deranger said:
That was the point I originally intended to make. Measured, explained it's all the same shit here. Sure, we may be able to in the future, but that's not what I mean.
Edit: Also, I realize that when I said, "it cannot be measured by scientific means", it obviously seemed like that meant it cannot and never will. I do believe that one day it is possible we may find some answers. Pardon if the wording was off. And reading back it looks as though I said AP cannot be experienced by the masses. What I intended to say is that it is not experienced by the masses.
Ok, I understand your point, but I don't think the difference between measured, tested, observed, and explained are at all the subtle. The last one means understanding, the former just mean detected or quantized.
It seems perhaps we didn't understand each other, but can you at least understand why your post met with resistance when you met the later rather than one of the former (which you actually used in your post)?
Anyways, it is no distinction that astral projection cannot be explained fully (if this is true) as hardly anything is. Like I said, we can't explain talking fully, so what? That doesn't mean its hard to notice or repeatably measure.
The point here is that if astral projection is real that it should be detectable, same with everything else. The fact that no decent evidence for some paranormal claims can be found when observing their effects seems to show they are likely not real. When the effect claimed would be excluded generally by the failure to detect it, it seems their is no refuge in soem definition of paranormal nor claim that it couldn't be detected because of its nature (and yet people claim they can detect things like telepathy but 'science can't).
Personally I doubt astral projection could be rulled out even if it doesn't exist, at most excluded as having certain properties, like able to reliably visualize particular known galaxies or whatever. Other paranormal pheneomena, like telepathy, doesn't seem to have this luxury.
toys in the attic said:
johnm214 said:
Obviously some things may not be detectable. By can be detected I mean that they will produce a phenomena that would be possible to observe, not that every phenomena is able to be observed. This is quite obvious a point, I'm sorry if you somehow thought I was alleging perfect knowledge of the universe, but wouldn't it be smarter to construe a post in a way that doesn't allege such craziness? "Can" means able, not presently or expediently able, in my post
In any case, this is all irrrelevant. If it is capable of becoming known to people, then it is capable of being observed and tested, as teh very fact it is knowingly affecting a person means it is allready observed.
Anybody who claims they know of some parnaormal activity a) has the burden of proof, b) cannot claim that it is indetectable scientifically by the very fact that they were aware of it, as their very awareness is detection (even ignoring the consequent conclusion that the means of affecting the person could similarly be tested for)
So you are saying that I would have been smarter to respond to what you meant instead of what you said. You really meant that we will develop the ability to detect it or will see its effects on the environment.
I already talked about radiation. It was probably paranormal before they became able to understand what it was. It caused burns on people and produced visible phenomena because if it didn't people wouldn't know about it.
The radiation scenario seems to be the whole of your argument.
The things mentioned by deranger, myself and possibly others occur within the mind. That is how people are aware of it. How do you propose to verify something that is internal. I also mentioned the spirits encountered during trips.
How would you verify an alien abduction?
Who said anything about verification? Again, the terms of the issue seem to be switching now that counterexamples have been proffered.
Anyways, you could verify astral projection by demonstrating accurate and sufficiently percise descriptions of various galaxies by people who presumably have no way of knowing such information but for their projection.
As for whether you should take from my posts what I mean rather than what I say, I obviously hope they are the same thing. Personally I think given the ridiculous nature of the interpretation you urge, (that I asserted we may presently detect everything in the universe, which is riridculous vs that it is possible, even if not presently, to detect everything in the universe) it should be plain which meaning I mean, given they are both valid gramatically.
But if I was wrong, then I was wrong, and I appologize for that. As I said, I don't see how this is relevant anyways, given what we are discusing is detectable by people conciously, and thus the distinction is completely irrelevant.
Quote:
As far as the burden of proof falling on the claimant. I guess you assume that the claimant cares to prove it to you. If you want to sit and wait for someone else to prove something to you then that is your prerogative. The hostility directed at people who claim something on this forum is really not something I care to experience.
Then stop caring to experience whatever your referring to and stop making claims you can't back it up.
I don't presume pariticular claimaints care to prove their case, otherwise they'd stop saying shit they can't back up without even an attempt at justifying it, and I don't see what that matters. If you assert something it falls on you to demonstrate its worthiness of belief. Essentially, you need a reason to believe things and naked assertions are logically worthless. This being a debate forum, and this being a debate, th erelevant of this seems plain.
One thing I'll never get is why people vaguely refer to hostile attitudes without pointing them out with examples. They seem like impotent whines rather than serious accusations, given that folks never seem to back them up.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale
deranger 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
Atomisk
The_Visionaire
1 2 3 4 5 all )
Swami
Tannis
Ego Death
OrgoneConclusion
