Sai Baba and Christianity, Why Miracles should not be Believed

11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Sai Baba and Christianity, Why Miracles should not be Believed

I came about this topic of Sai Baba via Youtube videos of Sam Harris at a couple of presentations.  He cites Sai as evidence that even assuming the Gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts there'd still be room to doubt miraculous claims.

Here's a link to what appears to be the official site of this godman, straight to the page on miracles, likely the most amusing page of the site:

http://www.saibaba.ws/miracles.htm

Also, here is a link to the video of Harris if anyone is interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsqTysSMQpk

 

My question concerning this person deals especially with the evidence of his miracles--something which likely Christianity doesn't even possess with the Gospel accounts--namely, contemporaneous, living eyewitnesses.  It would seem from the research here and there I've done on this topic that there is far more evidence for this person's divinity (solely as evidenced through the miracles purported by those that believe them to be) than there is for Christianity.

Yet I, and I am almost certain of this, all of you and myself, will continue to doubt, perhaps even in spite of previous claims you may have made (I have made them as well) to the effect of "well, if there were only living eyewitnesses that made the claims" or "if only there were video footage of Jesus' resurrection," we might come to believe a given person to be a supernatural force.

For the sake of discussion, and to perhaps keep this more analogous to Christianity, disregard the videos of him showcasing his somewhat obvious and cheap magic tricks and focus instead on the personal testimony of his supposed divinity.

The question that I'm going the long way of asking is what criteria is it proper to expect for claims of the supernatural? Given, as I have heard it said on this forum, that UFOs (not supernatural but extraordinary) also share a large body of mostly living eyewitness testimonies, why is that insufficient to warrant belief in the things they claim to evidence?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
As for evidence, Sathya Sai

As for evidence, Sathya Sai Baba can be still seen publically and millions of people come to see personally how he materializes items. Numerous people from western countries travel to him and then write books on what they saw. And these are not only american authors, my parents know a lady (academic painter, by vocation) who also travelled to Sathya Sai Baba and also wrote a book about it. (mrs. Puchnarova) Several locals have rings that Sai Baba materialized for them.

This is of course not an evidence, but it tells you how to get the evidence of supernatural phenomena. Lift your damn ass and go there to see for yourself. That is the method. Or do you think that scientists would dig up a particle accelerator and send it to you from Switzerland, so you can see the evidence for some particles?

I think it's a common sense. Supernatural phenomena are usually not under your control, they won't be carried into your house by electric wires, water pipes or the power of free market. You have to do your own investigation. At least for now. I can't guarantee that your investigation will be succesful. But majority of those who invest the same effort, time and money into that, as they would invest into any investigation or study, are succesful.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Sai Baba "materialises" gold

Sai Baba "materialises" gold and diamonds for rich people. So what do the poor people get ? They get "holy ashes". Go figure.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
From

From http://www.randi.org/jr/12-08-2000.htmlwatch

Quote:
Sai Baba's "miracles" now include materializing various keepsakes for devotees, from watches to rings. I've always wondered why these watches — mostly Seikos — are materialized bearing serial numbers indicating that they were sold from Japan to a distributor in India...his major and most advertised "miracle" is the production from his apparently empty hand of a substance known as "vibhuti" ("holy ash&quotEye-wink which turns out on analysis to be powdered ashes of cow dung mixed with incense.
 

This self-proclaimed incarnation of god seems also to enjoy the company of young men.  

Really, Luminon, how low is your bar for credibility?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:From

zarathustra wrote:

From http://www.randi.org/jr/12-08-2000.htmlwatch

Quote:
Sai Baba's "miracles" now include materializing various keepsakes for devotees, from watches to rings. I've always wondered why these watches — mostly Seikos — are materialized bearing serial numbers indicating that they were sold from Japan to a distributor in India...his major and most advertised "miracle" is the production from his apparently empty hand of a substance known as "vibhuti" ("holy ash&quotEye-wink which turns out on analysis to be powdered ashes of cow dung mixed with incense.
 

This self-proclaimed incarnation of god seems also to enjoy the company of young men.  

Really, Luminon, how low is your bar for credibility?

 

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Sai Baba

Anonymouse wrote:

Sai Baba "materialises" gold and diamonds for rich people. So what do the poor people get ? They get "holy ashes". Go figure.

I never heard that Sai Baba would materialize valuable things. Only cheap trinkets that have value of a souvenir. Anyway, he's not terribly obsessed with charity and poverty, there are other people of his format that take care of this. In occult terms, India is like a different country altogether from the rest of world, it's full of avatars. Avatars take it easy, public relations aren't their strong feature.


zarathustra wrote:
This self-proclaimed incarnation of god seems also to enjoy the company of young men.  

Really, Luminon, how low is your bar for credibility?

I have never heard of materializing watches. And, I don't know how about young men. Accusing someone is easy. Me, my friends, activists and authorities were and are called something we aren't quite often, out of ignorance, misunderstanding and perhaps a little fear. Person like Sai Baba can make some enemies easily. But if you noticed, I think I never claimed anything about moral or immoral properties of Sathya Sai Baba. If people say he's a divine incarnate, then so am I and every human being, according to esotericism. Eastern people are perhaps into this guru worship business, but that is not a way how western people should think.
I only know that people from my country went there and saw him materialize cheap rings that he gave to them. Then there are messages from our sources that describe Sai Baba participating on world events pretty much as some other western holy men do, but in that my experience is limited.
My bar of credibility is personal observation, testimony of witnesses I personally know, and harmony with well-estabilished theory.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:This is of

Luminon wrote:

This is of course not an evidence, but it tells you how to get the evidence of supernatural phenomena. Lift your damn ass and go there to see for yourself. That is the method. Or do you think that scientists would dig up a particle accelerator and send it to you from Switzerland, so you can see the evidence for some particles?

 

I could have been more clear in my initial point.  Let me clarify.  What I meant to imply with my original post is how we're supposed to substantiate supernatural claims by way of testimony by those that claim to have witnessed it.  Sure, I could go to see Sai, and my skeptical inclinations lead me to the belief that he will perform actions at least seeming to be miraculous, but since we don't have this to go on with the Gospel accounts, I want to try to neglect this for now.

So, the question is whether or not we should believe miraculous stories based solely upon the testimony of others, and if we affirm/deny these claims, I'm trying to learn the precise reasons for doing so.

To put it another way, there seems to be a different standard for the claim "I know of one with a 30 inch vertical jump," "I know of someone with a 90 inch vertical jump," and "I know of someone who can ascend bodily into the heavens by jumping, for he is a god." I'm trying to pin down what precisely makes the more extraordinary claim require more evidence, and whether such can be satiated with more testimonies, i.e. would you believe that this person could do this (jump into space) if there were 10 eyewitness statements to the fact? 100? 1000? 100000?

Another question I had is in regards to the fact that it says you're a theist.  Are you consistent with regards to your theistic beliefs here? Do you require first-hand, empirical data to substantiate them? If not, why?

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Anonymouse

Luminon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Sai Baba "materialises" gold and diamonds for rich people. So what do the poor people get ? They get "holy ashes". Go figure.

I never heard that Sai Baba would materialize valuable things. Only cheap trinkets that have value of a souvenir. Anyway, he's not terribly obsessed with charity and poverty, there are other people of his format that take care of this. In occult terms, India is like a different country altogether from the rest of world, it's full of avatars. Avatars take it easy, public relations aren't their strong feature.


zarathustra wrote:
This self-proclaimed incarnation of god seems also to enjoy the company of young men.  

Really, Luminon, how low is your bar for credibility?

I have never heard of materializing watches. And, I don't know how about young men. Accusing someone is easy. Me, my friends, activists and authorities were and are called something we aren't quite often, out of ignorance, misunderstanding and perhaps a little fear. Person like Sai Baba can make some enemies easily. But if you noticed, I think I never claimed anything about moral or immoral properties of Sathya Sai Baba. If people say he's a divine incarnate, then so am I and every human being, according to esotericism. Eastern people are perhaps into this guru worship business, but that is not a way how western people should think.
I only know that people from my country went there and saw him materialize cheap rings that he gave to them. Then there are messages from our sources that describe Sai Baba participating on world events pretty much as some other western holy men do, but in that my experience is limited.
My bar of credibility is personal observation, testimony of witnesses I personally know, and harmony with well-estabilished theory.

 

 

We both know what would happen if he was asked to perform his miracles under proper controls.

 

Excuse, excuse, excuse.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
I fumbled the link I

I fumbled the link I provided.  Here it is again:  http://www.randi.org/jr/12-08-2000.html

Luminon wrote:

I have never heard of materializing watches. ...I only know that people from my country went there and saw him materialize cheap rings that he gave to them.  

 

Skeptics in India have reproduced sai baba's conjuring with simple sleight-of-hand.  In fact, sai baba has been caught on film fumbling his tricks, including a pellet poorly concealed between his fingers, right before he "produces" the holy ash.  So tell me what is more likely, Luminon:  sai baba is using sleight-of-hand himself, or that it's really supernatural when he does it, even if the effect is exactly the same?

Luminon wrote:
My bar of credibility is personal observation, testimony of witnesses I personally know, and harmony with well-estabilished theory.

 

Which explains why your bar of credibility is so low.  Again, what is more likely:  That your senses have been deceived (whether voluntarily or involuntarily), and that your "personal witnesses" were themselves deceived and/or are deceiving you; or extraordinary events occur exclusively for you and your "witnesses" which nevertheless fail to manifest under controlled testing (a safeguard against deception)?

Pulling objects out of thin air is not part of any "well-established theory", at present.  A theory becomes well-established when it passes controlled testing.

 


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
*howl*

Does anyone know hwat 11111011 stand for in bimary lang?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't think magically

I don't think magically conjuring objects out of thin air is in harmony with well established theories.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:I fumbled

zarathustra wrote:

I fumbled the link I provided.  Here it is again:  http://www.randi.org/jr/12-08-2000.html

Thanks for the link.  I'll check it out immediately.  I'm taking some of your quotes out of context to reply to them, hopefully this is fine by you.

zarathustra wrote:

Skeptics in India have reproduced sai baba's conjuring with simple sleight-of-hand.  In fact, sai baba has been caught on film fumbling his tricks, including a pellet poorly concealed between his fingers, right before he "produces" the holy ash.  So tell me what is more likely, Luminon:  sai baba is using sleight-of-hand himself, or that it's really supernatural when he does it, even if the effect is exactly the same?

That's a good point, but surely there must be some basis for being skeptical of the apparently miraculous even without evidence of trickery or deception (the pellet for the ash).  Would you have believed Sai Baba as a miracle worker otherwise? Assume for the argument that we don't have any skeptics in the audience...everyone just testifies that miracle x happened and not a single eyewitness comes forth to claim x didn't happen.  This would be more consistent evidence but would it be enough?

 

 

 

 

zarathustra wrote:

Again, what is more likely:  That your senses have been deceived (whether voluntarily or involuntarily), and that your "personal witnesses" were themselves deceived and/or are deceiving you; or extraordinary events occur exclusively for you and your "witnesses" which nevertheless fail to manifest under controlled testing (a safeguard against deception)?

Pulling objects out of thin air is not part of any "well-established theory", at present.  A theory becomes well-established when it passes controlled testing.

I think that's a really good point.  I've often thought in regards to miracle stories of antiquity that if we only had skeptical observers to be called in upon outlandish claims, there'd be more closure to things that people nowadays claim to take on faith.  I think that this would fall under the umbrella of "controlled testing," even though tests done in the past cannot be repeated, we need some criteria by which to do history.

So the more I ponder this issue, the more that I think the only real way to distinguish anything that might really be miraculous with simple miraculous appearances is an impartial skeptic who can weigh the evidence and issue a verdict to the claims in question.  It definitely wouldn't be foolproof, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.  Anything that is not judged by an impartial skeptic, then, should be thrown out on the basis of failing to prove the miraculous.

With Sai Baba, the evidence against him definitely doesn't look good.  For an impartial observer, you can't really beat a video camera, and the few videos that I've seen of him working his miracles have definitely been underwhelming.  This isn't to say that he never did miracles--maybe the well ran dry, and he threw in the towel or something--but I definitely don't think that bodes well at all for his claims of divinity.

With Christianity, there are no impartial observers whatsoever.  We don't even know if there were observers period, being as they didn't write at the time.  Assuming the Gospel accounts are written by the eyewitnesses they're attributed to (and in doing so, giving every conceivable benefit to the Christian reasonably imaginable), we still don't have an impartial observer, only observers who could reasonably be expected to be deceived by magical acts Sai Baba is claimed to do in the present day (e.g. walking on water, turning water into petrol/wine).  And given that this is in a time of demons and sorcery, as well as other competing gods of various shapes (that for some reason do not merit skeptical inquiry either, go figure), even assuming that Sai and Jesus share devoted eyewitness followers who accurately record what they experience, we still can't claim closure on the latter because there isn't a skeptic willing to testify about his/her method and conclusions, at least not one that survives. 

