Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

kyrani99 · **#1861** by **kyrani99** » Jun 23, 2016 10:56 am

Fallible wrote:And who do you think it says something about that a person presents a story with elements written as facts, and then later gives contradictory details or admits that they're perceptions which may or may not be true?

What you want to do is to slam me. I related an experience, which is quite emotional for me. The point of the matter however is not my emotional response and how I remembered stuff. The point is that I had a premonition and it turned out to be real. I would have been involved in the accident if I didn't pull off the road. This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason. :this:

kyrani99 · **#1862** by **kyrani99** » Jun 23, 2016 11:00 am

Sendraks wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:Your suggestion of "fabrication" implies deceit. This is a value judgement on your part. You don't believe in the paranormal or at least say you don't and as a result you don't like me talking about experiences that involve paranormal elements so you see fit to try to attack me and slander me. It says something about you, not me.

No. Saying that you're obviously willing to make shit up in defence of your beliefs clearly says something about you.

People who don't believe in the paranormal simply don't have delusional beliefs in respect of the paranormal.

And on what evidence do you say "delusional beliefs" if you have NO evidence, (i.e., no evidence for or against)?

tolman · **#1863** by **tolman** » Jun 23, 2016 11:01 am

kyrani99 wrote:I didn't pull off the road in an instant. It took me probably 10 to 20 seconds to put my blinker on and lightly touch the brake to let the person behind know I was going to pull off. Then I negotiated my car onto the bitumen section of the side and started to brake for stopping, probably over another 20 seconds. There was plenty of room for the car behind me to pass me and many more after it. And only after I felt I was going slow enough did I go onto the gravel. So maybe about one minute till I was stopped.

In that scenario, if you hadn't slowed down and had just carried on driving (at 60km/h, ~17m/second), you'd have been way past the 'accident location' ('~100m in front of where you stopped') before the 'other' car veered across the road.

So what was the 'premonition' supposed to have done, exactly?

Fallible · **#1864** by **Fallible** » Jun 23, 2016 11:05 am

kyrani99 wrote:
Fallible wrote:And who do you think it says something about that a person presents a story with elements written as facts, and then later gives contradictory details or admits that they're perceptions which may or may not be true?

What you want to do is to slam me. I related an experience, which is quite emotional for me. The point of the matter however is not my emotional response and how I remembered stuff. The point is that I had a premonition and it turned out to be real. I would have been involved in the accident if I didn't pull off the road. This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason.

Don't tell me what I want and don't want. You get that wrong too. There is no reasoning with you. You can't defend the problems with your claims, so you look for ways to blame other people. The world doesn't operate according to your emotions. No one cares about them but you. They're not obliged to. That's not my problem. Don't post your emotionally driven bollocks here and expect people to swallow it whole, that's the best advice I can give you.

Thomas Eshuis · **#1865** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jun 23, 2016 11:05 am

kyrani99 wrote:
Fallible wrote:And who do you think it says something about that a person presents a story with elements written as facts, and then later gives contradictory details or admits that they're perceptions which may or may not be true?

What you want to do is to slam me.

Unless you claim to have mindreading powers, you really need to stop projecting motives onto other people.
Fallible is justifiably pointing out that if you cannot even be sure about the details of the anecdotes you present as evidence, why should we trust them at all?

kyrani99 wrote: I related an experience, which is quite emotional for me.

That's completely irrelevant to the fact of whether it actually happened.
Just because it's precious to you, does not make it immune to scrutiny.

kyrani99 wrote:
The point of the matter however is not my emotional response and how I remembered stuff. The point is that I had a premonition and it turned out to be real.

Again, if you cannot correctly remembered what happend, how can you claim that it turned out to be real?

kyrani99 wrote:This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason.

Again, stop projecting motives.
Again, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Sendraks · **#1866** by **Sendraks** » Jun 23, 2016 11:16 am

kyrani99 wrote:And on what evidence do you say "delusional beliefs" if you have NO evidence, (i.e., no evidence for or against)?

Delusional beliefs are beliefs held in the absence of evidence or where the available evidence contradicts the belief.

