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 -
stevnpa

New and a sceptic but...

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat

 

 

2 hours ago, back to earth said:

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 .  :rolleyes:

 

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

I don't need any testing to bring matters to my satisfaction, I am beyond doubt already. But, I see no chance of my providing proof to others. I would be that conceited fool who thinks he would be the first to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
7 minutes ago, back to earth said:

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

Don't worry about others' speak for yourself, as I say even the most humble of souls is left with no transmissable proof, sought or unsought. It is not conceit that stops it being recordable, in a form that would constitute proof, it is conceit that convinces someone he will be the first in history to do it ! Comprendez ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I am actually aware of that article and Schwartz has responded to those types of claims.

Schwartz's responses sound like the ravings of an intelligent man who has gone off his rocker.   It can happen to the best of them and I feel bad that such an accomplished person could become an object of derision over something as ridiculous as this.  

Quote

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.

No one in the scientific community has accepted the good doctors experiments as legitimate because they were, in fact, flawed to the point of uselessness.  The only people championing the man are those such as yourself who so zealously defend para-everything, regardless of how absurd, that their credibility is zeroed out and their opinions ignored.   

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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

An appeal to authority does not mean he conducted an acceptable experiment and his critics were similarly lettered.  The fact that the entire scientific community rejected  Schwartz's experiment as flawed to the point of making it worthless counts for far more than your biased opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
44 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Schwartz's responses sound like the ravings of an intelligent man who has gone off his rocker.   It can happen to the best of them and I feel bad that such an accomplished person could become an object of derision over something as ridiculous as this.  

No one in the scientific community has accepted the good doctors experiments as legitimate because they were, in fact, flawed to the point of uselessness.  The only people championing the man are those such as yourself who so zealously defend para-everything, regardless of how absurd, that their credibility is zeroed out and their opinions ignored.   

An appeal to authority does not mean he conducted an acceptable experiment and his critics were similarly lettered.  The fact that the entire scientific community rejected  Schwartz's experiment as flawed to the point of making it worthless counts for far more than your biased opinion.

I have seen Schwartz defend his work and respond to critics. Here's just an example of his response to one of his most vehement critics, the infamous James Randi.

Schwartz Responds

 

As I have been saying we have to judge ourselves on who is being honest,

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I have seen Schwartz defend his work and respond to critics. Here's just an example of his response to one of his most vehement critics, the infamous James Randi.

Schwartz Responds

 

As I have been saying we have to judge ourselves on who is being honest,

When the entire world of legitimate science tells you your experiments are flawed and you refuse to accept it then you are a what?  

 

PS.  Randi was only infamous to the frauds and hoaxers he busted so as far as honesty is concerned......please!   :rolleyes:  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
6 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

When the entire world of legitimate science tells you your experiments are flawed

Can you justify that statement?? I just hear the so-called skeptic community on the attack, not 'the entire world of legitimate science'. His stuff is peer-reviewed as he explains in that link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Can you justify that statement?? I just hear the so-called skeptic community on the attack, not 'the entire world of legitimate science'. His stuff is peer-reviewed as he explains in that link.

Please show one legitimate, peer reviewed publication that has published his studies.   Then, ask yourself a question, if a well credentialed doctor could legitimately prove that he could communicate with the dead through these mediums then wouldn't the world be celebrating the proof of an afterlife?  Wouldn't the mainstream religions be knocking his door down?  Wouldn't a whole new field of physics be suddenly wide open for all those physicists looking for something new to explore?   Why is one of the greatest discoveries in the history ignored when quantum physics was accepted, as bizarre as that is?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
6 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Please show one legitimate, peer reviewed publication that has published his studies.   Then, ask yourself a question, if a well credentialed doctor could legitimately prove that he could communicate with the dead through these mediums then wouldn't the world be celebrating the proof of an afterlife?  Wouldn't the mainstream religions be knocking his door down?  Wouldn't a whole new field of physics be suddenly wide open for all those physicists looking for something new to explore?   Why is one of the greatest discoveries in the history ignored when quantum physics was accepted, as bizarre as that is?

Nope, too many Mercs and Randi's and on and on ,,,,,

And if you read that link he is not exactly claiming proof of an afterlife. He is saying there is no 'normal' explanation for the gifted psychic's abilities under triple-blind controls. He is very cautious and conservative in what he claims.

The famous quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” originated with Mahatma Gandhi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Just now, papageorge1 said:

Nope, too many Mercs and Randi's and on and on ,,,,,

And if you read that link he is not exactly claiming proof of an afterlife. He is saying there is no 'normal' explanation for the gifted psychic's abilities under triple-blind controls. He is very cautious and conservative in what he claims.

The famous quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” originated with Mahatma Gandhi.

LMAO.  Thanks PG, that was an epic failure!  Honestly, I couldn't have asked for a more cowardly run for the border than this drivel you posted.   You're the best you old fraud you!   :tsu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

LMAO.  Thanks PG, that was an epic failure!  Honestly, I couldn't have asked for a more cowardly run for the border than this drivel you posted.   You're the best you old fraud you!   :tsu:

Ah, we're at stage 2 then, 'then they laugh at you'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
Just now, papageorge1 said:

Ah, we're at stage 2 then, 'then they laugh at you'.

