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 -
quiXilver

When does thought transition to belief?

1,602 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
24 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Are we still taking about one experience or are you including several? You told me that you were alone the first time and your parents were in the house, you say they were aware of a light but did not look out the window and asked yopu what it was and you protected them by telling them it was truck lights.

Just a minor point but were are discussing this in the present and my condolences but your witnesses are no longer alive so that doesn't really make them witnesses at this time so all there is is your version of events.

The other time 30 yrs later there was you and 4 dogs who again are not really what we consider witnesses obviously due to communication difficulties.

So who are these others and how do they relate to these 2 instances and where are they?

Wasn't that when you thought you might have a brain tumor after seeing John Travolta in a movie where he played Micheal? Why would that be relevant to your experience with this light? 

jmccr8

I have had several full psychological health check ups but a lot more physical checks of my brain. i treat my mind as i do my body Do my best to keep it functioning  a t a good level and mos tof my life  had regular full medical check ups including blood tests, scans colonoscopies,  fecal tests  ecgs and brain scans,

  However I haven't discerned any need to have a full psychological assessment  since i was about 55, and my last brain scan was  about 10 years ago. Since 204 I have had close medical monitoring due to my heart surgery and this has kept me in close contact with doctors and specialists  without having to do extra tests  ( I still have a full medical check up every two years )   It is free,  so why not? 

The witnesses are irrelevant  in convincing others,  because their evidences are not transferrable to you, whether they are alive or dead.

BUT the y were significant to me because, without prompting, they asked what the brilliant white light was, which had manifested while i was outside

The dogs were barking at the light in the sky and it was, in part, this which drew my attention to it  I also saw it because i had to throw a rock up high to land on the roof of their run to shut them up.

The point was that the light or door way in the night sky was real, because the dogs were scared of it and barking at it.

  Again, to you, this is just apart of a story all of which may be untrue, but to me it is evidence that the doorway in the sky was a real physical thing which the dogs could see, and were upset by,   not an hallucination in my mind. 

Interstingly have only ever fond one other account online of anythng like this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It is a cop out until you offer up some evidence that I or other people here 'don't want to believe'; it's not an exact analogy, but you're pretty close to 'those grapes were sour anyway'.  You have no evidence concerning how we will react if you were to provide some evidence, since you have never personally experienced that situation because you've never provided any evidence.

Okay, I think that's the first I've heard you say that, at least you're taking baby steps towards defining exactly what you think you can do.

So you can't do it on demand or simply, and in some amount of attempts you've made here you've had one success.  I'd totally expect that if you didn't have any powers at all, and of course I'm sure you don't take these failures as evidence that you don't have your powers.  To my knowledge you have never said you were at the top of the pyramid or the cosmos or Easter Island because you were looking for a valuable object.

For the exact same reason you aren't currently learning how to summon Santa Claus on demand to your house.

The reason i KNOW all this to be true is my expernce with dozens of people in real life.  It reached the point where teachers students and community members came to me to find lost or stolen objects.

In a bout 80 % of the cases I recovered the property. In about 10% i got no idea of its location In about 10% i knew where it was but it was unrecoverable eg the USB with a teachers assessments on it, which had flown out of his shirt pocket while he was fishing, and was on a sandy bottom in about 20 feet of water somewhere in a huge area of sea :)  When i told him it was under water on a sandy bottom, the teacher recalled something flying out of the boat as he cast his line and falling into the water. Until then he had no idea where it was but this jogged his memory that he had left the usb in his shirt pocket after doing some assessments a t home The vigorous cast hurled the usb out of his pocket, and out of the boat , into the water 

It doesn't matter  (to me) what  you believe but failing to believe means you lack knowledge of something important, and a human abilty which many people have, or might have if they learned how to develop it. 

