Transpersonal Psychology: Invitation to Dialogue

[Michael Mooney]

deleted redundant post... know not why it posted twice.

M

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus:

I have no way of knowing with the level of detail given. I have witnessed both magicians and "mentalists", however, perform demonstrations like the image perception you have described. In all cases I have personally witnessed, there has been a trick. There has NEVER been a case of anyone able to replicate this result in a controlled setting- and hence no written account with enough detail to rule out the existence of a trick.

 

What kind of additional detail would you like? I gave one example of a partial "miss" in image transmission in my "Journey" page... and how it was a miss was very revealing... how the usual mind can interfere with direct transmission to a trance-state receiver.

 

Also, the above experiments were done in our home with no visitors bu my older brother as a witness. (Still very much alive and able to verify what I have said.) There were no "tricks" or any public there to impress. It was done in the pure spirit of seeking the truth about telepathy. We verified that it is possible, and we were certainly not the first... tho this forum will find a way to ignore all of it or dismiss it in some very lame way.

 

Finally, you state directly that there is no evidence that would convince you of my position. I can, however, be convinced of yours with the proper experiments in a controlled setting. Should we work together to devise some experiments? Or would my "skeptical energies" render this useless?

 

We don't need to re-invent the field. If you will not study the "Intention Experiment" as the best yet document (in my opinion) full of very well done experiments, what kind of pretentious ground breaking experiments might you have in mind... being unaware of all that has been already so well done in the field?

 

Michael

[Boerseun]

Michael, it's amazing to me that you're still around after all your threats to leave.

 

For some reason, you don't "get" it:

 

Scientists are objective, and allow for the mind playing tricks on them. That is why Erasmus says that "seeing your hand in front of your face" does not necessarily make it so. There are quite a few optical, mechanical and neural systems between your hand, and the part of your brain that recognizes it as such. Any one of those systems are vulnerable to malfunctions of many kinds. A good scientist knows this, and will allow for the possibility that the hand he sees in front of his face might not necessarily be his.

 

The "negative energy" from skeptics exist, but unfortunately only in your mind.

 

Seeing your son's ulcer is, most likely, another case of the enumeration of favourable circumstances, where you tend to remember the positive samples and forget the negatives. For instance, how many times did you analyse your kid and got it wrong, and you just don't remember it?

 

Your dad reading your mind is most likely another case of faulty memory. Me and my mother share a common memory of a thing that happened when I was around ten or twelve years old. Often we have joked and laughed about it, and it became a bit of a family joke. Until the one day I told my dad (they got divorved when I turned around fthirteen or so, and have been apart since shortly after the "incident"), and he told me that it actually happened completely different to what me and my mother seem to remember. And other witnesses took my dad's side. Yet it was "real" for me and my mother in the truest sense. It just goes to show that if you repeat the same thing over and over for many years, it might become the truth in your mind. In short, most likely your memory is in error. There have been many, many cases in which exactly the scenario you propose have been tested for with negative results - and zero with positive results.

 

The skeptic's "negative energy" does not hold - unless you can propose a mechanism

by which this "negative energy" is propagated; what, exactly, this "negative energy" is, how we can test for it, etc. Sending out the skeptics before the experiment commences merely leaves those behind that are willing to be duped. I cannot comprehend you not understanding this.

 

James Randi is a nice enough guy. He'll even let you design your experiment to cut out the "negative energy" - if you can adequately describe it, and how to test for it so it can be excluded from the experiment. You'll even score a million bucks. If you don't need the money, do it still and donate the bucks to Hypo. We can use it.

 

But I put it to you that the "mind reading" you talk about is fallacious. Your memory is in error, and you are the only witness we have to this. The only way to get around this, is to repeat your experiment. You can make money out of it. Yet, there is no mechanism known to science by which what you propose is even remotely possible. Humans have evolved very effective communications skills in the forms of body language and vocal communication. There are parts of our brains dedicated to that, that light up like christmas trees under scans when we engage in those activities. I wonder where the part of our brains that run our imagination is - and how brightly it will light up when we engage in "mind reading".