 

Oh come on, we have been at stage 2 since your fifth post.  You, literally, bring nothing to the table except more woo to prove your original woo.  Failed experiments rejected by everyone but your crowd of fellow travelers and clumsily avoiding questions by spinning more BS, is not a record to be proud of PG.  Thanks for providing a shiny example of how hoaxers operate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
6 hours ago, Habitat said:

 

 

I don't need any testing to bring matters to my satisfaction,

The test  I proposed was in the context of what I was answering when I proposed it . You seem to have forgotten that context  and now, state   ...

6 hours ago, Habitat said:

 

I am beyond doubt already.

I am not suggesting you should do the test , again , it was in context of what asked . 

6 hours ago, Habitat said:

 

But, I see no chance of my providing proof to others.

Obviously my test was providing some type of proof to oneself, I stated that .  You do this sort of thing a fair bit because you are so reactive . 

6 hours ago, Habitat said:

 

I would be that conceited fool who thinks he would be the first to do it. 

I dont know what you are on about with this conceit business, you were the one that started up on proving this to others and then projected that onto what I said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
6 hours ago, Habitat said:

Don't worry about others' speak for yourself, as I say even the most humble of souls is left with no transmissable proof, sought or unsought.

It has never been my intention to offer my personal experience as some sort of proof to anyone else. You barkin up the wrong tree . 

6 hours ago, Habitat said:

 

It is not conceit that stops it being recordable, in a form that would constitute proof, it is conceit that convinces someone he will be the first in history to do it ! Comprendez ?

I comprehend that this is some trip you started about some theoretical person motivated by conceit  to try and prove something. Sounds like another projection . 

What about all the paranormal investigators that believe they found proof , were they motivated by the conceit of their possible discovery .    None of what you say makes any real sense in this regard . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
5 minutes ago, back to earth said:

I

What about all the paranormal investigators that believe they found proof , were they motivated by the conceit of their possible discovery .   

And the proof they have to show, is what, where ? Like I say, no-one can produce it. You'd have to be an egotist, to imagine you could do so, where all others have failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I will try to make it clearer about such 'tests' . 

If one thinks they in contact with some force, entity, person ( dead or distant ) , ghost, demon, angel , hallucination .... whatever one wants to term it  .... that is NOT a projection from their own mind, then that ' external '      ' presence ' should be able to relay communication via that contact that is outside the knowledge of that person's mind . 

I would have thought that  was easy to understand the principle involved there . 

Dr VanDusen states  that patients, when being interviewed when 'in possession'  of one of their 'personalities' , or a 'demon' , 'alien' , whatever they thought was going on ( Dr termed them 'hallucinations' )   would often claim this to try and prove their separate existence from the patient . A few times, it seemed they could but after  further research and into their past, a link with the knowledge and the patient was found .   All sorts of similar questions were asked to try and 'trip them up' but 'the demons' were very tricky, manipulative, used tactics, red herrings, abuse, profanities, misinterpretation etc .    

Sound familiar !   :D      

I have posted links to his papers on his findings here a few times .  No one has ever taken this further .  

The thing is, the same process of Q  & A  is used in other situations where a similar ' objective contact '  is being investigated . Its one of the classical forms employed in  theurgy .

Whether  the outward medium and mode of explanation is Medieval Magic, the writings of Swedenborg or modern psychology,  or perhaps even internet discussion forums , certain 'laws' and tests  seem to be in action . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

And the proof they have to show, is what, where ? Like I say, no-one can produce it. You'd have to be an egotist, to imagine you could do so, where all others have failed.

The tests , as referred to above   ( I was writing that as you posted , it isnt an answer to the post above it )  are offered for anyone that might have such an experience and wonder what the hell is going on !  As many people have those experiences .  They might have communication with deceased relative  or loved one , it might be something entirely different and  considered a psychotic episode or 'break' ,  a 'haunting' , a 'possession' , hallucination, etc  ......  it is required magic 101 if you are going to attempt to investigate on that level . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

" In my dialogues with patients I learned of two orders of experience, borrowing from the voices themselves, called the higher and the lower order. Lower order voices are as though one is dealing with drunken bums at a bar who like to tease and torment just for the fun of it. ....... The vocabulary and range of ideas of the lower order is limited, but they have a persistent will to destroy. They invade every nook and cranny of privacy, work on every weakness and credibility, claim awesome powers, lie, make promises and then undermine the patient's will. They never have a personal identity though they accept most names or identities given them. They either conceal or have no awareness of personal memories. Though they claim to be separate identities they will reveal no detail that might help to trace them as separate individuals. Their voice quality can change or shift, leaving the patient quite confused as to who might be speaking. When identified as some friend known to the patient they can assume this voice quality perfectly. For convenience many patients call them by nick-names, such as "Fred," The Doctor," or "The Old Timer.” I've heard it said by the higher order that the purpose of the lower order is to illuminate all of the person's weaknesses. They do that admirably and with infinite patience. To make matters worse they hold out promises to patients and even give helpful sounding advice only to catch the patient in some weakness. Even with the patient's help I found the lower order difficult to relate to because of their disdain for me as well as the patient. The limited vocabulary and range of ideas of the lower order is striking. A few ideas can be repeated endlessly. One voice just said "hey" for months while the patient tried to figure out what "hey" or "hay" was meant. Even when I was supposedly speaking to an engineer that a woman heard, the engineer was unable to do any more arithmetic than simple sums and multiplication the woman had memorized. The lower order seems incapable of sequential reasoning. Though they often claim to be in some distant city they cannot report more than the patient sees, hears, or remembers. They seem imprisoned in the lowest level of the patient's mind, giving no real evidence of a personal world or any higher order thinking or experiencing. 

