What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Laird, as to Tarot and such, and also the Ouija board (which has more to do with mediumship, that is, allowing something or 'someone' to participate in the use of one's body-mind), the core issue and concept is: divination. Along with tools of divination there is the art or science of getting and reading 'omens': events that have 'meaning' and that can be interpreted.

Mediumship is a.very strange practice. In Haiti and Brazil there are.forms of spirit-possession by the 'gods' which are personifications of natural forces (at least originally). A medium (often a woman) needs a 'magician' (usually a masculine sort who can hold and direct force) in order for her mediumship to function. The game of Ouija is dangerous psychically for a group of reasons, all the way from base hysterical fantasy up to.contact with forces in the psyche (or in the mental emotional world) that 'infect' the one who came at it as a.game. even from a strict Freudian perspective there are 'areas' inside us that.cannot be touched without reprecussions. Opening oneaelf to a partial analysis could prove disasterous for a sensitive, traumatized peraon.
fiat mihi
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by David Quinn »

guest_of_logic wrote:David,
David Quinn wrote:Has the claims he [Dr Kenneth McAll] makes been tested by the rigors of mainstream science?
Not that I'm aware of.

One paranormal (although not necessarily spirit-related) phenomenon that has been tested by the rigours (again with an American spelling, David - I'm curious about why as an Australian you use so many of them) of mainstream science is ESP - check out the Ganzfeld experiments.
I do use Australian spelling when I think of it, as part of a protest against the Americanization of everything. But sometimes I don't think of it.

As far as this issue is concerned, the key for me is mainstream science. I know you love to use labels like "metaphysical forces" and "spirits", but in essence what you are positing is an empirical phenomenon - and as such, it falls under the purview of science. So when in future the cool, detached, ego-less process of the scientific collective takes the paranormal seriously, that is when I will also take it seriously.

By "seriously", I mean treating it on the same level as gravity or the laws of thermodynamics and thus incorporating it into my empirical view of the world. I don't mean "seriously" in any spiritual sense, as I already know that the existence or otherwise of the paranormal has no impact on an individual's ability to practice spirituality and become wise.

The reports you mentioned only confirm what I already knew - namely, that mainstream science is unable to draw any firm conclusions one way or the other and still treats the matter sceptically.

-
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Tomas wrote: I was most interested in the "how many forks" question and wandered down to the kitchen and counted them myself. (Boring.) Walked back and compared and the same number came up as I wrote earlier. There was a kitchen staff member present and I was in tight with the lady so permission was given (though as a health precaution) the forks had to be re-run through the dishwasher.
The most interesting part you leave out. Who came up with the idea to count forks and would it be possible to have access to the kitchen earlier for that person? If you cannot exclude this, isn't that the most likely possibility? Because during any serious séance it's hard to get such mundain specifics from the spirits at all. It would be a rare occasion for inexperienced participants to get such results. So I'm not doubting because I would deny the existence of spirits (as some might falsely deduce because a lack of critical reading skills) but because I have serious doubts that any potential spirit would play such fork games. It's highly unusual and I do think I know enough about the regular stuff to think so.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote: You don't say that though - instead you are extreme in your denial and your attempts to disprove without acknowledging even a possibility that you are wrong.
The denial and disproving is only happening in your imagination, your mode of defense. In fact you know very little about my personal beliefs in these matters simply because I do not speak about them here. What I am challenging is only your specific view and logic. But you cannot separate them because you think you have some "authority" or "knowledge" on the subject. So your viewpoint is "the only paranormal view', another version of the "one true faith". As I said "false fundamentalism". Someone is for or against you!
if you've witnessed miracles, then why do you deny the reality of other peoples experience of the supernatural?
Again you're not reading. I didn't say I witnessed miracles but that I attended places where they "happened" or where claimed. But in all the cases I could follow up on them because I knew the people involved I discovered a different more complex story, very much unlike the casual observers might have thought. Am I saying the people didn't improve? No, many times it did help them. And I do believe the body can at times suddenly heal itself, even from certain forms of cancer (although that was not the case in these examples). But I think it does so naturally in the right circumstances. I know from people where this happened without any traceable supernatural or mystical event or trigger. Just spontaneous. So I'm inclined to say that yes: healing can happen spontaneously. But this still doesn't prove anything about causes and effects.
In any case, the point remains: lots of evidence has been put forward in this thread that isn't so easy to refute.
If you think those counted as evidence, you have lowered the bar so such extent that it indeed becomes difficult to refute. One has to bend down too much!
Given two events, E1 and E2, each with a high probability, say 0.9 (a 90% chance), of having a supernatural explanation, the four possible scenarios and their probabilities are:
E1 is supernatural and E2 is supernatural: 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 ; E1 is natural and E2 is natural : 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01
Let me educate you instead:

The chance to throw a Yathzee of sixes (five dices show six) is ⅙ x ⅙ x ⅙ x ⅙ x ⅙ = .0128%
The next throw it's still 0.128%. The next... still 0.128% The only time I multiply is when the dice are part of the same throw (event).

The only thing that changes is that over large distributions the results will get more and more close to 0.128%. After a million throws the chance is still 0.128% and the amount of 6-yathzee's is close to 1280. If I throw five times in a row the Yathzee then that doesn't change it either. Although I could feel the distribution should be Gaussian or something, it often isn't at all (check out Black Swan theories or play poker).

What you seem to forget is that doing a 0.1 x 0.1 is to assume the events are connected. But this is harder to assert than you think. Especially if you need 66 events connected. Note that in statistics indepence means that one event does not influence the probability that the other event will or will not occur.

You seem to believe (or are at least acting as though you do) that supernatural or spirit-related events simply do not occur, and these appear to be clear examples of such events occurring: how, then, would you argue that they are not as they appear, which it seems you must do if you are to defend your apparent position? It doesn't really matter whether I accept your refutations or not, what matters given your apparent position is whether you can (plausibly) make them.
Again you are making up the idea that I reject all "supernatural or spirit-related" events. No, I only reject your immature reasoning around them. If you cannot tell me the way events could be negated or falsified, then how to ever begin with it? This is basic critical thinking: finding ways how they could be negated and test those ways.
If we were going to conduct a scientific investigation, then yes, but that's obviously not possible in this case - here I'm simply asking you for your thoughts on how you would argue (given your position) that the conclusion that Dr McAll is describing supernatural events is a false one.
If that description remains a personal opinion of you or the good doctor, then it's not to me to challenge it. But you were implying there's some hard rigorous fact finding behind them. Something to believe as "truth", something that "exists" and should not be doubted too strongly. Perhaps I misunderstood you and it was all about exchanging rumors and theories?
Don't you think it's presumptuous to assume that Bo1, who was there, did not consider these types of questions himself
Ha! I did ask him at the time. He answered: "I really do not want to get into the validation exercise of 'maybe it did, maybe it didn't'.... that is a rabbit trail". Now that's presumptuous, my friend!
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Laird wrote:Given two events, E1 and E2, each with a high probability, say 0.9 (a 90% chance), of having a supernatural explanation, the four possible scenarios and their probabilities are:
E1 is supernatural and E2 is supernatural: 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81 ; E1 is natural and E2 is natural : 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01
Let me finish your thought here, because you did only list two of the four scenarios. The other two are that E1 is and E2 is not supernatural, and that E2 is but E1 is not. These last two are equal, since they are symmetrical. The probability of either one is 0.9 x 0.1 = 0.09. Of course you can check, since based entirely on this scenario, one of the explanations must fit. Therefore, the sum of these probabilities must equal unity: .01 + 0.81 + 2(.09) does in fact total 1.
Diebert wrote:The chance to throw a Yathzee of sixes (five dices show six) is ? x ? x ? x ? x ? = .0128%
The next throw it's still 0.128%. The next... still 0.128% The only time I multiply is when the dice are part of the same throw (event).
Pretty decent explanation, I admit. The chance of tossing five sixes in a row is about .0129%. They do not have to be the same throw, but since they are independent as you mention, we can define the event to be five in one throw, or the event that the next five will be sixes. Or that any predetermined set of five throws will be sixes, say throw 34, throw 94, throw 100, throw 150, AND throw 151 will all be sixes. (Your figure of 0.128% comes out of nowhere, just a typo I guess.) This is just because each throw is independent and the probability of a 6 on any throw is always 16.67% (unless one is in a speak easy.) Again, this is the same chance for any side showing. Since there six sides, and since only one side can show at a time, we should be able to add 16.67% six times and get 100%, which is easy to see is the case.
What you seem to forget is that doing a 0.1 x 0.1 is to assume the events are connected. But this is harder to assert than you think. Especially if you need 66 events connected. Note that in statistics indepence means that one event does not influence the probability that the other event will or will not occur.
No, Laird is assuming the contrary, that they are not connected, at least as far as his math goes (that he lists the possible scenarios given the 0.1 figure.) What is a sticking point for me where is he getting the 0.1 to begin with?
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

