Albert Cipriani

Hawkingfan falsely insinuates:
No, I believe in psychic phenomenon based upon my own personal experience. I think such experiences are about as common as broken bones. At least once in our lives, almost everyone has experienced a temporal or skeletal fracture.

Hawkingfan says it’s reasonable to assume that there are no psychics because of the many who “were TESTED, and failed.” The hidden assumption here is that psychic phenomenon can be tested, that is, we can dictate the time, place, and conditions under which these events will occur.

But if psychic phenomena is the result of extra-dimensional anomalies some of us happen to be sensitive to when they occur, then there is no way such events could be tested. All you could do is do what Randi does do, catch the charlatans in their do-do.

But to pooh pooh the concept of paranormal events just because frauds claim those paranormal powers for themselves is illogical. It’d be like me disbelieving that Jesus was God just because a lot of maniacs before Him and since Him also claimed to be God.

Philosoft,
I’m mystified that you think my statement that all truths I’ve known have made me feel good is:
Well then, at worst am I lying? Perhaps you’re thinking truths are facts. For example when I’m at a formal gathering of important people and I discover the “truth” that my fly is down. If that’s what you mean by truth, then that “truth” doesn’t make me feel good… initially.

But even that low level true fact that’s unworthy of the name truth apes the real thing. For as bad as I would feel upon discovering the truth that my fly was down, I’d feel even worse were I not to discover that truth until they’d all gone home. So the differential between feeling bad and feeling worse equals a net change in the direction of being made to feel good by the “truth.” – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Jobar

Does it leave you that far out on the illogical limb that you stand willing to put your faith in a negative? You will believe the universal negative that there are NO psychics that are not charlatans because James Randi’s prize has yet to be claimed? A bit of an overreaching reaction, I’d say.

What is this 'faith' you speak of? And just what makes you think I put any anywhere?

In the sense you mean it, Albert, I have NO FAITH. I feel sure the other unbelievers here would agree. I- we- have beliefs, yes- but those beliefs are held only provisionally. Oh, some of our beliefs are held with a very great deal of certainty, i.e. the sun will rise tomorrow. But if a careering black hole swoops by and gobbles up the Earth, obviously the sun will *not* rise (on Earth, anyway.)

One of the things I find most theists cannot accept is that it's possible to live life without a single absolute and unalterable belief. There are mathematical theorems which I cannot conceive being altered- 2+2=4, for instance- but those sort of statements are *defined so*. If in ancient times the numerals had been named differently, then it might have been that 2+2=&. Conventions of language and mathematics only *appear* unchanging. That appearance often fools people into thinking that there are actually unchanging and absolute entities, in a universe of ceaseless change.

Hawkingfan

Many people believe this, but there is always a logical explanation for the "experience". I can see "psychic phenomenon" when I turn on the TV and see John Edwards and Sylvia Browne on talk shows. Most people are fooled by how many "hits" are made. Maybe this is part of the "evidence" you talk about. But for every hit, there are many more misses. It is the wishful people who ignore the misses and only look at the hits. And the hits are always in the form of a question (i.e. Who in your family has a name with a J?) I love to see Randi do "readings". He's got it down pat. People have many times come up to him after a performance and will not believe him when he tells them he has no psychic abilities and that he is a fraud. He once went on Australian TV about twenty years ago and claimed that a boy was possessed by a spirit. One of the things to happen to the boy when the spirit entered him was that his pulse would stop. A nurse who new nothing of the trick was asked to check the pulse on live TV. She felt a pulse at first, and then felt it go away, she SWORE she didn't feel one and had witnessed something supernatural. And in fact, she was telling the truth and DID NOT feel a pulse (Randi tricked her--to give a hint on how he stopped the boys pulse: she only checked the boys wrists). The nurse and many viewers were upset when it was finally revealed that it was a trick. And this just wasn't a one day thing. The trick of getting as many people as possible to believe this boy was possessed lasted months. People wrote about how real it was in the papers. But of course, people were outraged when they learned the truth.
That is because many people will believe anything. Funny how these "psychic" experiences only happen to those who believe it, and not to those who disbelieve. Hmmm?