So, the way that I see it, Christianity is ultimately doomed by this criterion of demanding a skeptic to weigh in on substantive claims.  What we have with Sai Baba is evidence (videos) that can be watched via skeptics who come to a conclusion about Sai's claims of being a miracle-doer.  This is contradicted by eyewitness testimony, but I'm giving a premium value to skeptical inquirers, for they are the ones who can truly decide whether an action is as purported.  With Christianity, it is very likely Gospel accounts were written some 30 or so odd years after the fact, very likely not by the people reputed (e.g. if Matthew really was Matthew, why did he borrow from Mark things that he experienced firsthand?), and likely not even by people recording the accurate statements of eyewitnesses.  In any case, this is made irrelevant, because without at least one skeptical inquiry into the matter, we can't tell the difference between real and fake magic, for that requires an observer that knows the difference.

If anyone might be able to way in on my reasoning, whether it is good/bad/crazy, or whether it is already reflected in historical methods I'm unaware of, I'd appreciate it.

And thanks again to everyone who responded thusfar.

 


 


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Does anyone

Kapkao wrote:

Does anyone know hwat 11111011 stand for in bimary lang?

 

It's 251 in decimal; really it's just a name I chose out of the blue.

For a very quick lesson in binary, it's a base-2 numbering system.  Decimal is base 10.

11111011

128-64-32-16-8-0-2-1

The second row is the bit-value respective to the position.  As you can see, it increases exponentially but predictably.  Since it's 8 bits, the max value is 255, only one bit is set to 0, get the value of that bit (4 if it's a 1, 0 if 0), and subtract it from 255.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
11111011 wrote:zarathustra

11111011 wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Skeptics in India have reproduced sai baba's conjuring with simple sleight-of-hand.  In fact, sai baba has been caught on film fumbling his tricks, including a pellet poorly concealed between his fingers, right before he "produces" the holy ash.  So tell me what is more likely, Luminon:  sai baba is using sleight-of-hand himself, or that it's really supernatural when he does it, even if the effect is exactly the same?

That's a good point, but surely there must be some basis for being skeptical of the apparently miraculous even without evidence of trickery or deception (the pellet for the ash).  Would you have believed Sai Baba as a miracle worker otherwise?

Absa-<expletive>-ly not, but there are obviously those who do (witness Luminon, Psychic Warrior Esq.).  

One ought to be skeptical of a 'miracle' that defies physical laws, even seeing it executed flawlessly in person; much less hearing about it from another (much less reading about it 2,000 years later in a poorly copied version of what someone heard from someone who heard from someone who supposedly saw it, eh christards?); much less knowing the effect can be duplicated by trickery.  

It's a testament to the depth of human credulity that this particular clown (or should I say fairy?) has been caught flubbing his act on film, and yet many still believe.

 

 

   

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

Absa-<expletive>-ly not, but there are obviously those who do (witness Luminon, Psychic Warrior Esq.).  

One ought to be skeptical of a 'miracle' that defies physical laws, even seeing it executed flawlessly in person; much less hearing about it from another (much less reading about it 2,000 years later in a poorly copied version of what someone heard from someone who heard from someone who supposedly saw it, eh christards?); much less knowing the effect can be duplicated by trickery.  

It's a testament to the depth of human credulity that this particular clown (or should I say fairy?) has been caught flubbing his act on film, and yet many still believe.

 

Agreed, yeah, I saw that video, I find it disappointing that numerous people still believe it.

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that noone thought to investigate Jesus when he was around.  I'd for one really like a clear verdict on that, though my personal beliefs are pretty set in stone regarding what happened (my thoughts are that the Gospel accounts are merely the first formulations of a myth, in the spirit of Zeus and countless other gods that preceded him).

And I also don't ascribe to the supposed 'fact' that the supernatural cannot exist, i.e. a godman cannot conceivably do miraculous things.  But being as Christianity wasn't developed in the spirit of attempting to test the claims its founded on (it went untested when testing was needed most), "credulity" as you mentioned is the only thing that can sustain it.  The more we have discussed this, the more certain I am that an inquiry by knowledgeable people to discredit an idea is a prerequisite for believing it (if it's falsified, don't believe it, if it's examined and holds up, believe it, if it's not tested, don't believe it).

This thread has been helpful for me to formulate my ideas on this topic.  Thanks Zarathusra (and everyone else as well).

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
11111011 wrote:So, the

11111011 wrote:
So, the question is whether or not we should believe miraculous stories based solely upon the testimony of others, and if we affirm/deny these claims, I'm trying to learn the precise reasons for doing so.

To put it another way, there seems to be a different standard for the claim "I know of one with a 30 inch vertical jump," "I know of someone with a 90 inch vertical jump," and "I know of someone who can ascend bodily into the heavens by jumping, for he is a god." I'm trying to pin down what precisely makes the more extraordinary claim require more evidence, and whether such can be satiated with more testimonies, i.e. would you believe that this person could do this (jump into space) if there were 10 eyewitness statements to the fact? 100? 1000? 100000?

Testimony is not an evidence. We decide how much credibility we lend to a testimony, by our personal amount of experience in that area. And at best, we get a credible testimony, an account of very possible event. It's still not an evidence, it didn't have to happen, although it could.
The convincing power of testimony, experience or evidence is various and adds together. The most powerful testimony is from people that I know personally for long time and know they're reliable, or from people that have nothing to gain by convincing me, but may have something to lose.
As for eyewitnesses, their separate detailed interrogation might actually produce a real evidence, through a police method.
 

11111011 wrote:
Another question I had is in regards to the fact that it says you're a theist.  Are you consistent with regards to your theistic beliefs here? Do you require first-hand, empirical data to substantiate them? If not, why?
The writing says I'm a theist, but it's really only for convenience. I'm very different from both atheists and theists, and since that's an atheist forum, they decide I'm not them, so I must be a theist.
But I'm not a believer. By all means, I require first-hand empirical data, always. And I get them. And I know people for many years who can independently get the same data. The reason why I have this theist badge is, that my first-hand data are very, very unusual, like not from this world. I have considered having some kind of mental disease, but all external evidence says otherwise. I'm certainly not normal, and I'm not a psycho, so there must be other cathegories.
You see, I've seen and done very strange things in my life, not less strange that Sathya Sai Baba's materialization tricks. My measures of what is possible and impossible are a bit different than most of people have.  For example, I'd never consider possible things like alien abductions, but some other things yes.
 

zarathustra wrote:
Skeptics in India have reproduced sai baba's conjuring with simple sleight-of-hand.  In fact, sai baba has been caught on film fumbling his tricks, including a pellet poorly concealed between his fingers, right before he "produces" the holy ash.  So tell me what is more likely, Luminon:  sai baba is using sleight-of-hand himself, or that it's really supernatural when he does it, even if the effect is exactly the same?
Skeptics can reproduce pretty much anything. The difference is, that skeptics need preparations, supplies and sponsors. Western observers that visited him did not find any.  Some cases of Sai Baba's materialization that could be easily faked, (would that be the case) and some that not. By the pick of videos it is easy to find some that suggest alternative explanation. But I never claimed to be an authority on that topic, that would be possible only if I'd go there personally and check him out. If I say something about him, then it's clear that it's a hearsay and I don't expect anyone to be convinced. If there is conflicting information, nobody can be sure.
As for what is more likely, I've seen extremely unlikely things to be true and very likely things to be false, and vice versa. This is something that can't be generalized. I can't use cultural standards as the measure. I've investigated things personally, some were true, some false, but rarely the result agreed with cultural standards.

In my experience, I did not see many completely fake gurus. To be precise, fake gurus yes, but with genuine powers.

zarathustra wrote:
 Which explains why your bar of credibility is so low.  Again, what is more likely:  That your senses have been deceived (whether voluntarily or involuntarily), and that your "personal witnesses" were themselves deceived and/or are deceiving you; or extraordinary events occur exclusively for you and your "witnesses" which nevertheless fail to manifest under controlled testing (a safeguard against deception)?

Pulling objects out of thin air is not part of any "well-established theory", at present.  A theory becomes well-established when it passes controlled testing.

I am not a normal person, my consciousness and some of my senses are very different from other people. I perceive the world differently and I'm in a group of sane, mature people with less or more similar perception. By our observations we were able to confirm a theory. This theory explains a lot about so-called supernatural phenomena. Our observations are only indirect evidence for things that we did not met personally, but very convincing, as a reality can be.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I don't

butterbattle wrote:

I don't think magically conjuring objects out of thin air is in harmony with well established theories.

It's in harmony with string theory, interpreted by well estabilished esoteric theory. It's the Ageless wisdom teaching, mostly as far go the books written by Alice Bailey. If I as an esoteric student hear people talking about string theory, I barely resist facepalming, that's the "Really, mr. Obvious?" moment. These two theories are so similar, because they are about the same subject.

 

Maybe when I'll read up on quantum physics I'll discover even more parallels.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, the appearance of

Luminon, the appearance of ordinary objects out of 'thin air' - whole structured collections of atoms, not just the occasional quark - is determined by Quantum Theory to be of such vanishingly tiny probability, altho never zero, that the idea that a person could cause it to happen on a regular basis is utterly incompatible with any current theories or controlled observations (ie observations where any sleight-of-hand could be detected).

String theory certainly cannot contradict that - in so far as it is plausible, it cannot conflict with theories such as Quantum Theory, which is about as firmly established by vast amounts of experimental data as any theory can be.

You massively over-state how difficult it was or would be to replicate Sai Baba's little tricks. He has been caught out so many times, I am astonished that even you would try to defend him.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Luminon,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Luminon, the appearance of ordinary objects out of 'thin air' - whole structured collections of atoms, not just the occasional quark - is determined by Quantum Theory to be of such vanishingly tiny probability, altho never zero, that the idea that a person could cause it to happen on a regular basis is utterly incompatible with any current theories or controlled observations (ie observations where any sleight-of-hand could be detected).

String theory certainly cannot contradict that - in so far as it is plausible, it cannot conflict with theories such as Quantum Theory, which is about as firmly established by vast amounts of experimental data as any theory can be.

Don't think how it cannot be done. Think how it can be done.
Objects don't appear out of nowhere. All the space around is full of dark matter. Dark matter is a matter, that according to string theory belongs to higher dimension, IOW, it's innermost particles have more than one string of total seven vibrating. But there is a special kind of physical matter, that has also only one vibrating string, but this string vibration has a greater amplitude. This matter behaves almost like it also belongs to another dimension, but it's properties are very similar to our matter. It's called etheric, and it forms practically a parallel world to ours, with nature, ecosystems, and so on. It's possible that all our world is a precipitation from etheric matter.

Next thing is, thoughts, thinking and mind are phenomena native to a higher dimension. Mind is a legitimate creative force there. Our brains are receivers and hardware for it, but in it's own domain it does not need a brain. The higher dimension, the more is the matter malleable by the force of mind. Even etheric matter shapes itself readily by thoughts, under certain circumstances. For a really advanced and trained person, this kind of manipulation should not be a problem. Sathya Sai Baba is not nearly the only one Baba in India who materializes things. Materialization is not creating things from nowhere. It's assembling them in higher dimension and then precipitating them by slowing their sub-atomary vibration into this dimension. And vice versa.
I personally did not see materialization yet, but work with etheric matter is my daily routine. It's sensitivity to the power of mind is remarkable.

I'd like to meet someone who could apply the supposed properties of etheric matter into the string theory equations and see what happens.
 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You massively over-state how difficult it was or would be to replicate Sai Baba's little tricks. He has been caught out so many times, I am astonished that even you would try to defend him.

Some of my best sources support Sai Baba. There seems to be an unofficial connection between him and Benjamin Creme.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:It's in

Luminon wrote:
It's in harmony with string theory,

Nova presented the thought experiment that you would have to walk at a wall for essentially an eternity to have a decent chance of getting through it. The chance of any macroscopic object appearing out of thin air is so tiny, that for any practical purpose, it might as well be impossible. Furthermore, the idea that someone can produce such an event at will using only their woo woo internal energy or whatever it is you believe is absurd.

So, someone that is able to conjure objects like watches (which, for some reason, have serial numbers on them) out of think air completely contradicts well established theory. The proof of such an ability would require a monumental revision of many scientific fields. 

Luminon wrote:
interpreted by well estabilished esoteric theory.

That is only "well established" within the mysticism community.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Luminon

butterbattle wrote:

Luminon wrote:
It's in harmony with string theory,

Nova presented the thought experiment that you would have to walk at a wall for essentially an eternity to have a decent chance of getting through it. The chance of any macroscopic object appearing out of thin air is so tiny, that for any practical purpose, it might as well be impossible. Furthermore, the idea that someone can produce such an event at will using only their woo woo internal energy or whatever it is you believe is absurd. 

So, someone that is able to conjure objects like watches (which, for some reason, have serial numbers on them) out of think air completely contradicts well established theory. The proof of such an ability would require a monumental revision of many scientific fields.