Diebert,
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The denial and disproving is only happening in your imagination
Well, it sure seems like you're denying and attempting to disprove in all of these quotes, some from this thread, others from those referenced from this thread involving Bo1. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting them, but you can see how they read to me in my editing comments:

"I don't think there was any credible witness to that event making it a personal experience with only value to those witnessing and zero value to prove supernatural events" [denial of Bo1's healing experience]

"The moment you say all doors and windows were closed, to me that meant it would be a perfect scenario for a strong draft current when someone would open a door somewhere else in the house. It's a pressure thing." [attempt to disprove]

"Apart from practical jokes or draft current there's a third possibility which doesn't include the dead but might be even more interesting. In the paper "Belief in the paranormal and suggestion in the seance room (pdf) some interesting outcomes of fake seances are described which would suggest people's expectations and suggestibility can create surprisingly vivid experiences." [attempt to disprove]

guest_of_logic: I haven't participated in an exorcism, Diebert, no. Traditional exorcisms aren't the only approach anyway, and in any case, I'm more interested in learning how to protect myself and others.

Diebert: You mean reason and education is not enough? [denial of the existence of spirits from whom protection might be required]

'But we could talk about lets say the "spirit" of a tree, its essence, its biosphere, its genus without invoking hierarchies of beings and unclear rituals, couldn't we?' [implied denial of the existence of spirits in the metaphysical sense i.e. other than as "essence", "biosphere" or "genus"]

[to Bo1] "Thank you Being for the effort in describing your background. It won't come as a surprise to you if it's met by a wall of disbelief." [disbelief - which, in this context, is as good as denial - of Bo1's description of supernatural events]

[to Bo1] "in my opinion the supernatural framing is not a good sign" [implied denial of anything supernatural]

[to Bo1] "Using examples and symbols is one thing but I was reading you with the background information that you regard Jesus his clinical death (by crucifixion) and resurrection (after being dead for almost three days) as literal events. Including some other events as walking over water, multiplying bread and so on. Now of course there are many unknowns about cause and effects but logic as well as science are wonderful tools to make sure we are not fooling ourselves with our perceptions." [implied denial of the miracles attributed to Christ based on an implication that they contravene logic and science]

[to Bo1] "Humility starts with constantly humbling oneself before the amazing capacities of the believing, emotion ridden mind to play tricks, no matter how long or with how many people one shares the trick." [implied denial of any interpretation of Bo1's testimony other than as the product of an emotion ridden mind]

[to Bo1] "your unwillingness to examine your 'miracles'" [implied denial of the possibility of miracles]

[to Tomas] "LOL. You must feel silly now thinking back." [implied denial of the possibility that Tomas's ouija board experience was legitimate evidence of spirit involvement and/or the paranormal]

[to Tomas] "The most interesting part you leave out. Who came up with the idea to count forks and would it be possible to have access to the kitchen earlier for that person? If you cannot exclude this, isn't that the most likely possibility?" [attempt to disprove]
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What I am challenging is only your specific view and logic.
If that's the case, then what would be useful is for you to:
a) outline what you think my specific view and logic are, and,
b) put forward an alternative view and logic that (1) encompasses everything that's been raised in this thread and those referenced, and (2) is more plausible than (a).
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Again you're not reading. I didn't say I witnessed miracles but that I attended places where they "happened" or where claimed.
Your actual words were "I've participated in many prayer healing meetings with its miracles". I get from that two things: (1) miracles occurred (there is nothing in the quote to suggest that they were merely "claimed") and (2) you participated in the events in which the miracles occurred. You might not have literally said that you witnessed them, but it is implied from your participation in the events and knowledge of what occurred in them.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And I do believe the body can at times suddenly heal itself, even from certain forms of cancer (although that was not the case in these examples). But I think it does so naturally in the right circumstances. I know from people where this happened without any supernatural event or trigger. Just spontaneous. So I'm inclined to say that yes: healing can happen spontaneously.
What do you think of the possibility that some healings are "spontaneous" and some are "supernatural"; also, what do you think of the possibility that all healings are "supernatural", and that "spontaneous" healings are simply those in which we do not perceive the supernatural element? Are they, in fact, possibilities? If so, what sort of probability would you personally give each of them?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Let me educate you instead:

The chance to throw a Yathzee of sixes (five dices show six) is ⅙ x ⅙ x ⅙ x ⅙ x ⅙ = .0128%
The next throw it's still 0.128%. The next... still 0.128% The only time I multiply is when the dice are part of the same throw (event).

The only thing that changes is that over large distributions the results will get more and more close to 0.128%. After a million throws the chance is still 0.128% and the amount of 6-yathzee's is close to 1280. If I throw five times in a row the Yathzee then that doesn't change it either. Although I could feel the distribution should be Gaussian or something, it often isn't at all (check out Black Swan theories or play poker).

What you seem to forget is that doing a 0.1 x 0.1 is to assume the events are connected. But this is harder to assert than you think. Especially if you need 66 events connected. Note that in statistics indepence means that one event does not influence the probability that the other event will or will not occur.
Hmm, you don't seem to have understood your own link. If you had, you wouldn't have made this statement: "The only time I multiply is when the dice are part of the same throw (event)". In fact, the only time you multiply is when the probabilities associated with each die face are independent of the probabilities associated with any other die face. Yes, that condition is satisfied when the dice are thrown simultaneously, but it's also satisfied when each die is thrown worlds and aeons apart from the others - in both cases, knowing the outcome of any one of them does not change the probability of any of the others (the definition of statistical independence). Here, see it from your own link:

"to say that two events are independent intuitively means that the occurrence of one event makes it neither more nor less probable that the other occurs. For example:

The event of getting a 6 the first time a die is rolled and the event of getting a 6 the second time are independent.

[...]

Two events A and B are independent if and only if Pr(A ∩ B) = Pr(A) . Pr(B)

Here A ∩ B is the intersection of A and B, that is, it is the event that both events A and B occur."

If you had understood this, you also would not have made this statement: "What you seem to forget is that doing a 0.1 x 0.1 is to assume the events are connected". In fact, as what I've quoted from your link makes clear, it's exactly the opposite: the only reason we are able to multiply the probabilities 0.1 and 0.1 together is because E1 and E2 are unconnected (statistically independent) - in other words, that knowing the result of one (whether it has a natural or a supernatural explanation) doesn't change the probabilities associated with the other's having either a natural or a supernatural explanation. They could be two events from any separate places and any separate times - one could be from the Big Bang and the other in a black hole on the far side of the universe five million years from now, and the analysis would still be statistically valid.
guest_of_logic: Don't you think it's presumptuous to assume that Bo1, who was there, did not consider these types of questions himself

Diebert: Ha! I did ask him at the time. He answered: "I really do not want to get into the validation exercise of 'maybe it did, maybe it didn't'.... that is a rabbit trail". Now that's presumptuous, my friend!
You've left out the fact that, immediately after writing that, he explicitly answered your question. And I don't think that what he said is presumptuous at all - I think it's legitimate to forestall the raising of and need to defend oneself from increasingly implausible possibilities. I mean, maybe Bo1 was really asleep in bed and had a very vivid dreamt that he woke up, went out, witnessed the shooting and then went back to bed, and when he woke up failed to realise he'd dreamt it all? At some point, he'd have to just say: OK, have your scepticism-at-any-cost and I'll have what to me is the most sensible explanation.
cousinbasil wrote:Let me finish your thought here, because you did only list two of the four scenarios.
Don't go by Diebert's quote, cb, check the original - all four are in there, with a sum.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Russell Parr »

I fail to see how this statement:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Note that in statistics indepence means that one event does not influence the probability that the other event will or will not occur.
And this quote:
to say that two events are independent intuitively means that the occurrence of one event makes it neither more nor less probable that the other occurs.
are any different..

