I know what you mean Lekatt. I can see where skeptics would take affront to your message though. You have to learn to explain things in terms they understand and deal with every day. You have to explain every point of your topic and if you see that they are using a different definition than what is pertinant to you, you have to point it out and describe that point. Thus my previous posts in this thread.
There is nothing about the form of psychic phenomena that I believe in that can’t be explained through science or modern psychology. If a skeptic takes affront to my interpretations I ask them what their interpretation is and it is almost invariable some form of cinescape ™ which doesn’t coincide with my belief systems.
There’s not really anything to argue with in this statement, because by definition if a person learns something, anything the process of learning is a personal experience.
That being said, personal experiences can be interpreted in different ways, depending on a person’s state of mind, general health, previous experiences, beliefs, education, or even whether or not there are outside influences from other people at work.
One person’s revelatory experience is another person’s shell game. Using one’s personal experiences as the sole, or even primary barometer of whether r not something is authentic is a bad idea. It’s what has led people to buy forgeries and patent medicine.
Personal experience may be the only starting point any of us have for trying to determine validity, but it’s by no means where investigation should end.
In the first part, I completely agree, the only validity I have when considering psychic phenomena is myself and my own personal experiences. It doesn’t have to and shouldn’t be the same to anyone else. Experiencing a remembrance of some kind when looking at old photos is different depending on what type of mood I am in and make it that much more enjoyable to revisit.
The second part I don’t exactly see how it fits with the first half. Personal testimony with no physical data to back it up is just a bit silly. I don’t think the analogy that you are trying to make quite works by changing things into the phsyical world.
Let me try rephrasing it and see if you think it keeps the same meaning.
One person’s revelatory experience is another person’s shell game. Using one’s personal experiences as the sole, or even primary barometer of whether or not something is authentic is a bad idea. It’s what has led people to be tricked into believing that they are cursed and pay a lot of money to have their curse lifted and their future changed.
I can agree with that a bit more. It reads significantly different to me in a spiritual context that way. It still seems a bit off of the initial topic about what criteria one uses to justify the existence of psychic phenomena but highly interesting. I would suggest you read The Liar’s Tail: A History of Falsehood and then introspect on where you believe truth lies. It was quite thought provoking.
I don’t see anything to argue with here, because you really haven’t said anything. You are trying to obfuscate the issue, which is whether so-called “psychic ability” is real. Lekatt has not defined the word “spiritual” at all; he’s just using it as jargon. You define “spiritual nature” as being true to yourself and your emotions. How does this in any way demostrate actual mental telepathy?
I agree that personal heirlooms can elicit emotional reactions. What exactly does that have to do with psychic ability?
Here you are trying to imply that my emotional reaction to the subject is tainting my opinion. But that’s not the case. The fact that it sounds “New Agey” is neither here nor there; the point is that there is nothing there of substance. It’s just a bunch of meaningless jargon.
So what you are saying is that emotions are equivalent to psychic ability? All you have done is to incorrectly re-define “psychic” as something else for which there is already a word.
You are conflating “intuition” with “psychic ability”. A therapist knows the mind of his/her patient by listening to the patient’s words, examining facial expressions and body language, and relying on previous experience with others who may have had similar experiences. There is nothing supernatural about it.
???
Well then you don’t believe in psychic ability. What you believe in, are feelings and emotions. I don’t think there’s any debate here.
I don’t believe in mental telepathy so there is nothing to argue there.
The emotions that you receive from the heirloom are a form of psychometry in my mind. Notice how it is only relevant to the people that the object relates to and basically meaningless to others. Psychometry is defined as picking up an object and learning either its history or the history of those who formerly possessed it.
That was originally more directed at Lekatt. I didn’t think it would have pertained to you. Basically, I was trying to clarify what I thought he was saying which to me says “if it elicits an emotional response of some kind then one is experiencing what it is like to be psychic.” I can agree with that but the original phrasing which Lekatt provided makes it hard to obscure.
Well, that is true and isn’t. The words that you can put into its place aren’t exactly as encompassing as the way I see psychic phenomena. I believe that Lekatt has similar beliefs as mine but he phrases it with a lot of new age phrasology which clouds the issue.
Yes, intuition is a psychic ability. You described how the therapist uses his/her intuition. There is nothing supernatural about any psychic ability.
I believe that your view of psychic powers are influenced by the cinema. You see people blow things up with their minds, read minds, take physical forms outside of their bodies and such. That is what I watch movies for.
Why not describe what you believe psychic abilities to be? I believe them to be a whole slew of things that elicit emotions and make life more personal and spiritual in and of themselves. They are also completely natural and everybody that I am aware of has them to some extent. I didn’t see a debate here. You know, this topic could also work for magick which I see (and most of the magickal community) as a form of prayer and meditation.
