KGS you silly boy, get your ass in here

[KGS]

Crap, what a day. Had to pick someone up from the police station, and we had a nice long talk. (He’s in trouble, but at least he knows it. And he won’t be spending the whole weekend there, thank god. But, I digress.)

Well, frankly, I’m feeling too relieved and way too fucking tired to continue this less-than-enlightening discussion. I’ll let all statements stand for themselves, and anyone who wants more clarification…well, too freakin’ bad. Wait for the next train wreck thread to come around.

I will depart, however, with one final tidbit for you to tear over like discarded meat scraps. Several people keep asking, why do I believe in psychic powers? Why can’t I be convinced otherwise? I thought I explained myself, but apparently they aren’t satisfied. I doubt this anecdote will satisfy them either, but what the hell.

Six weeks ago, I wrote a novel. It literally came out of the blue – got the idea in my head, wrote it down, 250 pages in five days. (Talk about a White Heat session!) I’m currently working on the 2nd draft (the first was pretty ragged…heh, 5 days and all) and it’s coming together pretty good. Anyway…

The name of the main character (which I won’t reveal at this time) kept sticking in my head. You see, normally, I know exactly where the names of my characters come from, how I came up with them. This name, I couldn’t figure out. I started obsessing over it, wondering where the HELL I heard this name before (I was worried, maybe it came from another novel or movie and I forgot about it.)

At last, I put the name into Google. And the first hit I found, was a woman’s personal website, who was so proud of the poetry her grandson wrote. The grandson had (1) the exact same name, (2) was the same age, and (3) the first poem described exactly where the first chapter of my novel takes place. (Except it was August, not June…but what the hell rhymes with August??) In fact, not only was the scene in the novel, the scene was the genesis of the novel.

Understand, this kind of stuff happens to me all the time…I am a writer, after all. But even this was pretty close to the nose, more than I’m used to. It actually kinda freaked me out. (Yeah, perhaps I ran across the website long ago, and my subconscious mind happened to store it. But, I can’t see how that’s possible. I don’t randomly browse websites that much anymore.)

Anyway, that is just one recent example. It is not PROOF, or EVIDENCE, or even a description of real psychic power (I don’t know what the hell you’d call it…coincidence? Kind of a doozy of coincidence, isn’t it?) It’s just an example of why I believe in forces beyond Matter & Energy. That’s all.

Have fun, guys. I won’t be back.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Well I’m convinced.

[Denis]

And well you should be, Dio!

No, wait. Strike that.
::Holding up hand to vote that KGS did, indeed lie as alleged::

[Richard_Pearse]

So it will appear that your novel is plagarised work then? In which case you won’t be able to publish it. Or it won’t be similar enough to appear to be plagarised, in which case you will be able to publish it but it becomes a non-event as far as psychic happenings go.

KGS, I made a demo disc of an album some years ago. The title has “Island” in it and the cover is blue. It has ten songs, three of which are instrumentals. The “feature” song is about love, written in 3/4 time, and has two guitar solos. One between verse two and three, and one at the end.

David Gilmour recently released an album. It is called “On an Island”, the cover is blue, it has ten songs, three of which are instrumentals. The single “On an Island” is about love, is written in 3/4 time, and has two guitar solos. One between verse two and three, and another at the end. The second guitar solo sounds remarkably like mine.

Bizarre psychic happening, or a few coincidences buried among a flurry of differences that I’ve decided not to mention?

[crowmanyclouds]

@1920s Style "Death Ray"

So it will appear that your novel is plagarised work then? In which case you won’t be able to publish it. Or it won’t be similar enough to appear to be plagarised, in which case you will be able to publish it but it becomes a non-event as far as psychic happenings go…

Somehow, I get the feeling that we’ll see what’s name’s “MAGNUM OPUS” published long before
KGS’s “novel”.

Hmmm, maybe I’m a psychic,

then again…

CMC fnord!

[Dunderman]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Well I’m convinced.

