it instead.

I am sorry, but what ARE "scientific conditions? I 've done this in a science lab with scientists present. Does that count? I've done it using scientific control mechanisms. Does that count?

But generally it is like seeing or hearing. It happens "in the field " The clearest evidences for it are in my knowing and seeing things which should be locked in another persons mind, and then using this knowledge. It doesnt work on demand, all the time, but usually when someone comes to me with a story of a lost or stolen object i can tell them where it is located, especialy if anyone else in the area knows where it is (like the thief)

This is a workable and practical, everyday ability, which I use to help others. and myself. For example I always find a car park where i need one by a combination of remote viewing and mind reading. (By this I mean parking directly in front of the place I want to go to, not 20 metres or so away from it. ) In a supermarket car park of 500 places, I never have to park more than 2 car parks away from the entrance (unless of course these are reserved for disabled people) So what can science do to DISPROVE such a workable and functional ability?

I repeat, such abilities are normal for a human being. I do not know why mine have grown since childhood, while other people's have atrophied. But i do a lot of work on them, both research and discipline, and have done so for over fifty years. You get better at anything with that much study and practice

Ps it is rare for me to be able to do anything over a distance, but i did help one UM member, in england from memory, whose brother (it turned out) had stolen a valuable family item, also of emotional value.

In that case her need was genuine, strongly felt, and quite desperate.

PS "who cares" if an ability operates, under "scientific conditions", as long as it is demonstrably effective and useful under "field conditions"? That is the only point in having any such abilities; that they work as and when needed...

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote you, "No". The science you are describing above is not what we typically call telepathy, which according to wiki is, "the transmission of information from one person to another without using any of our known sensory channels or physical interaction." When you involve machinery and wireless signals, you are dealing with physical interaction. By your logic you are in a way correct above, telepathy is normal we just happen to also refer to it as 'reading' and 'having a conversation'. But true telepathy, with no 'electronic assistance' is not only unusual, it has never been convincingly demonstrated. I don't know what possible definition you could be using of 'unusual' and 'extraordinary' that would not include telepathy.

You keep bringing up your speed reading (I refer to it as 'skimming') as if it's relevant at all. Please provide some study or even a basic argument that people who can speed read are immune to cognitive biases, perception inaccuracies, etc.

Incredible abilities, and exceedingly rare at best. They sound a lot like savants although savants typically have a cognitive disability also. Regardless the people with these supposed abilities are not very numerous, seems kinda odd that you have two other people in your family in addition to your own abilities. But maybe.

Which is of course incredibly convenient. If for any reason your telepathy fails you, well that isn't an evidence point against the idea that you actually have your abilities, it's just a spasmodic ability. It sounds a lot to me like you've pretty much insulated your belief in your own telepathy from any possible falsifiability.

You are not mentioning though the relevant difference between anecdote as usually used and scientific observation, namely the interpretation. The awesome Skeptic's Dictionary says it much better than I:

http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

It's all appropo, but here's a good summary, emphasis mine:

It doesn't make that claim, nor do I. I will claim that science is the best method we have of determining what's true, if you know of some other ability that has a thousandth of the evidence as science does to demonstrate its efficacy, I'm all ears. To your example, you don't need scientific testing to determine solidity, but we needed scientific testing to understand why you cannot walk through it; it is the interpretation that is the issue. The observation part of your ability is, 'occasionally I have accurately thought of what other people were thinking'; the problem is in the interpretation part, 'thus, I have telepathy (occasionally)', this is the level where science mainly does it's informing.. You can't walk through a wall, but it's not because there is a layer of tiny fairies on the surface of the wall pushing you back.

And humans 'knew' things that turned out to be utterly wrong also.

I appreciate you admitting that you are not immune to perception biases. Your powers are special though by definition; so many people, scientists included who have put in plenty of study, hard work and practice, cannot read people's minds.

Can any of them demonstrate their powers?

But you've mentioned gigantic red flags that, I think, should make you skeptical about your conclusion: "I can read peoples minds at times" and "often it just doesn't work". I may have powers then also, I've won small amounts in various lotteries at various times, maybe I'm clairvoyant but often it doesn't work. Or maybe my interpretation is wrong. So which is more likely, I've made a misinterpretation, which are beyond entirely common, or have discovered evidence of something that if true would be the biggest scientific discovery this century? I know what my money's on.

Thanks for the conversation, I think I'll let you have the last word if you like unless you have some question for me or something, I think we're retreading the same ground here. I'm really not trying to pick at or pick on you, I just happen to disagree with a majority of what you say.