 

Quit the pseudo-science already, Michael. Or, at the very least, show me a cheque with James Randi's signature on it.

[Erasmus00]

We don't need to re-invent the field. If you will not study the "Intention Experiment" as the best yet document (in my opinion) full of very well done experiments

 

If these experiments are so well done, why are they not yet in scientific journals? Why have many of them not been published outside of the book? The level of description is popular science- not scientific journal. An interested reader can learn nothing of the methodology used.

[freeztar]

To whom it may concern:

Freeztar just gave me three more infractions for my last three posts here (earlier today and before).

I will obviously soon be banned, because I am under an extreme gag rule and can not even reply to challenges in a direct and totally honest way.

 

Obviously. :)

[Michael Mooney]

In the interest of science, and on my very best behavior (not yet banned, I see, thank you...)

 

In answer to Erasmus, I don't know whether any of the experiments in "The Intention Experiment" book are yet published in respected scientific journals. I would first check "The Journal for Consciousness Studies" but my I let my subscription lapse two or three years ago.

 

However there is a wealth of detail about each of the six experiments listed in "The Experiments" section of the website, most detailed in the PDF download link for each experiment.

In regard to your statement:

I have heard many anecdotal stories about telepathy, etc, but on close examination the subjects involved are deluding themselves. They desperately WANT to believe, and so convince themselves.

... and my request for how you see my family's early telepathy experiments as deluded or faulty... and how my perception at a distance of my son's ulcer could be false or deluded...

 

How do you think our little experiment could have been better designed, and how do you think my correct perception of the very real ulcer was in error? (There had been no clue about his condition when I left for the wilderness trek, and it was a very real burning sensation in my stomach, along with his image in my mind... which reached me at a distance around the time of his hospitalization. So... how could I have known? I could not by any means presently recognized by science.

 

Whatever the medium for any/all "action at a distance"... it is not like radio/TV broadcast and reception. There is indeed a human factor involving the level of "connectedness" of the participants, which favors deep personal connection such as between father and son in both cases above. And a hostile atmosphere is certainly not conducive to positive results. (Same as hostility is not conducive to clear communication of the usual sort.) This field of investigation is still in its infancy, but the above has been true for all my telepathic experience.

Finally, with all due respect, I am no more or less sure of my gnostic awakening than you might be sure that when you hold your hand up in front of your face and look at it, that you are actually seeing your hand. If you have doubts that you are seeing your hand, I must respect that, though I don't understand what you could possibly doubt in this case. I have no doubt whatsoever in that case that I am, as right now, seeing my hand. Likewise knowing in the gnostic sense, as above.

 

Thanks again for allowing me to continue posting. I will do my best to follow the rules here, tho I am still confused as to how one can speak of direct spiritual experience without violating the rule against preaching. Will review the rules.

Michael

[Larv]

Thanks again for allowing me to continue posting. I will do my best to follow the rules here, tho I am still confused as to how one can speak of direct spiritual experience without violating the rule against preaching. Will review the rules.

Michael

Michael, how is a "direct spiritual experience" different from an "indirect spiritual experience"? Can you measure the difference? And how is a "direct spiritual experience" different from a direct physical experience? Can you measure the difference? And, finally, how is a "direct spiritual experience" different from a drug hallucination? Can you measure the difference?

 

I think your problem is that you assume scientists will buy into the legitimacy of your so-called spiritual experience. But you haven't backed up your claim with anything but..well...your claim. If you want scientific acceptance for your spiritual experiences you need to provide some form of physical evidence (outside of your personal experience) and a testable hypothesis. But you can't do that because spirits do not leave physical evidence or lend themselves to testable hypotheses.

 

When will you be ready and able to admit that what you are preaching here about TP is nothing more than a pedestrian belief system?

[Erasmus00]

In answer to Erasmus, I don't know whether any of the experiments in "The Intention Experiment" book are yet published in respected scientific journals. I would first check "The Journal for Consciousness Studies" but my I let my subscription lapse two or three years ago.