Yeah, me too. Funny thing, if I believed in something and were asked why, I would choose the best example, not one that by my own admission were neither proof nor evidence.

KGS, we humans are pattern-seeking creatures. We see patterns, connections, relationships where there are none, because we instinctively want the world to make sense. Coincidences happen, and then we interpret them to be something more. Are you aware of this?

[ianzin]

Priceguy wrote:

All I wanted was to expose your lies about never having taken the stance that psychic powers exist.

and KGS replied

I said, somewhere in there, that psychic ability is not 100% reliable.

In posting this reply, KGS seems to think he has rebutted Priceguy’s assertion, when in fact he has corroborated it. Priceguy’s point concerned the existence of psychic powers, and KGS’s belief. KGS’s reply concerned whether these so-called powers are reliable. These are clearly two seaprate and distinct subjects.

Either KGS is sincerely handling the discussion as well as he is able, albeit hampered by some limitations concerning English comprehension and reasoning skills, or he is indulging in the kind of behaviour which usually comes with a ‘do not feed’ warning. I do not know which.

Maybe we could keep this thread in mind to refer to in future (and the one that spawned it). It could provide a way to short circuit equally meandering and pointless threads concerning psychic ability in the future. It’s an easy thread to search for, even if only because not many threads contain the words ‘festering hyena stool’ (another instance of KGS achieving the full reach of his rhetorical and debating skills).

If two people are playing cards, but one thinks they are playing bridge and the other thinks they are playing poker, they won’t have much of a game. You have to agree on the game, and the rules of the game, before you can get anywhere. It’s the same with thse debates about psychic talents.

You can play by the rules of scientific method, involving progress through observation / hypothesis / test / evidence / data, and logical reasoning based on that data. If you play by these rules, the only conclusion you can come to is that, at this stage in our knowledge, there’s no good reason to suppose that anyone has psychic abilities.

But it’s possible to play by different rules. If you think that an inner, personal, subjective experience is good enough to form conclusions about your own psychic talents or those of others, then the quantity of evidence (or what passes for evidence in your world) supporting the psychic powers hypothesis may be overwhelming. If you think that articles in sensationalist tabloids and features on sensationalist TV shows are a fair guide to the abilities that some people possess, then ditto. If reasoning of the kind that goes, ‘Yeah, well, you can’t prove love either, can you? So there!’ strikes you as sufficient for figuring out how your world works, then ditto.

The rules you play by govern the conclusions you reach. So the next time someone starts advocating that some credence be attached either to psychic talents, perhaps the first point that ought to be raised is: which rules are we playing by? And we can refer to this thread and its source to show why it’s important to deal with this point first of all.

---

Two points just to finish. KGS invited a vote as to his having lied or not. I vote that either yes, he lied, or that he lacks the faculties to see that his own statements contradict one another.

And rayh wrote:

Ianzin has got himself involved in another pit thread in only a month. The guy is obviously a troublemaker. Someone better alert the mods to him.

I have no defence, the facts speak for themselves. I shall try to conduct myself in a more acceptable way in future, and not cause so much trouble.

[Dunderman]

@ianzin

KGS seems to think he has rebutted Priceguy’s assertion, when in fact he has corroborated it. Priceguy’s point concerned the existence of psychic powers, and KGS’s belief. KGS’s reply concerned whether these so-called powers are reliable. These are clearly two seaprate and distinct subjects.

Exactly. Good luck getting KGS to understand it.

[glee]

@KGS

I said, somewhere in there, that psychic ability is not 100% reliable. In fact, someone else (glee, was it?) insisted I prove THAT assertion. What kind of logic is that?

Perhaps you would like to practise your reading skills.
You **didn’t ** say psychic ability was not 100% reliable, and I didn’t insist you prove it.

Here is what I actually said in reply to you:

@KGS

I think the disconnect here is that most people have a completely distorted idea of what “being psychic” really means. It ain’t a case of going “whooo whooo whooo I see Willie Nelson swimming the English Channel in 2008.” Psychic powers are very elusive, and rarely reliable.

