Hi All,
As a person who is not(unfortunately) science oriented I ask you:
regarding paranormall/mystical experiences what should we think about their reliability.Consider for example such claim, when 2.5 years ago I discussed personal experiences of other worlds/universe for here:

"In my experience, when you live in returns time and live parallel worlds, there are those who order them- good top up, and others do not get along, so thay deleted from them .Some living proof , some part have not "

How rational/scientific minded person should regard such claim?Wow he claims "some living proof"

I can't even understand what the quoted sentence means. Anyone claiming to exist, and be conscious of it, in parallel worlds has an awfully steep hill to climb to even begin to sound credible. I suspect it's so steep it actually curves around and enters their rear ends.

It doesn't parse in English at all, let alone correctly. The correct response is:

What?

hackenslash wrote:It doesn't parse in English at all, let alone correctly. The correct response is:

What?

AS I understand he simply states that he encountered parallel worlds,albeit in some strange ways...

Alexander1304 wrote:Hi All,
As a person who is not(unfortunately) science oriented I ask you:
regarding paranormall/mystical experiences what should we think about their reliability.Consider for example such claim, when 2.5 years ago I discussed personal experiences of other worlds/universe for here:

"In my experience, when you live in returns time and live parallel worlds, there are those who order them- good top up, and others do not get along, so thay deleted from them .Some living proof , some part have not "

How rational/scientific minded person should regard such claim?Wow he claims "some living proof"

regarding paranormall/mystical experiences what should we think about their reliability.

There are two kinds, relative to what you've said: those you think you experience yourself, and those that are reported to you by others who think they have experienced them.

First thing to recognize: no one directly experiences paranormal/mystical things. They experience what they think is reality, and they DEDUCE that they were paranormal or mystical. How reliable their deductions are, depend on a number of things, including everything from the mental and physical condition of the observer, to their previous experiences, to their level and specialty of education.

For the general nature of your post/question here, I would suggest that you "google" something along the lines of "the unreliability of first hand witnesses."

As for his claim to have directly perceived "parallel worlds," I would tend to think that by definition of parallel worlds, that's impossible.

First thing that comes to mind: the person he thought was his devoted mate, was seen dallying with someone else, and he chose the delusion of "experiencing parallel worlds" over the more pedantic "she's screwing someone else behind his back."

You understand that? Is it machine translated from another language where you've seen the source?

Let me crank out my shpiel here. Personal experiences alone lack a method to confirm their efficacy, and therefore cannot be taken as reliable. Blame Roger Bacon! Independent verification, the ability to test and retest, they allow us to form conclusions and make predictions based on those conclusions. If those predictions prove to be consistently accurate and we can explain the method as to why, we can attempt to bring alternate conclusions that might also explain the data differently.

The model whose predictions are consistently and reliably correct are considered to have the most predictive power, and are therefore considered the most reliable unless their predictions and conclusions start coming up false or other predictive models are more accurate.

"I dun felt it in my bones" experiences and the like may seem convincing, they are often very overwhelming and very convincing especially if people are agreeing with you. However, people agreeing with you is not a path to truth either, as reality is not dictated by consensus vote. The more completely you feel convinced about something you can't verify outside subjective sensation and emotion, the more wise you are trying to tie that sensation to verifiable data. If you cannot, you are best off rejecting any such conclusions unless and until they can be verified.

Alexander1304 wrote:
How rational / scientific minded person should regard such a claim

With an incredibly large dollop of sodium chloride and nothing else

Mrs. Lak believes in "something" beyond this earthly existence, because she has had several personal experiences that she parsed as communications from the other side. No amount of discussion will dissuade her. Maybe she's an existentialist? IF the experiences she describes did in fact occur in exactly the way she says they did then she's either on to something or she needs to buy a shitload of lottery tickets. I think she was already primed to believe wooish things (her mum is a reiki master and aromatherapist and reflexoligist and....), then something a bit odd happened and BAM - confirmation bias to the rescue.