Your beliefs in the paranormal have no evidence to support them and the available evidence contradicts paranormal events as a) having occurred or b) being possible. Your beliefs are therefore delusional.

Cito di Pense · **#1867** by **Cito di Pense** » Jun 23, 2016 11:30 am

kyrani99 wrote:The point is that I had a premonition and it turned out to be real.

So you say. Bollocks to that. What sort of idiot would believe you following on all the rest of your self-contradiction?

Shrunk · **#1868** by **Shrunk** » Jun 23, 2016 11:32 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Unless you claim to have mindreading powers....

kyrani99 · **#1869** by **kyrani99** » Jun 23, 2016 12:07 pm

Shrunk wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
BlackBart wrote:Seems like a suitable point to reiterate my question that, for some bizarre, inexplicable reason, has been passed over;

How do we differentiate this anecdote from fabrication or delusion? And, if we can't, what actual value does it have?

In this particular case, it can quite easily be determined that it is a fabrication. But your point still stands.

Your suggestion of "fabrication" implies deceit.

Yes, it does.

This is a value judgement on your part.

No, it's based on the many contradictions and falsehood contained in your posts, and your responses when these are pointed out. It is a conclusion based on empirical evidence. But, of course, you wouldn't know anything about that.

:Empirical evidenece!!!! ...from a psychiatrists!!!!! :rofl:

Even on a professional level, let alone on a forum, it is all made up.
Here, out of the horse's mouth.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMvrcBvYWk (just 4 mins)

Here is DECEIT.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12jE7TH7zQ (10mins)
Allen Frances' Paid Role in Creating Psychiatric Epidemics :hello:

kyrani99 · **#1870** by **kyrani99** » Jun 23, 2016 12:14 pm

tolman wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:I didn't pull off the road in an instant. It took me probably 10 to 20 seconds to put my blinker on and lightly touch the brake to let the person behind know I was going to pull off. Then I negotiated my car onto the bitumen section of the side and started to brake for stopping, probably over another 20 seconds. There was plenty of room for the car behind me to pass me and many more after it. And only after I felt I was going slow enough did I go onto the gravel. So maybe about one minute till I was stopped.

In that scenario, if you hadn't slowed down and had just carried on driving (at 60km/h, ~17m/second), you'd have been way past the 'accident location' ('~100m in front of where you stopped') before the 'other' car veered across the road.

So what was the 'premonition' supposed to have done, exactly?

Maybe I could have been past it, about 300 meters down the road. But I don't think I would have got a premonition of danger if there was no danger. Every other time I have had a premonition there was danger.

BlackBart · **#1871** by **BlackBart** » Jun 23, 2016 12:18 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

In this particular case, it can quite easily be determined that it is a fabrication. But your point still stands.

Your suggestion of "fabrication" implies deceit.

Yes, it does.

This is a value judgement on your part.

No, it's based on the many contradictions and falsehood contained in your posts, and your responses when these are pointed out. It is a conclusion based on empirical evidence. But, of course, you wouldn't know anything about that.

:Empirical evidenece!!!! ...from a psychiatrists!!!!!

Even on a professional level, let alone on a forum, it is all made up.
Here, out of the horse's mouth.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMvrcBvYWk (just 4 mins)

Here is DECEIT.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12jE7TH7zQ (10mins)
Allen Frances' Paid Role in Creating Psychiatric Epidemics

Well poison much?

Fallible · **#1872** by **Fallible** » Jun 23, 2016 12:19 pm

Wow.

Fallible · **#1873** by **Fallible** » Jun 23, 2016 12:22 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
tolman wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:I didn't pull off the road in an instant. It took me probably 10 to 20 seconds to put my blinker on and lightly touch the brake to let the person behind know I was going to pull off. Then I negotiated my car onto the bitumen section of the side and started to brake for stopping, probably over another 20 seconds. There was plenty of room for the car behind me to pass me and many more after it. And only after I felt I was going slow enough did I go onto the gravel. So maybe about one minute till I was stopped.

