New and a sceptic but...

[back to earth]

9 hours ago, Habitat said:

Do you mean prove it in the scientific sense, or just to your own satisfaction ?

Thats a start !    You can use some sort of 'scientific' reasoning to test it to your own satisfaction.  The trick is to get the  voice, entity  - whatever you want to call it  -  even in the case of ( my fav psychiatrist ) Dr VanDusen's ' hallucinations of good and bad order - or as his patients claimed ' demons angels etc   and also magical invocation and evocation procedure ; 

Get them to tell you something you could not possibly know  , in any way , to prove that it isn't a projection from your own consciousness .  Then , of course, after that you need equally objective verification of the knowledge .

yeah ... I know ... you will say, "The beyond won't like that and won't tell you anything like that as it doesn't like being tested .  

9 hours ago, Habitat said:

There would be a great difference between the two, the former would imply great conceit, as no-one has ever done that, at least in recorded history.

 

and now, after admitting it has never been done scientifically .....    you blame 'conceit '  as the reason ? ? ?  What the ......   !

[back to earth]

8 hours ago, Habitat said:

Hardly, you might, for example, today think you hear someone knocking at the door, but aren't sure till you then hear it again, simples.

But if you were not sure the 2nd time  and go to check ... there will be no one there  because the knocker didnt like your doubt  ?  Or whatever this is supposed to mean ? 

 

You getting further down that rabbit hole with these wacky 'explanations'  .

[rashore]

On 1/9/2017 at 11:48 PM, stevnpa said:

OK, I'm very much of the rational scientific camp, and look for the simplest explanation for the experiences I've had throughout my life. 

These things may be commonplace and mean nothing, but if someone could give me an idea I'd be grateful.

Physical sensations:

in middle of forehead there is a highly sensitive spot, feels at times like I can sense warmth there.

I can concentrate on this spot and send an electric like current down my spine to my legs. (Not much use, I admit, but it feels odd!).

I get tingling in fingertips when people close to me lie to me. Not always, but I've found out later that I was correct, even when I had been told I was mad or paranoid thinking so.

 

Telepathic dreams, not too much detail, and I assume coincidental, but I've had very clear dreams for example where I have appeared as an animal at an outside window looking in to my parents bedroom (don't get all Freudian!) My mother in the dream sees me.

Next morning my mother relates that she saw me as the same animal in her dream looking through the bedroom window.

Saw what people would describe as a ghost. Was asleep with my girlfriend in the old part of a country house and was awoken in the middle of the night by a continuous whistle. I sat up in bed and saw a figure of a lady, not too clearly defined, grey coloured standing at the foot of the bed, dressed as a, I think WW1 period nurse, whistling stopped, felt very safe and calm, woke girlfriend up and figure disappeared. I assume I was still partially asleep!

Another experience I was lying on a bed relaxing, suddenly felt my body flip over and I was looking down at myself on the bed. Floated around the room for a minute or so went to the window and returned to the bed, flipped back over. Again, possibly not fully awake is my take on this. 

Sorry for a very long post but these things and others have been intriguing me for a long time.

I'd be interested in your input.

Many thanks, Steve

First off.. Welcome to UM stevnpa Please, take time to read the site rules, check out some threads... and enjoy your time here on UM

 

On to your OP... Wow, you are covering a bunch of topics with it. The forehead thing could probably be something along the lines of chi, chakras, meditation techniques, acupressure aspects, and the like.

The dream related sections here have a lot of information, including things like shared dreams, projection in dreams, lucid dreaming, and so on.

The ghost while sleeping thing is often discussed in topics like hag syndrome, sleep paralysis and the like. Whistling comes up sometimes with ghosts too. The floating above yourself thing could also be within the realm of sleep disorders, though it is also discussed with lucid dreaming, astral projection, out of body experiences...

I figured it would be nice and helpful to point you in the direction of some topic areas that pertain to your experiences for you to check into more.

[back to earth]

7 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

And no ego at all in assuming the paranormal chose you specifically to interact with, of course. 

Ziiiiiiing  !   

 

Great point !  

7 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

 It's probably worth noting that most discoveries are not made by people seeking fame. There's actually very little of it, for most discoveries really. 