Laird, what Diebert seems to be saying is that it's basically meaningless for you to combine independent probabilities into a single statistic as if it has anything to do with the actual probabilities of the independent events.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

bluerap wrote:I fail to see how this statement:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Note that in statistics indepence means that one event does not influence the probability that the other event will or will not occur.
And this quote:
to say that two events are independent intuitively means that the occurrence of one event makes it neither more nor less probable that the other occurs.
are any different..
Nor do I. I wasn't trying to imply that they are different, only that by two of the other statements he made, Diebert clearly doesn't understand how to apply these ones.
bluerap wrote:Laird, what Diebert seems to be saying is that it's basically meaningless for you to combine independent probabilities into a single statistic as if it has anything to do with the actual probabilities of the independent events.
But it does have something to do with the actual probabilities of the independent events: it is directly dependent on them. It is possible and meaningful to calculate the combined probability of a specific combination of statistically independent events from their individual probabilities. See my original analysis, because I did it there; Diebert does it too in his calculation of the combined probability of all-sixes from the individual probabilities that each of the five independent throws of a die is a six. Check it with a high school maths teacher if you don't believe me. Note that I'm not saying that the combined probability in some way "changes" the individual probabilities - I suspect that that's what you and Diebert believe I'm saying.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Russell Parr »

guest_of_logic wrote: But it does have something to do with the actual probabilities of the independent events: it is directly dependent on them. It is possible and meaningful to calculate the combined probability of a specific combination of statistically independent events from their individual probabilities. See my original analysis, because I did it there; Diebert does it too in his calculation of the combined probability of all-sixes from the individual probabilities that each of the five independent throws of a die is a six. Check it with a high school maths teacher if you don't believe me. Note that I'm not saying that the combined probability in some way "changes" the individual probabilities - I suspect that that's what you and Diebert believe I'm saying.
In your example, E1 and E2 are presumed to be independent.. meaning it is not like drawing from a deck of cards (as in Wikipedia's example), where the odds of drawing a certain card increases each time another card is removed. Your example is trying to somehow combined two isolated events as if the results of one event (E1) cancels out some of the probabilities of the replicated, yet isolated event (E2). (Also, If E2 isn't a replication of E1, that only further affirms their independence.)

The particularly damning flaw of this theory is that you're trying to calculate the probability of a "supernatural" event, as if that's somehow a real thing. All "supernatural" really means is that we aren't able to observe or explain how a particular event is occurring.. in which case the description of an event as "supernatural" is subjective to the observer.. for example, one of the people present could have been aware of a possible explanation of the event, making the odds of the event being "supernatural" lower in his own perspective.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

bluerap wrote:In your example, E1 and E2 are presumed to be independent.. meaning it is not like drawing from a deck of cards (as in Wikipedia's example), where the odds of drawing a certain card increases each time another card is removed.
Yep, agreed so far, but...
bluerap wrote:Your example is trying to somehow combined two isolated events as if the results of one event (E1) cancels out some of the probabilities of the replicated, yet isolated event (E2).
...the bit I've italicised is false. There's no "cancelling out" of any probability - the combined probability is simply derived from the individual probabilities. I'll take some specific events and you might get a better sense of what's being said. Imagine that you have over the course of your life had, separately (i.e. you didn't have them at the same time) two pet cats, Whiskers and Fluffy. You weren't sure whether they were pedigree animals, so you took them each (separately, obviously) to an assessor and he just happened to give them each on those two separate (i.e. independent) occasions the same probability, 0.9 (90%), of being of pedigree. Now, if E1 is the event of Whiskers being either a pedigree cat (at probability of 0.9) or non-pedigree cat (at probability of 0.1), and E2 is the (independent) event of Fluffy being either a pedigree cat (also at probability of 0.9) or a non-pedigree cat (at probability of 0.1), then we can calculate the odds that neither cat is a pedigree as 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 (1%), as I showed in the table in my original analysis. So, what we have is that, looking at either cat in isolation, the probability that either one is non-pedigree is 10%, but when we consider both of them together (which is a perfectly legitimate thing for us to do), the probability that both of them are non-pedigree is only 1%.

Make sense?

I'm using this same analysis, just substituting for E1, instead of the probability of a cat being pedigreed, the probability that some specific event has a supernatural explanation, and likewise for the independent specific event E2.
bluerap wrote:(Also, If E2 isn't a replication of E1, that only further affirms their independence.)
Right, they need to be independent for the analysis to work.
bluerap wrote:The particularly damning flaw of this theory is that you're trying to calculate the probability of a "supernatural" event, as if that's somehow a real thing. All "supernatural" really means is that we aren't able to observe or explain how a particular event is occurring.. in which case the description of an event as "supernatural" is subjective to the observer.. for example, one of the people present could have been aware of a possible explanation of the event, making the odds of the event being "supernatural" lower in his own perspective.
Consider though that "what we aren't able to observe or explain" is not totally open - depending on the event type, we can say some specific things about it, such as that it doesn't consist in anything physical; that it is non-physical in some way, or at least that this is the most plausible explanation (How else to explain a correct prediction of a football game score from a ouija board, for example? How else to explain a wind that doesn't have any source?). For some events, the supernatural explanation includes apparent communication (e.g. that same ouija board prediction), and there the most plausible supernatural explanation is conscious spirits.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Jamesh »

"The runner started spelling out L-U-C-I-F-E-R".
So these spirits, and not just any spirit but the main dude himself, know the English language and are just hanging around waiting for a group of people, not just one, to use a ouija board so that they can get folks to spell out the word.

What the fuck for!

So that we know they exist ? Wouldn’t that scare us way from them.

Why does the other side, “Good-God” not intervene and compete with Lucifer. Is not the supposed battle a close one, almost even, but with Good-God slightly stronger, so that only a few people turn away from the magical natural goodness you believe a soul has. Why would not Mr Good-God cause the board to produce Love - so that we’d know "ahh there truly is a god and now I know the right path for my life"?

I could go on – but none of it makes sense. We do not know enough about the subconscious, but we do know that it causes optical illusions, so therefore the subconscious is directing people towards the knowledge they already have about such boards, which is that they are somehow tuned into “evil”.

Ouija boards are total crap.

There are better “doubt causing” examples. One of the strongest ones in me had occurred in the past while I must have been in a dream state. I’ve had a repeated dream (maybe 4 times over 20 years) where I felt an evil force was trying to take over my brain and I could not move. I felt fully awake, certainly did not feel like a dream, and I was trying with all my mental power to move but couldn’t - it was frightening. My imagination, based I suppose on the untruths of my earlier Christian upbringing, led me towards the belief, that an evil force had moved into my neighbourhood and was out looking for other minds to expand into.

One thing I noticed was a correlation between sickness and bad dreams occurring (the other one being the falling sensation). For instance, in me, taking Codral tablets when I have a bad cold/flu causes bad dreams. There is not just one kind of "fever" but a spectrum of lesser/greater effects - some fevers clearly interupt the normal working of the brain. And then there are diseases that do similar things - the manner in which syphilis causes madness (or sometimes genius*) after lapses of 20 or more years is an example. *eg http://www.poxhistory.com/Poxhistory/POX.html

I have a strong view that these things are matters of the subconscious - an amazingly complex organisation of memories and value systems. With complexity comes the potential for unusual things to occur – for example, a tiny mechanical failure on a plane, that would normally be a non-event, can cause more significant problems in other higher level mechanical/electrical areas, and in certain conditions does result in the deaths of hundreds of passengers.

Our cognitive consciousness is the same – it is dependent on the mechanisms of the subconscious and the structural nature of one’s ego. That is why there is big difference between an academic understanding the QRS collection of basic absolute truths, and the deeper cognitive understanding that comes from such teachings changing the ego’s core value system over time to be in line with those teachings.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Russell Parr »

guest_of_logic wrote: ...the bit I've italicised is false. There's no "cancelling out" of any probability - the combined probability is simply derived from the individual probabilities. I'll take some specific events and you might get a better sense of what's being said. Imagine that you have over the course of your life had, separately (i.e. you didn't have them at the same time) two pet cats, Whiskers and Fluffy. You weren't sure whether they were pedigree animals, so you took them each (separately, obviously) to an assessor and he just happened to give them each on those two separate (i.e. independent) occasions the same probability, 0.9 (90%), of being of pedigree. Now, if E1 is the event of Whiskers being either a pedigree cat (at probability of 0.9) or non-pedigree cat (at probability of 0.1), and E2 is the (independent) event of Fluffy being either a pedigree cat (also at probability of 0.9) or a non-pedigree cat (at probability of 0.1), then we can calculate the odds that neither cat is a pedigree as 0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01 (1%), as I showed in the table in my original analysis. So, what we have is that, looking at either cat in isolation, the probability that either one is non-pedigree is 10%, but when we consider both of them together (which is a perfectly legitimate thing for us to do), the probability that both of them are non-pedigree is only 1%.

Make sense?
Ah, I see what you're doing here. What you're describing with your example is actually three events; one overall event which consists of two isolated events. You're drawing two sets of statistics here: one set (90% and 90%) describes the probabilities of two individual events, and the third statistic (1% chance that neither are pedigree) describes an overall event involving two sub-events.. they are "sub-events" because the statistic you arrive to can only come out of a single, wholly isolated, larger event (the owner's experience with two cats).