"   ...   In direct contrast stands the rarer higher order hallucinations. In quantity they make up perhaps a fifth or less of the patients' experiences. ...  In general the higher order is richer than the patient's normal experience, respectful of his freedom, helpful, instructive, supportive, highly symbolic and religious. It looks most like Carl Jung's archetypes, whereas the lower order looks like Freud's id. In contrast to the lower order, it thinks in something like universal ideas in ways that are richer and more complex than the patient's own mode of thought. It can be very powerful emotionally and carry with it an almost inexpressible ring of truth. The higher order tends to enlarge a patient's values, something like a very wise and considerate instructor.

" ....  Several things stood out as curious and puzzling. The lower order seemed strangely prevalent and limited. In the face of their claim of separate identity, their concealing or not knowing any fact (birthplace, schooling, name, personal history) which would set them apart was unusual. 

 

http://www.searchwithin.org/download/presence_spirits.pdf

 

When Wilson Van Dusen wrote, The Presence of Spirits in Madness he was Chief Psychologist at Mendocino State Hospital in California where he worked among the mentally ill for 17 years. In his spare time, he had discovered a way of getting an unusually accurate detailed picture of the inner experience of hallucinations.  Unfortunately, the press of other administrative responsibilities took him away from this fascinating area towards the design of national programs, especially in drug abuse treatment. He now lives the life of a busy scholar. He describes himself as primarily a phenomenologist, one concerned to discover and describe the real nature of human experience, as was Swedenborg.

Also, like Swedenborg, he has widespread interest in science and technology and is a licensed master mariner. He holds an A.B., M.A. from the University of California and a Ph.D., summa cum laude, from the University of Ottawa, Canada, plus several other earned and honorary degrees in science, metaphysics, and investment. His two books The Presence of Other Worlds, and Natural Depth in Man (Swedenborg Foundation) have been translated into five foreign languages. He has also contributed to many other volumes and has written over 100 articles, mostly in psychology. He feels that the depth of Swedenborg's real contributions are as yet poorly understood because they must be used in life to see their scope and power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Be skeptical of the skeptics too and form your own judgment is papageorge's policy.

Total nonsense. If you wanted to buy a fridge or needed brain surgery you wouldn't do it yourself. Experts are experts for a reason. You're essentially saying "it doesn't matter what the evidence says, I'm going to go with what I want to be true either way".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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

Credentials mean absolutely zip if you can't even follow the basics properly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The famous quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” originated with Mahatma Gandhi.

But that doesn't mean every time people laugh at you that you're right.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
7 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Total nonsense. If you wanted to buy a fridge or needed brain surgery you wouldn't do it yourself. Experts are experts for a reason. You're essentially saying "it doesn't matter what the evidence says, I'm going to go with what I want to be true either way".

How did you determine Dr. Gary Schwartz is not an 'expert' in his field. I have read his work, seen his credentials and his rebuttal to his critics. I judge him an expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
7 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Credentials mean absolutely zip if you can't even follow the basics properly.

I agree. But I believe Dr. Gary Schwartz follows the basics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
6 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

But that doesn't mean every time people laugh at you that you're right.

Yep.  They might have laughed at Einstein(they didn't) bit they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:14 PM, Merc14 said:

Please show one legitimate, peer reviewed publication that has published his studies.   Then, ask yourself a question, if a well credentialed doctor could legitimately prove that he could communicate with the dead through these mediums then wouldn't the world be celebrating the proof of an afterlife?  Wouldn't the mainstream religions be knocking his door down?  Wouldn't a whole new field of physics be suddenly wide open for all those physicists looking for something new to explore?   Why is one of the greatest discoveries in the history ignored when quantum physics was accepted, as bizarre as that is?

Wow, dude, read the link. No one made such a claim, but it appears it did meet the standard for further research. That was by peer review. Randi literally set the bar higher in this subject then science would have at this point in the research for what would be considered a "normal" subject..  

There are people, lots of people who will deny any possibility of an afterlife no matter what's provided. The very possibility destroys their world view, and cuts deep into the ego. Of which its obvious by Randi's comments that he has a large one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
26 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

There are people, lots of people who will deny any possibility of an afterlife no matter what's provided. The very possibility destroys their world view, and cuts deep into the ego. Of which its obvious by Randi's comments that he has a large one.

 

Seemingly so, but why would that be so disconcerting ? Why is the prospect of oblivion more attractive ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.