Ps projection of consciousness is a difernt mental skill to finding lost objects. i suspect i find lost objects by reading the persons subconscious knowldge Eg this teacher had a subconscious recollection of the usb flying out of his pocket which became conscious when i described where the usb was 

I took along time to learn to project my consciousness over long distances Hundreds of hours spent over many years  

It took weeks of training and preparation for my first round the world flight  at my home latitude,  Later i went all over the world  and finally out into space. 

The evidences for this are things i observed which were unknown to me and sometimes to anyone else but were later found to be true 

Eg the first time i flew through the rings of Saturn I was surprised to find how thin the y were as science had them down as kilometres thick .

Year later science  found out that, rather  than being kilometres thick as thought at the time, they are only metres thin in many places.  I flew ( a few metres)  over the geysers on enceladus  in the sixties, before the y were known to, or suspected by  science and was amazed by their beauty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I have had several full psychological health check ups but a lot more physical checks of my brain. i treat my mind as i do my body Do my best to keep it functioning  a t a good level and mos tof my life  had regular full medical check ups including blood tests, scans colonoscopies,  fecal tests  ecgs and brain scans,

  However I haven't discerned any need to have a full psychological assessment  since i was about 55, and my last brain scan was  about 10 years ago. Since 204 I have had close medical monitoring due to my heart surgery and this has kept me in close contact with doctors and specialists  without having to do extra tests  ( I still have a full medical check up every two years )   It is free,  so why not? 

Hi Walker

Yes, thanks for the response and I remember past discussions and asked about the timing of events 

1 time of light

2 suspected tumor

with relationship to time of analysis and was it because of one o both incidents because in the last twenty pages I asked if you had been under stress or having had spiritual questions on a personal level that may have predisposed you to conclude god and you were adamant that you were top drawer at that time in all aspects of health and social environment so I am confused as to how these events are connected?

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The witnesses are irrelevant  in convincing others,  because their evidences are not transferrable to you, whether they are alive or dead.

BUT the y were significant to me because, without prompting, they asked what the brilliant white light was, which had manifested while i was outside

I am sure convicts and lawyers the world over at this revelation I might be inclined to have some fun if that's true.:lol:

Your parents had no idea what the light was and all they could have said is that they asked you and you told them truck lights so all that means is that there was a nondescript light that was only  seen by you which allows that there was a light who's description is given by you alone.

Really there is no point in stating there were witnesses if they are not available and cannot give an account of what the events were and weakens your position. If you do and you did claim to have evidence and witnesses so it is valid to ask you to provide that in support of your claim, I don't do it to be mean it is how I analyse the information you or anyone else give me.:)

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The dogs were barking at the light in the sky and it was, in part, this which drew my attention to it  I also saw it because i had to throw a rock up high to land on the roof of their run to shut them up.

So this time the light was not as bright and you didn't notice til the dogs acted up, How dark was it at night, dusk?

 

33 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The point was that the light or door way in the night sky was real, because the dogs were scared of it and barking at it.

  Again, to you, this is just apart of a story all of which may be untrue, but to me it is evidence that the doorway in the sky was a real physical thing which the dogs could see, and were upset by,   not an hallucination in my mind. 

Okay I can understand what you are trying to say but the dogs can't tell us for themselves what happened so that excludes them from being a witness, I am just deal with what order and how long apart were you experiences with the details specific to each event organized not making any suggestions about hallucinations so lets not get off track.

so there was a doorway both times or just once?

40 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The point was that the light or door way in the night sky was real, because the dogs were scared of it and barking at it.

I don't know that and you can't substantiate it so as an observer all I can say it is subjective and falls out of the sphere of supportive. :(

jmccr8

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I did supply the names of the tests as best as i could recall them  8 bits might remember 

I still offer my 4 dogs as eye witnesses to one event( as described above) The y could see, and were scared by, and barking loudly at, a big bright doorway in the night sky above their dog run.