Please read my response to BobSpence. And yes, such a revision of science is ahead of us. It's so big that I wouldn't be surprised if some authorities would try to slow it down.

butterbattle wrote:
Luminon wrote:
interpreted by well estabilished esoteric theory.

That is only "well established" within the mysticism community.

That is correct. Few scientists know mysticism (or better said, esotericism) enough to notice the parallels.
(esotericism = theory, occultism = practice using theory, mysticism = practice without theory)


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:BobSpence1

Luminon wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Luminon, the appearance of ordinary objects out of 'thin air' - whole structured collections of atoms, not just the occasional quark - is determined by Quantum Theory to be of such vanishingly tiny probability, altho never zero, that the idea that a person could cause it to happen on a regular basis is utterly incompatible with any current theories or controlled observations (ie observations where any sleight-of-hand could be detected).

String theory certainly cannot contradict that - in so far as it is plausible, it cannot conflict with theories such as Quantum Theory, which is about as firmly established by vast amounts of experimental data as any theory can be.

Don't think how it cannot be done. Think how it can be done.
Objects don't appear out of nowhere. All the space around is full of dark matter. Dark matter is a matter, that according to string theory belongs to higher dimension, IOW, it's innermost particles have more than one string of total seven vibrating. But there is a special kind of physical matter, that has also only one vibrating string, but this string vibration has a greater amplitude. This matter behaves almost like it also belongs to another dimension, but it's properties are very similar to our matter. It's called etheric, and it forms practically a parallel world to ours, with nature, ecosystems, and so on. It's possible that all our world is a precipitation from etheric matter.

Next thing is, thoughts, thinking and mind are phenomena native to a higher dimension. Mind is a legitimate creative force there. Our brains are receivers and hardware for it, but in it's own domain it does not need a brain. The higher dimension, the more is the matter malleable by the force of mind. Even etheric matter shapes itself readily by thoughts, under certain circumstances. For a really advanced and trained person, this kind of manipulation should not be a problem. Sathya Sai Baba is not nearly the only one Baba in India who materializes things. Materialization is not creating things from nowhere. It's assembling them in higher dimension and then precipitating them by slowing their sub-atomary vibration into this dimension. And vice versa.
I personally did not see materialization yet, but work with etheric matter is my daily routine. It's sensitivity to the power of mind is remarkable.

I'd like to meet someone who could apply the supposed properties of etheric matter into the string theory equations and see what happens.
 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You massively over-state how difficult it was or would be to replicate Sai Baba's little tricks. He has been caught out so many times, I am astonished that even you would try to defend him.

Some of my best sources support Sai Baba. There seems to be an unofficial connection between him and Benjamin Creme.

Your ideas are still not compatible with actually established theories - bulk manifestation of a structured physical object from another state, or conversion from some other form of matter, is way beyond anything even suggested by modern physics, let alone demonstrated.

There is nothing remotely surprising, considering the apparent triviality of the 'skills' involved, that there could be many doing the same thing as Sai.

How about that other Indian mystic who stated with absolute confidence that he could kill someone by an act of will, and absolutely failed to have any effect on a sceptic in front a TV audience when invited to try to at least make him ill or something?

The culture there is strongly disposed to believe such stuff, which makes it all too easy to convince them without all that much skill.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
  you know who could've

 

you know who could've made mincemeat out of sai baba?  johnny carson.

 

 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Luminon wrote:Skeptics can

Luminon wrote:
Skeptics can reproduce pretty much anything. The difference is, that skeptics need preparations, supplies and sponsors.

And it couldn't possibly be the case with sai baba et al.  The only way to ensure that would be under....controlled testing (do you wince when you hear that phrase?).  And if paranormal ability can accomplish nothing more than what sleight-of-hand can reproduce, why ought we be enamored with it.  To paraphrase James Randi:  "If you're using psychic power, you're doing it the hard way".

Luminon wrote:
Western observers that visited him did not find any.

And of course Westerners can never be fooled.  Not the Westerners who visit the Philippines for psychic surgery, then come back home to die illnesses they weren't cured of.  Nor the Westerners who take up transcendental meditation in the hope of learning how to levitate.  At least not the Westerners who followed Jim Jones to Guyana, convinced he had divine powers based on a few parlor tricks.  

Luminon wrote:
As for what is more likely, I've seen extremely unlikely things to be true and very likely things to be false, and vice versa. This is something that can't be generalized. I can't use cultural standards as the measure. I've investigated things personally, some were true, some false, but rarely the result agreed with cultural standards.

So you prefer as a rule the less likely explanation to the more likely?

Luminon wrote:

In my experience, I did not see many completely fake gurus. To be precise, fake gurus yes, but with genuine powers.

"...fake gurus yes, but with genuine powers".  Do you actually consider that phrase intelligible?  By what means do you distinguish the fake from the genuine?

Luminon wrote:
I am not a normal person, my consciousness and some of my senses are very different from other people. I perceive the world differently and I'm in a group of sane, mature people with less or more similar perception. By our observations we were able to confirm a theory. This theory explains a lot about so-called supernatural phenomena. Our observations are only indirect evidence for things that we did not met personally, but very convincing, as a reality can be.
 

Well when you're ready to confirm your theories within the bounds of normalcy, get back with us.  

Are any christians watching this thread?  Do you accept the miracles attributed to sai baba?  If not, by what criteria do you reject his, but not those of jesus?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Are any

zarathustra wrote:

 

Are any christians watching this thread?  Do you accept the miracles attributed to sai baba?  If not, by what criteria do you reject his, but not those of jesus?

 

 

Obviously because Jesus was not video taped.

 

Really, that is what it comes down to.  We can't prove the miracles were fake, so they must be true.  stuff like Sai Baba doesn't matter because even a hardcore Christian can see the fakery.

 

It is a good point though, if a man really did perform 'miracles' how would anyone from an ancient society know any better when even modern humans are abused by magicians, psychics and homeopathists?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Your ideas

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your ideas are still not compatible with actually established theories - bulk manifestation of a structured physical object from another state, or conversion from some other form of matter, is way beyond anything even suggested by modern physics, let alone demonstrated.

It should be possible, according to string theory. If there are strings that vibrate, then they could change their vibration, right? If that is so, then the properties of matter would change too.
It's certainly more possible than matter appearing out of nowhere. I suspect a little that the observed particles seemingly appearing out of nowhere and back is an example of this.
But on macroscopic scale, as I already wrote in another topic, etheric atom is an atom that has much larger electron orbitals. This allows it to bond only with other etheric atoms, because dense-physical atoms' orbitals are too small to lock in. In this way, etheric atomic grid resembles a loose net that passes through physical matter easily. But the bonds are solid and the matter is pretty much an equivalent of common matter. Conversion back and forth is possible even by technical means.
 

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is nothing remotely surprising, considering the apparent triviality of the 'skills' involved, that there could be many doing the same thing as Sai.
Triviality? That requires one hell of a consciousness, clairvoyance and self-control to do. It requires to be conscious and in control not only in this physical dimension, but in a few more. In several lifetimes and reincarnations I might be able to do that too...
 

BobSpence1 wrote:
  How about that other Indian mystic who stated with absolute confidence that he could kill someone by an act of will, and absolutely failed to have any effect on a sceptic in front a TV audience when invited to try to at least make him ill or something?

The culture there is strongly disposed to believe such stuff, which makes it all too easy to convince them without all that much skill.

Let me introduce you to the astral dimension. It's the 2nd dimension from the bottom, ours neighbouring, and it's the source of delusion. It's a dimension that we got attuned to, when our species developed emotions. So we developed emotions, but became pretty vulnerable to astral delusions in the process. Anything that comes from astral dimension is not more trustworthy than random talk on the street or internet, it has a curious property of distorting all information coming through it. Mediums in contact with astral commonly write books full of love, Jesus, and vague or useless claims. It's very possible that the mystic was astrally deluded. Resistance to astral is developed through using mental skills.

Furthermore, killing someone through occult means is not so simple, in fact it's much more complicated than using a gun. There are occult attacks, but there also are defenses, resistance, and possibly a time delay. It takes time for events to precipitate from higher dimensions to this one lowest. Occult attacks usually look like coincidence, we've had a few cases of them.
Occultism is a hard work and serious business. But it is typical in one thing, it's usually done privately, in secrecy. People who go into media with their powers are usually not trustworthy. They do it for wrong motivation, and motivation is important. Pure motivation gives a great power and precision, and impure motivation usually attunes the person to astral dimension.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:BobSpence1

Luminon wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is nothing remotely surprising, considering the apparent triviality of the 'skills' involved, that there could be many doing the same thing as Sai.
Triviality? That requires one hell of a consciousness, clairvoyance and self-control to do. It requires to be conscious and in control not only in this physical dimension, but in a few more. In several lifetimes and reincarnations I might be able to do that too...

Well I think that BobSpence1 is correct in that acts are trivial if they appear to be supernatural yet are done with 'magic tricks'.  I can't imagine any deal of consciousness or self-control being sufficient to suspend physical laws.  Evidence to support this claim is needed; from the fair amount of research I've done into claims that have been tested (as opposed to simply claimed, of which there is no limit), nothing seems to stick.  What evidence supports these things (e.g. clairvoyance, self control, having enough of both being able to suspend physical laws and work miracles).

My theory into Sai is relatively simplistic; I think Sai as no more a magician than that one dude in the white mask that I've seen exposing magic tricks as simple illusions on tv.

Jesus is a bit more difficult, being as we have such little to go on.  I think Jesus could have been a complete fabrication or a legend.  There's always the potential for both Sai and Jesus to be the 'real deal,' true miracle workers, but since the evidence is so abhorrent (basically nothing more than statements of a claim, we're supposed to buy into it on their say-so and nothing else, made by anonymous sources decades after the fact, nonetheless), there's little reason to suppose Jesus is as he is widely purported.

So now what you're purporting is whole realms of the supernatural, basically claimed in the same fashion as the characters above.  Can you provide any evidence to support these assertions?

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
11111011 wrote:Well I think

11111011 wrote:

Well I think that BobSpence1 is correct in that acts are trivial if they appear to be supernatural yet are done with 'magic tricks'.  I can't imagine any deal of consciousness or self-control being sufficient to suspend physical laws.  Evidence to support this claim is needed; from the fair amount of research I've done into claims that have been tested (as opposed to simply claimed, of which there is no limit), nothing seems to stick.  What evidence supports these things (e.g. clairvoyance, self control, having enough of both being able to suspend physical laws and work miracles).
You think of consciousness as feedback loop in brain circuits. That's not quite correct. Consciousness is a form of energy, said simply. Brain is a receiver, in better or worse condition.
The only evidence I have available is observation of my daily experience and experience of dozens of people. I've had so many observations that it's possible to test theories.
The problem is technical. The reason why I and people around are succesful is because we trained all this in our past lives. Without training people are either insensitive as a block of wood, or losing contact with reality. Having a healthy relationship with the occult is not easy for most people.
Our claims can be verified by:
a) study of esoteric books that describe what brain centers are active for clairvoyance to work.
b) functional magnetic resonance imaging and other such a technologies for mapping brain activity.

I can't trust scientific institutions to test paranormal claims, because they failed to get any positive results.  It seems there is something wrong with the tests. For example, in my country there was test of dowsing ability. The result was negative, and since then there is no discussion on this topic.
But what kind of test it was? There was 1 dowser and 10 scientists. The dowser had to wait for several hours hungry and thirsty with 10 academic judges frowning at him. When the testing area was finally set up with water pipes underground and so on, the scared and tired dowser didn't find anything in 70%. It should be obvious that intuitive brain abilities require to use the whole brain. But stress makes this impossible. The so-called controlled environment can get easily out of control.

This is something like a stalemate. Skeptics have their holy magazines (Nature), what is in Nature is true and vice versa. And underground culture of alternative life style lives on it's own, but without funding, without advanced laboratory equipment, and without universal standards. It's hard to get any serious investigation in such a situation. Scientific truth requires peace or at least truce, not ideologic war. The progress is, I think, in curiosity and interest. You see, I love to observe scientific news, and I'd like to bring scientific standards (and funding) to my area of expertise. But try to find a scientist who is also interested, that's diffcult. And so neither scientists nor esotericists know how to conduct tests properly and scientists criticize something they're totally incompetent in.

11111011 wrote:
My theory into Sai is relatively simplistic; I think Sai as no more a magician than that one dude in the white mask that I've seen exposing magic tricks as simple illusions on tv.
If you saw the same dude I did, (the mask was somewhat striped) he did not explain any of the greater David Copperfield's tricks. No flying, no cutting himself in half, no walking through wall, no teleportation to Jamaica or from a demolished building.

11111011 wrote:
Jesus is a bit more difficult, being as we have such little to go on.  I think Jesus could have been a complete fabrication or a legend.  There's always the potential for both Sai and Jesus to be the 'real deal,' true miracle workers, but since the evidence is so abhorrent (basically nothing more than statements of a claim, we're supposed to buy into it on their say-so and nothing else, made by anonymous sources decades after the fact, nonetheless), there's little reason to suppose Jesus is as he is widely purported.
Well, my opinion is, that all religions have less or more the same core. Religious mission of Jesus was to demonstrate on his own life the mystical message of how divinity is achieved. Mystics understand that, and occultists can interpret the symbolism, but the crowds of believers have no idea what was it about. It wasn't about a religion, but about 5 stages that lead to complete synchronization of body, emotionality, mind and soul, and to physical control over them. The same message is in the myth about Dionysos or Horus, because people who spread it (including Jesus) thought that everyone should know.

