Music40 mins ago
ANY PSYCHICS ON HERE?
126 Answers
PLEASE NO NEGATIVE COMMENTS. JUST WONDERING X
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tinkerbell23. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I know, Ludwig, miserable failure that I am. I really must try harder. :o)
Naz, oh goodness! Don't ask for evidence of research for heavens sake. Don't you know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? An over-used and very convenient get-out for those who prefer to turn a blind eye to that which they can't explain and would therefore prefer simply to go away.
Naz, oh goodness! Don't ask for evidence of research for heavens sake. Don't you know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? An over-used and very convenient get-out for those who prefer to turn a blind eye to that which they can't explain and would therefore prefer simply to go away.
This is bizarre, I simply repeat Naomi's one sided statement in the hope that she might notice that she is doing what she is accusing me of doing and I get flack from Ludwig. I have never claimed to have delusions (but how would I know if I had) I don't think I have ever claimed that ghosts don't exist, the main stumbling block being that I have never been interested enough in the subject to find a definition for a ghost. What is a ghost, how would I know if I've seen one, I might have seen dozens, I might have seen more than Naomi, how would I know?
Jomifl, yes indeed, quite bizarre. You make statements and then you deny making them claiming you're not that interested - and this isn't the first time you appear to have had a change of heart half way through a discussion.
//my belief that ghosts don't exist is just as valid as the beliefs of those that think they do.//
One could easily be forgiven for thinking you believe that ghosts don't exist, wouldn't you say - and yet in your latest post you say you don't think you have ever claimed that ghosts don't exist. Yes ... you have.
//it is my experience not the lack of it that has led me to the conclusion that not all that we think we see is real.//
Likewise, one could be forgiven for assuming that you came to the conclusion that your experiences were imaginary- and now you're saying 'how would I know?' Forgive me, but you do seem rather confused.
//'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'// is the stock phrase used by people who consider themselves to be scientifically minded but who have no explanation for things that don't fit their preferred world view and hence prefer to ignore. It's a phrase popularised by Carl Sagan and if you care to trawl the threads of R&S you will see it employed continually. In fact on this very thread Chakka has said something very similar.
//Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.//
It's par for the course, although it does appear to work only one way. Funny that.
//my belief that ghosts don't exist is just as valid as the beliefs of those that think they do.//
One could easily be forgiven for thinking you believe that ghosts don't exist, wouldn't you say - and yet in your latest post you say you don't think you have ever claimed that ghosts don't exist. Yes ... you have.
//it is my experience not the lack of it that has led me to the conclusion that not all that we think we see is real.//
Likewise, one could be forgiven for assuming that you came to the conclusion that your experiences were imaginary- and now you're saying 'how would I know?' Forgive me, but you do seem rather confused.
//'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'// is the stock phrase used by people who consider themselves to be scientifically minded but who have no explanation for things that don't fit their preferred world view and hence prefer to ignore. It's a phrase popularised by Carl Sagan and if you care to trawl the threads of R&S you will see it employed continually. In fact on this very thread Chakka has said something very similar.
//Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.//
It's par for the course, although it does appear to work only one way. Funny that.
Naomi ..If 'belief' and 'knowledge' meant the same thing then we wouldn't need both words. You appear to have complete faith in the infallibilty of your perception of the world yet why should it be any more infallible than anyone else's? I suggest that you work on understanding the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and try to improve your appreciation of irony.
May you have a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
May you have a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year.
naomi, your last response to me was so illogical, and so unrelated to what I said, and your subsequent posts to others so tetchy, that you seem to have flipped a bit.
Now calm down. What is it about your ghost experience that makes you so determined to insist that others who have not experienced anything similar should keep an open mind about it? What evidence have you produced? What detailed account of it that we can ponder on?
By your reasoning we should not question, but keep an open mind about, the images of the 'Virgin' seen by young girls, the tears wept by statues, the approach of the sun to a few hundred feet of the earth as seen by 7000 people at Fatima, the angels seen at Mons. We have not experienced them either.
Nobody is attacking your integrity or your intelligence, despite your protests that we are. I, for one, am merely saying that I do not believe in absurd things without reason to. Produce that reason and I will be the first to be excited and want to know more.