  If the y could see it, then it was not occurring in my head but was a real bright doorway in the sky. There are no medical records from  1973. It was well before computerised records existed  and the clinic at the time no longer even exists 

And as i said, I am not interested in trying to prove anything to you.  As long as I have the necessary proofs and evidences to know and understand clearly in my own mind, that is  all that is important. You will never believe until perhaps something  happens to you and you  have to deal with it  I saw the blood tests ad the results That's proof/evidence for ME 

Um!!! i might have a picture of me smoking. I certainly have pictures off line of my appearance as a smoker (Thin muscular and tanned with a big afro, a bushy beard and a variety of early 70s outfits  )  :)  In one I have a feather in my hair. In another i am wearing a bright red beanie and an Asian long silk tunic  I dont have them online and until I have a good reason to put them online (ef as part of my funeral media presentation) i wont :) 

Again I am no longer a t all interested in your opinion.

Your mindset is due to your own childhood and psychological needs and it will require a major event in your life to change that world view 

 

I am interested that you evidence your claims, it is irrelevant that you want to make claims and not support them 

In the spirit of fair honest debate it is on you to support your claims. 

What is the name of the test for hallucinations? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

go back and have another look 8 bits even checked them and said the y weren't really tests which would show my mental sate But in part that was not their purpose They tested visual acuity, perception  memory interpretation and accuracy  The psychological evaluations were more interview based. 

One test i did then and have done a number of times since is the DASS test which measures depression/anxiety. In part as a result of this, i have been told i am one of only about 13% of Australians who have never (and never will)  suffered from depresion or anxiety It seems it is a genetic trait reinforced by excellent upbringing

You are creating a straw man I am not asking for if you were tested for depression, I am asking for the name of the test that they used to test you whether you had hallucinated 3 days prior? You know the one you claimed to have had. How about the test to check for your ability to discern reality, what is the name of it?

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

go back and have another look 8 bits even checked them and said the y weren't really tests which would show my mental sate But in part that was not their purpose They tested visual acuity, perception  memory interpretation and accuracy  The psychological evaluations were more interview based. 

One test i did then and have done a number of times since is the DASS test which measures depression/anxiety. In part as a result of this, i have been told i am one of only about 13% of Australians who have never (and never will)  suffered from depresion or anxiety It seems it is a genetic trait reinforced by excellent upbringing

I understand, but several posts above to me you claimed to have taken tests that show you didn’t hallucinate and you had a test that checked for your ability to discern reality.

I am asking for the names or just stand corrected. You could be mistaken after all.

I am not having a go at you, this is my process for evaluating cLaims,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You ever heard of a happy loving drunk?

Sure. Taxi drivers get a lot of inebriated people in their cab, most will them you that drunks are frequently aggressive and troublesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Sure. Taxi drivers get a lot of inebriated people in their cab, most will them you that drunks are frequently aggressive and troublesome.

Habit start a thread about alcohol, I will post there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Yes, thanks for the response and I remember past discussions and asked about the timing of events 

1 time of light

2 suspected tumor

with relationship to time of analysis and was it because of one o both incidents because in the last twenty pages I asked if you had been under stress or having had spiritual questions on a personal level that may have predisposed you to conclude god and you were adamant that you were top drawer at that time in all aspects of health and social environment so I am confused as to how these events are connected?

I am sure convicts and lawyers the world over at this revelation I might be inclined to have some fun if that's true.:lol:

Your parents had no idea what the light was and all they could have said is that they asked you and you told them truck lights so all that means is that there was a nondescript light that was only  seen by you which allows that there was a light who's description is given by you alone.

Really there is no point in stating there were witnesses if they are not available and cannot give an account of what the events were and weakens your position. If you do and you did claim to have evidence and witnesses so it is valid to ask you to provide that in support of your claim, I don't do it to be mean it is how I analyse the information you or anyone else give me.:)

So this time the light was not as bright and you didn't notice til the dogs acted up, How dark was it at night, dusk?

 

Okay I can understand what you are trying to say but the dogs can't tell us for themselves what happened so that excludes them from being a witness, I am just deal with what order and how long apart were you experiences with the details specific to each event organized not making any suggestions about hallucinations so lets not get off track.

so there was a doorway both times or just once?

