"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

Thank you... 

I want to take a closer look and think and then ask a question or two...

One question does come to mind immediately though. 

Since much of this data in literature comes from non-controlled, non-lab situations, I was really curious if there is a "non-managed" (not prearranged) situation that you would find convincing? Or is the very nature of this sort of evidence not reliable to you on a prima facie basis?

That's a really good question. I would have to be able to completely trust that someone wasn't fooled, and I don't think I would be able. I don't completely trust that I can't be fooled, but there are a few spontaneous experiences I think I could trust. I'll describe what I'm currently working on (which is more about anomalous knowledge than non-physical consciousness) as something which could be reliable to me on a prima facie basis. 

I lucid dream. And one uncommon skill I have is that I can read and recall bits of books in my dreams, with difficulty and concentration. When this happens, I try to immediately wake up and write downl what I read and then see if I can match this to a real book. My hope is that I can match this to a book I haven't read. So far, the phrases I've written down mostly haven't been specific enough. I was able to get something specific enough to match to a single book, but it was a book I possibly read. This is an ongoing project and one day I may be successful - I get something about one or two times a month and last time was two nights ago. 

Linda

On the subject of specific examples of psi, should I conclude that you don't want to talk about the Global Consciousness Project?

I don't want to talk to you. You've been nothing but an ass to me in the past.

When you opened your post with accusations of game-playing, even though I don't engage in that, it was your third strike for me on this forum.

Linda

That's a really good question. I would have to be able to completely trust that someone wasn't fooled, and I don't think I would be able. I don't completely trust that I can't be fooled, but there are a few spontaneous experiences I think I could trust. I'll describe what I'm currently working on (which is more about anomalous knowledge than non-physical consciousness) as something which could be reliable to me on a prima facie basis. 

I lucid dream. And one uncommon skill I have is that I can read and recall bits of books in my dreams, with difficulty and concentration. When this happens, I try to immediately wake up and write downl what I read and then see if I can match this to a real book. My hope is that I can match this to a book I haven't read. So far, the phrases I've written down mostly haven't been specific enough. I was able to get something specific enough to match to a single book, but it was a book I possibly read. This is an ongoing project and one day I may be successful - I get something about one or two times a month and last time was two nights ago. 

Linda

BTW, when I say "fooled", I don't mean trickery, per se (although it could also be that sometimes). I'm thinking more of being fooled by circumstances.

Linda

That's a really good question. I would have to be able to completely trust that someone wasn't fooled, and I don't think I would be able. I don't completely trust that I can't be fooled, but there are a few spontaneous experiences I think I could trust. I'll describe what I'm currently working on (which is more about anomalous knowledge than non-physical consciousness) as something which could be reliable to me on a prima facie basis. 

I lucid dream. And one uncommon skill I have is that I can read and recall bits of books in my dreams, with difficulty and concentration. When this happens, I try to immediately wake up and write downl what I read and then see if I can match this to a real book. My hope is that I can match this to a book I haven't read. So far, the phrases I've written down mostly haven't been specific enough. I was able to get something specific enough to match to a single book, but it was a book I possibly read. This is an ongoing project and one day I may be successful - I get something about one or two times a month and last time was two nights ago. 

Linda

Linda:

Great info. Thanks!

BTW: I am a lucid dreamer. I have had an experience that is a bit convoluted but I find convincing. Rather than spend who knows how long to arrange it and write it, I am pasting a link to a video where I discuss it.

Pardon the video quality, I know it is poor, but I was using is as a working tool for planning a lecture series I'm doing in the Spring.

The section I would point you to starts at 46:00 and ends around 1:05:00. If you have 20 minutes, check that part out. It's shows something similar to what you are describing.

I don't want to talk to you. You've been nothing but an ass to me in the past.

When you opened your post with accusations of game-playing, even though I don't engage in that, it was your third strike for me on this forum.

That's fine. But just for the record, in response to your name-calling, I'll copy the whole exchange here, so that people can judge for themselves whether it was inappropriate for me to mention - in my third post of the exchange - that I had been "trying to be positive and to assume everyone is genuinely interested in discussing psi, rather than games-playing."

(1) fls [to jkmac]:

So far, they seem to have the same sorts of things in common. 

If you think that a particular phenomenon has better evidence in its favor than the Ganzfeld experiments, please share. 
Linda

(2) Chris:

I have a feeling I may regret this, but - the reason I started the thread on the Global Consciousness Project is that (according to the organisers) for the formal series of experiments, all the details including the statistical hypotheses were fixed in advance, an extremely high overall level of statistical significance was reached (Z=7.31), and (pace the general concerns Max has raised about the behaviour of the random number generators) no one has suggested a conventional mechanism by which the observed correlations, which are absent from the data as a whole, could be produced.

It's an odd state of affairs. Nearly always, the sceptical comment is simply that the GCP involves retrospectively looking for patterns in the data at the times of global events. As that is the opposite of what they say they are doing, that tells us more about the poor quality of sceptical comment than about the GCP.

(3) fls:

I'm not sure how these results are supposed to be psi-like. How would they be connected to reincarnation, for example?

Linda

(4) Chris:

As far as I know, no one has suggested they are connected to reincarnation.

I must say I find your question very surprising. Do you know anything at all about the Global Consciousness Project?

(5) fls:

Okay.

Yes.

Linda

(6) Chris:

In the new spirit of the new discussion boards, I've been trying to be positive and to assume everyone is genuinely interested in discussing psi, rather than games-playing. I'll try to persevere, despite the not-very-encouraging one-word answers.

So, as you do know something of the GCP, probably you're aware that it was an outgrowth of the PEAR lab's experiments on micro-PK. Perhaps you also saw my earlier post in this thread - immediately following the one you replied to, quoting J. E. Kennedy, who wrote "If there are psi effects in these data, I expect that experimenter effects will remain the most parsimonious explanation for the foreseeable future."

In the light of that, perhaps it would be easiest if you explained why you're not sure why the effects are supposed to be psi-like. Or, equivalently, what alternative non-psi mechanisms you see by which they could be produced.

And of course, as fls has said she doesn't want to talk to me, I won't respond to her posts in future.

BTW, when I say "fooled", I don't mean trickery, per se (although it could also be that sometimes). I'm thinking more of being fooled by circumstances.

Linda

Oh I get that.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that BY FAR, the biggest, and most pernicious enemy we have, in terms of being fooled, is of course ourselves.

Linda:

Great info. Thanks!

BTW: I am a lucid dreamer. I have had an experience that is a bit convoluted but I find convincing. Rather than spend who knows how long to arrange it and write it, I am pasting a link to a video where I discuss it.

Pardon the video quality, I know it is poor, but I was using is as a working tool for planning a lecture series I'm doing in the Spring.

The section I would point you to starts at 46:00 and ends around 1:05:00. If you have 20 minutes, check that part out. It's shows something similar to what you are describing.

Thanks for that. It helps.

I don't have confidence in my imagery, but I think writing will be specific enough to convince me.

Linda

Linda and Arouet,

I will respond to your posts. Really busy today through Wednesday, though there may be some time tonight. I want to make sure I read and understand them fully before answering. I read them once through already and want to make sure my response isn't rushed. Thanks for your patience.

Linda and Arouet,

I will respond to your posts. Really busy today through Wednesday, though there may be some time tonight. I want to make sure I read and understand them fully before answering. I read them once through already and want to make sure my response isn't rushed. Thanks for your patience.

Thank you. No problem with going through them on your own schedule. I'm not jkmac (I'm never going to let him live that down  ).

Linda