However, in the latter event it is no longer useful to consider the original two events as independent, because they are dependent on each other as being two parts of a whole.
Consider though that "what we aren't able to observe or explain" is not totally open - depending on the event type, we can say some specific things about it, such as that it doesn't consist in anything physical; that it is non-physical in some way, or at least that this is the most plausible explanation (How else to explain a correct prediction of a football game score from a ouija board, for example? How else to explain a wind that doesn't have any source?). For some events, the supernatural explanation includes apparent communication (e.g. that same ouija board prediction), and there the most plausible supernatural explanation is conscious spirits.
Now all you're doing is categorizing an assumption, the assumption being that an event is "supernatural." Obviously you're going to observe and know what's going on behind certain aspects of an event, but describing any part of that event as supernatural only really means you don't know what's going on in that particular part in an event. All that is really happening is that you're observing a contrast.. there are things that are deemed unexplainable, which exist in contrast to things that are deemed explainable.

Also, your example ceases to be supernatural as soon as you provide a possible explanation to the "unexplainable", ie. the conscious spirit. That is, of course, if we're strictly sticking to the definition of 'supernatural.' A possible explanation that could also make sense is that operator of the Ouija board subconsciously directed the pointer to a score that he's seen or memorizes.

Just think of how easy it would be for a person from 100 years ago to write off wireless cell phone technology as supernatural.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

James,

I'm not sure whether your post was directed to me or Tomas, but given that you're referring to God and souls, I suspect it was intended in my direction. In that case, a few points:

* "not just any spirit but the main dude himself". Did you miss the quote I offered that suggested that "the main dude" is often impersonated?

* "know the English language". I'm not sure why you think that's improbable. If intelligent humans can learn English, then why not intelligent spirits?

* "so that they can get folks to spell out the word". That was not the only thing communicated, though. In any case, what would be implausible about spirits toying with or having their fun with people, knowing the fear and/or confusion they could sow?

* "So that we know they exist ? Wouldn’t that scare us way from them". It seems to have the opposite effect for many people - plenty of people are attracted to spirits either because of the knowledge/power they offer, or simply because spiritism is a forbidden or rebellious thing to practice.

* "Why does the other side, “Good-God” not intervene and compete with Lucifer". This is in my opinion your strongest point, and one that I have battled with for years. My tentative answer is that there are "rules of engagement". Other people have different answers. In any event, whether or not it happens on the ouija board, there are plenty of cases of people experiencing God's intervention in other ways, which partly answers your later question 'Why would not Mr Good-God cause the board to produce Love - so that we’d know "ahh there truly is a god and now I know the right path for my life"?'

* "We do not know enough about the subconscious, but we do know that it causes optical illusions, so therefore the subconscious is directing people towards the knowledge they already have about such boards, which is that they are somehow tuned into “evil”. [...] Ouija boards are total crap". I'd suggest it's not so easy to discount in this way stories like Tomas's where the board predicted a future event, nor Roy's (I linked to his book "Listening to the silences" in my original response to David), where he used not a ouija board but something similar, a pendulum, and it answered meaningfully questions posed silently by a companion next to him in her mind. And if I could remember the stories my schoolfriend told me about his own ouija board experiences then I might be able to add to the list of hard-to-explain ouija occurrences.
Jamesh wrote:I’ve had a repeated dream (maybe 4 times over 20 years) where I felt an evil force was trying to take over my brain and I could not move. I felt fully awake, certainly did not feel like a dream, and I was trying with all my mental power to move but couldn’t - it was frightening.
I've had a similar dream to that, also on multiple occasions. In my dream it's not so much that an evil force is trying to take over my brain, but that an evil force is physically overpowering me and preventing me from moving, and I struggle with all my will against it. The freaky thing is that this dream is set in my own bed in my own bedroom and it is so vivid that at the time I believe I'm awake. Often, in this dream, I suddenly realise that I'm dreaming and I will myself to wake up, and so I wake up in utter relief, only to find to my horror that the same thing starts happening whilst I'm awake... only to realise that I'm actually still dreaming. Sometimes I have multiple layers of these false awakenings.

I don't think that in and of themselves, dreams like this offer evidence either way as to the truth of a manichaean or supernatural world-view. I do believe, though, and I have no objective evidence of this, it's just an intuition that makes sense given, and fits in with the rest of my world-view, that dreams and "external" reality are entwined in more significant and meaningful ways than is often supposed.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

bluerap wrote:Ah, I see what you're doing here. What you're describing with your example is actually three events; one overall event which consists of two isolated events. You're drawing two sets of statistics here: one set (90% and 90%) describes the probabilities of two individual events, and the third statistic (1% chance that neither are pedigree) describes an overall event involving two sub-events.. they are "sub-events" because the statistic you arrive to can only come out of a single, wholly isolated, larger event (the owner's experience with two cats).
Bingo. That's actually a good way of looking at it - that the combined probability refers to that of a new event.
bluerap wrote:However, in the latter event it is no longer useful to consider the original two events as independent, because they are dependent on each other as being two parts of a whole.
Yep, well, there you're using the word "independent" in a different sense than the original, statistical sense. Yes, in that different sense (the sense of being components of a whole), the events are not independent, even whilst at the same time they are independent in the statistical sense. Fun with definitions...
bluerap wrote:Now all you're doing is categorizing an assumption, the assumption being that an event is "supernatural." Obviously you're going to observe and know what's going on behind certain aspects of an event, but describing any part of that event as supernatural only really means you don't know what's going on in that particular part in an event. All that is really happening is that you're observing a contrast.. there are things that are deemed unexplainable, which exist in contrast to things that are deemed explainable.

Also, your example ceases to be supernatural as soon as you provide a possible explanation to the "unexplainable", ie. the conscious spirit. That is, of course, if we're strictly sticking to the definition of 'supernatural.' A possible explanation that could also make sense is that operator of the Ouija board subconsciously directed the pointer to a score that he's seen or memorizes.

Just think of how easy it would be for a person from 100 years ago to write off wireless cell phone technology as supernatural.
I'm going to backtrack a little because in my last post I tacitly agreed with a definition of yours that I don't actually agree with - that of supernatural meaning that "we aren't able to observe or explain how a particular event is occurring". To me, it's possible to both explain how a particular event is occurring and for that event to be supernatural, as for example with the explanation "spirits communicated through a physical medium". I pretty much go by the dictionary definition of supernatural. There are other candidate word choices, but they also have problems: "paranormal" (arguably not all that much clearer than "supernatural"), "spiritual" (not a good choice on this board which defines spirituality differently than I do, but otherwise perfect for my purposes) or "spirit-related" (unfortunately this seems more restrictive than the other choices).

Re, "A possible explanation that could also make sense is that operator of the Ouija board subconsciously directed the pointer to a score that he's seen or memorizes", how do you explain seeing or memorising a score from the future?
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Jamesh »

Laird,
Did you miss the quote I offered that suggested that "the main dude" is often impersonated?

That’s convenient
If intelligent humans can learn English, then why not intelligent spirits?
Because it is far too big a leap of faith as to how human like intelligence, or any form of intelligence, together with the lack of tools to output such intelligence - is possible without a human like mind.
* "so that they can get folks to spell out the word".
Laird: That was not the only thing communicated, though. In any case, what would be implausible about spirits toying with or having their fun with people, knowing the fear and/or confusion they could sow?
Impish little devils aren’t they. Playfulness and revenges is such a human emotion.

If it were not for religion promoting fear and/or confusion about these concepts, they might not exist nowadays.
* "So that we know they exist ? Wouldn’t that scare us way from them".
Laird: It seems to have the opposite effect for many people - plenty of people are attracted to spirits either because of the knowledge/power they offer, or simply because spiritism is a forbidden or rebellious thing to practice.
Yes folks like being impish little devils with various wants and delusions.
I'd suggest it's not so easy to discount in this way stories like Tomas's where the board predicted a future event, nor Roy's (I linked to his book "Listening to the silences" in my original response to David), where he used not a ouija board but something similar, a pendulum, and it answered meaningfully questions posed silently by a companion next to him in her mind.
Thomas is Thomas – he lives on conspiracies. He is an unreliable witness, which incidentally is par for the course with proponents of what we are discussing. Even the fact he seems to recall so much detail from so long ago points to a memory delusion - maybe he can scan an image of what he wrote in his diary.

In regard to Roy, I'm unlikely to read "Listening to the silences", though I might as entertainment, or if someone I know becomes schizophrenic.