I don't know that and you can't substantiate it so as an observer all I can say it is subjective and falls out of the sphere of supportive. :(

jmccr8

Again you are asking me to prove something to you. I cant and dont ever attempt to.

What i do is explain how i prove something to myself.

Take it or leave it

pillar of light 

1973

doorway in the sky

late 1990s

suspected tumour 

also late 1990s after i had watched phenomenum with john Travolta for the first time 

Brain scans then, and 10 years later showed no problems or abnormalities  except for an enlarged prefrontal cortex (like albert einstein had)  :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I understand, but several posts above to me you claimed to have taken tests that show you didn’t hallucinate and you had a test that checked for your ability to discern reality.

I am asking for the names or just stand corrected. You could be mistaken after all.

I am not having a go at you, this is my process for evaluating cLaims,

And we have been over this before and i gave you the tests as best i could remember them. I have done so again, but it is meaningless.

I could be making the whole lot up. You must either accept or reject  the whole deal  or suspend your judgement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Again you are asking me to prove something to you. I cant and dont ever attempt to.

Hi Walker

Don't take offence I am not asking you to prove anything I am asking questions so that I know which experience you are refering to at what time as some of your posts seem to over lap or infer that there were people at one event but they were a part of a completely different event and you are generalizing by lumping them all in one ball. I have been at a few Q&A's :innocent::whistle: and believe me I'm going easy on you cuz I like you so no phone books or rubber hoses.:lol:

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

What i do is explain how i prove something to myself.

And I believe you have succeeded in convincing yourself but that is not the point of this discussion forum that deals with questioning they why, what, where I am making no judgment on you as a person.

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

pillar of light 

1973

doorway in the sky

late 1990s

suspected tumour 

also late 1990s after i had watched phenomenum with john Travolta for the first time 

Brain scans then, and 10 years later showed no problems or abnormalities  except for an enlarged prefrontal cortex (like albert einstein had)  :)  

Thanks okay you have cleared up some of the confusion so these incidents were not connected other that the Travolta thing and brain scans.:tu:

jmccr8

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
34 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

you brought it up.

You just don't like being proven wrong. 

A trait i believe is strong in you,  young sherapy   :) 

 

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Again you are asking me to prove something to you. I cant and dont ever attempt to.

What i do is explain how i prove something to myself.

Take it or leave it

pillar of light 

1973

doorway in the sky

late 1990s

suspected tumour 

also late 1990s after i had watched phenomenum with john Travolta for the first time 

Brain scans then, and 10 years later showed no problems or abnormalities  except for an enlarged prefrontal cortex (like albert einstein had)  :)  

Mr Walker, I am not asking how you reality check as it isn’t a substitute for evidence that you are being asked to provide for your claims.

you then quote

“It doesn't matter  (to me) what  you believe but failing to believe means you lack knowledge of something important, and a human abilty which many people have, or might have if they learned how to develop it.“ in other words you are posting claims refusing to offer evidence and then admonishing and belittling those telling them they lack knowledge and some ability that you yourself cannot substantiate, I don’t accept any claims at face value.

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And we have been over this before and i gave you the tests as best i could remember them. I have done so again, but it is meaningless.

I could be making the whole lot up. You must either accept or reject  the whole deal  or suspend your judgement 

Are you making the whole thing up?

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
40 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

you brought it up.

You just don't like being proven wrong. 

A trait i believe is strong in you,  young sherapy   :) 

I did not say you didn’t have a good point, I said it is off topic. Start a thread. I will post there.

I am not understanding the significance of the personal attacks to my character, and if it continues I am reporting you. 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
41 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

And we have been over this before and i gave you the tests as best i could remember them. I have done so again, but it is meaningless.