@glee

I think that psychics have a completely distorted idea of what evidence is.
How do you know psychic powers are elusive?
How do you know they are rarely reliable?
What separates an ‘elusive unreliable’ power from lucky guesses?

I asked what your evidence was, since your claim was quite dramatic.
You replied:

@KGS

Uhh…what kind of questions are these? I can’t follow your logic here.

Clearly your understanding of logic and implication needs work.
Your statement ‘Psychic powers are very elusive, and rarely reliable.’ means you believe :

• psychic powers exist
• they are very elusive
• they are rarely reliable

Why do you think this? What evidence has convinced you?
Since anyone can make a lucky guess without any psychic ability, it is obviously important to find out how you distinguish ‘lucky guesses’ from a psychic whose powers rarely work and are rarely reliable.

Next came:

@glee

I asked how you knew this. Isn’t it logical to ask you about your own statements?

@KGS

Doesn’t the statement speak for itself?? Or, are you asking for examples of how I came to that conclusion? I really don’t understand why you would even ask that question, or what you’re asking for.

Now I don’t mind at all clarifying my point of view, or why I’m asking certain questions. However you are not only failing to understand the implications of what you claim, but also spraying insults everywhere.
Not a good combination.

[KGS]

Well, this thread sure turned around. I know, I said I wouldn’t be back. But since it’s already established that I’m a liar…

@1920s Style "Death Ray"

So it will appear that your novel is plagarised work then? In which case you won’t be able to publish it. Or it won’t be similar enough to appear to be plagarised, in which case you will be able to publish it but it becomes a non-event as far as psychic happenings go.

No, there is nothing remotely plagiarized. The rest of the poetry on that woman’s website had no connection to the story at all (and it wasn’t very good…heh, don’t quit your job at McDonalds, kid), and even the “June” poem is far too vague to be perceived (by other people) as anything more than a very bizarre coincidence.

KGS, I made a demo disc of an album some years ago. The title has “Island” in it and the cover is blue. It has ten songs, three of which are instrumentals. The “feature” song is about love, written in 3/4 time, and has two guitar solos. One between verse two and three, and one at the end.

David Gilmour recently released an album. It is called “On an Island”, the cover is blue, it has ten songs, three of which are instrumentals. The single “On an Island” is about love, is written in 3/4 time, and has two guitar solos. One between verse two and three, and another at the end. The second guitar solo sounds remarkably like mine.

I haven’t heard your demo or Gilmour’s album, but I can grasp what you’re talking about. Yes, sometimes patterns like this happen by accident. My belief is that, in some cases, coincidences are not purely accident, but the signature of a larger pattern, a larger design.

If you were to claim plagiarism, you would have to establish that David Gilmour has (1) previously heard your demo, and (2) created an artistic work which is simliar to yours on MANY levels, whether or not he intended to do so. (This is how Killing Joke successfully sued the band Nirvana, claiming their song “Come As You Are” had plagiarised their song “Eighties”. The chord progression is identical, and the only burden of proof Killing Joke had to show was that Kurt Cobain had, in fact, heard the song before.)

However, it appears the coincidental patterns you note are too random, too vague, to be evidence of anything. “On an Island” is about love (what song isn’t?), in 3/4 time (unusual, but not for Gilmour) one guitar solo between verse 2 and 3, another at the end (standard construction, especially for Gilmour.) “The second guitar solo sounds remarkably like mine,” I can’t interpret, having never heard your demo. But it does seem to me that you are consciously seeking these patterns, deliberately finding connections between two random events. It doesn’t work that way. The connections have to find you first.

[KGS]

@Priceguy

KGS, we humans are pattern-seeking creatures. We see patterns, connections, relationships where there are none, because we instinctively want the world to make sense. Coincidences happen, and then we interpret them to be something more. Are you aware of this?

You know what, Priceguy? That’s the first intelligent thing you’ve said all week. Yes, that is 100% correct. I wish I could have spoken it so eloquently.

