Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
asherah
uce's conversion has happened in two stages.
In stage one (before he came to the JREF, I think), he moved from "Science is ALL", to a position of "Science hides the ultimate truth by blinkering your thinking." He spent a long while here arguing various flavours of "materialism is dead, and I can prove it". These threads would often deteriorate (on both sides - not trying to blame uce for this!) into quite abusive posts. Things would go quiet, then it would start up again. Uce, not alone, had a bit of an anger management problem in those days, and could get VERY abusive if pushed. Also spent quite a bit of effort to push a theory that use of certain drugs (not the legal kind) was either "necessary" or "beneficial" in exploring these "alternative ways" of thinking. In other words, was quite heavily pro-drugs.
Then stage two arrived - over a period of weeks, he went VERY strange. Annouced he was quitting drugs. Posted lots of things about "you won't believe what happened to me", involving (his words) "A MAJOR BREACH of the laws of physics". Posts IMO became very erratic, and he seemed very emotional. Seemed very depressed. Posted a theory that the past could change depending upon a peron's desires ("archeologists find dinosaur bones because that's what they 'wish' to find" is the simple example he gave). Then started on a theory that reality is the result of what the majority of people want it to be, and if enough of us want it to be 'utopia', then it will be. In this context, atheist/skeptics 'want' the world to be without paranormal events, and if there's enough of us around this becomes 'reality'. Various attempts to formulate a protocol to test his "past/reality changes through wiill/desire" were proposed, but he rejected them all as "doomed to fail".
Anway, eventually he announced he was leaving and would no longer post as uce because he had reached post 2012 (a significant number in his version of reality. Look up "Mayan Calender" for more info). Disappeared for a while (months?) then reappeared as "Juggler". Everyone knew immediately who it was because he launched straight back into the same old stuff.
Eventually, for some reason, stopped using Juggler and returned to uce. Has been pretty much the same old story, but with much better delivery, since returning as uce.
And in answer to your question, yes, a number of attempts have been made to go over uce's various 'paranormal' experiences, but they never got very far - he has always been reluctant to co-operate. In fairness, I don't actually think he's lying (I think he's mistaken in interpretation, not necessarily in observation), and I attribute his reluctance (back then) in large part to the fairly hostile reception he got whenever he posted just about anything.
Okay, enough talking about uce behind his back - you can come in now Geoff and clear up the total misconception you undoubtly feel I've created.
A brief summary of the past...
uce's conversion has happened in two stages.
In stage one (before he came to the JREF, I think), he moved from "Science is ALL", to a position of "Science hides the ultimate truth by blinkering your thinking." He spent a long while here arguing various flavours of "materialism is dead, and I can prove it". These threads would often deteriorate (on both sides - not trying to blame uce for this!) into quite abusive posts. Things would go quiet, then it would start up again. Uce, not alone, had a bit of an anger management problem in those days, and could get VERY abusive if pushed. Also spent quite a bit of effort to push a theory that use of certain drugs (not the legal kind) was either "necessary" or "beneficial" in exploring these "alternative ways" of thinking. In other words, was quite heavily pro-drugs.
Then stage two arrived - over a period of weeks, he went VERY strange. Annouced he was quitting drugs. Posted lots of things about "you won't believe what happened to me", involving (his words) "A MAJOR BREACH of the laws of physics". Posts IMO became very erratic, and he seemed very emotional. Seemed very depressed. Posted a theory that the past could change depending upon a peron's desires ("archeologists find dinosaur bones because that's what they 'wish' to find" is the simple example he gave). Then started on a theory that reality is the result of what the majority of people want it to be, and if enough of us want it to be 'utopia', then it will be. In this context, atheist/skeptics 'want' the world to be without paranormal events, and if there's enough of us around this becomes 'reality'. Various attempts to formulate a protocol to test his "past/reality changes through wiill/desire" were proposed, but he rejected them all as "doomed to fail".
Anway, eventually he announced he was leaving and would no longer post as uce because he had reached post 2012 (a significant number in his version of reality. Look up "Mayan Calender" for more info). Disappeared for a while (months?) then reappeared as "Juggler". Everyone knew immediately who it was because he launched straight back into the same old stuff.
Eventually, for some reason, stopped using Juggler and returned to uce. Has been pretty much the same old story, but with much better delivery, since returning as uce.
And in answer to your question, yes, a number of attempts have been made to go over uce's various 'paranormal' experiences, but they never got very far - he has always been reluctant to co-operate. In fairness, I don't actually think he's lying (I think he's mistaken in interpretation, not necessarily in observation), and I attribute his reluctance (back then) in large part to the fairly hostile reception he got whenever he posted just about anything.
Okay, enough talking about uce behind his back - you can come in now Geoff and clear up the total misconception you undoubtly feel I've created.
asherah
Unregistered
A
response to loki and dub regarding knowledge of the paranormal
first off thanks for the warm welcome dub and the detailed and thoughtful reply loki ... one of my reasons for posting a comment concerning juggler/uce was that i have a friend with a similar philosophy ... this friend was heavily into drugs at one time and subsequently had experiences that could only be explained as paranormal and/or of supernatural origin specifically dealing with demons and the existance of evil forces which makes him paranoid for example in the presence of ouija boards and of movies like the Exorcist (but which did for better or worse led him to joining AA)... now the similarity that i found interesting is he took a vague stance when questioned about his experiences prefering to defer to statements such as; if you had experienced what i did you would understand or i don't want to go into it. speaking in deeply reverent tones about seeing things that left no doubt in validating the existence of evil forces, demons etc... now this is a very likable gregarious and talented artist who doesn't come off as a kook, but when questioned directly took the vague- i'm in the know and your not and i can't talk about it -stance. Now this person knows that i'm skeptical, which led me to the admittedly unsubstantiated conclusion that part of the reason he and possibly uce is vague about specifics is that such detailed description opens the door for skeptical questioning against the wall of vagueness that protects the belief system they've created for themselves ... any specifics would lead to uncomfortable "annoying" questions, those -what about this and couldn't it be this questions- we skeptics love to ask ... as far as the ideas that you conveyed loki concerning uce's rants about our creating our own reality by focused will, for example, i would refer uce/juggler to what is possibly the best book on skeptical thought, How to Think About Wierd Things which deals with solipsism and other ideas of alternate realities in a logical and fair handed manner ... thanks again for you kind responses
first off thanks for the warm welcome dub and the detailed and thoughtful reply loki ... one of my reasons for posting a comment concerning juggler/uce was that i have a friend with a similar philosophy ... this friend was heavily into drugs at one time and subsequently had experiences that could only be explained as paranormal and/or of supernatural origin specifically dealing with demons and the existance of evil forces which makes him paranoid for example in the presence of ouija boards and of movies like the Exorcist (but which did for better or worse led him to joining AA)... now the similarity that i found interesting is he took a vague stance when questioned about his experiences prefering to defer to statements such as; if you had experienced what i did you would understand or i don't want to go into it. speaking in deeply reverent tones about seeing things that left no doubt in validating the existence of evil forces, demons etc... now this is a very likable gregarious and talented artist who doesn't come off as a kook, but when questioned directly took the vague- i'm in the know and your not and i can't talk about it -stance. Now this person knows that i'm skeptical, which led me to the admittedly unsubstantiated conclusion that part of the reason he and possibly uce is vague about specifics is that such detailed description opens the door for skeptical questioning against the wall of vagueness that protects the belief system they've created for themselves ... any specifics would lead to uncomfortable "annoying" questions, those -what about this and couldn't it be this questions- we skeptics love to ask ... as far as the ideas that you conveyed loki concerning uce's rants about our creating our own reality by focused will, for example, i would refer uce/juggler to what is possibly the best book on skeptical thought, How to Think About Wierd Things which deals with solipsism and other ideas of alternate realities in a logical and fair handed manner ... thanks again for you kind responses
AmateurScientist
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 5,268
Re: response to loki and dub regarding knowledge of the paranormal
Very nice story about your friend, asherah. Also, good insight into UCE and reasons for his dodges.
Also, welcome to the forum.
One more thing...I don't mean this to be critical, but I suggest that in the future you include more punctuation and capital letters in your posts. Stream of consciousness type writing, although common elsewhere on the web, is very difficult to read and decipher.
AS
[edited to correct embarrassing spelling error.]
asherah said:first off thanks for the warm welcome dub and the detailed and thoughtful reply loki ... one of my reasons for posting a comment concerning juggler/uce was that i have a friend with a similar philosophy ... this friend was heavily into drugs at one time and subsequently had experiences that could only be explained as paranormal and/or of supernatural origin specifically dealing with demons and the existance of evil forces which makes him paranoid for example in the presence of ouija boards and of movies like the Exorcist (but which did for better or worse led him to joining AA)... now the similarity that i found interesting is he took a vague stance when questioned about his experiences prefering to defer to statements such as; if you had experienced what i did you would understand or i don't want to go into it. speaking in deeply reverent tones about seeing things that left no doubt in validating the existence of evil forces, demons etc... now this is a very likable gregarious and talented artist who doesn't come off as a kook, but when questioned directly took the vague- i'm in the know and your not and i can't talk about it -stance. Now this person knows that i'm skeptical, which led me to the admittedly unsubstantiated conclusion that part of the reason he and possibly uce is vague about specifics is that such detailed description opens the door for skeptical questioning against the wall of vagueness that protects the belief system they've created for themselves ... any specifics would lead to uncomfortable "annoying" questions, those -what about this and couldn't it be this questions- we skeptics love to ask ... as far as the ideas that you conveyed loki concerning uce's rants about our creating our own reality by focused will, for example, i would refer uce/juggler to what is possibly the best book on skeptical thought, How to Think About Wierd Things which deals with solipsism and other ideas of alternate realities in a logical and fair handed manner ... thanks again for you kind responses
Very nice story about your friend, asherah. Also, good insight into UCE and reasons for his dodges.
Also, welcome to the forum.
One more thing...I don't mean this to be critical, but I suggest that in the future you include more punctuation and capital letters in your posts. Stream of consciousness type writing, although common elsewhere on the web, is very difficult to read and decipher.
AS
[edited to correct embarrassing spelling error.]
asherah
Unregistered
A
response to amateur scientist
Thanks for you response AS, point well taken, will adjust in future.
Thanks for you response AS, point well taken, will adjust in future.
UCE
In my dreams, they pass the test: because in my dreams, I can actually fly. Why don't your paranormal expierences pass the test?
It's not the only one they can provide; it is the only one they need to provide.
The last time I dreamed I was able to fly, I deliberately flew up to the top of a flag pole while wearing a Walkman playing music. I could hear both the music and the flag snapping in the wind, so I reasoned that I couldn't be dreaming, because I couldn't possibly imagine so much rich detail. Even in my dreams, I subject my experiences to the most rigourous test I can devise. So I think it's safe to say that I would react to paranormal events in the real world with the same attitude.
In my dreams, they pass the test: because in my dreams, I can actually fly. Why don't your paranormal expierences pass the test?
Guest
Unregistered
G
Re: undercover elephant's conversion
A) If you want to talk to me then please do me the service of addressing me directly.
B) An open and critical discussion of my 'transformation' was on-going, since I was posting prolifically at the time.
C) Talking about the specific details in public now is counter-productive for the simple reason that the skeptics are incapable of believing it. See Billys response above.
D) If you personally are interested in finding out more about what happened to me then PM me
E) Everything which occured can be accounted for by breaches in the laws of probability and the past not being fixed. i.e. the laws of physics were respected.
If you are actually interested, then I will talk to you. If the sole point of the discussion is for you to 'educate' me about 'how these things can be rationalised', then don't bother. They cannot be. You will end up either thinking I am a liar or a fool. I am neither, and I have no need to prove anything to you, but I am interested in helping anyone who wants to know more about these things. This is after all supposed to be a foundation for educating people about the 'paranormal'.
Geoff
asherah said:Am new to the forum as a whole and have read a number of undercover elephant's comment's about materialism the paranormal and his or her conversion from the skeptical to the credulous but was unable to locate an explanation of the specific life changing events that influenced his/her decision beyond vague references and if only you understood what happened you would know i'm right platitudes ... please tell me that he or she has been willing to allow an open and critical discusion of her transformation in detail.
A) If you want to talk to me then please do me the service of addressing me directly.
B) An open and critical discussion of my 'transformation' was on-going, since I was posting prolifically at the time.
C) Talking about the specific details in public now is counter-productive for the simple reason that the skeptics are incapable of believing it. See Billys response above.
D) If you personally are interested in finding out more about what happened to me then PM me
E) Everything which occured can be accounted for by breaches in the laws of probability and the past not being fixed. i.e. the laws of physics were respected.
If you are actually interested, then I will talk to you. If the sole point of the discussion is for you to 'educate' me about 'how these things can be rationalised', then don't bother. They cannot be. You will end up either thinking I am a liar or a fool. I am neither, and I have no need to prove anything to you, but I am interested in helping anyone who wants to know more about these things. This is after all supposed to be a foundation for educating people about the 'paranormal'.
Geoff
Guest
Unregistered
G
OK Loki.....
It was always materialism I attacked, not science.
Plenty of people get there without drugs. Certain drugs make the transformation easier by destroying certain illusions.
I wasn't depressed. I was elated like never before.
Not quite.....
Juggler re-appeared a week after UCE left.
.
It was always materialism I attacked, not science.
Plenty of people get there without drugs. Certain drugs make the transformation easier by destroying certain illusions.
I wasn't depressed. I was elated like never before.
Not quite.....
Juggler re-appeared a week after UCE left.
.
Guest
Unregistered
G
aserah
OK...an extra piece of information :
I spent most of my life studying science. I have been a subscriber to NewScientist for over 15 years. I studied chemistry, physics and biology for my A-levels. I was a hard atheist from about the age of 8. I spent 6 months as the science and skepticism moderator for www.infidels.org, the biggest atheist website in existence.
So please don't tell me to read "How to thing about weird things" and expect it to contain anything I do not already I know!
Just for a moment, I want you to consider that I understand your position better than you do, and I still "believe weird things", for the simple reason that I have actually seen weird things.
If you aren't capable of entertaining that possibility then there is nowhere for us to go. The reason I resist giving details is that I know precisely what your belief system will allow you to accept, and what it won't. I've been there.
OK...an extra piece of information :
I spent most of my life studying science. I have been a subscriber to NewScientist for over 15 years. I studied chemistry, physics and biology for my A-levels. I was a hard atheist from about the age of 8. I spent 6 months as the science and skepticism moderator for www.infidels.org, the biggest atheist website in existence.
So please don't tell me to read "How to thing about weird things" and expect it to contain anything I do not already I know!
Just for a moment, I want you to consider that I understand your position better than you do, and I still "believe weird things", for the simple reason that I have actually seen weird things.
If you aren't capable of entertaining that possibility then there is nowhere for us to go. The reason I resist giving details is that I know precisely what your belief system will allow you to accept, and what it won't. I've been there.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Yahzi said:
Erm....what "test"?
UndercoverElephant said:
I'd say the problem here is your predjice view of other people. You "know" how they will think and react, and therefore dont deem them worthy of your story. You need to be less judgemental of people. Why dont you just explain you story again? Many people enquiring about it werent even around when you originally posted it about.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Re: Re: Re: undercover elephant's conversion
I mean the laws of quantum probability.
http://www.artseensoho.com/Life/readings/eddington.html
To take Eddingtons example, all it would take to sink through the floor would be a major breach of the laws of probability, not the laws of physics. If this principle is combined with an acknowledgement that the past is indeterminate then all sorts of things are possible without breaking any physical laws, since the improbability doesn't have to be restricted to the present moment. If such effects could be 'orchestrated' then the possibilities are mind-boggling.
Dub said:
I mean the laws of quantum probability.
http://www.artseensoho.com/Life/readings/eddington.html
To take Eddingtons example, all it would take to sink through the floor would be a major breach of the laws of probability, not the laws of physics. If this principle is combined with an acknowledgement that the past is indeterminate then all sorts of things are possible without breaking any physical laws, since the improbability doesn't have to be restricted to the present moment. If such effects could be 'orchestrated' then the possibilities are mind-boggling.
So in what way did you break the quantum probability laws? and can you prove that you did, and not merely that you 'think' you did? Even if some event, such as falling through the floor, did occur it would not be paranormal, just higly unlikely. But, unless the probability of an event is 0, there is still a possibility that it will occur. Hence it's occurance would not be paranormal.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Dub said:
I didn't break them. I was just there when they were broken.
No, I cannot prove it, and I don't want to. Please stop asking me for proof. I am explaining what happened to me because people asked. I already explained that I cannot prove it, and why I do not want to prove it. Try to stop thinking in terms of objective proof. There can be no objective proof.
But what is the difference between paranormal and highly unlikely? I have often complained that most people here do not really know what 'paranormal' means. Both breaches in the laws of probability and an indetemrinate past are allowed by the laws of physics, but together they provide ample opportunity for events to occur which, if they happened to you, would leave you in no doubt at all that something 'paranormal' had occured. At the time, I yelled and screamed that I had seen the laws of physics breached. In retrospect, and after a great deal of thought, I realised that breaches in the laws of physics were not required to explain what I experienced, but that an indeterminate past and non-randomisation of quantum wave-function collapse could account for it.
You appear to have defined 'paranormal' as 'breaking the laws of physics'. If so, I am agnostic towards such events.
UndercoverElephant said:
But you still wont say what actually happened? Also, how do you know they were broken?
So, you cant and do not want prove it. Therefore it's a fantasy you choose to believe in. You also want me to not use objective proof, even though none exists. How about i make up answer to explain what I see? As it doesnt have to be based on objective proof I can choose anything I want. Therefore I propose an invisible dragon has taken my cars keys. I 'know' this dragon is invisible as I can't see it. Don't ask me to prove this dragon exists because I cannot and do not want to.
How do you define paranormal? If there is a probability that something can happen, no matter how small that probablity is, its occurence would not be paranormal, just highly unlinkey. Are you saying that you define unlikely events as paranormal? Is winning the lottery paranormal?
asherah
Unregistered
A
Re: Re: undercover elephant's conversion
First off UCE you must forgive me for an etiquette breech by not addressing you directly; my reason for doing so was based on the thought that it would be a waste of your time to repeat an account of your experiences if such an account had been rendered several times previous.
As to your having more knowledge of my position than i do myself and to my attempt to educate you, well to the former position; I make no claims on super intelligence nor anything more than a laymans knowledge of quantum physics, additionally I respect your accomplishments in the A levels of your education system. As to the latter I feel that we - all of us in the forum for example - can learn from each other. However, I don't hold any hope for changing your mind about what you have felt and seen, just as you hold little hope for changing mine. But, that doesn't mean that an open and unaggressive dialogue cannot be illuminating for someone else who might read and evaluate the ideas presented here. Therefore I hope that you continue to provide us with your views since us skeptics can get bored with patting each other on the back and "preaching to the choir" so to speak. So I hope you will allow a public discussion on your views again with the additional hope that they can be soberly discussed without degenerating into insult matches. Also do not presume that I will think you are a fool or a liar ... at worst I might consider you mis-led and who among us hasn't been mis-led at one time or another, either by ourselves or others.
UndercoverElephant said:
A) If you want to talk to me then please do me the service of addressing me directly.
B) An open and critical discussion of my 'transformation' was on-going, since I was posting prolifically at the time.
C) Talking about the specific details in public now is counter-productive for the simple reason that the skeptics are incapable of believing it. See Billys response above.
D) If you personally are interested in finding out more about what happened to me then PM me
E) Everything which occured can be accounted for by breaches in the laws of probability and the past not being fixed. i.e. the laws of physics were respected.
If you are actually interested, then I will talk to you. If the sole point of the discussion is for you to 'educate' me about 'how these things can be rationalised', then don't bother. They cannot be. You will end up either thinking I am a liar or a fool. I am neither, and I have no need to prove anything to you, but I am interested in helping anyone who wants to know more about these things. This is after all supposed to be a foundation for educating people about the 'paranormal'.
Geoff
First off UCE you must forgive me for an etiquette breech by not addressing you directly; my reason for doing so was based on the thought that it would be a waste of your time to repeat an account of your experiences if such an account had been rendered several times previous.
As to your having more knowledge of my position than i do myself and to my attempt to educate you, well to the former position; I make no claims on super intelligence nor anything more than a laymans knowledge of quantum physics, additionally I respect your accomplishments in the A levels of your education system. As to the latter I feel that we - all of us in the forum for example - can learn from each other. However, I don't hold any hope for changing your mind about what you have felt and seen, just as you hold little hope for changing mine. But, that doesn't mean that an open and unaggressive dialogue cannot be illuminating for someone else who might read and evaluate the ideas presented here. Therefore I hope that you continue to provide us with your views since us skeptics can get bored with patting each other on the back and "preaching to the choir" so to speak. So I hope you will allow a public discussion on your views again with the additional hope that they can be soberly discussed without degenerating into insult matches. Also do not presume that I will think you are a fool or a liar ... at worst I might consider you mis-led and who among us hasn't been mis-led at one time or another, either by ourselves or others.
asherah
Unregistered
A
UndercoverElephant said:
In answer to this response, first of all i'm an agnostic not an atheist so that may help to "understand my position better than I do " even to a degree more than "better than i do" (Thing Spinal Tap but with understanding amps that go all the way to 11 instead of 10).
As to your position formerly as an atheist, did you not feel as strongly about the absolute truth of the non existance of the paranormal as you do now about the absolute truth of the paranormal based on your experiences.
Another question; is there anything that could happen, any future occurance that might call into question in your mind the validity or connection of these experiences to the paranormal. For example aren't Eddington's idea's about quantum mechanics and probability open for revision? And to would you recommend a book such as How to Think about Wierd Things to those not as educated as yourself as an introduction, say, to reason and logical fallacies and as a tool for the evaluation of unsubstantiated claims? (with of course the respectful exclusion of your own0? Certainly a general paradigm for dealing with reality is not without merit in most situations, correct? Thanking you in advance for you consideration in reading an answering what may seem to you peurile and useless questions.
UndercoverElephant said:
You think he would have learned something after all that studying, yet he continues to cling dogmatically, rather than reasonably, to his dualistic philosophy. Thus he fails to understand materialism because he cannot understand what he cannot incorporate into his systematic beliefs. I think "hard" athiesm, if it exists as anything more than a strawman (I have never actually met a "hard" athiest, nor have I seen one on these boards), is as illogical as a True Believer mentality. UCE claims knowledge of our particular belief system because he has studied a similar system belonging to people other than ourselves which is "hard" athiesm. He does not know or understand what you know or understand, which is made apparent by his actions. Any attempt to reach knowledge of a particular though knowledge of a generalization to which the particular belongs is asking for errors. One should seek knowledge of the whole within which the particular functions instead of its catergory.