I could be making the whole lot up. You must either accept or reject  the whole deal  or suspend your judgement 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one here is simply going to take your word for it.  Failing that, everyone here will pretty much "reject the whole deal" and that, my friend is that. You have failed to substantiate your credibility. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Wasn't that when you thought you might have a brain tumor after seeing John Travolta in a movie where he played Micheal?

No. that can't be right. That's two different Travolta movies, and Mr W has perfect memory. He'd never have mixed those two up; well, except maybe to think they were both documentaries.

I did have a little different take on

Quote

No one needs another person to validate what they see. 

than that of @Liquid Gardens. It was sort of a silly thing for Mr W to say, since the issue wasn't who needs what, but rather that other persons (including the occasional dog, which would work for me except for that nasty communication problem jmc mentioned, and that the dogs'd go along with anything, since a pack always sticks together) is what Mr W has actually offered for validation. We the audience can only work with what we're given.

Peer review is primarily about compliance with editorial standards. How much it enforces "quality control" varies from journal to journal (and among some academic book publishers). The loosest I know of among the elite journals (as in Nobel Prizes have been won by the authors for what they publish there) is Physical Review Letters, who publish anything so long as it doesn't arrive in crayon on butcher paper. That's the idea - a place where top minds (and others who can keep up with the math - that they check, along with the grammar) can shoot the breeze about the Big Questions. The other end is places like Nature and Science, who reject more breakthrough research than most other journals ever publish.

Qualiity control really comes after publication, and is a matter of how much a work is used by others. The crude measure is "citation count" (how many papers by other authors mention the work in question). But basically, anything that establishes widespread respect within the field is usually a good indicator of quality.

Overall, when people look back about 10 years or so, and tote up how many peer-reviewed papers that old were found to contain substantial errors of fact or application of theory ("low quality"), it works out to as much as 50% (!). The exception is elite mathematics journals. It is very rare to find an error there, and no surprise, their peer review is arduous for both reviewer (often one reviewer is assigned to work with the author like a second job) and for the reviewee.

So LG is right on about peer review in math journals, and the best math journals do it that way because there really is a need for another person to "check your work" in math, to validate your results. It's too easy to overlook something, to make a "little" mechanical mistake, or (gasp) to fall in love with the beauty of a result and therefore not to notice that it lacks truth.

As to the original problem, dear @Mr Walker. No, what I believe or disbelieve in general is irrelevant to the actual problems with your tales. There are better explanations of what happened than the ones you offered, and those would be better explanations even if I believed in a god who's easily mistaken for a pair of talking truck headlights. This has been explained to you repeatedly, so please throttle down the speed reader and ramp up the comprehension engine.

As to the current story. "One night, I suddenly saw a light, and it kicked off something inside me like a 'religious experience.' Whatever it was, I suddenly lost all interest in smoking, I just gave up the habit then and there. That probably saved my life, what with my heart condition and all. (Chuckle) When my parents asked what was going on, I just told them that a truck was backing up in the driveway. But I knew it was more important than that. It felt intelligent, like it was talking to me."

That is a great story. You should have stuck with that. Really. You have no good reason to think that the light possessed an audible voice, and so insisting that it did adds nothing to the story.

Holy moley; I just did a peer review.

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
32 minutes ago, eight bits said:

and the best math journals do it that way because there really is a need for another person to "check your work" in math, to validate your results. It's too easy to overlook something, to make a "little" mechanical mistake, or (gasp) to fall in love with the beauty of a result and therefore not to notice that it lacks truth.

Couldn't that be done with a suitably programmed computer ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Don't take offence I am not asking you to prove anything I am asking questions so that I know which experience you are refering to at what time as some of your posts seem to over lap or infer that there were people at one event but they were a part of a completely different event and you are generalizing by lumping them all in one ball. I have been at a few Q&A's :innocent::whistle: and believe me I'm going easy on you cuz I like you so no phone books or rubber hoses.:lol:

And I believe you have succeeded in convincing yourself but that is not the point of this discussion forum that deals with questioning they why, what, where I am making no judgment on you as a person.