 

I checked the usual scientific journal databases by author. It appears that the key studies (that actually show positive results of "intention") have not been published.

 

However there is a wealth of detail about each of the six experiments listed in "The Experiments" section of the website, most detailed in the PDF download link for each experiment.

 

The pdfs on the website generally do not include the raw data(only data after analysis, and occasionally no data at all), or descriptions of apparatus and statistical methods used. At least one of the pdfs have graphs of analyzed data with unlabeled axes. None of these would be publishable in a journal. This then is the problem-there is not enough information to accurately judge the quality and controls of the experiments.

 

How do you think our little experiment could have been better designed

 

By your analysis, your mother acted as the go-between for you and your father. Both you and your father would have been close to her, and may have unintentionally passed information back and forth. (a sort of human Clever Hans effect). To do this as a legitimate experiment, other people should have acted as the go-between in a few trials.

 

Also, at some point, the go-between could be mis-lead (i.e. the "image sender" tells the go-between he is sending one image, but in actually sends another), etc. Everything possible must be done to guarantee that no information is actually being passed. Are you familiar with the facilitated communication debacle of the late 70s/early 80s? Its easy to unintentionally pass information.

 

As to the ulcer- its a one off phenomenon, which makes it hard to study scientifically. We need some data to calculate the probability of a coincidence. Its only a significant event scientifically if the odds of it happening by random chance are small enough. We'd need to know how often people experience phantom ulcer symptoms, how often they picture their children, and how often people develop severe ulcers. Keep in mind, 1 in a billion coincidences happen every day.

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus,

Thanks for your reply.

 

By your analysis, your mother acted as the go-between for you and your father. Both you and your father would have been close to her, and may have unintentionally passed information back and forth. (a sort of human Clever Hans effect). To do this as a legitimate experiment, other people should have acted as the go-between in a few trials.

 

To be more specific about detail:

I had a stack of old magazines which Dad had not seen. At Mom's cue, knocking on the door, I would open a magazine and focus on the first picture I saw... be it advertisement or whatever.

After awhile, after she had recorded Dad's spelled out description, she would knock again, and I would, bookmark and check the image just "sent" and then open another magazine and repeat, concentrating on whatever image I saw.

This we did ten times in a run. Neither Mom or Dad knew what image I was "sending" in any case. There was no doubt about the accuracy of the images he picked up. It was a straightforward as my seeing the image of a horse and Dad spelling out "horse." Usually he got ten out of ten correctly. There was no doubt about it.

 

But if you doubt that you are seeing your hand in front of your face, I can see that you would also doubt the results above... even without a cogent reason for doubt, it seems to me.

 

Also, at some point, the go-between could be mis-lead (i.e. the "image sender" tells the go-between he is sending one image, but in actually sends another), etc. Everything possible must be done to guarantee that no information is actually being passed. Are you familiar with the facilitated communication debacle of the late 70s/early 80s? Its easy to unintentionally pass information.

I think we fulfilled the above requirement. Maybe you will agree, given this more detailed information... but somehow I doubt it!

No to the later.

 

As to the ulcer- its a one off phenomenon, which makes it hard to study scientifically. We need some data to calculate the probability of a coincidence. Its only a significant event scientifically if the odds of it happening by random chance are small enough. We'd need to know how often people experience phantom ulcer symptoms, how often they picture their children, and how often people develop severe ulcers. Keep in mind, 1 in a billion coincidences happen every day.

 

A "one off phenomenon?"

I really don't know what percentage of humans have ever experienced telepathy or empathy such as the ulcer incident.

If a very small fraction, one would need to somehow find those rare individuals and run histories of detected illnesses, etc. for openers.

 

Then, if, for instance, my son had a history of recurring peptic ulcer, then it might have been just a worry on my part which gave me acid indigestion. But this was not the case. Anyone open minded enough to acknowledge what happened as it happened will grant that I perceived his unprecedented ulcer directly, at a distance ("out of the blue") with no previous clues whatsoever.... which would have never occurred to me as a possibility.