11111011 wrote:
So now what you're purporting is whole realms of the supernatural, basically claimed in the same fashion as the characters above.  Can you provide any evidence to support these assertions?
No, not whole realms of the supernatural. I mean dimensions as string theory predicts them. The world is multi-dimensional. There are basic natural forces that interact with each other not only in this dimension, but in every possible way in every dimension. When the natural forces act multi-dimensionally, then there occurs something unusual, and that is called supernatural.
Dark matter and energy was predicted by esotericists many decades before it was discovered. Esotericism practically completely agrees with science, it only adds the emphasis on how consciousness and life has multi-dimensional nature, instead of mortally biologic. A great deal of spiritual or supernatural phenomena is explained by multi-dimensional esoteric theory, but that includes also scientific mysteries like dark matter and energy or string theory, life on other planets, and so on.
Demonstrating this is not easy, because esotericists don't have access to technology and funding. To gain that access, they have to give evidence, but for that they need technology and funding. There is evidence, but you can't rely on institutions for that , you have to go out for it. Theoretically, I could grab your hands and zap you with energy like evangelic preachers do with "fire of holy spirit". So far it worked well, but it really depends on individual sensitivity. Or, if you have heard, in december 2008 Benjamin Creme announced that there will be 4 big UFOs parading on our skies for people to see. Well, and that is still true, many people and even some media already noticed. There is so much of evidence that it will take a while to look through it.
http://share-international.org/maitreya/Ma_starsign.htm
These "stars" as they are called were seen above most of world's countries and noticed by newspapers and televisions. Be sure to also read the FAQ down below.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: you know who

iwbiek wrote:

 

you know who could've made mincemeat out of sai baba?  johnny carson.

 

 

 

I love this clip, it was one of the ones I remember from my search for the spoon benders about 10 years ago.  After watching some david blane tricks I really wanted to figure out wtf this guy was doing.  In the end, it's all illusions.    Chris Angel can walk through walls, walk on water, and crush cell phones into a bear bottles fully intact.  He does some things that I haven't been able to figure out through research and hypothesis.  He could certainly convince primitive people he was a "god" with some of his illusions.    But he cannot walk on water in a controlled environement, he cannot walk up the side of a building on command.  He can't because he can't, and he openly admits these are highly advanced illusions.

 

   Luminon, I love you man, you really believe.  I really tried to find some evidence for supernatural activities/powers people had in my life.  I met falung gong practitioners who claimed to do many things (live hundreds of years/fly/move things without physically touching them etc...)  but in the end nothing was ever shown to be true.  I travelled to thailand and met with a notoriously good fortune teller.  He asked me to right down the follwing so that he couldn't see and to fold the paper and put it in MY pocket (he never saw or touched it):

A)-My first name

B)-My last name

C)-My date of birth

D)-City/Country of birth

E)-Occupation

F)-Name of first love

 

  He says "I will now see what you see and write the same thing down, If I can will you give be 2000 baht?" about $60.  I said sure, and surely enough he looked in my eye and wrote down the exact same thing I wrote to all 6 questions.  I was stumped, turns out this was a real simple trick and most of the locals knew how it was done.  He has a partner watching your paper from behind you with binoculars, he then relays the message through ear piece  (Man had long hair covering his ears).  I just wonder why it is that if their is anyone with some supernatural "powers" it can never be reproduced in the lab.  I guess if it was, it would no longer be supernatural, it would be unknown science that we need to further understand and explain.  So what qualifies as supernatural exaclty?  If it's super natural (telequenesis) then their would have to be no notural explanation for how it works, but if we could explain how it works, then it wouldn't be supernatural it would just be new science.  So what heck is supernatural anyways? 

  

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:  

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
   Luminon, I love you man, you really believe.  I really tried to find some evidence for supernatural activities/powers people had in my life.  I met falung gong practitioners who claimed to do many things (live hundreds of years/fly/move things without physically touching them etc...)  but in the end nothing was ever shown to be true.
It's not like I believe. I work with such things every day. I don't mean telekinesis or flying. My philosophy is different, I don't think the gifts are important, the donator itself is.

 

Among other things, I am sensitive to aether. Always have been. I'm a freakin' walking esoteric textbook. People read there about chakras, energetic vortexes of etheric body. I have them, I can control them like a freakin' butt hole. If I fire them up, it's like having a hole in your body. Middle of chest or forehead, as I please, it has some interesting physical feedback. Etheric body is bigger than physical, it's like being covered in a long, soft fur of sensitive whiskers. I don't know what kind of drug you have to take to feel like I do in normal, daily life. But if you open an esoteric book and read up on human constitution, chakras and stuff, that's totally me in there. I've been always like that, much before I got to any spiritual books. Later I discovered such a people are not uncommon, but it's something they have to learn on courses and then they often work as healers.
So obviously, I've seen so much of "impossible" in my daily life, that my definition of the impossible is somewhere else. I don't always know if claims are true or not, but I can't reject them right away if I know they're possible.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
I travelled to thailand and met with a notoriously good fortune teller.  He asked me to right down the follwing so that he couldn't see and to fold the paper and put it in MY pocket (he never saw or touched it):

A)-My first name

B)-My last name

C)-My date of birth

D)-City/Country of birth

E)-Occupation

F)-Name of first love

 

  He says "I will now see what you see and write the same thing down, If I can will you give be 2000 baht?" about $60.  I said sure, and surely enough he looked in my eye and wrote down the exact same thing I wrote to all 6 questions.  I was stumped, turns out this was a real simple trick and most of the locals knew how it was done.  He has a partner watching your paper from behind you with binoculars, he then relays the message through ear piece  (Man had long hair covering his ears). 

Heh, nice story and congratulations to a good debunk. I heard about fortune tellers who do pretty much the same thing. Only they do it in a small apartment where there's no room for a guy with binoculars. And they don't bother with paper but tell what you are right away. My dad is quite good at it too, he's an astrologer and he doesn't bother with theory. He uses an intuitive technique of "feeling up" the person and can get into some nice details.


NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
I just wonder why it is that if their is anyone with some supernatural "powers" it can never be reproduced in the lab.  I guess if it was, it would no longer be supernatural, it would be unknown science that we need to further understand and explain.  So what qualifies as supernatural exaclty?  If it's super natural (telequenesis) then their would have to be no notural explanation for how it works, but if we could explain how it works, then it wouldn't be supernatural it would just be new science.  So what heck is supernatural anyways? 

Why it can't be reproduced in a lab? Firstly, because it's usually a person that they study, and person's ability reacts very badly to stress. Being in stress pretty much shuts off the brain and redirects the power to fight or flight primitive circuitry, leaving the person useless. It's not my case, my etheric sensitivity works always on 100%, in all circumstances. The only question is how to detect it (brain scan?) and here we go, there's the evidence.

Secondly, nobody agrees on what we're trying to measure. Psychics have their theories and jargon, but none of that gives sense to scientists, they want everything worded out perfectly on a silver plate. If not, they just turn on their brain centre for ignoring mumbo jumbo speech. Scientists would be able to make a pretty good methodology and find out ways of actual measuring, but they usually lack intuitive abilities to interpret psychic jargon in scientific terms. The words may be different, but the scientist must rise above the words and evaluate the pattern, structure and relationships in described system, that will identify it with already known theories. Shortly, it's a fuckin' language barrier.

Thirdly, what you ask is a control over the supernatural. The supernatural world is like a company. Many people work there as flunkies, but only few have some real power. IOW, many people hear voices in their head, but only a few can get any useful information from them. What you ask is taking a power from one dimension and manifesting it into this one. And people who have some real power are secretive and don't need money. (I know a few of them) Powerless people are often greedy and are also easily deluded or overconfident, this is why they don't hesitate to try things like Randi's supernatural challenge.

Fourthly, believe it or not, but being a scientist doesn't magically make one mentally flexible. Scientists can be closed-minded, conservative and block-headed just like everyone else. We here have a society of them, their founders and leaders are literally communistic fossils that infiltrate government and media and push their standards on the nation. They stand for stuff like nuclear energetics, genetically modified food, vaccination and their sole truth. They speak against esoteric disciplines, but their arguments are ridiculous, because they didn't bother to study them. So they only say their simple "NO NO" loudly academies, government and media, which is by the way a direct violation of their written club tenets.

A typical example of the second point is your problem with the word "supernatural". Each and every one of skeptics and rational people seems to have a problem with that. People of your kind seem to need long, complicated definitions of what is obvious to a person with common sense. The word "supernatural" is just how we people think about a phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself. It's a majority's cultural opinion on stuff. It's nothing important or obligatory, really.

Science is welcome to explain as much as it can, but not "explain away." "Explaining things away" is a lousy job, because it doesn't allow to employ things like telekinesis in industry. The science with future is, that develops in harmony with esoteric theory. For example, dark matter and string theory are good examples of that. Some Stephen Hawking's theories are just plain nonsense. If scientists would consult their theories with a good esotericist, they would spare much time otherwise wasted on dead-ends.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, I'm in no position

Luminon, I'm in no position to debate you on your esoteric beliefs, and don't really have any intention to, I like you dude.  So i'll make it simple, my question was why can't we crack down on these "super natural" phenomona in the lab?  You said earlier: 

luminon wrote:

Among other things, I am sensitive to aether. Always have been. I'm a freakin' walking esoteric textbook. People read there about chakras, energetic vortexes of etheric body. I have them, I can control them like a freakin' butt hole.

  So do YOU not have some "supernatural" powers?  You claim to be able to control them 100% of the time regardless of your environment (noise, stress etc...)  So...  Can't we do some tests on you???  Can't you reproduce any "supernatural" tricks in the lab?  Like I said, I've been on the search for along time, you could be the guy that proves "this shit" is real.  I truly ask humbly and honestly, wouldn't you according to what I understand of what you've said have some sort or demontrable "powers" of some kind that could be measured? 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Luminon, I'm in no position to debate you on your esoteric beliefs, and don't really have any intention to, I like you dude.  So i'll make it simple, my question was why can't we crack down on these "super natural" phenomona in the lab?  You said earlier: 

luminon wrote:

Among other things, I am sensitive to aether. Always have been. I'm a freakin' walking esoteric textbook. People read there about chakras, energetic vortexes of etheric body. I have them, I can control them like a freakin' butt hole.

  So do YOU not have some "supernatural" powers?  You claim to be able to control them 100% of the time regardless of your environment (noise, stress etc...)  So...  Can't we do some tests on you???  Can't you reproduce any "supernatural" tricks in the lab?  Like I said, I've been on the search for along time, you could be the guy that proves "this shit" is real.  I truly ask humbly and honestly, wouldn't you according to what I understand of what you've said have some sort or demontrable "powers" of some kind that could be measured? 

Yeah, I really do. I don't have only passive etheric perception. It's very easy for me to gather a cloud of etheric matter (it's a compound of metals), that is responsive to my mind - it's technically a form of telekinesis. But telekinesis of matter finer than gas. The positive message is, I haven't yet been in a condition in which it wouldn't work. I was able to gather some scientific data on how it works, and I'm still in awe. It seems to violate standard theory of how radioactive decay works. And it has other awesome aspects.

The true challenge is to do the research on how to research it. Etheric matter is today mostly not yet discovered and I'd love to play some role in discovering it. I have no idea what are today's science's measuring possibilities. Maybe it's something that can be measured even today, I don't know. I have only very rudimentary idea about that, I'd need to have a consultation with some scientist. But I'm sure that it can be measured through measuring activity of my brain. Modern brain scanning techniques allow even to identify single thoughts. It should be obvious on the scan. But I'd prefer to research it through means of physics, the scan should serve as initial evidence to show that it has merit.

I have asked a local university with fMRI machine for a scan as a volunteer they searched for, but they didn't respond. So I'm done for, there is nowhere else around I could easily get tested. You see, I'd need a personal consultation with a good physicist or neurologist. And also guarantees that would make me something more than a lab rat. I have not only the ability, but theoretical data on that (including scientific details) and 20 years of experience. I should have some deciding power in the project. Probably several years from now I'll go to Prague and hang around the scientists, invite some on beer and get some info from them. It's unlikely I could do anything yet, without money and academic titles.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon

Luminon wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Luminon, I'm in no position to debate you on your esoteric beliefs, and don't really have any intention to, I like you dude.  So i'll make it simple, my question was why can't we crack down on these "super natural" phenomona in the lab?  You said earlier: 

luminon wrote:

Among other things, I am sensitive to aether. Always have been. I'm a freakin' walking esoteric textbook. People read there about chakras, energetic vortexes of etheric body. I have them, I can control them like a freakin' butt hole.