Thanks okay you have cleared up some of the confusion so these incidents were not connected other that the Travolta thing and brain scans.:tu:

jmccr8

 

Actually, it can be the ONLY point of a discussion forum like this.

No one here can prove a single thing about themselves to anyone who is not ready to believe them on faith.

I have a life time of such events.

I know them  all well but it understandable that people who only read about them here (and don't really take them seriously anyway) get them mixed up 

lol its not a matter of convincing myself . Like everything in life,  knowing is dependent on convincing evidences proofs etc  I have the same level of proofs for this being as i do for my wife and dog.

Is  anyone suggesting i should not accept THEIR reality  because i cannot prove I actually have  either one, to anyone online 

I dont have to convince myself that i have 3 dogs and a wife. I simply know it .

It is exactly the sane for this entity 

There is no way i could prove I had a wife to you online, but if you visited me you would experience the proof yourself.  It is much the same for god 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
38 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No. that can't be right. That's two different Travolta movies, and Mr W has perfect memory. He'd never have mixed those two up; well, except maybe to think they were both documentaries.

I did have a little different take on

than that of @Liquid Gardens. It was sort of a silly thing for Mr W to say, since the issue wasn't who needs what, but rather that other persons (including the occasional dog, which would work for me except for that nasty communication problem jmc mentioned, and that the dogs'd go along with anything, since a pack always sticks together) is what Mr W has actually offered for validation. We the audience can only work with what we're given.

Peer review is primarily about compliance with editorial standards. How much it enforces "quality control" varies from journal to journal (and among some academic book publishers). The loosest I know of among the elite journals (as in Nobel Prizes have been won by the authors for what they publish there) is Physical Review Letters, who publish anything so long as it doesn't arrive in crayon on butcher paper. That's the idea - a place where top minds (and others who can keep up with the math - that they check, along with the grammar) can shoot the breeze about the Big Questions. The other end is places like Nature and Science, who reject more breakthrough research than most other journals ever publish.

Qualiity control really comes after publication, and is a matter of how much a work is used by others. The crude measure is "citation count" (how many papers by other authors mention the work in question). But basically, anything that establishes widespread respect within the field is usually a good indicator of quality.

Overall, when people look back about 10 years or so, and tote up how many peer-reviewed papers that old were found to contain substantial errors of fact or application of theory ("low quality"), it works out to as much as 50% (!). The exception is elite mathematics journals. It is very rare to find an error there, and no surprise, their peer review is arduous for both reviewer (often one reviewer is assigned to work with the author like a second job) and for the reviewee.

So LG is right on about peer review in math journals, and the best math journals do it that way because there really is a need for another person to "check your work" in math, to validate your results. It's too easy to overlook something, to make a "little" mechanical mistake, or (gasp) to fall in love with the beauty of a result and therefore not to notice that it lacks truth.

As to the original problem, dear @Mr Walker. No, what I believe or disbelieve in general is irrelevant to the actual problems with your tales. There are better explanations of what happened than the ones you offered, and those would be better explanations even if I believed in a god who's easily mistaken for a pair of talking truck headlights. This has been explained to you repeatedly, so please throttle down the speed reader and ramp up the comprehension engine.

As to the current story. "One night, I suddenly saw a light, and it kicked off something inside me like a 'religious experience.' Whatever it was, I suddenly lost all interest in smoking, I just gave up the habit then and there. That probably saved my life, what with my heart condition and all. (Chuckle) When my parents asked what was going on, I just told them that a truck was backing up in the driveway. But I knew it was more important than that. It felt intelligent, like it was talking to me."

That is a great story. You should have stuck with that. Really. You have no good reason to think that the light possessed an audible voice, and so insisting that it did adds nothing to the story.

Holy moley; I just did a peer review.

 

I didnt mix it up although others did in the original discussion.

it was Phenomenon 

again you attempt ridicule which suggests you are afraid of something.

