Is there a "sixth sense"? - DPChallenge Forums

08/29/2008 03:38:07 PM · #401

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

let me ask you this......are you going to perceive someone in the same light if they tell you they feel that they've had a sixth sense experience, or if they tell you they've seen a Martian?

You betcha.I wouldn't doubt the claims that they saw or experienced something, but would be just as skeptical of either explanation.

Regarding the cat thing, I would call that a combination of body language and demeanor that comes across as non-threatening to the animal. My middle daughter's had a couple of similar experiences with supposedly wild or aggressive animals... and she's also been bitten by one.

08/29/2008 03:45:21 PM · #402

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Yet, the USA includes on the back of its one dollar bill the accepted illustration of the 'Inner Eye or Third Eye', it makes up the top of the pyramid.

Various currencies have included images of dragons, griffins, even a phoenix... so?

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Would a government or a military intelligence gathering group invest such a large amount into some pseudoscience?

I can summarize that answer in one word: alchemy

08/29/2008 03:48:58 PM · #403

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
Yet, the USA includes on the back of its one dollar bill the accepted illustration of the 'Inner Eye or Third Eye', it makes up the top of the pyramid.

Various currencies have included images of dragons, griffins, even a phoenix... so?

Originally posted by SteveJ:
Would a government or a military intelligence gathering group invest such a large amount into some pseudoscience?

I can summarize that answer in one word: alchemy

I think these replies just about summarize the level of discussion on this topic. I have refrained from joining in too much due to this sort of childish response, guess I'll keep well out from now on!

08/29/2008 03:59:47 PM · #404

Originally posted by SteveJ:

I think these replies just about summarize the level of discussion on this topic. I have refrained from joining in too much due to this sort of childish response, guess I'll keep well out from now on!

What makes a dragon any more childish than a third eye? Both have appeared on money, which has nothing to do with whether they actually exist except in popular culture (or Miracle on 34th Street). You asked if government would invest vast resources in pseudoscience. Alchemy is one very obvious example where they have. Premises so easily dismissed yield very brief discussions.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:07:18.

08/29/2008 04:10:38 PM · #405

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
I think these replies just about summarize the level of discussion on this topic. I have refrained from joining in too much due to this sort of childish response, guess I'll keep well out from now on!

What makes a dragon any more childish than a third eye? Both have appeared on money, which has nothing to do with whether they actually exist except in popular culture. You asked if government would invest vast resources in pseudoscience. Alchemy is one very obvious example where they have.

In Oriental culture the dragon is the source of energies that flows through the land, red dragon yin, black dragon yan...good v bad energies, it is not some creature from comics. But this opens up another avenue, earth energies and ley lines form a whole new topic. The dragons do not just exist in popular culture, but in ancient culture that forms the basis of their religions and daily lives. But, this does not answer why a modern, dynamic culture like the USA should have adopted the Inner Eye as a symbol for a one dollar bill, unless it is to do with the 'Illuminati', New World Order or Magick??

The second response would apply if I had asked why the USA invested so much money in researching the probabilities of lead to gold conversion. However, that wasn't what I asked, I asked why they had invested so much money in Remote Viewing.

Hope that clarifies the situation?

08/29/2008 04:15:32 PM · #406

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
A scientific thinker should always be able to tell you what credible evidence, if presented to them, would change their minds about the topic.

So here is mine: I would be willing to concede the possibility that some sort of "sixth sense" is real if claimed telepathic/empathic/precognitive ability could be shown under controlled, reproduceable, experimental conditions to produce results greater than what would be expected simply by random chance.

Your turn.

My opinion based on some experiences, is that there is something as yet undefined, undocumented, and unverifiable by today's methods, yet it seems to be something that has been experienced by many people who are not prone to whimsy.

I get what you believe, you've repeated it over and over. What I'm asking is what type/kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that your belief is/might be wrong? I set out my baseline above. If your belief is rationale, it should also be subject to being falsifiable.

And by the way, to be human is to be prone to whimsy. ;)

08/29/2008 04:18:57 PM · #407

Originally posted by SteveJ:

I asked why they had invested so much money in Remote Viewing.

The better question would be to ask is why, if the program actually had the concrete success that it is claimed to have had(and the reports of its success appear to be highly suspect and exaggerated), the government would abandon the project? Are you actually going to try and make the case that the Democrats (in control of Congress in 1995) hate America so much that they would cut a program which provided an intelligence advantage?