I would think that anyone who takes people like John Edwards seriously will believe pretty much anything someone tells them that they don’t understand.
Picture this:
I am sitting at the radar screen on the USS Willett, a Navy Destroyer. We are returning to base in New Orleans after a two week training cruise. I am bored, tired, I flip the screen from ship search (20 knots/miles) to airplane search (200 knots/miles). I see that the upper part of the screen is covered with the reflected signals. I freeze, the blood drains from my face. I quickly turn to the new skipper, a skeptic, and say, "sir, we have a hurricane approaching at 95 knots, ETA is 35 minutes. We should go to battle stations now. The skeptic says, “now son what makes you think that,” I show him the trace on the radar, he says, “ok, we have a white area there on the screen, but I will need more info before I can put this ship on battle stations,” I say, “I have experienced this before, I know what this is, for heavens sake call battle stations.”, He says, “son you know how unreliable personal experience is, you will have to come up with some real proof,” at that time the roar of 60 foot high waves can be heard and the skeptic gets his proof as they slam into the ship broadsides and sends it to the bottom.
Actually, it didn’t happen that way, the skipper took my word for it and called battle stations. When the hurricane arrived we had all the boilers on line and the ship moving a flank speed right into the winds. The best way to insure our survival. We did survive, but not without casualties and several million dollars damage to the ship.
At which point do skeptics rely on personal experience and which not, if they never do they won’t live long outside their ivory castles.
Oh, yes, the skipper didn’t know and couldn’t interpret radar traces, that was not part of his training. He was trained to lead a team of men into battle, relying on them to know their jobs and do them.
There is a wale of difference between real life and intellectual shadow boxing. I suggest you listen to the person with the experience unless you have a greater experience.
I hate to say this but your analogy doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, while the Captain may not know how to read a radar screen (which I highly doubt, BTW), other people do know how to read a radar screen. The information on the radar screen is objective. People who know how to read the screen will come to the same conclusion. So therefore your ‘personal experience’ isn’t really just your experience. Someone taught you how to read the radar (unless you developed it by yourself, which I know you didn’t do).
You are trying to confuse the issue.
People can learn from objective science. The event can be reproduced. The idea that you have had paranormal events happened to you that no one else can recreate just doesn’t pass the credability test. On top of that, stating that since you have had these ‘paranormal events’ happen you are, therefore, the expert on these events is a bunch of bunk.
Good point. Especially giventhe factthat the title of the forum is:
Believers, Real Psychic or Not: What Criteria Do You Use?
If the posts don’t pertain to how believers distinguish between actual and mistaken claims of psychic ability they are hijacks. There may be one or two other forums for discussing the merits of psychic ability. If you can’t find one, maybe one should be started.
thanX
For the purposes of this discussion, can we limit “psychic ability” to: Can you read minds, talk to dead people, talk to live people using only your mind, predict the future accurately without the use of outside stimuli, or influence movement of an object using only the power of your mind? We are not talking about feelings, emotion, intuition, cold reading, hot reading, guessing based on prior information, vague guessing that by its nature is somewhat accurate but is useless because it could mean several different things, etc.
That is nice that you believe that way. Everything you said is what I would refer to as cinematic psychic abilities. You can read peoples moods and probably tell what they are thinking but you do that based off of other clues.
Cinematic psychic power is to actual psychic powers
As cinematic magick is to actual magick.
Ps. Blowero, the discussion went no where because you didn’t really have anything to add other than saying the equivalent of nuh, uh! That’s not what I meant without going into detail of what you meant.
SimonX, I told you exactly the criteria I use for psychic powers. I modify the cinematic definition so it is deep and personal and take that personal process and call it psychic. In fact within the magick community, which I have been part of for coming on 15 years, that is the general consensus. There is nothing supernatural about it and everyone can do it to some degree with or without training.
Czarcasm, Thank you for at least providing a definition of what you deem psychic, at least. I am a little amazed that you don’t consider intuition a psychic power though. However, I would still say your definition is completely off because you are basing psychic powers off of what you have seen in movies or read about in books.
Ummm…did it ever occur to you, dorkusmalorkusmafia, that if you are the only one espousing your particular definition, that perhaps YOU are the one who is “completely off”? How is it that everyone else seemed to know what the OP meant by “psychic”, yet you believe that you are the sole person who knows what it really means?:rolleyes:
My analogy works just fine in the real world, but not in the confused world of skeptics, who can’t understand millions of people have had spiritual experiences, explaning them in about the same words with about the same changes in their lives. Skeptics will tell you they don’t count because of blah, blah, and blah, but believe their know all about the workings of 1950 Naval radar.
I notice, that you still don’t try to provide a definition of what is psychic to you blowero. Do you only attack people and not provide explanations in all of your posts, or do you actually try to enlighten others sometime? I have yet to see it here or in any other thread where you have participated.