Lastly no one with a properly  working mind requires validation to know what is real and what is not  

in science the methodology and procedures require getting the same results under controlled conditions, but for most things in life we only get one go at it, and are evolved to get it right 

it amuses me that people keep arguing tha t all things unusual are a re result of faulty perception or reasoning yet in ther lives the y survive every day by using high level skills in observation, perception, and reasoning 

If you can be sure that what you are eating for breakfast has its own independent existence, then you can be sure that ANYTHING you encounter either has, or does not have, a similar ins pendent reality 

lol that is not really the current story. it is your synthesis/understanding of a part of it.

The story has not changed on UM for 14 years but it takes pages to relate the whole thing, so i just post the relevant bits

you also build in things based on your own assumptions. It didn't seem intelligent it WAS highly intelligent and powerful  It expressed intent of future action, then acted on that intent. What it said would happen happened, both immediately and over time 

When someone talks to you, do you say.  "It seemed as if the y were talking to me ? "

No of course not.

The y were talking to you, as was this entity talking to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You are creating a straw man I am not asking for if you were tested for depression, I am asking for the name of the test that they used to test you whether you had hallucinated 3 days prior? You know the one you claimed to have had. How about the test to check for your ability to discern reality, what is the name of it?

 

actully wrong again

When you go to a psychologist for a full check up the y do a whole battery of tests because it is important  to establish the  general state of your physical and mental health.

The fact that I had no anxiety or depression, and never had them, went to my lack of neediness and to the stability of my mental state ie I wasn't constructing some imaginary god friend to meet a need .I didnt HAVE any needs in my life. I was happy healthy sexy loved and  and successful.

I explained that the y used interviews to discern how grounded i was in realty and how well i could explain my observations and perceptions the y also showed me pictures to test my observational skills and see how  I interpreted  them  We talked about a range of reality checkers used to establish the physical existence of anything. We explored the use of relity checkers in discerning physical reality both awake and in dreams. Today psychologists do much the same, but generally have to teach a patient how to use reality checkers .

I had more practical experience with reality checking than the psychologists.  I had been using them every day and every night for almost 20 years, by then 

It was 45 years ago  One thing i remember clearly is that the y did NOT give me a rorschach test .

This is a modern version of the types of tests they gave me, but there were no computers, so it was all paper pictures, and recording on a piece of paper, with a pencil or biro.

 https://www.cognifit.com/perception

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
47 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Couldn't that be done with a suitably programmed computer ?

Yes, if the Church-Turing Thesis is true, which is currently unknown and therefore no, not today. Not yet, say the AI optimists; maybe never say some others.

We'll see (maybe) :geek:

 

@Mr Walker

Quote

again you attempt ridicule which suggests you are afraid of something.

Or that I see the humor in something, and you don't.

Seriously, dude. Habbie's influence on you is growing. Heads up, fellah.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Yes, thanks for the response and I remember past discussions and asked about the timing of events 

1 time of light

2 suspected tumor

with relationship to time of analysis and was it because of one o both incidents because in the last twenty pages I asked if you had been under stress or having had spiritual questions on a personal level that may have predisposed you to conclude god and you were adamant that you were top drawer at that time in all aspects of health and social environment so I am confused as to how these events are connected?

I am sure convicts and lawyers the world over at this revelation I might be inclined to have some fun if that's true.:lol:

Your parents had no idea what the light was and all they could have said is that they asked you and you told them truck lights so all that means is that there was a nondescript light that was only  seen by you which allows that there was a light who's description is given by you alone.

Really there is no point in stating there were witnesses if they are not available and cannot give an account of what the events were and weakens your position. If you do and you did claim to have evidence and witnesses so it is valid to ask you to provide that in support of your claim, I don't do it to be mean it is how I analyse the information you or anyone else give me.:)

So this time the light was not as bright and you didn't notice til the dogs acted up, How dark was it at night, dusk?