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:39:21.

08/29/2008 04:23:25 PM · #408

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
I asked why they had invested so much money in Remote Viewing.

The better question would be to ask is why, if the program actually had the concrete success that it had (and the reports of its success appear to be highly suspect and exaggerated), the government would abandon the project? Are you actually going to try and make the case that the Democrats (in control of Congress in 1995) hate America so much that they would cut a program which provided an intelligence advantage?

I'm not making a case for anything, it is written in black and white. But, throwing a lot of money on an airy fairy whim is hardly what you would expect from a dominant world power? Or maybe two? :)

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 16:23:34.

08/29/2008 04:43:05 PM · #409

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
I asked why they had invested so much money in Remote Viewing.

The better question would be to ask is why, if the program actually had the concrete success that it had (and the reports of its success appear to be highly suspect and exaggerated), the government would abandon the project? Are you actually going to try and make the case that the Democrats (in control of Congress in 1995) hate America so much that they would cut a program which provided an intelligence advantage?

I'm not making a case for anything, it is written in black and white. But, throwing a lot of money on an airy fairy whim is hardly what you would expect from a dominant world power? Or maybe two? :)

Actually, I think if you look at the history of unnecessary wars, unneeded and technologically unworkable defense projects, and overpriced toilet seats, throwing a lot of money on "airy fairy whims" is EXACTLY what you would expect from dominant world powers.

Are you going to apply the same logic to the Nazis during WWII and make claims that because the Third Reich spent so much on occult "research" means that such research had merit?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

08/29/2008 04:51:12 PM · #410

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
I asked why they had invested so much money in Remote Viewing.

The better question would be to ask is why, if the program actually had the concrete success that it had (and the reports of its success appear to be highly suspect and exaggerated), the government would abandon the project? Are you actually going to try and make the case that the Democrats (in control of Congress in 1995) hate America so much that they would cut a program which provided an intelligence advantage?

I'm not making a case for anything, it is written in black and white. But, throwing a lot of money on an airy fairy whim is hardly what you would expect from a dominant world power? Or maybe two? :)

Actually, I think if you look at the history of unnecessary wars, unneeded and technologically unworkable defense projects, and overpriced toilet seats, throwing a lot of money on "airy fairy whims" is EXACTLY what you would expect from dominant world powers.

Are you going to apply the same logic to the Nazis during WWII and make claims that because the Third Reich spent so much on occult "research" means that such research had merit?

I give up, there is no sensible discussion here. Twist the words, do whatever you want, just another person who thinks America won WWII. Shame all your inventions come from Germany!

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

08/29/2008 04:52:56 PM · #411

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

I get what you believe, you've repeated it over and over. What I'm asking is what type/kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that your belief is/might be wrong? I set out my baseline above.

I'm not really sure how to answer that.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

If your belief is rationale, it should also be subject to being falsifiable.

The two concrete examples I related, the women whom I just met telling me things that they've never told another living soul, and the ball lightning thing are two things that'd probably be most sustainable to another explanation, wouldn't they?

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

And by the way, to be human is to be prone to whimsy. ;)

Say it ain't so!......8>)

I guess what I meant by that is that I've met a fair amount of people that I wouldn't consider to be anything other than reasonably well educated, worldly and sensible who have experienced enough inexplicable things for them to seriously entertain that something akin to a sixth sense could be an answer.

I guess where some of the issue comes in is that I have had the experience that really oopened the door for me to think that a sixth sense is an explanation.

If you have not, then your inclination to accept what I "feel", would be pretty low.

I guess it's because of some of the little things, and that's just it......none of my experiences have been glorious revelations of significant proportions.....just annoying little things that have happened, I just feel that there are things I cannot explain and that none of the "reasonable" explanations and theories fit.

So.....based on the typical, common held mythical theories that abound, what would you think?

I don't have to have an explanation, but in the back of my mind, I'm going to entertain a theory.

08/29/2008 04:57:59 PM · #412

Originally posted by SteveJ:

this does not answer why a modern, dynamic culture like the USA should have adopted the Inner Eye as a symbol for a one dollar bill, unless it is to do with the 'Illuminati', New World Order or Magick??

It's not like it was just placed on the dollar by a modern, dynamic culture last week. It's probably been there since at least the 1800's, and modern, dynamic cultures continue to use fictional animals and characters on their currency as symbols of ideas, not pictures of reality. Again, so?

