The most prominent shreds of empirical evidence in the phenomena for UNDETERMINED KNOWLEDGE. Criteria . . .
(a) Example that is documented by any organization receiving government funding. Reference file number (preferred, not mandatory).
(b) Match statistical probability (done by anyone with a degree in math will do. Full name of mathematician.) with documentation of events in regard to what a person claimed or an event that happened.
(c) Any piece of conjecture where someone sought an alternative explaination in a public venue (again documented by some organization receiving government funding), and the extent of their argument’s weight.
If you can’t do that, please throw out all books on parapsychology and psychic and “remote viewing” and “intuition” and “picking up vibrations” and all the other annoying information-corrupting digital pollutant fanatic fuelling dark-age rehash scrap of purely ridiculous bunk that you can possibly find. Thanks.
Google Daniel Dunglas Home or look him up in Encyclopedia Britannica .
Pears don’t have intelligence? Check out Dr. Jagadis Chunder Bose on Wikipedia. Where does one draw the line?
How does one prove experiential knowledge?
There are too many unanswered questions for anyone who would support absolute denial of parapsychological experiences. Only a fool can claim “this is all there is”.
Spirit beings sabatoged government psi-ops later on, because psionics is too powerful to be abused by the corrupt US government, and I’m glad that they got sabatoged, also.
Holds up antimetaphysical cross “Be gone with you, nonphysicality! Parapsychology, not metaphysics!”
Okay, sorry. Seriously (sort of)- Shinton, it is indeed my special criteria for parapsychology. But I don’t think it’s far from the ideal criteria for just about any evidence.
Dear fans of parapsychology, please don’t consider me hostile. It’s not so bad. But the New Age movement implores me to prod at it in debate wheather it is a new field or an epidemic. Taataa.
I think there’s a difference between observing and thinking. It doesn’t take a Descartes to observe, but to think about being? Oh, that’s not any ol’ “I am”, that’s a philosopher.
Meh, the gift of language allows us to see from someone else’s view at least to a degree and that’s enough for me to go by the observation of people as well as the rest of my surroundings and in that I know I am not the only “I am” because of the amount of “I ams” I observe. Not only are there other people to observe but objects too that do not think but it does not make them what they are by not being a who they are.
As I read this paragraph I make myself slightly confused. Nevertheless, I think I got it.
experience of mental evolving into ?
With these givens, I experience existence prior to my concepts of what existence entails. I am before I can think!!! I am being and becoming with a need for belonging.
Sorry if this smacks of metaphysics. In experiential reality it is just plain, simple material existence with its propensity to evolve.
Parapsychology, if experienced, needs proofs only if all of our current religious, philosophic or scientific ideas need proof. Science has set the precedent for empirical verification. It cannot prove its own direction. There is room in our evolving for so many things that can only find empirical verification at later stages of our mental development. The proof problem is that few can verify, given its restrictive criteria for assessments, our own existence.