 

Okay I can understand what you are trying to say but the dogs can't tell us for themselves what happened so that excludes them from being a witness, I am just deal with what order and how long apart were you experiences with the details specific to each event organized not making any suggestions about hallucinations so lets not get off track.

so there was a doorway both times or just once?

I don't know that and you can't substantiate it so as an observer all I can say it is subjective and falls out of the sphere of supportive. :(

jmccr8

I am reluctant to waste my time with people who simply wont believe but you are always polite and ask sensible questions 

it was quite late at night 

we lived on a farm, miles from any other house and 20 miles form the nearest town 

The "doorway"  was about 45 degrees above the horizon to the  south west.  It was the shape of a doorway and about the width of 4 or 5 full moons and the height of   9 or 10.  The sky was just normal with no moon but lots of stars 

The doorway was sharply defined.  It looked like a hole cut into the sky 

Inside it and from my perspective "behind it" was a bright fluorescent light it was similar to the moon but twenty times as bright or maybe even more  It did not spill out of the door but remained behind it It had been there for a while if the dogs barking was any indication.  It remained in the sky for another 30 seconds to a minute while I  observed  it and took mental notes about its angle of incidence, size and bearing.  Then it began moving directly at me, expanding in size as it approached. Within about 10 seconds it had reached me. i was walking backwards, but came up against  our ute in the yard and couldn't back up any more.  it passed right through me (or i passed through it ) leaving no real physical sensation  except  for an odd mild tingling   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually, it can be the ONLY point of a discussion forum like this.

No one here can prove a single thing about themselves to anyone who is not ready to believe them on faith.

I have a life time of such events.

I know them  all well but it understandable that people who only read about them here (and don't really take them seriously anyway) get them mixed up 

lol its not a matter of convincing myself . Like everything in life,  knowing is dependent on convincing evidences proofs etc  I have the same level of proofs for this being as i do for my wife and dog.

Is  anyone suggesting i should not accept THEIR reality  because i cannot prove I actually have  either one, to anyone online 

I dont have to convince myself that i have 3 dogs and a wife. I simply know it .

It is exactly the sane for this entity 

There is no way i could prove I had a wife to you online, but if you visited me you would experience the proof yourself.  It is much the same for god 

 

I'm honestly not sure why this proof thing is so hard for you to grasp. It's quite simple. It's not unusual to have a wife. Talking to God however tends to be more the sort of thing crazy people do say. Terrorists, activists, fundamentalists and just ignorant people are often cited as talking to, or inspired by God. Pilots with severe oxygen deprivation have God experiences. More often than not, such claims tend to go hand in hand with irrational and unstable personalities, or medical conditions. I can't think of a validated accepted story of exchanges between God or aliens in all gathered history. I'm honestly not sure why you feel you would be an exception to that standard? 

Sure we can't prove that anymore than we can a teapot in orbit with Mars, but there's more good reason to consider such stories bunk rather than valid. You have been there a long time now. You must have realised that the only people who have a very imaginative spiritual ideology consider the stories as seemingly valid. With all due respect, why do you feel that will change? Others see inconsistencies in your claims, even if they had not, do you feel that consistency would garner credibility? 

I understand you being upset at being painted as deeply irrational, but at the same time, and considering the above, it seems from an outside view that this is actually what you are interested in achieving regardless? 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Yes, if the Church-Turing Thesis is true, which is currently unknown and therefore no, not today. Not yet, say the AI optimists; maybe never say some others.

We'll see (maybe) :geek:

 

@Mr Walker

Or that I see the humor in something, and you don't.

Seriously, dude. Habbie's influence on you is growing. Heads up, fellah.

Ridicule  is not humour. it isn't even primarily funny.

it is  normally a fear, and or anger,  response,  designed to dismiss or belittle an idea or a person 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ridicule  is not humour. it isn't even primarily funny.

it is  normally a fear, and or anger,  response,  designed to dismiss or belittle an idea or a person 

True. It does arise from insecurity, often where there is a need is to try and put someone below you on some pecking order.

  • 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.