 

But, of course anyone who is absolutely certain that such (empathy at a distance) is impossible, will just stammer that it must be a lie... or assert that it is untestable and unreproducible in a lab and therefore not scientific.

Part of science is keeping an open mind.

I think the above cases are conclusive if admitted as it happened.

But if one believes that all telepathic claims are either lies or delusions.... logically then... whatever happened was not telepathy or empathy at a distance.

The latter seems to be your stance.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

I had a stack of old magazines which Dad had not seen. At Mom's cue, knocking on the door, I would open a magazine and focus on the first picture I saw... be it advertisement or whatever.

After awhile, after she had recorded Dad's spelled out description, she would knock again, and I would, bookmark and check the image just "sent" and then open another magazine and repeat, concentrating on whatever image I saw.

This we did ten times in a run. Neither Mom or Dad knew what image I was "sending" in any case. There was no doubt about the accuracy of the images he picked up. It was a straightforward as my seeing the image of a horse and Dad spelling out "horse." Usually he got ten out of ten correctly. There was no doubt about it.

 

And how did she interact with your father? How did he spell out?, etc. What counts as a hit? If an image has say children playing with a ball, does child count as a hit, does playing count as a hit, does ball count as a hit? etc.

 

But if you doubt that you are seeing your hand in front of your face, I can see that you would also doubt the results above... even without a cogent reason for doubt, it seems to me.

 

The fundamental assumption of science is that results are repeatable. There is a very simple reason for doubt- hundreds of researchers world wide have attempted to find the results you describe and none have. In every case, results were negative or trickery was found (Uri Geller, for instance).

 

You and your father were sitting on the holy grail of psi research. Put yourself in my shoes- what is more probable, that you and your father were the only people in recorded human history to be able to often reproduce these 10/10 hits without trickery, OR there was some trick you don't remember/were unaware of?

 

Then, if, for instance, my son had a history of recurring peptic ulcer, then it might have been just a worry on my part which gave me acid indigestion. But this was not the case. Anyone open minded enough to acknowledge what happened as it happened will grant that I perceived his unprecedented ulcer directly, at a distance ("out of the blue") with no previous clues whatsoever.... which would have never occurred to me as a possibility.

 

Even granting it happened as it happened, it doesn't, by itself, prove anything. For one thing, we'd need to know how many of these strong empathetic feelings you've had that were "misses." We'd also need to know the probability of a coincidence, as I said before.

 

Its not that these things cannot be scientifically studied, its that its very difficult because so much necessary data is largely unavailable (as I said, we'd need to know how often people come down with ulcers, how often people have "phantom ulcers" or indigestion, etc and how often people think of their relatives. With this, we could come up with a joint probability of all these happening congruently).

 

But, of course anyone who is absolutely certain that such (empathy at a distance) is impossible, will just stammer that it must be a lie... or assert that it is untestable and unreproducible in a lab and therefore not scientific.

Part of science is keeping an open mind.

I think the above cases are conclusive if admitted as it happened.

But if one believes that all telepathic claims are either lies or delusions.... logically then... whatever happened was not telepathy or empathy at a distance.

The latter seems to be your stance.

 

I have been no more demanding of your claims then I am of any other claim of evidence. You should see me in group meeting discussing my field. Any good scientist is merciless in examination of an experiment, and looks for other explanations then the one given.

 

And finally- why is it, do you think that none of the key intention experiments have been published in scientific journals? Why is that the website pdf's are of such poor/non-journal quality? Why haven't data analysis methods been discussed? Why isn't raw data available?

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus00;270226]And how did she interact with your father? How did he spell out?, etc. What counts as a hit? If an image has say children playing with a ball, does child count as a hit, does playing count as a hit, does ball count as a hit? etc.

 

He was in deep trance, not "interacting" with Mother. When he was done spelling out an image (with an indicator on an alphabet board) he would fold his hands in his lap.

All "hits" were obvious. I saw a sailboat (or a horse) and he spelled out "sailboat" or "horse." A "hit" can not be any more clear than that. There wer no complicated scenes like you indicate. Usually one word answers, sometimes more like "A man and woman kissing" but nothing complex.