  So do YOU not have some "supernatural" powers?  You claim to be able to control them 100% of the time regardless of your environment (noise, stress etc...)  So...  Can't we do some tests on you???  Can't you reproduce any "supernatural" tricks in the lab?  Like I said, I've been on the search for along time, you could be the guy that proves "this shit" is real.  I truly ask humbly and honestly, wouldn't you according to what I understand of what you've said have some sort or demontrable "powers" of some kind that could be measured? 

Yeah, I really do. I don't have only passive etheric perception. It's very easy for me to gather a cloud of etheric matter (it's a compound of metals), that is responsive to my mind - it's technically a form of telekinesis. But telekinesis of matter finer than gas. The positive message is, I haven't yet been in a condition in which it wouldn't work. I was able to gather some scientific data on how it works, and I'm still in awe. It seems to violate standard theory of how radioactive decay works. And it has other awesome aspects.

The true challenge is to do the research on how to research it. Etheric matter is today mostly not yet discovered and I'd love to play some role in discovering it. I have no idea what are today's science's measuring possibilities. Maybe it's something that can be measured even today, I don't know. I have only very rudimentary idea about that, I'd need to have a consultation with some scientist. But I'm sure that it can be measured through measuring activity of my brain. Modern brain scanning techniques allow even to identify single thoughts. It should be obvious on the scan. But I'd prefer to research it through means of physics, the scan should serve as initial evidence to show that it has merit.

I have asked a local university with fMRI machine for a scan as a volunteer they searched for, but they didn't respond. So I'm done for, there is nowhere else around I could easily get tested. You see, I'd need a personal consultation with a good physicist or neurologist. And also guarantees that would make me something more than a lab rat. I have not only the ability, but theoretical data on that (including scientific details) and 20 years of experience. I should have some deciding power in the project. Probably several years from now I'll go to Prague and hang around the scientists, invite some on beer and get some info from them. It's unlikely I could do anything yet, without money and academic titles.

   So you can gather clowds of esoteric matter, so what exactly can you do with it, and how do you know your gathering clowds of it?  Your a very bright kid, you should be involved these scientific studies this stuff.  I know you might say trying to prove this stuff to be true to esoteric layman like myself may be trivial, but don't you think it would be important for people to know that this stuff is real?  I've heard the reccuring philosophy preventing people with "supernatural powers" to show me what they can do.  From the Falun gong practitioners to the buddhist monks the awnser usually went something like "Enyone who is enlightened enough and has the mental disipline to control these "super powers" would never be pedestrian enough to show them to someone."  Ofcourse this won't do.  I'd like to see something where 20 average people like me walk in the room and nothing happens, you walk in and all the machines start acting batshit crazy like were in the bermuda trianlge.  That would be some cool stuff.

   I watched a documentary on people with special "powers" inlcuding autistic savants, and other marvels.  One girl had this condition I don't remeber what it was called but only a handful of people have it.  Her senses merge together, she sees colours when she hears sounds, she sees colours for words, colours everywhere, every drop of rain makes a different colour.  Not much of a superpower but they were able to point out the diference in her brain when compared to others, and show the basic mechanism that caused her lifelong lightshow.  

   Maybe you should call Micheal Shermer.  He might be able to get you hooked up with the right people to test your "powers" for free, it is what he does.  I'd just like to see some conclusive evidence that people like you (people who cliam to be able to manifest some sort of energy from another dimnension or the like) are actually able to conjure up this esoteric matter, chi, energy, whatever it has been classified by the believer.  If your esoteric matter can affect our reality it must be able to be tested!       


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Luminon wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Luminon, I'm in no position to debate you on your esoteric beliefs, and don't really have any intention to, I like you dude.  So i'll make it simple, my question was why can't we crack down on these "super natural" phenomona in the lab?  You said earlier: 

luminon wrote:

Among other things, I am sensitive to aether. Always have been. I'm a freakin' walking esoteric textbook. People read there about chakras, energetic vortexes of etheric body. I have them, I can control them like a freakin' butt hole.

  So do YOU not have some "supernatural" powers?  You claim to be able to control them 100% of the time regardless of your environment (noise, stress etc...)  So...  Can't we do some tests on you???  Can't you reproduce any "supernatural" tricks in the lab?  Like I said, I've been on the search for along time, you could be the guy that proves "this shit" is real.  I truly ask humbly and honestly, wouldn't you according to what I understand of what you've said have some sort or demontrable "powers" of some kind that could be measured? 

Yeah, I really do. I don't have only passive etheric perception. It's very easy for me to gather a cloud of etheric matter (it's a compound of metals), that is responsive to my mind - it's technically a form of telekinesis. But telekinesis of matter finer than gas. The positive message is, I haven't yet been in a condition in which it wouldn't work. I was able to gather some scientific data on how it works, and I'm still in awe. It seems to violate standard theory of how radioactive decay works. And it has other awesome aspects.

The true challenge is to do the research on how to research it. Etheric matter is today mostly not yet discovered and I'd love to play some role in discovering it. I have no idea what are today's science's measuring possibilities. Maybe it's something that can be measured even today, I don't know. I have only very rudimentary idea about that, I'd need to have a consultation with some scientist. But I'm sure that it can be measured through measuring activity of my brain. Modern brain scanning techniques allow even to identify single thoughts. It should be obvious on the scan. But I'd prefer to research it through means of physics, the scan should serve as initial evidence to show that it has merit.

I have asked a local university with fMRI machine for a scan as a volunteer they searched for, but they didn't respond. So I'm done for, there is nowhere else around I could easily get tested. You see, I'd need a personal consultation with a good physicist or neurologist. And also guarantees that would make me something more than a lab rat. I have not only the ability, but theoretical data on that (including scientific details) and 20 years of experience. I should have some deciding power in the project. Probably several years from now I'll go to Prague and hang around the scientists, invite some on beer and get some info from them. It's unlikely I could do anything yet, without money and academic titles.

   So you can gather clowds of esoteric matter, so what exactly can you do with it, and how do you know your gathering clowds of it?  Your a very bright kid, you should be involved these scientific studies this stuff.  I know you might say trying to prove this stuff to be true to esoteric layman like myself may be trivial, but don't you think it would be important for people to know that this stuff is real?  I've heard the reccuring philosophy preventing people with "supernatural powers" to show me what they can do.  From the Falun gong practitioners to the buddhist monks the awnser usually went something like "Enyone who is enlightened enough and has the mental disipline to control these "super powers" would never be pedestrian enough to show them to someone."  Ofcourse this won't do.  I'd like to see something where 20 average people like me walk in the room and nothing happens, you walk in and all the machines start acting batshit crazy like were in the bermuda trianlge.  That would be some cool stuff.

   I watched a documentary on people with special "powers" inlcuding autistic savants, and other marvels.  One girl had this condition I don't remeber what it was called but only a handful of people have it.  Her senses merge together, she sees colours when she hears sounds, she sees colours for words, colours everywhere, every drop of rain makes a different colour.  Not much of a superpower but they were able to point out the diference in her brain when compared to others, and show the basic mechanism that caused her lifelong lightshow.  

   Maybe you should call Micheal Shermer.  He might be able to get you hooked up with the right people to test your "powers" for free, it is what he does.  I'd just like to see some conclusive evidence that people like you (people who cliam to be able to manifest some sort of energy from another dimnension or the like) are actually able to conjure up this esoteric matter, chi, energy, whatever it has been classified by the believer.  If your esoteric matter can affect our reality it must be able to be tested!       

 

There isn't anything to test crazy.  He is controlling something 'finer than gas'.  When you press him you will find out that the matter he is controlling is something only special people like him can see, touch or experience.  There could be a ball of it in front of you right now and you wouldn't ever know unless you were special like Luminon.  His belief is reinforced by his own subjective experiences and those in his belief system, but never by anything objective.  When asked for external verification he'll tell you about all the other people who can do whacky things, but that is like going to a fundy theist camp and asking about angel stories.

I like Luminon too, he's great, but he isn't willing to subject his beliefs to objective falsification.  The MRI thing is a red herring because all it could show is that he's thinking about something, it wouldn't tell anyone if he was actually accomplishing something with his woo.  I've (and others have as well) given him methods of falsification for some of his beliefs that are almost free and would take a weekend of his time, but he just starts making excuses.

 

If there isn't a giant social upheaval soon though he'll have some explaining to do, since I did pin him down on that belief.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I'll respond later, now only

I'll respond later, now only to this.

mellestad wrote:

 There isn't anything to test crazy.  He is controlling something 'finer than gas'.  When you press him you will find out that the matter he is controlling is something only special people like him can see, touch or experience.  There could be a ball of it in front of you right now and you wouldn't ever know unless you were special like Luminon.  His belief is reinforced by his own subjective experiences and those in his belief system, but never by anything objective.  When asked for external verification he'll tell you about all the other people who can do whacky things, but that is like going to a fundy theist camp and asking about angel stories.

Hey, stay cool. I have critical thinking and I saw a plenty of external evidence that it's not just my hallucination. Once I met an industrial businessman who was also a powerful occultist. When I gathered some etheric cloud in my hands, just out of boredom as he was talking, he stopped, looked at me and asked what the hell I am doing with that thing aroud me. I explained that I mean no harm, just an idle exercise. He calmed down, and then we tried some experiments that proved the existence of paranormal to another (completely normal) woman that came along with him. That man had no reason to trick me, he was a freakin' millionaire and very, very busy in his business schedule.
Furthermore, yes, it may be quite a rare technique that I use to gather etheric matter, but etheric perception is relatively common and can be trained. Etheric body, although subtle, still belongs to the realm of physical matter. Anyone can learn to use it, as they can learn to use long forgotten belly or facial muscles, as they can learn to drive, play  a piano or speak foreign language. For the people I knew it's easier than that. Young generation learns etheric perception on their own under the name of "psi-ball" technique. The only difference is, where they create a ball, I make a plastic cloud of matter that can be bigger than me and have any shape. But those that can do it, can also play together, like throwing the ball to each other.
 

mellestad wrote:
I like Luminon too, he's great, but he isn't willing to subject his beliefs to objective falsification.  The MRI thing is a red herring because all it could show is that he's thinking about something, it wouldn't tell anyone if he was actually accomplishing something with his woo.  I've (and others have as well) given him methods of falsification for some of his beliefs that are almost free and would take a weekend of his time, but he just starts making excuses.

If there isn't a giant social upheaval soon though he'll have some explaining to do, since I did pin him down on that belief.

Excuse me, but OBJECTIVE - FALSIFICATION? So there's only one thing that can be done, and that is falsification? You call this objective? Evaluation perhaps. I did not make up anything, it was already with me when I was a small kid. In 20 years I tried ways to find out what it is about, and partially I did. But I'd like more, what's the scientific nature of that phenomenon. What is my brain doing in the process. How can I receive a realistically strong tactile feedback, when for most of people there's nothing there. By the way, it's quite a powerful tool for influencing the bodily nerve and endocrine system.

Hey, I live in a poor industrial region of former Soviet block country, I'm an unemployed student and so on. I'm not yet free to do everything I'd like to, I need to build some living standard first. People can get homeless if they fail, and so far, they failed to prove every paranormal claim. So there is a great chance that it will require multiple tries and big preparation. There is nowhere to hurry. I lived with that for 20 years and I can live a few more. But until then, I'd like to prepare myself better, I'd like to consult with some experts but in friendly, non-commital sense. I'd like a consultation, not having them saying things like "prove yourself immediately where nobody yet succeed, or you are a quack and I'm not talking to you." I don't want to end up like that guy who deciphered WOW signal but ended up homeless, (and probably dead by now) because scientists just ignored him (because it's impossible to decipher WOW signal) and didn't pass his discovery any further.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I'll respond

Luminon wrote:

I'll respond later, now only to this.

mellestad wrote:

 There isn't anything to test crazy.  He is controlling something 'finer than gas'.  When you press him you will find out that the matter he is controlling is something only special people like him can see, touch or experience.  There could be a ball of it in front of you right now and you wouldn't ever know unless you were special like Luminon.  His belief is reinforced by his own subjective experiences and those in his belief system, but never by anything objective.  When asked for external verification he'll tell you about all the other people who can do whacky things, but that is like going to a fundy theist camp and asking about angel stories.

Hey, stay cool. I have critical thinking and I saw a plenty of external evidence that it's not just my hallucination. Once I met an industrial businessman who was also a powerful occultist. When I gathered some etheric cloud in my hands, just out of boredom as he was talking, he stopped, looked at me and asked what the hell I am doing with that thing aroud me. I explained that I mean no harm, just an idle exercise. He calmed down, and then we tried some experiments that proved the existence of paranormal to another (completely normal) woman that came along with him. That man had no reason to trick me, he was a freakin' millionaire and very, very busy in his business schedule.
Furthermore, yes, it may be quite a rare technique that I use to gather etheric matter, but etheric perception is relatively common and can be trained. Etheric body, although subtle, still belongs to the realm of physical matter. Anyone can learn to use it, as they can learn to use long forgotten belly or facial muscles, as they can learn to drive, play  a piano or speak foreign language. For the people I knew it's easier than that. Young generation learns etheric perception on their own under the name of "psi-ball" technique. The only difference is, where they create a ball, I make a plastic cloud of matter that can be bigger than me and have any shape. But those that can do it, can also play together, like throwing the ball to each other.
 

mellestad wrote:
I like Luminon too, he's great, but he isn't willing to subject his beliefs to objective falsification.  The MRI thing is a red herring because all it could show is that he's thinking about something, it wouldn't tell anyone if he was actually accomplishing something with his woo.  I've (and others have as well) given him methods of falsification for some of his beliefs that are almost free and would take a weekend of his time, but he just starts making excuses.