In that scenario, if you hadn't slowed down and had just carried on driving (at 60km/h, ~17m/second), you'd have been way past the 'accident location' ('~100m in front of where you stopped') before the 'other' car veered across the road.

So what was the 'premonition' supposed to have done, exactly?

Maybe I could have been past it, about 300 meters down the road. But I don't think I would have got a premonition of danger if there was no danger. Every other time I have had a premonition there was danger.

'I don't think...' blah blah blah. 'Every other time...' wah wah wah. This is not the basis for a rational discussion. Never mind what you don't think or the stories you tell. What can you demonstrate?

kyrani99 · **#1874** by **kyrani99** » Jun 23, 2016 12:24 pm

Sendraks wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:And on what evidence do you say "delusional beliefs" if you have NO evidence, (i.e., no evidence for or against)?

Delusional beliefs are beliefs held in the absence of evidence or where the available evidence contradicts the belief.

Your beliefs in the paranormal have no evidence to support them and the available evidence contradicts paranormal events as a) having occurred or b) being possible. Your beliefs are therefore delusional.

In the absence of evidence you cannot make a judgement.
And in the case of available evidence you cannot make a judgement because you need all the evidence to judge.

I have evidence but it is not scientific evidence. So what? There are a lot of areas that science cannot test. It doesn't make those areas invalid or delusional. For instance your subjective experience cannot be scientifically tested. Does that make your subjective experience delusional?

There is scientific evidence for the paranormal but skeptics want to deny it. :roll:

kyrani99 · **#1875** by **kyrani99** » Jun 23, 2016 12:38 pm

BlackBart wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:

Your suggestion of "fabrication" implies deceit.

Yes, it does.

This is a value judgement on your part.

No, it's based on the many contradictions and falsehood contained in your posts, and your responses when these are pointed out. It is a conclusion based on empirical evidence. But, of course, you wouldn't know anything about that.

:Empirical evidenece!!!! ...from a psychiatrists!!!!!

Even on a professional level, let alone on a forum, it is all made up.
Here, out of the horse's mouth.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMvrcBvYWk (just 4 mins)

Here is DECEIT.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12jE7TH7zQ (10mins)
Allen Frances' Paid Role in Creating Psychiatric Epidemics

Well poison much?

What poison? Anyone who points out the truth is either slammed or called a conspiracy theorist.

He made a biased judgement. As a psychiatrist he knows that people recall emotionally charged events with stuff overlapping but he chose to call it deceit. That is poison.

Fenrir · **#1876** by **Fenrir** » Jun 23, 2016 12:43 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

Yes, it does.

No, it's based on the many contradictions and falsehood contained in your posts, and your responses when these are pointed out. It is a conclusion based on empirical evidence. But, of course, you wouldn't know anything about that.

:Empirical evidenece!!!! ...from a psychiatrists!!!!!

Even on a professional level, let alone on a forum, it is all made up.
Here, out of the horse's mouth.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMvrcBvYWk (just 4 mins)

Here is DECEIT.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12jE7TH7zQ (10mins)
Allen Frances' Paid Role in Creating Psychiatric Epidemics

Well poison much?

What poison? Anyone who points out the truth is either slammed or called a conspiracy theorist.

He made a biased judgement. As a psychiatrist he knows that people recall emotionally charged events with stuff overlapping but he chose to call it deceit. That is poison.

Indeed.

A poison of the mind.

Imaginoma causing toxic poison mind rays.

Nasty stuff people.

Tin foil. Don't leave home without it.

Sendraks · **#1877** by **Sendraks** » Jun 23, 2016 12:45 pm

kyrani99 wrote:In the absence of evidence you cannot make a judgement.

Yes, you can absolutely make a judgement in the absence of evidence. Although that is not what is happening here. The basis for my judgement is the content of your posts which are all full of delusional wibble.

kyrani99 wrote:And in the case of available evidence you cannot make a judgement because you need all the evidence to judge.

If there is no evidence that something exists, then it is entirely reasonable to judge that it does not exist.
There is no evidence for the paranormal, therefore it is entirely rational to judge that it is not real.

People who believe in things that there is no evidence for them in existing, hold delusional beliefs.

kyrani99 wrote:I have evidence but it is not scientific evidence. So what?