You are manufacturing false objections. It is my pleasure to clarify them.

 

 

The fundamental assumption of science is that results are repeatable. There is a very simple reason for doubt- hundreds of researchers world wide have attempted to find the results you describe and none have. In every case, results were negative or trickery was found (Uri Geller, for instance).

 

I understand. Most sensitive telepaths/empaths will not "run the gauntlet" required by science, especially investigation hostile to the concept of "consciousness as a medium." As I said, hostility disrupts and negates the results. Consciousness as a medium is *very sensitive* to "negative energy" with *intent* to disprove the effect!

You and your father were sitting on the holy grail of psi research. Put yourself in my shoes- what is more probable, that you and your father were the only people in recorded human history to be able to often reproduce these 10/10 hits without trickery, OR there was some trick you don't remember/were unaware of?

 

Put yourself in my shoes. We were certainly not "the only people in recorded human history to be able to often reproduce these 10/10 hits without trickery."

If you understood the principle of "negative energy spoiling the effect" (as for instance, former illusionist "The Amazing Randi" became a master at...) you wuould better understand the whole scenario on this subject... extremely prejudiced as you are in the "skeptical/negative/spoiler" camp.

 

Yes a skeptic... especially a powerfully negative one can and almost always does spoil the positive effecr. This too is a scientific variable to consider in this realm of the very subtle energies of consciousness as a natural force.... (not presently easily detectable by technical instruments... save bio-photon emmissions and observable results of "intention."

 

 

 

Even granting it happened as it happened, it doesn't, by itself, prove anything. For one thing, we'd need to know how many of these strong empathetic feelings you've had that were "misses." We'd also need to know the probability of a coincidence, as I said before.

 

No "misses." The difference I experience between imagination and vision, for instance is very clear. You have no way of knowing the difference if you have never experienced anything beyond the physical senses and your interpretive perceptions of them.

 

My sense is that the probability of coincidence that my son got an ulcer and I felt it along with the image of him... under the circumstances already explained... is *very close to zero.*

 

(snip)

 

I have been no more demanding of your claims then I am of any other claim of evidence. You should see me in group meeting discussing my field. Any good scientist is merciless in examination of an experiment, and looks for other explanations then the one given.

 

I have no need for "mercy." A small crack in a very closed mind (as I see it)would be sufficient.

 

Please explain one plausible alternative to the telepathy experiments and ulcer detection at a distance above, granting that my memory of both and my family's memory is clear and accurate.

And finally- why is it, do you think that none of the key intention experiments have been published in scientific journals? Why is that the website pdf's are of such poor/non-journal quality? Why haven't data analysis methods been discussed? Why isn't raw data available?

 

I dunno. McTaggart is in close communication with the Institute f Noetic Science. Maybe a study of that institute as per the meaning of "noetic science" would broaden your perspective... or seal your skepticism if you can not see any validity in the concept of and evidence for "noetic science."

(Probably in the same basket as "sacred science" in your hard-core materialistic worldview.

 

Just another perspective. I see "science" as a much broader field that reductionist materialism... obviously... if consciousness is a real force in the universe!

Michael

[Erasmus00]

You are manufacturing false objections. It is my pleasure to clarify them.

 

I am not manufacturing false objections- I am asking for the basics of your procedures. Any scientist reporting this experiment would have included that level of detail at the outset, and varied the methodology.

 

I understand. Most sensitive telepaths/empaths will not "run the gauntlet" required by science, especially investigation hostile to the concept of "consciousness as a medium." As I said, hostility disrupts and negates the results. Consciousness as a medium is *very sensitive* to "negative energy" with *intent* to disprove the effect!

 

Researchers like Daryl Bem at Cornell, and Dean Radin formally of Sonoma State (now of the Noetic Science institute) are strong BELIEVERS in telepathy/psi and they have never reported consistent 10/10 results! Most "parapsychologists" BELIEVE and have staked their careers on these effects. They get nowhere near these results.

 

Put yourself in my shoes. We were certainly not "the only people in recorded human history to be able to often reproduce these 10/10 hits without trickery."

