People that sit on the both side what do you think about the propnet and skeptic?

Im here and wait :l i'm really want to discussions but im not a good english 
writer.
Fix my error: Proponet not propnet sorry

Im here and wait :l i'm really want to discussions but im not a good english 
writer.
Fix my error: Proponet not propnet sorry

If I understand your question, you want to know about people who are on both 'sides', and what they think? 

I sit on both sides. Mostly because I've always been able to put myself into other peoples shoes and see it from their point of view and understand why. And also day to day, my mood affects my perception; if i'm feeling grumpy and down, then I'm much more skeptical. If I'm feeling 'connected' with other people and feel like I'm in a 'flow state', I'm much more on the other side and able to interpret things in such a manner. And when I say 'side', I am aware that I'm 'immersing' myself in that particular mindset, so as to fully understand the subtleties and perhaps grasp at the truth. But I never fully identify with any side because I am constantly in doubt. I take things from either, that I can use.

It is my 'feeling' that, I think this element is part of whatever connects UFO's, NDE's, Synchronicities etc. This 'alter your perception' thing seems (to me) to be a key part of something that is going on. Not in the woo woo new age kind of stuff. But many things I've found, hold a kernel of truth, even things that are widely different from each other in the greatest possible magnitude.

In Jainism for example... Mallisena uses the Elephant parable to argue that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don't understand. "Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant."



The solution is really what is hinted at in the opening sayings of the Gospel of Thomas...

2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."




My own personal opinion is that the objective external world, our waking reality, is a shared reality, and it can be understood as being fundamentally based on patterns (spatial and temporal). Those patterns cohere.

Therefore I think for an individual to be able to share with other individuals, there must be some sort of pattern matching taking place between these individuals. If two individuals had no common patterns which match... they should not be able to share. What we're talking about here is peoples experiences (learning).

That really is the problem you are asking about here. Proponents and Skeptics understand the world from different perspectives based on their different learning, based on their different experiences. Individuals really need shared experiences, to be able to share well... when experiences are very different... sharing doesn't go so well. Additional learning can help here.

All these problems are informational... and are understood in terms of classic spatial and temporal patterns, and more recently in terms of relativity, and non-classical quantum mechanics.

Generalizing of such theories is an attempt to move to a more fundamental explanation, a more fundamental common denominator to allow improved sharing, or improved understanding. Currently we're heading towards a new informational generalization that should supersed many of our current ways of understanding the world. It should be a big revolution.

It a bird, it a plane? No it superman
It the spirit it the brain no it mentalphysic.
 So you mean that we life in a world full of ideal, being trap by our physic form, so every one chose a way to walk. Hope that we will see the end.

As far as i've noticed, and I'm pretty new of this "world", both sides are pretty biased.

the skeptics are often unwilling to even look at whatever form of evidence is being proposed, instead recurring to the idea of Occam's Razor to explain that there is no need to resort to psi in order to explain different phenomena. They think that maybe those phenomena are just misunderstood by conventional science, but eventually materialism will explain them. They often don't even give the benift of doubt to parapsychology and the like. Another problem in their ranks is rudeness, many of them are extremely arrogant and think all proponents are either insane or delusional or just naive, so they often attack them with personal insults, sometimes very violently.

On the proponent side, i've seen many studies deeply flawed by either sloppy reasearch, high number of weird assumptions, wishful thinking and/or rater bias. Parapsychologists have often been tricked by magicians and impostors, especially regarding TK/PK and mediumship, damaging their credibility when the claimants observed were exposed as fakes by skeptics (Uri Geller is probably the most famous case, but it's not the only one). Another problem with the proponets is that sometimes in their ranks hide real pseudoscientists or other non professional figures, such as Deepak Chopra.

Now, this are only my views of course, they may not be the reality.

Raf999, you keep banging on repeatedly about Uri Geller. I'd like to ask, did you ever take the time to read through the whole of this thread:
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-u...-you-think

What do you make of the various viewpoints expressed there?

Raf999, you keep banging on repeatedly about Uri Geller. I'd like to ask, did you ever take the time to read through the whole of this thread:
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-u...-you-think

What do you make of the various viewpoints expressed there?

I've read them, and Geller is as far as I'm concerned a fraud. He was exposed as such by Randi, all that was needed was disallowing him to bring his own tools to the scene. He then started making a lot of weird moves and then declared that he wasn't feeling strong enough. The lab research made on him was flawed, sadly like many others in this field, by a lack of security protocols. He was allowed to get too close to the objects of the test, and he also had an associate present there with him. i can't accept Geller as true, and up until now i remain convinced that there is no such thing as macro PK/TK, only skilled magicians.

I've read them, and Geller is as far as I'm concerned a fraud. He was exposed as such by Randi, all that was needed was disallowing him to bring his own tools to the scene. He then started making a lot of weird moves and then declared that he wasn't feeling strong enough.

When you say he was exposed as a fraud by Randi, do you just mean that he failed to perform under tightly controlled conditions?

I'm actually surprised by how little direct evidence of fraud there is in Geller's case. I think there's quite strong circumstantial evidence suggesting fraud, but that's not the same thing.

When you say he was exposed as a fraud by Randi, do you just mean that he failed to perform under tightly controlled conditions?

I'm actually surprised by how little direct evidence of fraud there is in Geller's case. I think there's quite strong circumstantial evidence suggesting fraud, but that's not the same thing.

One has to make up his mind sooner or later. When i saw Geller fail horribly and try to trick his way into the show (kicking the table trying to move containers, selecting a spoon already lightly bent) I was pretty sure that he had no superpower at all. Those conditions, imposed by Randi, were much better than the ones used by the researchers and it showed. I'm sure somebody will still have doubts on him or even think he has some real PK powers, but it's really not for me. 

Another problem I have with this is with Radin, accepting as some form of evidence a spoon he bent during a "spoon bending party", that was provided by the organizers of the event. That spoon bending, in my opinion and most of the scientific community, amounts to nothing as the environement wasn't controlled at all. this is a real problem qwith pararesearchers, they are willing to take as evidence absurd things sometimes.

One has to make up his mind sooner or later. When i saw Geller fail horribly and try to trick his way into the show (kicking the table trying to move containers, selecting a spoon already lightly bent) I was pretty sure that he had no superpower at all. Those conditions, imposed by Randi, were much better than the ones's used by the researchers and it showed. I'm sure somebody will still have doubts on him or even think he has some real PK powers, but it's really not ofr me. 

Another problem I have with this is with Radin, accepting as some form of evidence a spoon he bent during a "spoon bending party", that was provided by the organizers of the event. That spoon bending, in my opinion and most of the scientific community, amiunts to nothing as the environement wasn't controlled at all. this is a real problem qwith pararesearchers, they are willing to take as evidence absurd things sometimes.

As I said, I think there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards fraud in Geller's case. But I don't think you should give Randi credit for "exposing" him on that TV show. Or if you do, you should also give Randi the blame for Geller's being offered a pre-bent spoon!

As to whether fraud can explain the experiments on Geller at Stanford, that's something we discussed at length on the other thread. I don't think the sceptical explanations are always convincing. But maybe the sceptics weakened their case by trying to explain too much rather than saying "I don't know." Anyway, I think the suspicion of fraud against Geller is strong enough that those experiments aren't of any evidential value.

And as for Dean Radin's experience with the spoon, you imply the organisers of the event could somehow have treated the spoon so that it would become soft and pliable for a short time, but do you actually know of any way in which that could be done?