Then you have no evidence that anyone rational will care about, as there is no way of verifying your evidence.

kyrani99 wrote:There are a lot of areas that science cannot test.

If it isn't testable, it isn't real. Therefore there isn't any evidence for it.

kyrani99 wrote:It doesn't make those areas invalid or delusional.

By definition it does. Unless you are using some irrational humpty dumpty version of language where the usual definitions and meanings of words do not apply.

kyrani99 wrote: For instance your subjective experience cannot be scientifically tested. Does that make your subjective experience delusional?

I don't go round insisting to other people that anyone should consider my subjective experiences to be an objective version of reality.

My subjective experience of marmite is that I like it. Other people do not like it. I do not insist that they should like it, because my experience is somehow more valid than theirs. Instead, all that can be drawn from my subjective experience is that I like marmite. I might be lying of course, but this can be readily objectively determined by observing how frequently and willing I consume marmite.

The same cannot be done for people claiming to experience the supernatural.

kyrani99 wrote:There is scientific evidence for the paranormal but skeptics want to deny it.

And yet no evidence has been presented. It is little wonder that people are sceptical.

Shrunk · **#1878** by **Shrunk** » Jun 23, 2016 1:00 pm

kyrani99 wrote:This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason.

As usual, you have it exactly backwards. Your reporting of this incident is actually very strong evidence against the paranormal.

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that the bare facts of your story are true: That you did pull over from the road and then, shortly thereafter, one of the cars behind you was involved in a serious accident. I'm not convinced you're being truthful about even that much, but let's say you are. You have already shown that details of this incident are being changed and revised with each telling of the story. And it is human nature, when incidents of this sort occur, to believe that they happened for a purpose. e.g. Someone misses his flight, the plane goes down in a crash, and the person thanks God for making him miss the flight. Whereas all that happened was he missed the flight because that is a mundane, everyday occurrence.

You likely pulled over for equally mundane, everyday reasons: You noticed a warning light indicating a door was open, someone in the car had to take a pee, you just felt tired and needed to give someone else the wheel, whatever. And, in hindsight and with revisions based on what you want the story to mean, these mundane reasons become a "premonition." Just as you change the fact that you witnessed the accident to your only viewing its aftermath, or from everyone being killed instantly to maybe no one dying at all. Those are cold, hard, concrete facts of the story. And if those are so easily mutable, then it is even more likely that you would change a more abstract and ill-defined aspect of the story, such as your motivation for pulling off the road.

So, sorry, the person with a "problem" here is you, and the problem is your desperation to fabricate evidence for the "paranormal" where none exists.

Shrunk · **#1879** by **Shrunk** » Jun 23, 2016 1:03 pm

kyrani99 wrote:What poison? Anyone who points out the truth is either slammed or called a conspiracy theorist.

He made a biased judgement. As a psychiatrist he knows...

Ah. So you admit psychiatrists know stuff.

...that people recall emotionally charged events with stuff overlapping but he chose to call it deceit.

Ah. So admit your reporting of the story was inaccurate because of your emotional state. We should just ignore it, then. Thank you. That takes care of that.

Thomas Eshuis · **#1880** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Jun 23, 2016 1:33 pm

kyrani99 wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
kyrani99 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

Yes, it does.

No, it's based on the many contradictions and falsehood contained in your posts, and your responses when these are pointed out. It is a conclusion based on empirical evidence. But, of course, you wouldn't know anything about that.

:Empirical evidenece!!!! ...from a psychiatrists!!!!!

Even on a professional level, let alone on a forum, it is all made up.
Here, out of the horse's mouth.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMvrcBvYWk (just 4 mins)

Here is DECEIT.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12jE7TH7zQ (10mins)
Allen Frances' Paid Role in Creating Psychiatric Epidemics

Well poison much?

What poison? Anyone who points out the truth is either slammed or called a conspiracy theorist.

He made a biased judgement. As a psychiatrist he knows that people recall emotionally charged events with stuff overlapping but he chose to call it deceit. That is poison.

Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Re: Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?

Who is online