If there isn't a giant social upheaval soon though he'll have some explaining to do, since I did pin him down on that belief.

Excuse me, but OBJECTIVE - FALSIFICATION? So there's only one thing that can be done, and that is falsification? You call this objective? Evaluation perhaps. I did not make up anything, it was already with me when I was a small kid. In 20 years I tried ways to find out what it is about, and partially I did. But I'd like more, what's the scientific nature of that phenomenon. What is my brain doing in the process. How can I receive a realistically strong tactile feedback, when for most of people there's nothing there. By the way, it's quite a powerful tool for influencing the bodily nerve and endocrine system.

Hey, I live in a poor industrial region of former Soviet block country, I'm an unemployed student and so on. I'm not yet free to do everything I'd like to, I need to build some living standard first. People can get homeless if they fail, and so far, they failed to prove every paranormal claim. So there is a great chance that it will require multiple tries and big preparation. There is nowhere to hurry. I lived with that for 20 years and I can live a few more. But until then, I'd like to prepare myself better, I'd like to consult with some experts but in friendly, non-commital sense. I'd like a consultation, not having them saying things like "prove yourself immediately where nobody yet succeed, or you are a quack and I'm not talking to you." I don't want to end up like that guy who deciphered WOW signal but ended up homeless, (and probably dead by now) because scientists just ignored him (because it's impossible to decipher WOW signal) and didn't pass his discovery any further.

 

I'd just like to point out that your response corresponds rather marvelously with my little rant.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:  

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
   So you can gather clowds of esoteric matter, so what exactly can you do with it, and how do you know your gathering clowds of it? 
  It needs just one thought and the tangible jelly-like cloud precipitates from free etheric world around. Then it continues moving, shaping and changing structure according to my thoughts. With idle or unofcused thoughts it only lazily sways and swirls, until it dissolves after a time. (about an hour) But with directed thoughts it quickly reacts and shapes like... well, quite unlike anything that exists in the world. I'd compare it to a living protoplasm in zero gravity, that can change it's density from water-like to rubber-like. So what is it good for? My information is, that it consists of highly conductive metals (like gold), then one radioactive element and my own mental energy. I know the exact compostition.
It's a conductor for energies of etheric or higher dimensions. It can be used for making protective shields around body, to heal, or to make special constructions that exchange energies between lower and higher dimensions. (this is some hardcore occultism) It can be also misused - this is I suspect something like what evangelic preachers do, when they knock people out unconscious. I don't know how about other people, but this matter has a great effect on my nerve system. Careless playing with it may cause pretty bad headache. Of course, etheric body itself is a chapter on it's own.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Your a very bright kid, you should be involved these scientific studies this stuff.  I know you might say trying to prove this stuff to be true to esoteric layman like myself may be trivial, but don't you think it would be important for people to know that this stuff is real?  I've heard the reccuring philosophy preventing people with "supernatural powers" to show me what they can do.  From the Falun gong practitioners to the buddhist monks the awnser usually went something like "Enyone who is enlightened enough and has the mental disipline to control these "super powers" would never be pedestrian enough to show them to someone."  Ofcourse this won't do.  I'd like to see something where 20 average people like me walk in the room and nothing happens, you walk in and all the machines start acting batshit crazy like were in the bermuda trianlge.  That would be some cool stuff.

Yeah, it would be cool. I already convinced one my classmate at middle school, well, I didn't do anything, I just told him, he learned the technique himself and then later I positively examined him. I don't have a problem with demonstrating etheric matter to anyone who is interested and can be trusted. Many occultists are highly secretive, but they also didn't achieve any dialogue with scientific community. The main problem is, that I don't have enough trustworthy people for experiments. There are either normal people that don't have intellectual capacity to handle this, or those who already know and aren't so interested.
It's my daily routine, but a fresh look might bring some new ideas. Local atheists also know the scientific method very well, they might also know how academic inquiry and funding works.
But I want to state one thing, this ability of mine doesn't make me in any way superior. It's ancient technique that people used much before recorded history for certain ritually-energetic purposes. Once I master an ability, then showing off that ability doesn't make me worthy of awe. It has a great scientific value, but it gives me no right as "inventor" of etheric realm. Etheric world was always here and every good esotericist knows about it, it's not my discovery. And I know that showing off my inherited abilities will not lead to my personal progress. Currently there are much more important global needs. No amount of ether will save us from famine, ecologic catastrophes and badly designed economic and political system. That's my main job, everything else is an odd job. All areas of life, politics, science and spirituality are connected, and I can't pull off any big project before the world is ready. And I don't think I'd be allowed to violate that schedule, no true esotericist is alone and without global plan.

It's obvious that discovery of etheric matter will change all the worldview. It will have enormous implications for physics, biology, medicine, exopolitics, and even psychology and religions. All life is either partially or fully etheric, and this discovery will reveal another level of the universe, very friendly to life. But everything can be misused, and specially technology. I'd like the war stopped first, before technological revolution. There are publically known clear, easy and simple steps to solve global problems, it's just a question of time. Until then I can do investigation, preparation, minor tests, and so on. It's common that scientific work takes many years before it's published.
 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
    I watched a documentary on people with special "powers" inlcuding autistic savants, and other marvels.  One girl had this condition I don't remeber what it was called but only a handful of people have it.  Her senses merge together, she sees colours when she hears sounds, she sees colours for words, colours everywhere, every drop of rain makes a different colour.  Not much of a superpower but they were able to point out the diference in her brain when compared to others, and show the basic mechanism that caused her lifelong lightshow. 
Wonderful! There must be something in my brain that also works differently, and if contemporary science is able to identify that, there's a point to start.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
    Maybe you should call Micheal Shermer.  He might be able to get you hooked up with the right people to test your "powers" for free, it is what he does.  I'd just like to see some conclusive evidence that people like you (people who cliam to be able to manifest some sort of energy from another dimnension or the like) are actually able to conjure up this esoteric matter, chi, energy, whatever it has been classified by the believer.  If your esoteric matter can affect our reality it must be able to be tested!       

I'll check him out (I did already) and probably send an e-mail. There is a lot of information I need. Something I could ask here on this forum, there are scientists and other well-informed people. But firstly, where did you read about that Shermer's activity? I'd like to read about it too. Hopefully it's not as succesful like Randi's paranormal challenge. In that challenge any victory is a supernatural event on it's own.

mellestad wrote:
I'd just like to point out that your response corresponds rather marvelously with my little rant.
But I'm correct, you'd like to see me going on Mission: Impossible and get discredited like all people that ever tried Randi's paranormal challenge. No way! This need an investigation on how to perform a research, which will demonstrate the existence of etheric matter. Investigation must be private, research must be private, and when both will go well, then I can publically demonstrate the results. Only naive or desperate people would risk their reputation in conclusive public tests without being prepared. This is not a challenge or contest, this can't go public unless the success is achieved beforehand and then only routinely replicated. Those who fail will get labelled as woo-mongers and no reputation means no funds and no future. 
Is that the situation, as I suspect?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:mellestad

Luminon wrote:

mellestad wrote:
I'd just like to point out that your response corresponds rather marvelously with my little rant.
But I'm correct, you'd like to see me going on Mission: Impossible and get discredited like all people that ever tried Randi's paranormal challenge. No way! This need an investigation on how to perform a research, which will demonstrate the existence of etheric matter. Investigation must be private, research must be private, and when both will go well, then I can publically demonstrate the results. Only naive or desperate people would risk their reputation in conclusive public tests without being prepared. This is not a challenge or contest, this can't go public unless the success is achieved beforehand and then only routinely replicated. Those who fail will get labelled as woo-mongers and no reputation means no funds and no future. 
Is that the situation, as I suspect?

 

I don't care if it is public or not, and I'd be thrilled and amazed if you could create a scenario that is objective and falsifiable, then prove you can do your woo under controls even if it were just between us.

Unfortunately, you and others like you have had thousands of years to come up with an experiment to prove you can do the woo you claim you can do, and us skeptics are still waiting.  I've personally given you setups to prove aura-reading that I would accept as proof.  They are not expensive, all you need is some woo-people and some test subjects for a day, a video camera and some pens and paper combined with some simple rules and a couple observers to make sure no-one is cheating.  No tricks, no making it harder than it should be.  You didn't complain about the setup, you made excuses.  Not enough money (for a test that is almost free), no-one would believe you, conspiracy theories, better to be silent, etc. etc.

If you people could do what you claim to do it would literally be trivial to prove it.  Sai Baba is no different, there is zero reason why he couldn't put a simple objective test with good controls together and use the results to spread his message to the entire world.  So why doesn't he?  Why has no-one, *ever* done so in the history of the world?  Because it is bullshit, that's why.  I wish it wasn't, but it is.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon

Luminon wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
   So you can gather clowds of esoteric matter, so what exactly can you do with it, and how do you know your gathering clowds of it? 
  It needs just one thought and the tangible jelly-like cloud precipitates from free etheric world around. Then it continues moving, shaping and changing structure according to my thoughts. With idle or unofcused thoughts it only lazily sways and swirls, until it dissolves after a time. (about an hour) But with directed thoughts it quickly reacts and shapes like... well, quite unlike anything that exists in the world. I'd compare it to a living protoplasm in zero gravity, that can change it's density from water-like to rubber-like. So what is it good for? My information is, that it consists of highly conductive metals (like gold), then one radioactive element and my own mental energy. I know the exact compostition.
It's a conductor for energies of etheric or higher dimensions. It can be used for making protective shields around body, to heal, or to make special constructions that exchange energies between lower and higher dimensions. (this is some hardcore occultism) It can be also misused - this is I suspect something like what evangelic preachers do, when they knock people out unconscious. I don't know how about other people, but this matter has a great effect on my nerve system. Careless playing with it may cause pretty bad headache. Of course, etheric body itself is a chapter on it's own.

I imagine you mean your cloud of gold is purely in the esoteric etheric realm, right?

 

If it is in the 'real' world you could test it by measuring conductivity in the air, or using a spectrometer on an air sample to test for particulates.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:
Unfortunately, you and others like you have had thousands of years to come up with an experiment to prove you can do the woo you claim you can do, and us skeptics are still waiting. 

My information is, that the kingdom of woo was hidden for many millenia. There was a war (long story) that ended with stalemate and exile. That exile is currently ending and all occultists worth something prepare themselves for the great comeback and setting human evolution back on the right track. During the dark age there was only an ocassional enlightened guy sent to some area to make some miracles and preach a little culturally adapted version of the same occult teaching. This is how religions and myths arose. But the idea never was to omit technology and science. The comeback is only possible after this huge scientific revolution. Then occult knowledge will be understood by science, and so science will rule over everything, woo and religions alike. But first someone must forbid all wars, redistribute food, and remake global financial system. None of the masters of w. are so foolish to give the world weapons for World War 3. Politics, economy and humanitarianism is currently their main effort. Therefore it should be my main effort too. Of course I want to make preparations to research ether, but don't expect me to drop out of my study of political system and administration.


mellestad wrote:
If you people could do what you claim to do it would literally be trivial to prove it.  Sai Baba is no different, there is zero reason why he couldn't put a simple objective test with good controls together and use the results to spread his message to the entire world.  So why doesn't he?  Why has no-one, *ever* done so in the history of the world?  Because it is bullshit, that's why.  I wish it wasn't, but it is.

We people aren't all the same! In my group (dozens of people) there is nobody who sees aura. I have tactile etheric perception. Someone else has a good intuition. Someone else is a scholar. Another one has Reiki. And another one has astral voices in head, this one we shun. And so on. Someone said that classifying atheists is like herding cats, but it's just like that with occultists. We are not standardized.
What you need is one or a few people with reliable ability that won't stop working when they're nervous (like me) and then find out a method how to test it.

mellestad wrote:

I imagine you mean your cloud of gold is purely in the esoteric etheric realm, right?

If it is in the 'real' world you could test it by measuring conductivity in the air, or using a spectrometer on an air sample to test for particulates.

I have thought about this experiment too, but it must be done in vacuum tube.  Etheric matter passes easily through anything dense-physical. I can put it into a closed vacuum tube easily. In the vacuum tube there must be alternating all known kinds of light or radiation. I don't know which is the light wavelength that is refracted by etheric matter. Maybe some kind of light will hit the other end of tube altered by passing through the cloud of gold and radioactive heavy element, which is surprisingly stable in etheric form.