Did you note the quote in his book?
The Buddha wrote:

DO NOT BELIEVE...
Do not believe in what you have heard.
Do not believe in the traditions because they have been handed down for generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is rumoured or spoken by many.
Do not believe merely because a written statement of some old sage is produced.
Do not believe in conjectures.
Do not believe in that as truth to which you have become attached by habit.
Do not believe merely the authority of your teachers and elders.

After observation and analysis, where it agrees with reason and is conducive to the goods and gains of one and all, then accept it, practice it and live up to it.
I've had a similar dream to that, also on multiple occasions. In my dream it's not so much that an evil force is trying to take over my brain, but that an evil force is physically overpowering me and preventing me from moving, and I struggle with all my will against it. The freaky thing is that this dream is set in my own bed in my own bedroom and it is so vivid that at the time I believe I'm awake. Often, in this dream, I suddenly realise that I'm dreaming and I will myself to wake up, and so I wake up in utter relief, only to find to my horror that the same thing starts happening whilst I'm awake... only to realise that I'm actually still dreaming. Sometimes I have multiple layers of these false awakenings.
You’ve described it better than me – it’s been a number of years since I had that dream. I dream little these days – hooch seems to stop dreams, or at least stop the recall of dreams.
I don't think that in and of themselves, dreams like this offer evidence either way as to the truth of a manichaean or supernatural world-view. I do believe, though, and I have no objective evidence of this, it's just an intuition that makes sense given, and fits in with the rest of my world-view, that dreams and "external" reality are entwined in more significant and meaningful ways than is often supposed.
http://psychology.about.com/od/statesof ... eories.htm

Based on what I’ve seen happen to a person’s logic when they do not sleep for long periods, my selection would be this one.

“Another theory uses a computer metaphor to account for dreams. According to this theory, dreams serve to 'clean up' clutter from the mind, much like clean-up operations in a computer, refreshing the mind to prepare for the next day”

Another theory that I like, not mentioned on this link, is that we dream to alleviate the boredom of night time - we don't really need 8 hours sleep consitently, but there is often much more darkness overnight than the 5-6 hours we do need. In our evolutionary past doing things at night was far too dangerous.

Of course no cause is ever singular, so it could very well that every theory mentioned in that link is a part of the total reason why we and at least some animals dream.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Tomas »

Jamesh wrote:Thomas is Thomas – he lives on conspiracies. He is an unreliable witness, which incidentally is par for the course with proponents of what we are discussing. Even the fact he seems to recall so much detail from so long ago points to a memory delusion - maybe he can scan an image of what he wrote in his diary.
Ouija sessions I don't write about much less give on in discourse at friend's homes about. I understand it's borderline "crazy" to admit toying with dead pieces of wood much like totem poles, divination rods, wood crosses, politicians who take oath's on wood-to-paper bibles, my desk here that is made of wood that was once a "living tree" with branches, leaves, a trunk and many roots...

The last time I sat with my fingertips on one was the mid 1990s. The people (at Katrina's house) who had been sitting at one couldn't get it (the board) to "work" (to paraphrase Laird). John, Robin, Magoo, Phyllis, Linda, Neal, Ryan (a few others not overly familiar) were there. I'd walked in some time later (sober, no weed or booze - intoxicants etc) I had wandered over there just to stop in for a while and they asked if I'd like to sit down and give it a whirl. I hadn't told them of my 3-4 other "experiences" at Ouija sit-ins.

Well, I sat down and this fellow named John was across the table or whatever they had the Ouija propped on. Questions ensued and Robin, Amanda and this guy named Magoo would read the letters and formulate the words, the yes, no, and goodbye synergies .. answers the 'energy force' would provide.

The runner would coast along and the folks would marvel and "accuse" me of running it on my own! Sometimes my fingertips would exit the plastic doohicky and John's tips would remain. The thing would jerk to and fro. I never got excited about that thing doing whatever, it just kept on keeping on.

What I always do when sitting in on those sessions would blank out any pre-thoughts and allow whatever "force" present to control the physicals.

I've a theory on what "controls" the Ouija and Runner but it's late here (2am) in Minot. I'd like to fill in Diebert & Laird (who are obviously more open-minded than most here) on some more initial thoughts first laid out by me regarding Laird's experience.

It isn't like some 'black book' I had carried around. It's a rather large body of work detailing my daily goings-on. Little 3-5 to 10 minute writings at the end of each day, been writing my "personal" highlights since age nine. I have some interesting stuff regarding my delivering of four of my seven children. I took classes for it learned much from mid-wives on the miracles of birthing a new human being into this world we reside.

You need understand, James, I also have a fairly decent business I run and I keep notes throughout the day. Tax season is upon the American populace, April 15 is almost here and tying up loose ends so Mr Taxman receives his requisite fees.

I'm also suggesting I have taken classes regarding Remote Viewing, yes I have. The military (and civilian) infrastructure have been doing that particular research for decades, the Russkies also.

While I was stationed in VietNam, there were even Marines and some Beret units who dowsed (witched) for enemy tunnels etc. I've witched here in North Dakota looking for water sources out in the pastures. How does witching work?

Yeah, I remember you now, you're the "town drunk" from some years past. You had written about some protest .. and driving drunk. You couldda killed children.

Dan had suggested you had been writing here while intoxicated (on spirits) of some sort. Thank god you have spell check to tip the scale of inebriation in your favor. Here you are and you still haven't wised up ;-)
Don't run to your death
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

Hi James,
guest_of_logic: Did you miss the quote I offered that suggested that "the main dude" is often impersonated?

James: That’s convenient
That it may be; it does explain the phenomenon in a more plausible way though, doesn't it?
{I}t is far too big a leap of faith as to how human like intelligence, or any form of intelligence, together with the lack of tools to output such intelligence - is possible without a human like mind.
All I would say is: go where the evidence points. What else would one conclude when reading a story like Roy's, in which objectively verifiable communication with "something(s)" through a pendulum led directly to an event in which he began hearing the voices of apparently that/those same "something(s)"? Serious question.

I only bring up Roy's book so much because it makes the link so explicit - I would otherwise rely on my own story which is in many ways very similar to Roy's, except that the link between objectively verifiable spirit (or what?) communication and the subsequent personal perception of "voices" is not so explicit.
Impish little devils aren’t they. Playfulness and revenges is such a human emotion.
Sure, but what makes it implausible that spirits would share them? Many animals do too. Perhaps they are not so much "human" emotions as emotions of a certain type of consciousness, common on our planet.
Jamesh wrote:Thomas is Thomas – he lives on conspiracies. He is an unreliable witness, which incidentally is par for the course with proponents of what we are discussing.
Well that's a gross generalisation, and not my experience. As for Tomas, he's never struck me as the type to make up facts in his stories. Not to mention that he spells your name correctly. ;-)

Separating out your emboldened quote from Roy's book:
Jamesh quoting Roy quoting the Buddha wrote:Do not believe in conjectures.
Do not believe in that as truth to which you have become attached by habit.
In the context of Roy's book, "conjectures" and "truth to which you have become attached by habit" refer to such statements as "consciousness depends on a physical brain", "people who hear voices are hallucinating" and "spirits are made up fairy tales of religion".
Jamesh quoting Roy quoting the Buddha wrote:After observation and analysis, where it agrees with reason and is conducive to the goods and gains of one and all, then accept it, practice it and live up to it.
Such as, for example, observing that communication with "some unknown thing(s)" is possible using a pendulum, and that such communication can (as experienced) lead to a psychic invasion by those "unknown thing(s)" in which not only does what appears to be their voices start being literally perceived personally, but physical manipulations of one's body are performed by what appear to be those same or similar "unknown thing(s)", and also that in laying one's hands on people with certain ailments, those ailments are cured, amongst many other events which Roy describes, then analysing this evidence to see that it agrees with reason to accept the truth of a spirit(ual) reality of both negative and positive forces, and to practice invoking the positive aspects of that spiritual reality and sifting out the negatives, and to live up to one's healing role.
Jamesh wrote:Based on what I’ve seen happen to a person’s logic when they do not sleep for long periods, my selection would be this one.

“Another theory uses a computer metaphor to account for dreams. According to this theory, dreams serve to 'clean up' clutter from the mind, much like clean-up operations in a computer, refreshing the mind to prepare for the next day”

Another theory that I like, not mentioned on this link, is that we dream to alleviate the boredom of night time - we don't really need 8 hours sleep consitently, but there is often much more darkness overnight than the 5-6 hours we do need. In our evolutionary past doing things at night was far too dangerous.