 Even someone like Einstein wasn't seeking fame. It was an end result of his own curiosity and personal research. 

 I don't know what fallacy this is, I presume Emma knows. Would it be "no true Scotsman" perhaps?

 

[back to earth]

6 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Ah, see. No. 

 What I did was lay out exactly what you have stated the impossibility of attempting to verify what you are claiming is.

 I have pointed out that we both agree there are issues of credulity and fraud, though I am not stating that fraud is implicit on your presentation. 

 Due to the way you yourself have set the standards there is no way to seperate what you are saying, from any of the numerous other accounts that we have both agreed are cases of fraud or credulity. 

 I note again you are making claims about what I've said or what I think, which runs against what I have clearly said.

 Admittedly when I am actually paying attention to what I type.

 That is the only time I have actually implied any impropriety. 

There is that default position again 

Step into the 'safety square'  Habitat . 

[back to earth]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

CSICOP? They are the exact type of mindset I was talking about in my post. I judge for myself after considering all sides.

BULL !    You stance on Sai Baba has ruined any claim at all you make like this ! 

[stevnpa]

Many thanks for the informative and thought provoking replies. I had no idea one of the topics would lead to such controversy. It wasn't my intention.

Steve.

[back to earth]

The wise can kindle fire born from the sparks of the clash of 'controversy' .     

[Merc14]

48 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So then who is the final judge on disagreements? Who officially decides if an experiment is 'well designed' when there are differences of opinion on that issue.

You are completely unwilling to read anything that may point out the flaws in your offered evidence and are basically sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la la la when challenged, aren't you?   The article Emma linked goes into detail about the problems with Schwartz's experiments, points out who decides experiments are controlled correctly and concludes with why Schwartz most definitely has NOT provided any evidence of contact with the dead.  If you had read it you wouldn't be continually asking these same questions over and over in every thread you are eviscerated in.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and contacting the dead is most assuredly an extraordinary claim so Schwartz is obligated to provide flawless control in his experiments.  From the article it is glaringly obvious, to all but the most jaded, that he failed miserably in this and was the victim of an age old fraud.

[Emma_Acid]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

So then who is the final judge on disagreements? Who officially decides if an experiment is 'well designed' when there are differences of opinion on that issue.

I think you're have a drastic misunderstanding of the scientific method. It isn't a debate between two evenly balanced sides. The scientific method is designed to explain phenomena in the most objective and empirical way, to be repeatable by anyone with the right equipment, and enable predictions and models to be developed and tested. It is also there to ensure that results are not misread due to biases creeping in. Humans aren't perfect, but the scientific method is designed as far as possible to create an empirical model of the universe, and has resulted in the modern world we see around us.

The examples you have given are badly designed according to the scientific method, not least because they have lead to the experimenter to come to unjustifiable conclusions. 

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, back to earth said:

Not true in my case .  I had a LOT of doubt and 'knew' it was my mind 'playing tricks' , I demanded more proof, it happened a LOT MORE than 3 times.  There is NO rule like this, you are making it up or this is entirely relevent to you and is not some universal 'beyond'    'law'  . 

I said twice of an identical happening, not twice of all happenings, I have witnessed maybe 100.

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So then who is the final judge on disagreements?

I am. They made it official some point last year. So Emma wins.

 

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, back to earth said:

 

 

and now, after admitting it has never been done scientifically .....    you blame 'conceit '  as the reason ? ? ?  What the ......   !

Again, you seem unable to comprehend simple English. The conceit lies in anyone thinking they will be the one that pulls back the veil, for all to see, never mind that it has never been done before ! Are you in an "altered state"  perhaps ?

Edited January 11, 2017 by Habitat

[back to earth]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I said twice of an identical happening, not twice of all happenings, I have witnessed maybe 100.

... and where did I say it was different happenings ? These were all a similar type of happenings all related to the one friend that died . 

 See how you assume the safe way out ? 

[back to earth]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Your comprehension skills are as poor as your English expression.

Nope , you misinterpret and add ... see above 

[XenoFish]

If I believed every 'paranormal' thing that's happened to me I'd be like a few members here. Good things I've got an inquisitive mind. 