Everything in life is based on patterns, connections, and rhythms. Everything from science, to music, to human emotions. We as human beings have managed to uncover many secrets derived from these patterns – hence our ability to make fire, forge steel, build spaceships, and create artistic works that affect people’s souls. We agree on that much, at least?

However…it would be utter folly to assume that our current scientific world, advanced as it may be, is anything but scratching the surface of the whole grand design of the universe. Think of it this way. The Romans & the Greeks were fairly advanced civilizations for their time, but even they could not conceive of things like E=MC[sup]2[/sup], Game Theory, or instant worldwide communication via TV and the Internet. If you were to go back in time and proclaim these things were possible, they would…well, the Greeks would probably praise you like a God. The Romans would feed you to the lions, and let people pay to watch and laugh.

Which one are you, a Greek or a Roman?

[KGS]

@crowmanyclouds

Somehow, I get the feeling that we’ll see what’s name’s “MAGNUM OPUS” published long before KGS’s “novel”.

Technically, the poetry is already published, since it’s posted to the internet. But as I told 1920’s Death Ray already, most of the poetry does not relate to the novel at all. (Which is good…otherwise, I’d be really worried.) Trust me, I’ve already talked about this to professionals in the business. They are not concerned.

(They did insist that I change another character’s name – “Andrew Sullivan” – because of a fairly high-profile individual who happens to own the same name.)

[Ludovic]

@KGS

However…it would be utter folly to assume that our current scientific world, advanced as it may be, is anything but scratching the surface of the whole grand design of the universe.

Who is disagreeing with this?

The Romans & the Greeks were fairly advanced civilizations for their time, but even they could not conceive of things like E=MC[sup]2[/sup], Game Theory, or instant worldwide communication via TV and the Internet.

The only reason we have those today is because we have thousands of years of recorded phenomena and experiments and slowly-built knowledge bases to drawn on. They didn’t. They didn’t have the scientific method either which hampered them like it does many people, by not enabling them to document, test, and hypothesize but instead draw false inferrences and unsubstantiated, completely false frameworks.

The only way which has been shown to increase the knowledge on the planet is science. Any other way by definition will not lead to a better understanding of the world, even provisionally “supernatural” phenomena, because the results will not be reproducable or documentable, and thus non-explainable to anyone else who does not share your exact point of view.

A method of studying provisionally “supernatural” phenomena which does lead to reproducable results would be accepted by the majority of the scientific community despite its nature.

Which one are you, a Greek or a Roman?

So you’re saying neither of them would look at the evidence first? If that were true, then that’s one way in which most of the people here are better than the Greeks and Romans.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@KGS

However…it would be utter folly to assume that our current scientific world, advanced as it may be, is anything but scratching the surface of the whole grand design of the universe. Think of it this way. The Romans & the Greeks were fairly advanced civilizations for their time, but even they could not conceive of things like E=MC[sup]2[/sup], Game Theory, or instant worldwide communication via TV and the Internet.

The Romans and Greeks also did not conceive of the idea that all light was generated by sentient oranges, that the human body was capable of turning itself into feldspar if exposed to David Hassselhoff music, or that dragons would one day teach the world how to sing in perfect harmony.

Yes, we’ve barely scratched the surface of the cosmos, I’ll agree. But the number of incorrect theories about the universe necessarily dwarfs the number of correct theories about the universe. Choosing to believe in a particular theory based on our ignorance is far likelier to lead you to believe about the choral dragons than it is to lead you to believe in game theory.

The best we can do, I’d suggest, is to gather our knowledge slowly and meticulously, with great skepticism about our own conclusions, and with awareness of our propensity to see meaningful patterns where no meaningful pattern exists.

Can you construct a theory that would account for why these similarities occurred between your novel and the poem? I can: my theory is that it’s a very interesting coincidence, but that there’s no inherent connections between them. What theory do you have?