Of course no cause is ever singular, so it could very well that every theory mentioned in that link is a part of the total reason why we and at least some animals dream.
Mmm, those theories don't go nearly far enough for me. They might be partial explanations. Lucid dreams in particular seem to be of a whole other order of dreaming.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

bluerap wrote:However, in the latter event it is no longer useful to consider the original two events as independent, because they are dependent on each other as being two parts of a whole.
It's not only useful but crucial to continue considering the events as independent. Otherwise Laird's main point, which is really unassailable since it is but a table of probabilities, would fall apart. Laird is not making any claims he is being challenged on - the challenges are reading more into his simple claims than he has intended.
Also, your example ceases to be supernatural as soon as you provide a possible explanation to the "unexplainable", ie. the conscious spirit. That is, of course, if we're strictly sticking to the definition of 'supernatural.' A possible explanation that could also make sense is that operator of the Ouija board subconsciously directed the pointer to a score that he's seen or memorizes.
And there's my sticking point. In order to assign the relative numbers, there must be some criteria and someone ultimately responsible for making them.
Laird, replying to several points made by James, wrote:"Why does the other side, “Good-God” not intervene and compete with Lucifer". This is in my opinion your strongest point, and one that I have battled with for years. My tentative answer is that there are "rules of engagement". Other people have different answers. In any event, whether or not it happens on the Ouija board, there are plenty of cases of people experiencing God's intervention in other ways, which partly answers your later question 'Why would not Mr Good-God cause the board to produce Love - so that we’d know "ahh there truly is a god and now I know the right path for my life"?'
Because it is a parlor trick. Even if Lucifer - more likely his right-hand guy Satan or the underling Beelzebub - were responsible, why would he waste the effort, except to beguile suggestible human minds? I don't think we can comprehend the rules of engagement, as Laird describes it. But from God's POV it is always love - love is not being gulled by miracles , it is characterized by searching. How would God be a loving god if he gave you life's answers on a child's toy? Perhaps he wants you to develop the power of Love within your own heart, and knows that fostering superstition is not the way to go about it?
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

  • From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Exsufflatio, or out-breathing of the demon by the candidate, which was sometimes part of the ceremony, symbolized the renunciation of his works and pomps, while the Insufflatio, or inbreathing of the Holy Ghost, by ministers and assistants, symbolised the infusion of sanctifying grace by the sacrament. Most of these ancient ceremonies have been retained by the Church to this day in her rite for solemn baptism."
__________________________________________________

Every religious system, every epistemological system that allows for a 'God', every orientation that offers an explanation of 'this world' and 'this existence' in a theistic language, must also define 'rules of engagement'. This is the point in Laird's discourse and his desire to see a point-of-view justified where I lose track of what in fact is being talked about.

It is simply a fundamental tenent of early Christianity (and all others?) that the mission of Jesus is a kind of 'exorcism' of the world itself. The idea or the 'magical act' of exorcism is part-and-parcel of Christian ritual and certainly of the Mass. It is only when invasion by malevolent spirits becomes extreme that elaborate rites of exorcism are brought to bear. The very idea of Jesus and the Christian God is based in the notion of extreme purification of low-level desires and in a commitment to serve a much higher ideal or goal.

With a more plastic 'theopoetics' one can avail oneself of all different manner of seeing and interpreting 'demonic' beings or energies. Indeed, in order to bring the Gospel accounts of a Jesus who 'casts out devils' into modernity, one has to do away with all the mystery which will have to be seen and interpreted in modern terms.

The problem, as I see it, in Laird's attempts to justify his experience, is that he relies on an old episteme that only functions within a group who adheres to that episteme. But, the fact remains that Laird is, according to his own definition, 'hindered from moving'. He describes himself as being 'held and constrained' and what this essentially means, as I interpret it, is that he is held from somehow developing himself or realizing himself. There are quite a number of 'competing epistemes' which can be brought to bear on this problem.

In the Old Way, exorcism is derived from ἐξορκίζω and is used in the sense of adjuration: "I adjure thee by the living God..." It is a command by Word for an inferior, parasitical, undesired person, spirit or energy to leave [a given person or place]. But this is the core activity of Christianity!
  • From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "According to Catholic belief demons or fallen angels retain their natural power, as intelligent beings, of acting on the material universe, and using material objects and directing material forces for their own wicked ends; and this power, which is in itself limited, and is subject, of course, to the control of Divine providence, is believed to have been allowed a wider scope for its activity in consequence of the sin of mankind. Hence places and things as well as persons are naturally liable to diabolical infestation, within limits permitted by God, and exorcism in regard to them is nothing more than a prayer to God, in the name of His Church, to restrain this diabolical power supernaturally, and a profession of faith in His willingness to do so on behalf of His servants on earth.

    "The chief things formally exorcised in blessing are water, salt, and oil, and these in turn are used in personal exorcisms, and in blessing or consecrating places (e.g. churches) and objects (e.g. altars, sacred vessels, church bells) connected with public worship, or intended for private devotion. Holy water, the sacramental with which the ordinary faithful are most familiar, is a mixture of exorcised water and exorcised salt; and in the prayer of blessing, God is besought to endow these material elements with a supernatural power of protecting those who use them with faith against all the attacks of the devil. This kind of indirect exorcism by means of exorcised objects is an extension of the original idea; but it introduces no new principle, and it has been in use in the Church from the earliest ages."


No one here, as far as I have been able to tell, subscribes at least consciously and rationally to the Catholic cosmology. So how could anyone [here] ever ascent to any definition of the existence of demons or even of 'spirits' independent of physical bodies? It literally cannot happen. So, there is a division between one episteme and another.

But if one, at some fundemantal level, still understands or describes a Cosmos that functions according to this basic design (though the metaphors will have to change and progress), one can still understand every aspect of the present as mirroring (metaphoring) what is described above as 'Catholic Belief'. And if this is true, one can still---indeed one MUST if one really has Catholic Belief!---avail onself of the divine healing and transformative power of God.

But in the New World of Modernity there are many new and different tools for interpretation and also of action and energy. It is therefore a question of bringing Intent and Will to bear in such a way that it produces results: freedom for the individual. Open roads. Physical, psychological and 'spiritual' harmony and well-being.

The required step in order to get the 'rule of engagement' to act, is to ask for it to happen. In Christianity it is in fact that simple. Nothing is done unless it is asked for.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote: Well, it sure seems like you're denying and attempting to disprove in all of these quotes, some from this thread, others from those referenced from this thread involving Bo1.
And why stop there? I made 3000 posts challenging all kinds of Christian, Buddhist, conspiratorial, feminine, scientific and formal philosophical statements. Which in neither case would "imply" that I have nothing to do with Christian teachings, Buddhist truths, female friends, possible conspiracies, scientific method or academic philosophy. Sometimes I appear to defend them, something I offer conflicting approaches from similar disciplines and most often I challenge things with appeals to using ones own mind and simple principles.

It's interesting though in my twelve years of BBS experience I've noticed that when questioning certain paranormal theories or conspiracy theory, one is quickly branded as completely in denial, not knowing anything or some extreme debunker type. There's hardly ever a middle way! This is why I have theories these both areas are very strong, emotional and modern religions which in their immaturity and insecurity have a hard time to enter debate.

Add yes, if you read all those statements you quoted more carefully you will see the criticisms were about specific cases or topics and how they were used or presented. Not generalizing a whole field of experiences point blanc.
a) outline what you think my specific view and logic are
I think you've given your views quite specifically in this thread. And I'm replying on the lack of logic I perceive. We could of course go back and repeat all statements again :)
put forward an alternative view and logic that (1) encompasses everything that's been raised in this thread and those referenced, and (2) is more plausible than (a).
The lack of some comprehensive explanation is not some permission slip to embrace theories that do not add up. And even then, I've been trying to suggest alternatives.
What do you think of the possibility that some healings are "spontaneous" and some are "supernatural"; also, what do you think of the possibility that all healings are "supernatural", and that "spontaneous" healings are simply those in which we do not perceive the supernatural element? Are they, in fact, possibilities? If so, what sort of probability would you personally give each of them?
But what means it to have a "supernatural element" present? It's more than just the "unexplainable". It most often means one assigns a cause to something outside the natural order like referring to some "hidden variables" because of some knowledge one claims about this supernatural variable and the traces or patterns it might display. Denying possibilities is never the problem, it's about strongly believing in or rejecting the viability of some given explanation, a theory which describes some of the discovered variables at work.
Hmm, you don't seem to have understood your own link. If you had, you wouldn't have made this statement: "The only time I multiply is when the dice are part of the same throw (event)"..... Yes, that condition is satisfied when the dice are thrown simultaneously, but it's also satisfied when each die is thrown worlds and aeons apart from the others - in both cases, knowing the outcome of any one of them does not change the probability of any of the others (the definition of statistical independence).
Throwing the dice worlds and aeons apart doesn't change it as statistical event ("throwing a Yathzee of sixes" = total must be n*6 where n is dice number). If the first dice is a 3 and not a 6, the probability of the other events to be true has become zero. This is why they are dependent ("event's occurrence must not influence the probability that the other event will or will not occur").