 

[back to earth]

10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Again, you seem unable to comprehend simple English. The conceit lies in anyone thinking they will be the one that pulls back the veil, for all to see, never mind that it has never been done before ! Are you in an "altered state"  perhaps ?

and you seem unable to comprehend your own motives .  It was YOU that suggested such motivations , they were never part of mine . 

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, back to earth said:

 

And I have not even closed my mind to the possibility of 'after life communication ' .  Just because you or I have experienced something like that, to me does not give it automatic creedence .....

as there is a test       to apply to such communication .  Have you ever thought of that ?  

But this idea of 'the beyond' not wanting to upset materialists , and hiding anytime someone with a recording device turns up ..... I xant believe you dont have the intelligence to at least get an inkling of doubt about that  . 

If you don't give credence to the reportage of your own senses, you might as well fold your tent. And do tell what test you have in mind. 

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

You are completely unwilling to read anything that may point out the flaws in your offered evidence and are basically sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la la la when challenged, aren't you?   The article Emma linked goes into detail about the problems with Schwartz's experiments, points out who decides experiments are controlled correctly and concludes with why Schwartz most definitely has NOT provided any evidence of contact with the dead.  If you had read it you wouldn't be continually asking these same questions over and over in every thread you are eviscerated in.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and contacting the dead is most assuredly an extraordinary claim so Schwartz is obligated to provide flawless control in his experiments.  From the article it is glaringly obvious, to all but the most jaded, that he failed miserably in this and was the victim of an age old fraud.

I am actually aware of that article and Schwartz has responded to those types of claims. I think your answer to who we should believe in any difference of opinion is: the anti-paranormal crowd and stop when you hear what you want to hear. Be skeptical of the skeptics too and form your own judgment is papageorge's policy.

Edited January 11, 2017 by papageorge1

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, back to earth said:

and you seem unable to comprehend your own motives .  It was YOU that suggested such motivations , they were never part of mine . 

I very simply did not blame "conceit" for the failure to garner transferable evidence of the "beyond". Were that the case, all must be conceited, because no-one, even the most humble of souls, has succeeded in coming away with such evidence. You are becoming very tiresome, and seemingly deliberately obtuse.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Habitat

[back to earth]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

If you don't give credence to the reportage of your own senses, you might as well fold your tent. And do tell what test you have in mind. 

I already did at post # 101   ! 

and I am the one that needs to fold my tent . 

At least I can set it up properly in the first place .

You seem to be struggling ... is there a strong wind or something ?     Hot air won't inflate it you know . 

 

 

 

[Kismit]

I think it's about time we want back to discussing the topic, and stopped the little jabs at one another. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Emma_Acid said:

I think you're have a drastic misunderstanding of the scientific method. It isn't a debate between two evenly balanced sides. The scientific method is designed to explain phenomena in the most objective and empirical way, to be repeatable by anyone with the right equipment, and enable predictions and models to be developed and tested. It is also there to ensure that results are not misread due to biases creeping in. Humans aren't perfect, but the scientific method is designed as far as possible to create an empirical model of the universe, and has resulted in the modern world we see around us.

The examples you have given are badly designed according to the scientific method, not least because they have lead to the experimenter to come to unjustifiable conclusions. 

So you think Dr. Schwartz as just one example is not aware of all that? Have you seen his credentials?

[back to earth]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I very simply did not blame "conceit" for the failure to garner transferable evidence of the "beyond". Were that the case, all must be conceited, because none have succeeded. You are becoming very tiresome, and seemingly deliberately obtuse.

Then re read what the other posters have said to you here  . It seems the finger points more at you for that . 

 

 

 

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

the anti-paranormal crowd and stop when you hear what you want to hear. Be skeptical of the skeptics and form your own judgment is papageorge's policy.

I don't see where it's anti-paranormal/supernatural. We just want more than a subjective opinion/view on it.

If you catch a ghost and present it to the scientific community as proof of some other dimensional being then by all means do so. Unless one day they discover the Casper Particle. Then we remain skeptical. 

Have I seen ghost. Yeah a ton of them, but my mindset was very different. I was front loaded to see them. 

3 minutes ago, Kismit said:

I think it's about time we want back to discussing the topic, and stopped the little jabs at one another. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by XenoFish