Daniel

[Giraffe]

@KGS

At last, I put the name into Google. And the first hit I found, was a woman’s personal website, who was so proud of the poetry her grandson wrote. The grandson had (1) the exact same name, (2) was the same age, and (3) the first poem described exactly where the first chapter of my novel takes place.

I know this one! Colonel Mustard… in his teens… in the library!

What do I win?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@KGS

However…it would be utter folly to assume that our current scientific world, advanced as it may be, is anything but scratching the surface of the whole grand design of the universe.

Would it be fair to say that knowledge and application of psychic phenomena is similarly stunted? If not, why not? Is psychic research further along than science? What milestones has it reached?

[KGS]

@Ludovic

The only reason we have those today is because we have thousands of years of recorded phenomena and experiments and slowly-built knowledge bases to drawn on. They didn’t. They didn’t have the scientific method either which hampered them like it does many people, by not enabling them to document, test, and hypothesize but instead draw false inferrences and unsubstantiated, completely false frameworks.

Exactly! Which is why we can’t rule out psychic phenomena yet – heck, we can’t even define it yet. (Has anyone come up with a definition of “psychic” as pertains to this series of threads? Nope, not even me.)

Oh, and btw, the Greeks invented scientific method. From the Wikipedia article:

@wikipedia

Classical model
The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle, who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

So you’re saying neither of them would look at the evidence first? If that were true, then that’s one way in which most of the people here are better than the Greeks and Romans.

Well…I probably shouldn’t have mentioned the Greeks. They, of all ancient cultures, would probably listen. Let’s make 'em Aztec instead.
(Hey, didn’t Cortez defeat the Aztecs by “predicting” a solar eclipse? Or is that an urban myth?)

[KGS]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

The best we can do, I’d suggest, is to gather our knowledge slowly and meticulously, with great skepticism about our own conclusions, and with awareness of our propensity to see meaningful patterns where no meaningful pattern exists.

Can you construct a theory that would account for why these similarities occurred between your novel and the poem? I can: my theory is that it’s a very interesting coincidence, but that there’s no inherent connections between them. What theory do you have?

Yes, I have a theory. However, this is the wrong forum, and the wrong audience, to present it. Plus, it is a work in progress, already bereft with major setbacks (such as my thread from 3 years ago…yeesh) so it’s not in any presentable state at the moment.

And if it were presentable…why would I give it away for free? Better to write a book about it, and make a profit. (Yes, I am as motivated by money as everyone else in America. Somehow, I must accept that about myself…)

[KGS]

@Bryan Ekers

Would it be fair to say that knowledge and application of psychic phenomena is similarly stunted? If not, why not? Is psychic research further along than science? What milestones has it reached?

Our society’s addiction to Scientific Method has basically stunted any rational research into psychic phenomena. It’s been assumed, that all scientific processes must conform to scientific method, and if they do not, they are dismissed outright. It’s really not so much prejudice, or even ignorance – it’s just an illogical assumption.

Why does psychic phenomena fail, when placed under controlled studies? Because, controlled studies cannot recreate every single detail necessary to replicate the phenomenon. You would have to invent an entire parallel universe, exactly like our own, down to the last detail, from the fjords of Norway to the quantum state of each individual molecule. (Or, at least, a virtual computer model. Which is not possible with current technology.)

@Giraffe

I know this one! Colonel Mustard… in his teens… in the library!
What do I win?

Actually, you are 1/3 correct! Care to guess which one?
I’ll give you a cookie.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@KGS

Yes, I have a theory. However, this is the wrong forum, and the wrong audience, to present it. Plus, it is a work in progress, already bereft with major setbacks (such as my thread from 3 years ago…yeesh) so it’s not in any presentable state at the moment.

And if it were presentable…why would I give it away for free? Better to write a book about it, and make a profit. (Yes, I am as motivated by money as everyone else in America. Somehow, I must accept that about myself…)

None of that actually matters to me, unfortunately. I’ve got no interest in grapes that I can’t eat, nor in theories taht I’m not allowed to hear. Why join a discussion that you’re not willing to join?

Daniel