Yes, the chance to throw a six again remains independent and I realize I might have stated some things not properly. But the suggested Independence has no meaning if in a real scenario there are dependencies changing the odds. My simple point was that I could keep on throwing Yathzee's (unlikely events) all night ("on a roll") but as long as I don't throw them lets say 2000 or 3000 times during a million throws, there's no reason to doubt the physics of the dice yet!
They could be two events from any separate places and any separate times - one could be from the Big Bang and the other in a black hole on the far side of the universe five million years from now, and the analysis would still be statistically valid.
No because you cannot pull at random two events together and make them part of a statistical equation. It renders it meaningless. And this is where I think you and millions of others by the way err: before your suggested statistical calculation can be made you have to demonstrate that the events would be related to what it is you want to prove (and independent too) and not just filtered with a bunch of preferences and biases. And to assign probabilities one has to be able to repeat and test the occurrence. This is why paranormal researchers use cards or hidden drawings since this can be set up and compared statistically. A collection of experiences in very complex environments just cannot offer much of a way to even begin. Too many (hidden) variables, too much potential selection bias.
You've left out the fact that, immediately after writing that, he[Beo1] explicitly answered your question.
Now it's time to give the quote and you don't. Disappointing. I don't believe there came any explicit after that.

And are you really here at the Genius Forum defending a claim by some to you unknown person about how he saw once bullets passed through a body before his eyes. And all as prime argument to prove those over-rational thinkers wrong? Really, one has to wonder where your mind is lately. It feels feverish. Take a break man, get some grip!
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

TA, given my respect for you, it is disappointing to see you write so as to nearly explicitly and certainly implicitly reject the core of what I've been trying to communicate: the literal existence of spirits, and in particular demonic spirits.

From my experience, backed up by research, their existence is undeniable short of supposing something much less plausible such as that we live in a Matrix and that the spirit activity I've experienced and read about has been programmed into it, or that benign or neutral spirits pose as malevolent spirits (and even this would not deny the existence of spirits in and of themselves). I've tried to outline in this thread the experiences I've had and the books I've read that best demonstrate this reality, and (Diebert's aspersions on my logic notwithstanding) it's all very solid, which I think a careful reading of my posts will reveal.

I won't reiterate all of that in this post. Instead I will simply respond to a few of your key assertions.

You write that "in order to bring the Gospel accounts of a Jesus who 'casts out devils' into modernity, one has to do away with all the mystery which will have to be seen and interpreted in modern terms". I wrote something in relation to this in an earlier post:
I wrote:The peculiar thing, for me, is that the old systems still often seem to "function", by which I mean "represent reality truthfully". This puzzles me, to the point that I've even written on another forum that it feels as though reality "wants" all belief systems to be simultaneously true.
As a rational man, I do believe that the contradictions are resolvable, however, to the extent that "modernity" conflicts with the literal existence of demonic spirits, it is, because of what is undeniable to me for the reasons I've outlined in this thread, modernity that must give way. I do challenge you, though, to explain what specifically it is in, about or from modernity that disproves the existence of demonic spirits, and why you believe that that aspect of modernity ought to be accepted as true. My belief is that, ultimately, you will find that there is no such disproof; rather, you will be left clutching fundamental assumptions. And we know the problem with assumptions...

"Every religious system, every epistemological system that allows for a 'God', every orientation that offers an explanation of 'this world' and 'this existence' in a theistic language, must also define 'rules of engagement'. This is the point in Laird's discourse and his desire to see a point-of-view justified where I lose track of what in fact is being talked about". --Talking Ass

I can see how you might have lost track of what I'm talking about, so I'll clarify, because what you suggest here, is, in fact, only partly true:

"The problem, as I see it, in Laird's attempts to justify his experience, is that he relies on an old episteme that only functions within a group who adheres to that episteme".

My starting point is what I've reiterated several times in this post already: the recognition through personal experience of the literal existence of spirits, and in particular (again through personal experience) of spirits with malevolent intent. The experience itself (a perception of malevolent spirits) cannot be denied (at least not by me); my interpretation of it can, of course, be challenged. I have been defending my straightforward interpretation (that I literally perceive literal spirits, as opposed to "hallucinating" them, the "modern" interpretation) since David first raised it, and, again, I won't reiterate my defence, but it is in my eyes solid.

In adding to that solid basis, interpretation plays a bigger role. Based on my experiences with these negative spirits, combined with some of the books I've read (as referenced in my posts), I can justify referring to them as "demons". Consider that Christianity is not the only "episteme" that includes space for spirits by that label or an effectively identical one - many if not most other religions do, Islam and strands of Buddhism included.

That brings us to the point where the demonic has been recognised, and that's as much about my "episteme" as I'd be very confident in asserting as justifiable (by me) truth, especially in the den of atheists that is GF. From there, I evaluate carefully and synthesise what I've read, in particular in Dr Modi's books which recount the recollections of clients who have been hypnotically regressed through past lives and back to the beginning of existence itself. Am I confident enough in this material to assert it as justifiable truth in the same way that I'm confident to assert as justifiable the truth of the reality of the demonic? No, particularly as I have not undergone such an hypnotic regression personally, but I will say that it is mostly compatible with my experiences, and that a lot of it rings true.

So, where does that leave us with regard to the "old episteme" that you suggest I rely on - I'm guessing you mean some variant of Christianity? Well, my provisional belief is that, yes, there is a lot of truth in Christianity, particularly in the "fundamental" notion of opposing good and evil forces, and also in the notion of Christ as divinely significant redeemer. I would also say, though, that the same is true of many if not most other religions. I believe that they are all strands of the same weave, each with elements of truth and each with distortions and omissions of truth (and that applies to Christianity too), each with its own legitimate spiritual focus.

And so, in relation to all that I've just written, I would respectfully ask you to elaborate on these statements:

"With a more plastic 'theopoetics' one can avail oneself of all different manner of seeing and interpreting 'demonic' beings or energies".

"There are quite a number of 'competing epistemes' which can be brought to bear on this problem".

---

Diebert,

I would encourage you to reflect on your own words: "There's hardly ever a middle way!". In my reading of this dialogue, I am hard pressed to see where you have talked about a middle way until now. About the only statement I can think of that even hinted at it is one that I'll return to later in this post, a reference to "high probabilities". Can you see why, given that, I came to the conclusion that you are extreme in your denial? If that's the wrong conclusion, then I'm pleased to welcome your thoughts on what the middle ground might be, because until now, you haven't offered them.

"I'm replying on the lack of logic I perceive".

Except that you're not really pointing out any lack of logic, are you? You're simply asking repeatedly, "But what if what really happened was [insert some less plausible explanation]?", and applying this questioning process to each event in isolation. This isolation of events is why I tried to introduce you to a probabilistic analysis, to show you the weakness of your approach.

On this analysis, cousinbasil earlier asked where the 0.9 comes from, and recently wrote: "And there's my sticking point. In order to assign the relative numbers, there must be some criteria and someone ultimately responsible for making them", so in responding to him, I will recap:

In one of his earlier posts, Diebert wrote: '"True positives" are very rare and very difficult. At best one can have a "highly probable" explanation'.

These "highly probable" explanations (Diebert's words) are what motivated my analysis: a probability of 0.9 seemed a reasonable one to represent "highly probable", and yet I also took account in my analysis for probabilities as low as 0.1. The point being that, as the analysis shows, Diebert's tactic of isolating events and applying doubt to each one of them in support of his scepticism is flawed, because when one asks the question, "What is the probability that none of these events has a supernatural explanation?" given that each of them "highly probably" (or even at a probability as low as 0.1, as my analysis shows) has a supernatural explanation, it doesn't require too many of them before that probability is, for all intents and purposes, 0.

Of course, all of this is predicated on Diebert denying any possibility of any supernatural explanation whatsoever at any time, which it seemed to me from his behaviour he was doing, but I welcome any clarification from him as to his actual position.

I take the point made by several people that this analysis assumes that each explanation in some way points to a common phenomenon, that to which we refer with the word "supernatural", but I don't think that that's at all difficult to achieve. At worst, we might need to separate explanations by category, such as "supernatural communication", "physical effects with a supernatural cause", "miraculous healings by the power of the invocation of divinity", etc.

A few other things:
guest_of_logic: You've left out the fact that, immediately after writing that, he[Beo1] explicitly answered your question.