 

Who else claims anything like a 10/10 result? Where can I read about them?

 

My sense is that the probability of coincidence that my son got an ulcer and I felt it along with the image of him... under the circumstances already explained... is *very close to zero.*

 

I agree, its very close to 0. If its 1 in a billion, six people have this experience every day, and many people would have at least one of these experiences in their life, entirely by random chance. If its more likely than 1 in a billion, even more people have this experience daily, and most people will have multiple of these experiences in their life, entirely by random chance.

 

I have no need for "mercy." A small crack in a very closed mind (as I see it)would be sufficient.

 

Michael, please don't talk to me about closed minds- there are dozens of experiments that would change my mind. HOWEVER, by your own admission nothing will sway you from your opinion. You "know" what you "know" and (as you have said) no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you. Who sounds more closed minded?

 

Please explain one plausible alternative to the telepathy experiments and ulcer detection at a distance above, granting that my memory of both and my family's memory is clear and accurate.

 

As I said, coincidence can explain the ulcer.

 

As to the ESP tests, do you still do these ESP tests? Will you do tests without your mother as a go between? If I give you a new set of experimental methodologies, will you follow them?

 

I dunno. McTaggart is in close communication with the Institute f Noetic Science.

 

She could be a fellow in the institute, if she doesn't publish she doesn't publish! I would be happy if the experiments even had professional reports (raw data, methods discussion etc). None of them do- so why should I take them seriously?

[Boerseun]

Come, Mike. Enough with the pseudoscience already.

 

If skeptic scientists will ruin your experiment with their "negative energy", then you're proposing something that we should be able to test for. Explain this "negative energy", and we can devise a test. Who knows - maybe a lead sheet will protect your psi experiment from these negative people. Then we'll get somewhere.

 

But currently, we're merely chasing our tails. We're getting insulted for being "close-minded materialists", whilst, like Erasmus says above, you admit that no amount of evidence to the contrary can or will change your mind.

 

You are dangerous as a scientist, because your bias and prejudice will soil your samples.

 

I see nothing productive coming from this discussion.

[Michael Mooney]

Boerseun:

I see nothing productive coming from this discussion.

 

Me neither.

Perhaps a closing remark.

I grew up reading from my dad's extensive library including "consciousness studies" (tho not so named in the '50s and '60's), including a lot of material in the realm of parapsychology. At a young age I read the works of such "prophets" as Edgar Cayce and a groundbreaking book on telepathy by Sir Hubert Wilkins and Harold M. Sherman, "Thoughts Through Space."

 

The latter and Cayce documented an extremely impressive "track record" of positive results.... those among many others.

 

Anyway, Dad was also a gifted pioneer in telepathy and hypnosis, and I was his best "sender" for the former and "subject" for the latter. It was a "gift" that runs in the family... quite a rare gift it seems. But, during experimentation, it really doesn't hold up well under the kind of bashing that Boerseun and others here dish out. ... or, in the day... of hecklers in the audience (hypnosis demonstrations) making nasty remarks.

Further, I have no *need* to convince anyone here to change their minds. If our repeated 10 out of 10 hits and the ulcer detection incident won't do it, I give up.**

Call me a lier and/or a deluded fool if it makes y'all feel better about the validity of scientific materialism, sans "consciousness-as-a-force" as the ultimate reality.

 

I did have cosmic visions at a very early age, and knew the difference between imagination and visions as early as age five.

 

The debate around "consciousness studies" (see the journal of that title) is ongoing, and I am optimistic that experiments like those published in "The Intention Experiment" will eventually be refined and detailed and published in respected science journals. Many already treat them with scientific respect.

I may go back through my issues of the "Journal of Consciousness Studies" and see what I can find that might interest this forum.

But, as it stands now... I agree... this is going nowhere.

 

But it has been an interesting conversation. Thanks.

Michael

** Ed... An interesting footnote:

Once I opened to and "sent" a "Fab" soap ad with a full page image of the soapbox. In the debriefing/verification session after the run of 10, it turned out that Dad had received the image of a soapbox and the "F" of the brand name as the image gradually formed on what he called the "blank screen of the mind's eye."