Stop being so defensive, Stop accusing the rest of us of 'turning a blind eye' and so on. Explain. Give reasons. Convince. Be the naomi we know.
Now calm down. What is it about your ghost experience that makes you so determined to insist that others who have not experienced anything similar should keep an open mind about it? What evidence have you produced? What detailed account of it that we can ponder on?
By your reasoning we should not question, but keep an open mind about, the images of the 'Virgin' seen by young girls, the tears wept by statues, the approach of the sun to a few hundred feet of the earth as seen by 7000 people at Fatima, the angels seen at Mons. We have not experienced them either.
Nobody is attacking your integrity or your intelligence, despite your protests that we are. I, for one, am merely saying that I do not believe in absurd things without reason to. Produce that reason and I will be the first to be excited and want to know more.
Stop being so defensive, Stop accusing the rest of us of 'turning a blind eye' and so on. Explain. Give reasons. Convince. Be the naomi we know.
What's this Chakka? The best form of defence is attack? Never mind. If you think recovery will be gained by telling me I'm illogical go for it. It wasn't I who said //If ghosts existed there would, after all these millennia, be evidence for them//
Goodness! I'm almost embarrassed for you. So much for the scientific mind. Ouch!! :o)
Incidentally, I repeat, I've never asked you to believe me.
Goodness! I'm almost embarrassed for you. So much for the scientific mind. Ouch!! :o)
Incidentally, I repeat, I've never asked you to believe me.
Hi Naomi.
'jomifl' politely asked you a very reasonable question which you very neatly sidestepped, claiming that your perceptions are not related to this subject. The question asked was, “You appear to have complete faith in the infallibility of your perception of the world yet why should it be any more infallible than anyone else's?”
Put simply, is it possible that your recollection is unreliable? Is it possible that you could have been mistaken?
'jomifl' politely asked you a very reasonable question which you very neatly sidestepped, claiming that your perceptions are not related to this subject. The question asked was, “You appear to have complete faith in the infallibility of your perception of the world yet why should it be any more infallible than anyone else's?”
Put simply, is it possible that your recollection is unreliable? Is it possible that you could have been mistaken?
Naomi
I'm sure you're aware of the fallibility of the human mind when it comes to accurately recollecting events. Witness testimony is used routinely in court cases and can often be the deciding factor in aquittal or conviction – despite the scientifically proven fact that witness testimony can be (and often is) utterly unreliable. Witnesses can be absolutely convinced of their own recollections and still be completely wrong.
It is an exceptionally difficult thing to accept – that your memory is not an accurate 'recording' of perceived events. I have personally seen people utterly incredulous, flabbergasted and distraught when their testimony is overtly and unequivocally disproven by other evidence such as CCTV. It completely (and understandably) shocks them to the core.
When people put it to you that you may have been mistaken, you seem to take it as a personal slight on your integrity when in actual fact, it is nothing of the sort. All that people are saying is you may be mistaken. You clearly believe that you are not.
All I am saying is that your memory of personally perceived events may not be as reliable as you presume.
I'm sure you're aware of the fallibility of the human mind when it comes to accurately recollecting events. Witness testimony is used routinely in court cases and can often be the deciding factor in aquittal or conviction – despite the scientifically proven fact that witness testimony can be (and often is) utterly unreliable. Witnesses can be absolutely convinced of their own recollections and still be completely wrong.
It is an exceptionally difficult thing to accept – that your memory is not an accurate 'recording' of perceived events. I have personally seen people utterly incredulous, flabbergasted and distraught when their testimony is overtly and unequivocally disproven by other evidence such as CCTV. It completely (and understandably) shocks them to the core.
When people put it to you that you may have been mistaken, you seem to take it as a personal slight on your integrity when in actual fact, it is nothing of the sort. All that people are saying is you may be mistaken. You clearly believe that you are not.
All I am saying is that your memory of personally perceived events may not be as reliable as you presume.
just noticed so many posts and opinions!!...well, im not scientificly minded, but i believe. and i believe i have seen and felt things. just my personal opinion though!!
read in a book once, things arent always what we see/ hear...ie dogs can hear things we cant? therefore things are there? other animals see things we dont! NOT my own findings therefore cant back things up or enter into any long drawn argument re this with all these worded aguments i dont stand a chance im much more simple :0D x
read in a book once, things arent always what we see/ hear...ie dogs can hear things we cant? therefore things are there? other animals see things we dont! NOT my own findings therefore cant back things up or enter into any long drawn argument re this with all these worded aguments i dont stand a chance im much more simple :0D x
Birdie, It isn't my style to sidestep questions, and I hadn't realised I had. The point is I've given no account of my experiences, and I certainly haven't asked anyone to believe me. Nevertheless, I'm being told by people who know no more about the subject that anyone else that none of it really happened, that I saw things that weren't there, that I'm mistaken, that it is utterly absurd, that my memory is defective, that I'm illogical, that I'm defensive - and, most bizarrely of all, that I should calm down. Who's not calm? And all this from people who know nothing about me or my life, and haven't a clue what I'm referring to, but are nevertheless absolutely convinced they know what they're talking about. And I'm illogical? I don't think so. Amused would be a more appropriate word.
To answer the question you say I sidestepped, no, I am not mistaken. I lived in a 'haunted house' for years, and our lives were disrupted in no uncertain terms on a daily basis - and our visitors were far from immune too. And something you and my other critics might like to consider - moving house did the trick instantly. Cured us all completely!! Even our guests no longer suffer from delusions - except the one that succumbed to asthma after staying one night with us. She's still imagining things of course, but her inhaler helps a bit. Anyway, that aside, isn't that amazing?! Maybe I should write an article for the Lancet, eh? How to cure delusions without medication. Move house!
To answer the question you say I sidestepped, no, I am not mistaken. I lived in a 'haunted house' for years, and our lives were disrupted in no uncertain terms on a daily basis - and our visitors were far from immune too. And something you and my other critics might like to consider - moving house did the trick instantly. Cured us all completely!! Even our guests no longer suffer from delusions - except the one that succumbed to asthma after staying one night with us. She's still imagining things of course, but her inhaler helps a bit. Anyway, that aside, isn't that amazing?! Maybe I should write an article for the Lancet, eh? How to cure delusions without medication. Move house!
Sorry, naomi, I'd forgotten that you had asked me why.
I certainly don't have a solidly rational answer. It just seems to me a matter of commonsense that since people have been claiming the existence of ghosts as far as anyone can remember or research you would expect some smidgeon of evidence by now.
But there isn't. All we have are anecdotes.
Some time ago I got from the library a book of 'ghost' photographs. Each picture was accompanied by the account by the photographer and his or her companions of the circumstances in which the snaps were taken. So you can be sure that there are many honest and sincere people there who are absolutely convinced that they have seen a ghost.
Alas, careful examination of each photograph produces a perfectly rational explanation of what was photographed. (I can enlarge on that if you like.)
Unfortunately most ghost reporters do not produce such evidence for us to examine and analyse. So, with no way of knowing whether their experiences are just as mistaken as those above, we have to treat their spoken 'evidence' as valueless.
Do you really not understand why it is very odd that that situation, with either no evidence or 'evidence' that is easily refuted, has obtained for millennia?
I certainly don't have a solidly rational answer. It just seems to me a matter of commonsense that since people have been claiming the existence of ghosts as far as anyone can remember or research you would expect some smidgeon of evidence by now.
But there isn't. All we have are anecdotes.
Some time ago I got from the library a book of 'ghost' photographs. Each picture was accompanied by the account by the photographer and his or her companions of the circumstances in which the snaps were taken. So you can be sure that there are many honest and sincere people there who are absolutely convinced that they have seen a ghost.
Alas, careful examination of each photograph produces a perfectly rational explanation of what was photographed. (I can enlarge on that if you like.)
Unfortunately most ghost reporters do not produce such evidence for us to examine and analyse. So, with no way of knowing whether their experiences are just as mistaken as those above, we have to treat their spoken 'evidence' as valueless.
Do you really not understand why it is very odd that that situation, with either no evidence or 'evidence' that is easily refuted, has obtained for millennia?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles56 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
Don't Eat Celery In The Sun, Folks!
Body & Soul103 mins ago
Does Anyone Know Of A Lucasparish On Ab?
ChatterBank111 mins ago