Originally posted by SteveJ:

I asked why they had invested so much money in Remote Viewing.

The U.S. and Russia have invested in ESP and UFO research for the exact same reason leading countries in the middle ages invested in alchemy or the search for the Fountain of Youth: the people controlling the money follow their own beliefs in popular stories. That's not to say there's anything wrong with starting with an hypothesis in general. Many perfectly rational scientists have devoted their lives to these quests, but each has been taken up and abandoned as folly on and off throughout history. I just don't happen to hold this particular starting belief.

08/29/2008 05:05:00 PM · #413

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Twist the words, do whatever you want, just another person who thinks America won WWII. Shame all your inventions come from Germany!

??!??

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/29/2008 05:10:52 PM · #414

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
Twist the words, do whatever you want, just another person who thinks America won WWII. Shame all your inventions come from Germany!

??!??

You choose to compare your country with Nazi Germany! No more to be said on this issue. I asked sensible questions and got rubbish answers, no discussion or debate, just a comparsion with Nazi Germany. I'm out of here, I guess it just got too real for most of you.

USA rules, for now. Shame most of UFO reports etc come from your country, and no-one can find the lost files, perhaps they have been destroyed?? Roswell files, shame someone destroyed them!

Hope the next topic is debated better!

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/29/2008 05:20:34 PM · #415

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
Twist the words, do whatever you want, just another person who thinks America won WWII. Shame all your inventions come from Germany!

??!??

You choose to compare your country with Nazi Germany! No more to be said on this issue. I asked sensible questions and got rubbish answers, no discussion or debate, just a comparsion with Nazi Germany. I'm out of here, I guess it just got too real for most of you.

USA rules, for now. Shame most of UFO reports etc come from your country, and no-one can find the lost files, perhaps they have been destroyed?? Roswell files, shame someone destroyed them!

Hope the next topic is debated better!

Wow! Talk about rubbish.

08/29/2008 05:34:45 PM · #416

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
Twist the words, do whatever you want, just another person who thinks America won WWII. Shame all your inventions come from Germany!

??!??

You choose to compare your country with Nazi Germany! No more to be said on this issue. I asked sensible questions and got rubbish answers, no discussion or debate, just a comparsion with Nazi Germany. I'm out of here, I guess it just got too real for most of you.

USA rules, for now. Shame most of UFO reports etc come from your country, and no-one can find the lost files, perhaps they have been destroyed?? Roswell files, shame someone destroyed them!

Hope the next topic is debated better!

Wow! Talk about rubbish.

Explain please?

08/29/2008 05:40:22 PM · #417

Originally posted by SteveJ:

That's it Steve, you're just too "real" for us, and that last little bit of raving really puts a point on it.

I wasn't comparing the US to the Nazis - talk about twisting words - I was drawing a perfectly valid analogy that flowed from the very specific case you cited. If you are going to take the fact of a superpower spending money on a project as uncritical evidence of the validity of the project, then you are going to have to be willing to follow that argument where it leads. You simply don't like the comparison, because you don't like the association. Sorry, but you are the one who made the argument. I just pointed out that there are some awkward implications of that argument. Cowboy up and tough it out.

You and Jeb want to say that those of us advocating an evidence-based approach are dogmatic and irrational, but you are the one who simply will not tolerate any criticism of your ideas. Project much?

Instead of dealing with the evidence, you shift the rhetorical ground until your little pet belief is immune from attack - not because you have evidence to back up your claims, but simply because you have defined the nature of the phenomenon you want to defend in a way that it simply cannot be tested, verified, or falsified. You don't like where the evidence leads, so you want to make your belief immune to evidence.

That isn't debate, it's intellectual cowardice.

You want me to give your rhetoric some cred - then put up or shut up. What evidence could be presented to you that you would accept proves your claims are or might be false? If there is no evidence that could persuade you of the falsity of your belief, i.e., if your belief is unfalsifiable, then it isn't rational.

I gave mine for a "sixth sense" so here it is for UFOs: I would consider any of the following, if verifiable, strong evidence in favor of extraterrestrial, intelligent life: Any non-terrestrial based communication (most likely given the spacial distances and time lines involved); fossil or artifact evidence showing proof of technology or life forms that could not have originated on Earth (less likely, but expands the time line to include the possibility that non-earthly intelligence was on Earth at some point prior to human history); an alien ship/emissary landing on the White House lawn (or similarly spectacular, credible event - least likely).

You?

08/29/2008 05:49:38 PM · #418

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I get what you believe, you've repeated it over and over. What I'm asking is what type/kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that your belief is/might be wrong? I set out my baseline above.

I'm not really sure how to answer that.

Jeb, let me humbly submit that you need to do the very thing yourself that you keep asking us rationalists to do: entertain the "possibility." By my telling you what I would need to shift my own position, I've done that very thing. ("If x, then I'd have to admit y, and at least question z.") If you have a rational - that is evidence-based belief in something, you should be able to conceive of evidence that would falsify that belief. If you can't do that, then your belief isn't rational because it isn't subject to reason.

Renewing your examples of why you believe isn't the same thing. You need to ask yourself, "What would it take to make me question what I think happened in that case?".

08/29/2008 05:59:15 PM · #419

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by SteveJ:
You choose to compare your country with Nazi Germany! No more to be said on this issue. I asked sensible questions and got rubbish answers, no discussion or debate, just a comparsion with Nazi Germany. I'm out of here, I guess it just got too real for most of you.

USA rules, for now. Shame most of UFO reports etc come from your country, and no-one can find the lost files, perhaps they have been destroyed?? Roswell files, shame someone destroyed them!

That's it Steve, you're just too "real" for us, and that last little bit of raving really puts a point on it.

I wasn't comparing the US to the Nazis - talk about twisting words - I was drawing a perfectly valid analogy that flowed from the very specific case you cited. If you are going to take the fact of a superpower spending money on a project as uncritical evidence of the validity of the project, then you are going to have to be willing to follow that argument where it leads. You simply don't like the comparison, because you don't like the association. Sorry, but you are the one who made the argument. I just pointed out that there are some awkward implications of that argument. Cowboy up and tough it out.

You and Jeb want to say that those of us advocating an evidence-based approach are dogmatic and irrational, but you are the one who simply will not tolerate any criticism of your ideas. Project much?

Instead of dealing with the evidence, you shift the rhetorical ground until your little pet belief is immune from attack - not because you have evidence to back up your claims, but simply because you have defined the nature of the phenomenon you want to defend in a way that it simply cannot be tested, verified, or falsified. You don't like where the evidence leads, so you want to make your belief immune to evidence.

That isn't debate, it's intellectual cowardice.

You want me to give your rhetoric some cred - then put up or shut up. What evidence could be presented to you that you would accept proves your claims are or might be false? If there is no evidence that could persuade you of the falsity of your belief, i.e., if your belief is unfalsifiable, then it isn't rational.

I gave mine for a "sixth sense" so here it is for UFOs: I would consider any of the following, if verifiable, strong evidence in favor of extraterrestrial, intelligent life: Any non-terrestrial based communication (most likely given the spacial distances and time lines involved); fossil or artifact evidence showing proof of technology or life forms that could not have originated on Earth (less likely, but expands the time line to include the possibility that non-earthly intelligence was on Earth at some point prior to human history); an alien ship/emissary landing on the White House lawn (or similarly spectacular, credible event - least likely).

You?

I have no pet beliefs. I believe in informed debate on the subject. I am the most skeptical person you could meet. I have never stated here or anywhere else that I believe these matters, just that there is ground that needs debating. Okay, throw up your beliefs, if you must. I have an open mind. All I have stated about the subject is common knowledge, if you care to look for it.

I have made no claims to validate any argument here, just a couple of questions, the facts are easily found on the net or in books. If you think they are my facts, then you perhaps need to expand your reading and knowledge base. You can say what you like about me, I have heard it all before. But, my facts are just that, facts!

Enough said.

08/29/2008 06:14:08 PM · #420

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Bull.

The "i'm just asking questions" is a classic dodge. It allows you to put forth claims, but not be subject to criticism for those claims.

Your lack of intellectual honesty in this debate has been stunning. You are obviously coming from a particular ideological viewpoint. You are obviously quite credulous on the issue of UFO sightings. You were particularly vehement in attacking those who made the claim that crop circles were totally explainable by human action. You allude to knowledge backing up your viewpoint that is supposedly obvious and easily available, but refuse to provide specific sources or evidence.

And then when you do get called on the carpet, you accuse the other side of being unserious and declare the debate over while you slink out the back door.

Again. Bull.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 20:25:01.