No. I appreciate this is not personal and i am not upset. It is understandable.

I am going to answer a couple of your points anecdotally.

For example, as a young person i loved meeting challenges so i learned to water ski barefoot, and walk the plank and hang 5 or 10 on a long board. Now i haven't surfed for 35 years and havent skied for 20 years biut i stil claim tha those are skills i possess as a huma being and with a little practice could do today. Let us suppose you were an observer one afternoon watching me surf 10 times i tried to walk the plank and failed You disbelieve that i can, and walk away. As soon as you stop watching, i walk the plank and hang 10.

I KNOW I can do it, but you are right to be skeptical. Same with barefoot water skiing which is even harder. I started with two skis went to one ski and then bare foot You could see me fail many times but on many occasions i succeded. It depended on boat speed/power, water conditions, wake etc. So my point, in general, is this.

If only ONCE i can do something then i can do it. And if i can do it a dozen times even if a fail fifty times, then i can definitely do it.

So it is with all normal and paranormal things, in my experience.

Sometimes it just clicks and works, sometimes it does not. I do not know or understand the variables in operation of telepathy as i did for skiing or surfing, so i canot compensate for them.

LAstly i am not talking about vague communications which might be open to many intepretations. Take four examples.

A year nine girl came to me to tell me her mobile phone had been stolen. Her best friend was with her. I pointed to a nearby room and said "It is in the red bag on top of some lockers in that room"

Now i hadnt been in the room I didnt know there were lockers or a red bag in there but i KNEW the phone was there, in a red bag on top of a bank of lockers. The first girl turned to her mate and said, "you b****" Turned out SHE knew that the red bag on the lockers was her friends and she immediately made the connection that the friend had taken her phone (as a practical joke as it turned out)

Second a teacher came up to me and asked if i could locate her wallet. "Easy i said. Its in a big black big bag No its not she replied thats my bag but i looked in there".

I said, "It is in a small pocket on the inside of the bag lining" She went back, found it and bought me a nice meal at the pub .

A year 12 girl came to me at home time and said, "I can't find my car keys, and i am locked out of my car. Can you take me home"

"No worries" i said, They are on the floor of your car in the drivers side" She went, looked and came back and said No they're not"

I said. "Yes they are. Look again." so she looked carefully in through the window and there they were on the floor just under her seat. So then she said, "But the cars locked. I cant get to them"

I replied. No you left the boot unlocked and you can climn in through that to the cabin" it was a sort of hatchback She checked and did thatalthough she had to push a piece of partiton out of the way.

Lastly, a tech studies teacher came to me to locate a usb he had misplaced with a lot of work on it. I said "it is somewhere very dark and wet and you will not be able to get it back"

At which he looked puzzled then shocked, and made the connection in his own mind tha t he had the usb when he was called out with the ses (state emergency servive) on an emergency call to a boat in distress. He had subconsciously registered something falling in the water but was in the middle of a rescue and didnt think consciously about it. Once i gave the description of the usb's location, he realised that the usb was about 10 miles out to sea and deep underwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was away from this topic a few days and came back with several screens full of long-wided and verbose discussion, none of which will get read by more than maybe one or two people. If you can find a publisher, then write a book. Otherwise keep it short.

On Topic, why do people get angry? I suppose it comes naturally to some and they need to learn that it gains them nothing. Most people in fact don't get angry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why SHOULD a person, blind since birth, just accept that another human can perceive things totally invisible to them?

Because the human who can see is able to drive a car.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was away from this topic a few days and came back with several screens full of long-wided and verbose discussion, none of which will get read by more than maybe one or two people. If you can find a publisher, then write a book. Otherwise keep it short.

Sorry, are you a moderator now Frank? I thought the purpose of this forum was discussion. If you don't care to read or it's too long for you, find and use the 'Page Down' button on your keyboard to skip whatever you don't want to read, not very difficult. I'm questioning Walker on his specific beliefs and he's not getting mad or angry and this is thus tangentially on topic, and I don't see anything in the forum rules specifying that posts should be kept short. Believe it or not, some of us are not posting specifically for your edification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you are talking about, probably because you are 'keeping it short'. Too short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I KNOW I can do it, but you are right to be skeptical. Same with barefoot water skiing which is even harder. I started with two skis went to one ski and then bare foot You could see me fail many times but on many occasions i succeded. It depended on boat speed/power, water conditions, wake etc. So my point, in general, is this.

.

Have you tried walking on water?? I seem to recall reading somewhere about a guy doing this

fullywired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.