Diebert: Now it's time to give the quote and you don't. Disappointing. I don't believe there came any explicit after that.
But Diebert, I'd already quoted it in an earlier post, not to mention that you're perfectly capable of confirming it for yourself given that you too had already quoted from the post in question! That you "don't believe there came any explicit [sic] after that" and yet failed to check is, in fact, the disappointment! Nevermind, I will do your research for you - here is the post, and this is the exchange from it:
Beingof1 wrote:
Me: I have seen a bullet pass through a mans body without leaving a mark

Diebert: Then how do you know if the bullet actually attempted to go through the body if there was no mark or other trace? Maybe it went another way or didn't leave the gun at all? It's very hard to research these things outside controlled circumstance. It's quite unlikely you have been able to research all the possibilities.
I really do not want to get into the validation exercise of 'maybe it did, maybe it didn`t'. As you well know my wise friend, that is a rabbit trail.

To answer your question; there was a hole in the center of the back of the chair where this man was sitting. We found the bullet later.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And are you really here at the Genius Forum defending a claim by an unknown anonymous person about how he saw once bullets passed through a body before his eyes.
But Diebert, you yourself described him as "sincere"! Of course I would never assert with certainty the truth of another man's claim that lies outside my personal experience - I'm simply asking why, given your recognition of his sincerity, and his ability to satisfactorily answer the questions you put to him, you don't consider his story to be credible.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And all as prime argument to prove all us over-rational thinkers wrong?
"Prime argument"? Come on, mate, you have to know you're stretching the truth beyond what's reasonable there. It wasn't even part of my original defence. Even to call it secondary evidence would be a stretch, it was more like tertiary evidence (evidence, not argument). Really, you ought to be more careful. Stretching the truth like that does your own credibility no favours.
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

To really really cut to the chase, with the view and interpretation that you have presented as irrefutable, it seems to me that you have no alternative before you but to operate the 'episteme' and the metaphysical knowledge in precisely that way that liberates you completely from the dominion of these forces. Even if everyone agreed to the precise letter in every aspect of what you or they are presenting, still you'd have to carry it out. The only way to really convince even yourself is to free yourself of these entities that block your life. You can talk about it, and then act in a way that might indicate you don't in fact actually believe your own analysis (remain inactive and 'bound'), or you can put into practice all the defensive and offensive art that will change the condition. And there is the essential if the only validating proof.

Does that appear to you as good sense?

Still, I think you should read what I wrote with a little more dispassion. I rather think it is a skillful way of moving in and out of these competing 'epistemes'. Based on one at least, I cannot see how you would not have to revisit that period of trauma that you describe, especially your mother's death. That is I suppose 'psychological' work but then the 'psyche' is the soul and is the thing (you, your body, your mind, your life) that is being controlled against your own will. I cannot imagine how you will be able to recover yourself (what else can this be about?) without loosening the knot around those traumas. Psychological work is in that sense an extension of exorcism and all the driving ideas behind it. There could be a purely atheistic psychology in which literal trauma is the only 'demon', or a more pluralistic and certainly 'spiritual' psychology as the Jungian.

That is just one example.of 'competing epistemes'.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

Karl Barth: "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."
_________________________________________________

PS: I guess I operate in a liminal realm between the explicit and the implicit, which is to to say a place of mind and consciousnes that is strung between two poles of perception. That is how I understand the novelesque world(s) that we live in and perceive through. Must I be condemned for being less literal than you are?

After all, who really believes that a 'magic hill shall shine'? and how is that to be taken?

;-)

But to be less or differently literal does not mean I do not take the elements that occur in our novelesque as being 'unreal'. I suggest you amplify your own understanding of the imaginal world, for example through examination of the ideas reflected in the Kaballah and the sefirot Malkuth and Yesod. Only as a way of conceiving 'lenses of perception'. I see our mind and our 'novelesque lens' as being malleable and changing, and that our 'phenomenology' of this time is different than that of other times.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Talking Ass »

From Wiki page on Theopoetics: "Whereas these strict, literalist approaches believe scripture and theology possess inerrant factual meaning and pay little attention to historicity, a theopoetic approach takes a positive position on faith statements that can be continuously reinterpreted. Theopoetics suggest that just as a poem can take on new meaning depending on the context in which the reader interprets it, texts and experiences of the Divine can and should take on new meaning depending on the changing situation of the individual."
___________________________________________________

PPS: As to reviewing and reinterpreting an old WorldView such as that in which the Gospels were written into a viewstructure that combines with modernity, it is a bit of a problem, but I suggest looking at the writing of Rudolf Bultman and his ideas about 'demythologizing'.

As to 'theopoetics', a very good source (with many many spin-offs I have discovered) is Amos Wilder in his "Theopoetic: Theology and the Religious Imagination".
fiat mihi
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

Talking Ass wrote:To really really cut to the chase, with the view and interpretation that you have presented as irrefutable, it seems to me that you have no alternative before you but to operate the 'episteme' and the metaphysical knowledge in precisely that way that liberates you completely from the dominion of these forces. Even if everyone agreed to the precise letter in every aspect of what you or they are presenting, still you'd have to carry it out. The only way to really convince even yourself is to free yourself of these entities that block your life. You can talk about it, and then act in a way that might indicate you don't in fact actually believe your own analysis (remain inactive and 'bound'), or you can put into practice all the defensive and offensive art that will change the condition. And there is the essential if the only validating proof.

Does that appear to you as good sense?
Yes, it was as very sensible as I've come to expect from you. I would say more except that I'm not comfortable doing so (discussing private habits and goals) publicly.
Talking Ass wrote:Still, I think you should read what I wrote with a little more dispassion. I rather think it is a skillful way of moving in and out of these competing 'epistemes'.Based on one at least, I cannot see how you would not have to revisit that period of trauma that you describe, especially your mother's death. That is I suppose 'psychological' work but then the 'psyche' is the soul and is the thing (you, your body, your mind, your life) that is being controlled against your own will. I cannot imagine how you will be able to recover yourself (what else can this be about?) without loosening the knot around those traumas. Psychological work is in that sense an extension of exorcism and all the driving ideas behind it. There could be a purely atheistic psychology in which literal trauma is the only 'demon', or a more pluralistic and certainly 'spiritual' psychology as the Jungian.

That is just one example.of 'competing epistemes'.
OK, I reread it a couple of times and now I think I see what you're getting at. On the first few readings I was more concerned with what it rejected than with what it advanced. After rereading, I think your suggestion is: accepting a fundamental world-view based in Catholicism, you can nevertheless avail yourself of the aid of systems with different and even conflicting tenets by viewing them as "tools for interpretation and also of action and energy" through which one's "Intent and Will" can operate. I suppose that from this you might also say that even those systems which deny divinity can be used as tools for the manifestation of divine will. You might also say, "Don't be so concerned with the truth of a modality's presuppositions as with the utility of the modality".

Am I understanding you correctly?
Talking Ass wrote:Must I be condemned for being less literal than you are?
Most of the time I really admire it in you, seeing it as a flexible and mature approach, it's just that sometimes it frustrates me - I suppose in that sense that it's as much me who's being condemned (to frustration) as you.

Perhaps I can explain the source of my current frustration in a way that you can understand. I'll try to put you in my position. A similar word (even if a little bit laterally) to "literal" is "vivid", and that's exactly what these perceptions are to you: as vivid as any other perception; the idea that they are "unreal" in any way is an idea that is simply unreal itself. You know from the start that the source of these perceptions, too, is real. You do a bit of reading around and you find that there are others who agree with you, and who even have stories that demonstrate it in a way that third parties (you believe) will be able to accept. And yet... every time the subject comes up, even though almost everyone (David excepted, but I don't resent him for it) is sensitive enough not to come right out and say it, you're constantly confronted with the sentiment, "You're wrong, it's all in your mind".

You (switching back to the actual you) might understand then how a rejection of the literal truth is (to me) simply another way of expressing yet again that same sentiment: hey, actually, it's not literal truth, it's not real, it's (still) all in your mind (still - after my attempts in this thread to explain why that view is false).

Maybe that explains my reaction to your post and any sense of "condemnation" you get out of it. I'm not blaming you, because of course I can't expect to convince you that what I understand to be true actually is true with merely a few posts in a thread, and because I recognise that you have your own views and way of navigating them which my literal truth might not fit so comfortably into - I'm just 'splainin, is all.

I suppose the last three paragraphs are a bit too "feminine" for GF, but anyway, I'll leave them as-is.

I had actually wanted to respond a day or two ago to your earlier posts on that "third place", but I got too caught up in the other goings-on in this thread. I'll try to do that in future post, and also to get back to you on the links you've offered in your last two posts - I'm making my way through them now.
Locked