Etheric realm is still physical, but atoms are differently (loosely) structured. I don't know what it means for light refraction. I'd have to put the parameters I presume into equations of string theory and simulate it in computer. You know, routine science. This is the kind of ideas that I want scientists to come with. They don't know what is dark matter made of, because they don't know about etheric matter. But when they will get the gist of it, they'll make progress very quickly.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
By long story, do you mean

By long story, do you mean Atlantis?

 

Fine, find an old thermometer that uses mercury.  Break the glass and carefully drain the mercury into something that can hold it, like a glass plate.  Then push your gold aura into the mass of mercury and see what happens.

Mercury and gold bond on contact so in theory you should be able to create an amalgamation by doing this.  Do it for a while until you think the mercury has lots of etheric gold-stuff.  Seperate the two, easy method here http://en.allexperts.com/q/Metallurgy-2280/separating-gold-mercury.htm 

 

Be careful with the mercury and nitric acid, or you'll go crazy(er) or die.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:By long

mellestad wrote:

By long story, do you mean Atlantis?

Yeah, the 12 million years when early hominids were developing their emotional apparatus is called Atlantean period by esoteric teaching. It was a golden age, because "people" were yet too simple-minded to do any problems, their job was developing emotions. But when some of them developed basic mental skills, they invented hoarding of gold and war. Now we can't afford a global war anymore, or we blow ourselves up with nukes several 1000's times stronger than the two crackers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We also can't afford current economic system. It's a good time to become globally sane again.
 

 

mellestad wrote:
Fine, find an old thermometer that uses mercury.  Break the glass and carefully drain the mercury into something that can hold it, like a glass plate.  Then push your gold aura into the mass of mercury and see what happens.

Mercury and gold bond on contact so in theory you should be able to create an amalgamation by doing this.  Do it for a while until you think the mercury has lots of etheric gold-stuff.  Seperate the two, easy method here http://en.allexperts.com/q/Metallurgy-2280/separating-gold-mercury.htm 

Be careful with the mercury and nitric acid, or you'll go crazy(er) or die.

I would die anyway, because there's as much rutherfordium as there is gold. Rutherfordium is highly unstable and radioactive. Now I'm glad I can't do any materialization. I'm not Sathya Sai Baba. Neither I am Nikola Tesla. He offered the Allies in WW2 to produce radium in kilograms for a few dollars, he probably had some technology to make it safe. I don't.
By the way, I have heard and read about this technique of materialization or even similar, transmutation of atoms on things like gold. They tend to return to their original state, this means, disappear back to etheric form like fairy gold, or revert back to original form. Kyriacos C. Markides wrote about temporary transmutation of wooden twig on golden twig, didn't last.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:mellestad

Luminon wrote:

mellestad wrote:

By long story, do you mean Atlantis?

Yeah, the 12 million years when early hominids were developing their emotional apparatus is called Atlantean period by esoteric teaching. It was a golden age, because "people" were yet too simple-minded to do any problems, their job was developing emotions. But when some of them developed basic mental skills, they invented hoarding of gold and war. Now we can't afford a global war anymore, or we blow ourselves up with nukes several 1000's times stronger than the two crackers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We also can't afford current economic system. It's a good time to become globally sane again.
 

 

mellestad wrote:
Fine, find an old thermometer that uses mercury.  Break the glass and carefully drain the mercury into something that can hold it, like a glass plate.  Then push your gold aura into the mass of mercury and see what happens.

Mercury and gold bond on contact so in theory you should be able to create an amalgamation by doing this.  Do it for a while until you think the mercury has lots of etheric gold-stuff.  Seperate the two, easy method here http://en.allexperts.com/q/Metallurgy-2280/separating-gold-mercury.htm 

Be careful with the mercury and nitric acid, or you'll go crazy(er) or die.

I would die anyway, because there's as much rutherfordium as there is gold. Rutherfordium is highly unstable and radioactive. Now I'm glad I can't do any materialization. I'm not Sathya Sai Baba. Neither I am Nikola Tesla. He offered the Allies in WW2 to produce radium in kilograms for a few dollars, he probably had some technology to make it safe. I don't.
By the way, I have heard and read about this technique of materialization or even similar, transmutation of atoms on things like gold. They tend to return to their original state, this means, disappear back to etheric form like fairy gold, or revert back to original form. Kyriacos C. Markides wrote about temporary transmutation of wooden twig on golden twig, didn't last.
 

 

OK.

 

@Crazy:  See?  I just saved you some time.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon

Luminon wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
   So you can gather clowds of esoteric matter, so what exactly can you do with it, and how do you know your gathering clowds of it? 
 

 It needs just one thought and the tangible jelly-like cloud precipitates from free etheric world around.  Then it continues moving, shaping and changing structure according to my thoughts. With idle or unofcused thoughts it only lazily sways and swirls, until it dissolves after a time. (about an hour) But with directed thoughts it quickly reacts and shapes like... well, quite unlike anything that exists in the world.  Then it continues moving, shaping and changing structure according to my thoughts. With idle or unofcused thoughts it only lazily sways and swirls, until it dissolves after a time. (about an hour) But with directed thoughts it quickly reacts and shapes like... well, quite unlike anything that exists in the world. I'd compare it to a living protoplasm in zero gravity, that can change it's density from water-like to rubber-like.

 

  So how exactly do you know this, can you see it?  Can you "see" into other dimensions with your "third eye" or whatever you wish to call it?  Again I met Falung Gong practioners who claimed to be able to literally see someones "chi", how much they had, how it was organized, how it was affecting them and so on.  How am I suppose to believe someone can see these things just by taking their word for it.  In the end it was all they could supply as evidence of their special vision, their word.  I am a skeptic of your claims, but skeptics become believers with solid evidence.  So just how could anyone else be sure of what you see?  Can't this energy you are controlling "do stuff" in our reality that can be viewed by others?  If it can't, then who cares about it anyways if it can't affect our reality.         

 

Luminon wrote:

Yeah, it would be cool. I already convinced one my classmate at middle school, well, I didn't do anything, I just told him, he learned the technique himself and then later I positively examined him. I don't have a problem with demonstrating etheric matter to anyone who is interested and can be trusted.

 

Me! Oh please pick me, show me.  Would it have to be live?  Couldn't you at the least prepare an effective video demonstration that I could analyse? 

 

Luminon wrote:

But I want to state one thing, this ability of mine doesn't make me in any way superior.

 

 

Let's work on proving you have some abilities first.

Luminon wrote:

It's ancient technique that people used much before recorded history for certain ritually-energetic purposes. Once I master an ability, then showing off that ability doesn't make me worthy of awe. It has a great scientific value, but it gives me no right as "inventor" of etheric realm. Etheric world was always here and every good esotericist knows about it, it's not my discovery. And I know that showing off my inherited abilities will not lead to my personal progress.

  

 

Maybe not, but it could help in others personal progress, if that is you believe your abilities and lifestyle are beneficial then one would assume you would want others to "see" what you can see, or atleast try, right???

 

 


Luminon wrote:

It's obvious that discovery of etheric matter will change all the worldview. It will have enormous implications for physics, biology, medicine, exopolitics, and even psychology and religions.

 

 

Ok, let's get to work! 

luminon wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
    I watched a documentary on people with special "powers" inlcuding autistic savants, and other marvels.  One girl had this condition I don't remeber what it was called but only a handful of people have it.  Her senses merge together, she sees colours when she hears sounds, she sees colours for words, colours everywhere, every drop of rain makes a different colour.  Not much of a superpower but they were able to point out the diference in her brain when compared to others, and show the basic mechanism that caused her lifelong lightshow. 

Wonderful! There must be something in my brain that also works differently, and if contemporary science is able to identify that, there's a point to start.

Ok, let's get to work...

luminon wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
    Maybe you should call Micheal Shermer.  He might be able to get you hooked up with the right people to test your "powers" for free, it is what he does.  I'd just like to see some conclusive evidence that people like you (people who cliam to be able to manifest some sort of energy from another dimnension or the like) are actually able to conjure up this esoteric matter, chi, energy, whatever it has been classified by the believer.  If your esoteric matter can affect our reality it must be able to be tested!       

I'll check him out (I did already) and probably send an e-mail. There is a lot of information I need. Something I could ask here on this forum, there are scientists and other well-informed people. But firstly, where did you read about that Shermer's activity? I'd like to read about it too. Hopefully it's not as succesful like Randi's paranormal challenge. In that challenge any victory is a supernatural event on it's own.

 

  I don't know too much about Shermer I just know he activively investigates these things.  There's lots of videos of him on youtube debunking spoon bending and others tricks he's investigated over the years.  Interestingly enough their was one astrologist who kinda stumped him (video's on youtube).  The evidence was fairly conclusive this guy could pick out quite distinct characteristics about 10 very different strangers in the lab (like 90% accurate) based on birth date and some other basic facts.  They even switched 2 of the peoples fact sheet to see if he was reading off of their face and playing mind games.  He correctly gave the improper reading for the wrong candidate and vice versa based on the switched fact sheets.  These two especially were very opposite from eachother and he read them incorrectly/so correctly.  So shermer was a little stumped, it's a start for that astrologists cause.  It ofcourse is not impossible he had a little luck mixed with a little intuition and poof.  But atleast he went out their and tried to prove what he can do in the lab!!!  This trick may have been debunked by now I'm not sure, but Shermer certainly gave him a fair test, and seemed genuine and honest in his attitude towards the findings.      

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote: 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  So how exactly do you know this, can you see it?  Can you "see" into other dimensions with your "third eye" or whatever you wish to call it?  Again I met Falung Gong practioners who claimed to be able to literally see someones "chi", how much they had, how it was organized, how it was affecting them and so on.  How am I suppose to believe someone can see these things just by taking their word for it.  In the end it was all they could supply as evidence of their special vision, their word.  I am a skeptic of your claims, but skeptics become believers with solid evidence.  So just how could anyone else be sure of what you see?  Can't this energy you are controlling "do stuff" in our reality that can be viewed by others?  If it can't, then who cares about it anyways if it can't affect our reality. 

How I know this? Through the touch sense. But it's not a touch sense of skin, but of etheric body. This body is bigger than physical and allows me to sense this etheric matter about 10 centimeters above my skin. Also, to some degree below it, within my body. This sense gives a spatial 3D impression, it's like partially submerged into the etheric body.
It is possible to see etheric matter, for those who have or developed etheric sight sense. I am not that lucky, but I met at least one person who had it - and he had very surprised reaction when he saw this special etheric matter around me. It's an occult technique, not a natural etheric thing. As an occultist himself, he was very alerted. Of course I didn't tell him anything in advance. That was the last drop of evidence I needed to be justifiedly convinced that it's a real objective phenomenon.

This matter is a conductor. AFAIK, it doesn't do anything on it's own, unless on microscopic level perhaps. But it can be used as open-source alternative to healing techniques like Reiki. It's not primarily healing, but can conduct energy that affects etheric body - and therefore indirectly cells, nerves and endocrine system. It allows me to do things like directly influencing my brain. I can get myself high like that, or get myself pretty bad headache, if I'm not careful. I can shut off feeling from my physical body and perceive only etheric body. And so on, and so on... It's incredibly versatile. Some experiments are more exhausting, but also possibly more detectable.

All technical details were acquired by somewhat different method.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Me! Oh please pick me, show me.  Would it have to be live?  Couldn't you at the least prepare an effective video demonstration that I could analyse?

Yes, it has to be live, it doesn't stretch far from my body, a few meters at most, usually. And you as an untrained person would need the greatest zap of energy I can make, to make sure you feel something. Etheric touch is a very special subtle form of perception that must be usually trained.
Unfortunately, this matter is invisible to normal light, therefore it can't be caught on video. There are some very unconvincing photographs on the internet, but it would need a laboratory test to find out what wavelengths of light it reflects.
I have a suspicion that Kirlian's photography or aura photography technique should give some good results. I can conjure some simple shape (like triangle) next to me, and let myself be photographed. Theoretically, it could show on the photo.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Maybe not, but it could help in others personal progress, if that is you believe your abilities and lifestyle are beneficial then one would assume you would want others to "see" what you can see, or atleast try, right???

Of course. It's amazing I guess, for those who don't live with that all their lives. But I'm not a normal person, I have ambitions and I'm under great pressure to fulfill them. Worldly ambitions I mean. I have ideas and plans on how to create culture, politics and economy that will work much better than the current ones. Serving as a lab rat won't fulfill my destiny. I've got to do both things, becoming a VIP in the public and occultist in privacy.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
   I don't know too much about Shermer I just know he activively investigates these things.  There's lots of videos of him on youtube debunking spoon bending and others tricks he's investigated over the years.  Interestingly enough their was one astrologist who kinda stumped him (video's on youtube).  The evidence was fairly conclusive this guy could pick out quite distinct characteristics about 10 very different strangers in the lab (like 90% accurate) based on birth date and some other basic facts.  They even switched 2 of the peoples fact sheet to see if he was reading off of their face and playing mind games.  He correctly gave the improper reading for the wrong candidate and vice versa based on the switched fact sheets.  These two especially were very opposite from eachother and he read them incorrectly/so correctly.  So shermer was a little stumped, it's a start for that astrologists cause.  It ofcourse is not impossible he had a little luck mixed with a little intuition and poof.  But atleast he went out their and tried to prove what he can do in the lab!!!  This trick may have been debunked by now I'm not sure, but Shermer certainly gave him a fair test, and seemed genuine and honest in his attitude towards the findings.     