 

He said that he remembered the above and mentally asked himself (consciously... breaking trance for a moment), "What soap starts with "F?"

His hands on the indicator on the alphabet board immediately spelled out "Fels Naptha", a soap very familiar to him in his childhood.

So, was it hit or a miss? We went with "hit" with a footnote in the record about how the normal thinking mind interferes with the trance state.

[Erasmus00]

I too, then, will close. Despite what Michael may say, I do have an open mind, and I do think its a good thing that experiments (such as those outlined in the Intention Experiment) are being run- however, they need to be run in a competent, professional manner, and data needs to be reported to the strictest of scientific standards.

 

I have been to a fair share of parlor demonstrations of telepathy and other "psi" phenomena. In all cases, tricks were being used- the routines of professional psychics are identical to the routines of magicians (the difference being the magician will admit she has a trick up her sleeve). This has left me skeptical of telepathy claims- I am further left skeptical by the fact that psi researchers (who believe these effects are real, some staking careers on this) do not get such results. IF it is real, psi is a small effect that needs many trials to distinguish from random chance (a good psychic bats .300 according to Dean Radin.).

 

Also, researchers who work in this field should not forget Littlewood's Law of Miracles. Humans experience so many events per day, that each person should expect a miracle, entirely by random chance at a rate of about one per month. Michael has shared a story of one such miracle (sensing his sons ulcer). To show a significant effect, statistically, he needs many such miracles in a short period.

 

An open question- if after further refinement, all of the "possible" effects and the "not statistically significant" effects mentioned in books like the Intention Experiment become null results, how many believers in Intention will give up this belief? As Michael has said, literally NOTHING will convince him. While the evidence I am asking for might be difficult to provide, at least there are things that will sway me.

[Boerseun]

Michael, please do not confuse "heckling" and "bashing" with good and solid scientific skepticism and the rules of evidence that the scientific method requires to be consistent and productive.

 

For instance, the "visions" you had as a five-year old boy does not constitute evidence. We only have your word to go on, and five-year old boys are notorious for their overactive imaginations. From a scientific point of view, that's by far the most reasonable explanation for what you propose.

 

Also, you should be skeptical about the experiments you and your dad conducted. As I've explained in one of my prior posts, memory has a way of tricking you over years to believe what you want to believe, and to remember what you want to remember - so much so that even your memories of ages ago start to mold around your current wants and beliefs. Women have testified under oath and even passed lie-detector tests about their fathers molesting them when they were girls - with the father producing iron-clad evidence to the contrary, like being overseas for the years the daughters blame them for rape. Turns out it was the neighbour, but in a young mind (and especially if recalled over vast distances in time) things are pliable, and does not necessarily constitute evidence. You need to repeat your experiment under controlled circumstances so that it can become scientifically credible. If "bad energy" is your problem, design your experiment so that it can be excluded. Which means you have to define it. But it can be as simple an exercise as to put hidden TV cameras in, with the skeptics sitting thousands of miles away watching the show live. It's all about the methodology you propose determining whether there's anything to it or not.

 

To get to the bottom of this, we need to make an in-depth study of the statistics regarding what people would like to claim to be "miracles" and "visions". Then we can see if what you're talking about has any merit - or if its merely a case of the enumeration of favourable circumstances. Don't feel bad about it - many scientists fall into that trap. It's easy as pie. But unfortunately, it destroys any semblance of science it might have held.

 

In short, your theory is not validated or vindicated. It's easily falsifiable however, so you should bring more to the table than reports of "mystical visions" and "gnoses of truth" if you want to seriously discuss this with anybody with even a remotely scientific bent.

 

I hope you understand the above.

 

And please keep it in mind if you intend to employ your "visions" in any other thread.

 

If nobody has anything further to add, I will close this thread in 24h.

[Boerseun]

Heck - that's a bit lax... that was two weeks ago, already. Well, lemme close this, then. :circle: