Final part (and there was much rejoicing)
Now we're at Ian post #4
Ian agrees with my tiger analogy. Great. Ian agrees with my dragon analogy. Great.
Ian of course doesn't see the analogical connection to mediumship. Not so great.
I already answered that previously, in this post and in other posts. I even broke down the meaning of irrational and applied it to the claim. If you don't agree with my position, super. However it's a tad disingenious to act as though I'm coming up with it out of the blue with nothing supporting that statement.
Skipping the illness analogy
Now we're at Ian post #4
Ian agrees with my tiger analogy. Great. Ian agrees with my dragon analogy. Great.
Ian of course doesn't see the analogical connection to mediumship. Not so great.
I already answered that previously, in this post and in other posts. I even broke down the meaning of irrational and applied it to the claim. If you don't agree with my position, super. However it's a tad disingenious to act as though I'm coming up with it out of the blue with nothing supporting that statement.
Skipping the illness analogy
Ian postsIf mediums can't provide any evidence for their claims, and what they achieve appears to be cold-reading, then obviously it would be rational to conclude that at the present time it is probably not possible to communicate with dead people. Obviously I do not dispute this.
Marian, what is your actual argument with me? What are you actually disagreeing with me about??
It doesn't matter if what they achieve appears to be cold readings or not. If mediums can't provide evidence for their claims, and those claims cannot be tested and verified, then at this time, as you agree, it's probably not possible to communicate with the dead.
Since no one at this time can communicate with the dead, someone claiming the ability to do so, without offering proof, is making an irrational claim.
Glad we agree. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about over your 6 post response, other than missing things I've already posted in this thread.
Yet in your previous statement you said "what they achieve appears to be cold-reading", isn't that desperately seeking a post-hoc hypotheses to explain away the evidence? And what evidence? That's really the kicker. I disagree with you, it's not desperately seeking blah blah blah, it's offering alternative plausabilities for a scenario, instead of the paranormal one. And given that "the paranormal" has not been proven, yet other explainations HAVE been demonstrated previously...what's the more reasonable conclusion?
If someone hears voices in their head, is the more reasonable assumption schizophrenia, or God talking to them, or demonic possession? (That is, btw, another analogy
Then I posted asking if you were done replying yet, and asking you to please define skeptic v. sceptic.
Then we have Ian post #5:
You've already agreed to it:
You've agreed that it's rational to conclude that at the present time, it is probably not possible to communicate with dead people.
So I guess I'd have to ask you to explain why you believe levitation contravenes what we know about reality, but communicating with dead people doesn't? It simply doesn't make sense to me, given your previous statement.
-Skipping over my addressing Ian using terms like 'stupid' etc, and his comment that it makes no difference how he explains things people are as 'thick as f*ck around here-
Only comment to the part I'm skipping over is, thanks for clarifying your position on how you view and treat others.
-Skipping over Ian addressing again 'you haven't shown why you believe it's irrational' and quoting me as already stating I have, and pointing out why. I can only say yet again if you don't agree with that, fine...but I've said it several times already, and have already reposted it again in this post. And as far as I can see, you've already agreed with me about it!-
I'll pull out one VERY specific part where I directly addressed this previously. It's not the only part where I addressed it specifically though.
You've already agreed with me. Here, I'll show you.
So um, what are you arguing again? If you agree that at this time it's not possible, and I say 'it flies in the face of everything we know', what's the dispute?
It's not clear to me what you're disputing since you seem to dispute something in one breath and agree with it in another. However I'll remind you again that the thread is about Lorri's claims that she is able to communicate with the dead. Lorri has made claims about how she doesn't need to prove it. The thread isn't about you, it's about Lorri and medium abilities. I've just taken the time to respond to you (quite a bit in this post).
I've since added Lorri to my ignore list, so I've attempted to avoid mentioning her (even though this IS a thread started by her claims) since I have no interest at this point in reading her replies since she seemed to bring nothing but baseless insults to the table. (My opinion).
Now we're at Ian post #6 (unless I've lost count)
Ian respondsNot understood?Is communication with living people understood?? I really don't understand what you mean by "understood".
Depends on what the definition of 'is' is? C'mon.
Assuming you actually don't get it...communcation between living people is understood. It can be visual (sign language, body language, type/text), it can be auditory (hearing their voice, listening to a recording), it can be tactile (someone blind and deaf can have someone 'sign' into their hand, people can read braille).
These methods are not mysterious, they are completely demonstratable and understood.
The dead are rotting. (or are reduced to ash and bone bits, depending on one's prefered method of corpse disposal). I think it's safe to assume that no one is claiming that the dead body 'communicates' as most 'mediums' claim that it's the dead person themselves (which is not the rotting flesh, but their spirit/soul/essense/whatever) that is 'communicating. How is that done?
Depends on who you ask, right? I mean sometimes it's some physical manifestation (Knock three times if you can hear us oh spirits!), sometimes it's "images" directly conveyed to the medium, who translates those images for the sitter. Sometimes it's direct telepathy. None of these things are 'understood' right? Unless of course you can show me scientific data explaining the processes.
But we've already agreed that it's never been demonstrated, and that it's a reasonable assumption that it cannot be done at this time. So what is it again that you're disagreeing with?
Unless you're presenting (which I think you are) that while no one has been able to do it at this time, that it is possible to do. In which case I'd ask what method that would be, please explain it.
If you're saying that it could be possible, then assuming anything could be possible, sure. But obviously communication with the dead isn't "understood" by any definition you could offer, given your previous agreement to it not being possible at this time.
Oh so when previous arguments fail, and you basically agree that it's not possible at this time, you resort to philosophical quips? I mean if you want to get into a 'what is reality?' discussion all well and good, but if you want to derail into philosophy then can I fall back on you being a figment of my imagination?
Either way it's a non sequitur.
-Then we have more stuff about 'irrational' which was already hashed out several times previously but you keep returning to it because somehow you missed it I guess-
Which is funny since you know what I'm talking about having already agreed with it. Sure out of context it appears as though I'm saying it's an absolute impossibility, or that one could imply that was a possible meaning. But in context when I stated repeatedly it is not possible at this time, you've agreed.
So you were well aware of my meaning, and the context. It didn't magically change mid-post.
Since I don't know the color of the sky on your world, I'll say very clearly that it is reasonable to assume that the context remains the same, that the reference goes back my previous assertation in the very same post, that currently it is not possible. Which was already stated by me, which you acknowledged and agreed with.
That should be extremely clear....in context.
And Ian's post ended with him finally offering me a link to clarify what he meant between "skeptic" and "sceptic". Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.And I found the article interesting.
Plus I've seen some claims that have been made (specifically in John Edward's transcripts) which would be almost impossible to refute as it's a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question.