As for that astrologer, now you understand what I have at home. My dad is a professional astrologer and I believe this is what he could do too. Besides the quality of analysis and years of experience, his intuition is so great, that it can almost be compared to supernatural ability. So yes, I think that result is perfectly possible, but not with just any astrologer.
If Michael Shermer accepted this result honestly, then it suggests he is a man of honor and perhaps also open-minded. This is not usual, local Skeptics' society is founded and led by people who finished their studies and worked in the worst times of totalitarian communistic regime and Stalin's watchful eye. Free minds were systematically destroyed and all important places and universities were filled with people who readily responded to the tyrannic ideology. No wonder that in my country there are some very bad experiences with academic authorities.

So, I found Shermer's e-mail, hopefully he uses it. Do you have any suggestion on how to introduce him to the situation, make him interested and not bored or repelled by craziness? Should I be frank or tread lightly?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:   If

Luminon wrote:
  

 If Michael Shermer accepted this result honestly, then it suggests he is a man of honor and perhaps also open-minded.

I can't speak for his character but he seems genuine. 

Luminon wrote:
  

So, I found Shermer's e-mail, hopefully he uses it. Do you have any suggestion on how to introduce him to the situation, make him interested and not bored or repelled by craziness? Should I be frank or tread lightly?

Well he is the editor of skeptics magazine so I would assume he is alwyas looking for a good story, not just another boring cooky person with no real credibilty.  So I would first start off by explaining your knowledge and credibilty on the issue, your well worded so his impression of you atleast won't be that your unintelligent or a layman woowooist.  Explain you've been challenged by your skeptic peers to prove the existence of some esoteric matter/activity in the lab, and that you'd like to come up with a way that might be done with him.  I'd start thinking of ways that could be done, or atleast where you could start and include that.  The more dramatic the demonstration you could come up with, the more chance he'll take notice of the challenge.  I'm sure he has to weed thru alote of nutballs to get good stories (like this astrologist with very high success rate with his readings)  In the end I guess there's just got to be some REAL substance in your inquiry, not just "I can do this and that because i say I can."  Here's the link to that study where shermer was a little stumped. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo

I just rewatched it, his accuracy over all is more around %80.  Shermer is completely open with the results, and especially speaks openly about the switched reading and how they went from about %25 accurate to over %90 when they switched them back. 

  Ofource this is only one out of hundreds if not thousands of tricks he's debunked.  But it just goes to show, he is genuinly out their looking for supernatural phenomena,  whether his search his fueled by his open-mindedness or the fact he wants to prove all woowooist's wrong I don't know (most likely the latter he is a professional skeptic), but his testing methods seem fair regardless.


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
That video is quite

That video is quite interesting, but a few of the things I took issue of.  First, I have noticed (haven't studied this very well, just here and there, mind you) that psychics, astrologers, and the like tend to not start off the readings (or really, at any point of the reading) state things that might well be true but are clearly confrontational.  "You don't get along well with black people," for instance.  "You're a very meek and cowardly person, designed by the stars for a destitute life," might be another example.  "You once contemplated drowning your child," another.  Astrology tends to emphasize the positive.

Also, I'm uncertain, but he may have noticed that she plucks her eyebrows, leading him to conclude that they get "bushy" if she doesn't do this.

The best part I think was the round table discussion, but I saw some flaws there as well.  Let's say one person just went off on him with a long-winded rant about astrology.  This probably is an extreme example but it'd show the inadequacies of a round table sort of deal might be inadequate in the realm of this experiment.  What if one person colored everyone else's perceptions of his readings? (To be fair I don't see clear evidence that this MUST be the case, but consider how the mood changed in the room after the first switched reading took place!)

The biggest flaw I believe is that he fails to make truly accurate and incontrovertable readings.  Saying if someone was involved in martial arts is borderline specific, and one thing that I really took notice of (he was write, by the way, in this prediction).  But I don't know many people that have no experience whatsoever with martial arts, at least with regards to a general attitude of 'oh, it'd be real cool to kick like Chan.'

I'd be curious to know what the stars say about me.  In fact, I looked it up under two different sites:

1) Even if you thought you had left idealism behind you long ago, you should be able to get yourself riled up over some new development -- maybe one that has you puzzled or pessimistic.

2) The main attitude today is easy-does-it. You may feel a sense of relief to know that you will not be the only person responsible for a successful result with some work venture. New ideas and an independent mental orientation take on more importance in your work. Teaching, learning, communicating and social contacts have a way of outlining new directions in your life. This afternoon the fun does not end; you may find one of your friends or a neighbor has purchased an item that you want to investigate. This could be a new camper or a new car, etc. The domestic scene of traveling may be inviting and spur your imagination. There are agreed upon places that you and your beloved would like to visit. Tonight is a time for dinner by candlelight.

 

It's easy to see that #1 is talking about astrology (haha).  Which evidences my point even more...there's no way to know what these things are predicting, truly, unless they get into specifics.

And what the hell is #2? What's this easy-going attitude? Is that the attitude I should have adopted, or the one that I did without realizing it.  To have it be true, it'd have to be the former, today was not an easy-does-it day.  Further along it talks about social contacts, but being as I haven't socialized for years, it's obvious it's starting to delve into things that are flat-out wrong.  "This afternoon the fun does not end...", not true whatsoever.  I talked to neither a friend nor neighbor, came straight home from work, and have been researching things on the internet for the past eight hours or so.  Didn't see anything for sale or something someone else had that I coveted.  Traveling doesn't excite me in the least, I haven't left the city in years.

So for these two readings, I'd say they have an accuracy of 0%.  I have no inclination to agree with statements that could be true but aren't specific enough to be considered predictions. 

Such is the case with most of the video.  Vague predictions, in the spirit of Sylvia Browne, lending to the equally vague conclusion that this person might have some great knowledge of how the alignment of the stars in the Vedic calandar mystically allow for the future to be read on a far distant planet, notwithstanding a lack of even a shred of evidentiary support for how this might be accomplished (thusfar we've only began to consider whether or not it happens, and not if it does happen, how).

So I'm sorry, I don't buy it, not one sliver or iota.  If an astrologer of this forum wishes to try perhaps a better reading on me, my date of birth is in the outer range of the Capricorn (late), with the stipulations that you can't "predict" anything that's easily guessed from my forum posts, you get ONE guess, and you need to make it undoubtedly specific.

And here's my prediction, based on my limited experience of this; psychics don't make predictions regarding hostile marks.  Astrologers who know their statements will be picked to shreds will not cooperate.  Stacking the deck so that only true magicians/astrologers/prophets can succeed ensures that fraud is exposed.

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo

I just rewatched it, his accuracy over all is more around %80.  Shermer is completely open with the results, and especially speaks openly about the switched reading and how they went from about %25 accurate to over %90 when they switched them back. 

Wow, that's a really interesting video.  

The first part of the video, where he was talking to the woman with the bushy eyebrows (lol), seemed like complete bullshit. However, when it got the part where he was isolated from the people he was talking about, I was very impressed, assuming all the relevant factors (he only knew their birth date, location, etc., those were were real, innocent people that volunteered for the research, etc.) are true. Many, if not most of the claims he made certainly couldn't apply to everyone. Not everyone takes martial arts. Not everyone is wealthy. Not everyone has a poor relationship with their father.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
11111011 wrote:That video is

11111011 wrote:

That video is quite interesting, but a few of the things I took issue of.  First, I have noticed (haven't studied this very well, just here and there, mind you) that psychics, astrologers, and the like tend to not start off the readings (or really, at any point of the reading) state things that might well be true but are clearly confrontational.  "You don't get along well with black people," for instance.  "You're a very meek and cowardly person, designed by the stars for a destitute life," might be another example.  "You once contemplated drowning your child," another.  Astrology tends to emphasize the positive.

It's a misconception, common even among astrologers. People tend to have terrible horoscopes, but it has nothing to do with who the person is. People with good and strong character will use a bad horoscope as an advantage to drive them forward and become good at overcoming hardships. Weak characters will fail. And similarly, overly good horoscope makes one spoiled and lazy - or makes things easy that we'd rather would not do. A strong character again uses the horoscope to his advantage, weak characters are just dragged by life.
The kind of people that go for horoscopes are those who want to make a difference in life, but need a hint on how to do it. That's easy, people tend to repeat the same mistakes in relationships, etc.

Also, weak characters are easily shaped by their own horoscopes, that makes average person fall into a typical occupation that his horoscope suggests. But for stronger characters the horoscope is about particular skills and intelligences in various areas of life. There is no necessary area of "home, family, childhood and children" but instead more abstract area of "self-identity, genetic origin and what I really want". It's necessary that the character of an astrologer must be equal or stronger than of the client.
Furthermore, these exact particular skills tend to be either subdued, or exaggerated, which is not always obvious from the horoscope. So a person may be an exact opposite of what the horoscope says. It's not about what we are, but what we should learn. Not everyone learns it, so not everyone is literally like their horoscope.

The horoscope should not be analyzed separately from the person! One is a key to the other.

11111011 wrote:

I'd be curious to know what the stars say about me. ..

Such is the case with most of the video.  Vague predictions, in the spirit of Sylvia Browne, lending to the equally vague conclusion that this person might have some great knowledge of how the alignment of the stars in the Vedic calandar mystically allow for the future to be read on a far distant planet, notwithstanding a lack of even a shred of evidentiary support for how this might be accomplished (thusfar we've only began to consider whether or not it happens, and not if it does happen, how).

So I'm sorry, I don't buy it, not one sliver or iota.  If an astrologer of this forum wishes to try perhaps a better reading on me, my date of birth is in the outer range of the Capricorn (late), with the stipulations that you can't "predict" anything that's easily guessed from my forum posts, you get ONE guess, and you need to make it undoubtedly specific.

I with the help of my dad did an astrologic reading for JonathanBC. He did not give me any feedback, in fact, he's not very active since then, I don't know if we scared the hell out of him.  But if the personal message system works, you may ask him how much my reading was accurate and impressive. He is an atheist and a critical mind, his opinion woud be meaningful to you. I got to be very specific, I think.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:  I with the

Luminon wrote:

 

 I with the help of my dad did an astrologic reading for JonathanBC. He did not give me any feedback, in fact, he's not very active since then, I don't know if we scared the hell out of him.  But if the personal message system works, you may ask him how much my reading was accurate and impressive. He is an atheist and a critical mind, his opinion woud be meaningful to you. I got to be very specific, I think.

 

Do me next lumi, what info do you need?  It would be interesting if I wrote down a paragraph or 2 describing my personality and lifestyle and sent it to a couple other members, then after your reading on this thread they can post my pre-description below your/your dad's reading without my tempering with it.  This would be a fun exercise. 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Do

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Do me next lumi, what info do you need?  It would be interesting if I wrote down a paragraph or 2 describing my personality and lifestyle and sent it to a couple other members, then after your reading on this thread they can post my pre-description below your/your dad's reading without my tempering with it.  This would be a fun exercise. 

Fun exercise perhaps, but not for me. Having the horoscope without applying it to you is like having a key without lock. It's very diffcult to deduce anything. Anything in the horoscope may cause you problems or not, depending on how you manage it. How can I know what is your personal situation?
With Jonathan it was possible, because he shared some his problems, he's physically disabled and trapped in very religious family with whom he obviously strongly disagrees on the ideologic basis. His horoscope emphasizes that ideologic conflict very much, but his physical impairment can only be deduced by deeper study.
For an astrologic consultation you need to want to solve your specific problems, change yourself, and not be shy to tell what you need help with. The personal problem is a lock, horoscope is the key. You want me to unlock the lock without giving it to me. This is not exactly how my school works.

But potentially, I need your exact time of birth up to minute. And city of birth. (don't give GPS, city is easier to type in) You can give me these data, but I do not promise to make horoscope for you. Neither for anybody, although everyone would love it. My schedule is already pretty busy and my dad's much more. I generally only put people in my database and ocassionally study them to understand particular aspects. And I might share some my ideas with the people to whom the horoscope belongs.

You are free to send me your data if they are precise and write your self-describing text. But I'm also free to write or not write some ideas about your horoscope. If we both will do that according to our time or lack of time, then we can conclude the experiment. Publish your text as you decide, I trust you, but others will want the double blindness. It's possible that our texts will miss each other themathically, so you will have to adjust your text anyway, if I point out some personal problems of yours that you're not aware of. But don't think that this is astrology, not at all, it's a small thought experiment with an amateur student of astrology's very modern school.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.