That is the oldest excuse in the book. You're blowing smoke. It doesn't change the validity of my original point one bit. Are you telling me that out of thousands of failures not ONE person was tested at the exact time he came down with a case of the "psychics"? Funny how the John Edwards show can run such a tight taping schedule, eh? Or when the camera rolls for a Sylvia Browne appearance on Montel she is always conveniently "ready"? I wonder if Larry King has to wait on Edwards or if Edwards has to cancel his appearance because he's not sensing "vibrations" (and therefore, not get paid)?

But what about your police psychics? There are countless cases of where psychics have VOLUNTEERED incorrect information. Shall I site specific cases?

I still must disagree. It is MUCH more illogical to believe in psychic phenomenon just for the sake of heresay, anecdotes, or personal "experience" that all have logical explanations behind them, and to IGNORE scientific testing solely based on the "hidden (and gullible) assumption" that psychic abilities magically go bye-bye whenever an experiment is mentioned. THAT is illogical, my friend.

Albert Cipriani

Gee Jobar:
Methinks thou doth protest too much. If I were king of Webster’s, I’d scratch the “F” word from our lexicon. Any word that causes more confusion than clarity has forfeited it’s right to exist. In the interim, I use the words faith and belief interchangeably.

Agreed. Certitude does not exist on this side of the grave. Absolutes, like Descartes “pure natures,” are as useful and as non-existent as circles and straight edges. They exist, as do all perfections, in our mind, as does God. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Jobar

Certitude does not exist on this side of the grave. Absolutes, like Descartes “pure natures,” are as useful and as non-existent as circles and straight edges. They exist, as do all perfections, in our mind, as does God.

Ahhh, so close Albert! You left out one word though- 'only'. (Or, if you actually understand that God exists only in our minds, why have you been disputing with us?)

Scottyman

You all saw it here folks!

Albert Cipriani

Hawkingfan:
I was agnostic about psychic experiences until I had mine. There truly is no substitute for experience.

But I will admit that I wanted to believe in psychic experiences beforehand, just as I wanted to believe in God beforehand. Unless you want to hide behind the psychological mumbo jumbo of self-fulfilling prophecy, your accusation is refuted by me, myself, and I.

Jobar:
Existence is existence. Attaching ONLY in front of it does not mitigate its existence one bit. To illustrate, I see no difference between the following two statements:
1) God exists only in my mind.
2) My wedding ring exists only on my ring finger.

#2 would no longer be true if it slipped off and went down the garbage disposal while I was washing dishes. #1 would no longer be true if I lost my faith while trying to share it with you folks in this verbiage dump.

Fact is, no thing can exist in more than one place at a time. So all things always ONLY exist somewhere. That God presently ONLY exists in my mind and not yours is a pity, not an indictment of the truth that He ONLY exists in my mind. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Hawkingfan

In your opinion it is. So you're psychic, eh?
That is pretty remarkable.
Are you sure it wasn't coincidence? (I mean, I know coincidence is "mumbo-jumbo", but...)The human mind is good at remembering odd things but tends to forget ordinary things, such as premonitions that didn't happen. If psychic experiences happen to you on a regular basis then try writing down the premonitions when you have them and then comparing your record to later events.
If you think you have a mental link with someone you know, try a few tests with playing cards.
If you are receiving messages from elsewhere (e.g. UFOs), ask for specific information that you can then check.

But most importantly:
If you want to make a FORMAL registration of your predictions,

There is a book by Prof Robert Morris and Dr Richard Wiseman called Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants. University of Hertfordshire Press, 1995, pp 72, stlg7 pbk

You can send as many "psychic" visions you want to them via snail-mail and it will be catalogued. Let us know how successful you are (or aren't). Then you can PROVE us wrong. And you can even wait for when YOU are ready, instead of having to schedule an appointment for a test. Good luck!

Scottyman

Bwahahahahahahahahahah! (ROFL)

Ok, what am I thinking about right now?

Albert Cipriani

Scottyman says:
OK, but let's reverse the test. It starts with an "M" and rhymes with "boron. " If you can guess the answer, you, too, might be a psychic. Or at least your correct guess will demonstrate to me a higher IQ than that indicated by your post. -- Albert