Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:51:59
In reply to Re: Astrology » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 31, 2005, at 20:28:42
> Fair enough, except it wasn't like that.
Did she delivered her retro-dictions and predictions without any feedback from you (being able to see your face / tension in your body / have access to your tone of voice) whatsoever? Methinks she did not. the example i gave was very blatent. but the same process works much much more subtly.
i've been reading about hypnosis / hypnotism. that works the same...
> When I said, "I am attuned to semantic issues, and I'm conscious of ambiguity of speech, and simple statements masquerading as the profound.", I was meaning that I was not participating in that sort of dialogue.you... you don't want to believe that you were. you want to believe that your experience was veridical. you want to believe... that this woman had what? the power to see into your past and your future and tell you what was going to happen in your life? the power to... temporarily heal you.
and...
suprise suprise...
> I do believe my capacity for critical thinking was sharper then than now. And I'd wager that I'm still able, in that regard.
i know you are more than capable of thinking critically. but i also think... that what happens is that people want to believe. they want to believe. and in those times... their critical thinking skills are not optimal.
> And I don't care what explanation one might give for what occurred that day. I felt things in my body that I have neither felt before nor since. I had my eyes closed, so I can't see how I could have placeboed anything at all. All I knew was that she was near, from her voice. And yet, her nearness was felt within me. She didn't ever touch me. And yet, she did.you 'don't care what explanation one might give for what occurred that day'. thats not much of a 'critical thinking' attitude regarding the source / origin / cause of your experience. because of course i am not denying your experience. i am not denying what seems to be the case to you. what i am a LOT sceptical about is the following:
- that she knew things from your past at better than chance rates. or that if she knew things from your past at better than chance rates then that had to do with either the formulation of what she knew or with feedback that you gave her unconsciously.
- that she knew things about your future at better than chance rates. or that if she knew things about your future at better than chance rates then that had to do with either the formulation of what she predicted or with your unconscious seeking out / acceptance of that course for your future.
- that she was able to do more in alleviating your pain than a hypnotist or good placebo would have done if only you had as much faith in their suggestion as hers.
> > Hmm. I've had similar style predictions courtesy of community mental health...
> Based on what? Do they do charts?aye. i like to think of it as numerology
(stats)
;-)
(i am half joking)
> > > P.S. Ghosts exist, too. Data points not in accord with accepted knowledge.> > is that what a ghost is?
> > an anomaly?
> That's one descriptive term that applies, yes.there could be anomalies, there could be 'data points not in accord with accepted knowledge' but there could still be no such things as ghosts.
> You meant to trick me. <finger wagging>i'm not meaning to trick you.
if you assert that it is possible that ghosts exist...
well... i want to counter that there is no such things as ghosts.there aren't any unicorns, there isn't a tooth fairy, there is no such thing as phlogiston, or witches, or satan, or angels, or ectoplasmic spiritual stuff that needs to be written into the periodic table of elements before chemistry is complete...
your ontology is more complex than mine (because you are asserting the existence of some kind of... ectoplasmic spiritual stuff... and thus the burden of proof...
> > what do you mean by 'ghost'?
> You know. Spirit thing. Haunted premises. "not in accord with accepted knowledge" spooky things.so...
the periodic table of elements is incomplete because science has yet to acknowledge the 'spirit thing'?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:592960
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20051225/msgs/594114.html