From: O. Razor (o_razor@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 05 1999 - 03:07:47 MDT
>Despite these two experiences I remain skeptical, but open to
>the possibility that psi phenomena may still exist and eventually
>be explained within a scientific framework. Because of the
>highly spontaneous nature of my experiences there is no way
>I could reproduce them. If I could, I would every single night just
>to experience the hedonistic qualities alone. But of course, without
>reproducibility we don't have science. I may still be a skeptic
>but I cannot deny my own experiences and their validation by
>other observers.
>
>Comments?
>
>Paul Hughes
Well, firstly I would like to know if you were experimenting with any
psychoactive drugs at the time. Need I say more (in regards to psychoactive
drug use and its relation to your supposed out-of-body experience)?
As for other explainations more plausible than psi, I can offer such things
as selective thinking, wishful thinking, self-deception, memory
reconstruction, confirmation bias, communal reinforcement, subjective
validation, etc.
I could take your word, believe that what happened happened as desribed, and
then formulate an explaination. Perhaps some strange set of physics that we
don't know about is at work, and by studying these psi events a whole
paradigm shift will take place. I would much rather question the validity
of your experience than postulate new physics.
Nobody can prove that your account of the events being desribed are false;
but a person can offer more plausible explainations, and to accept the more
plausible explaination seems, IMO, not only more rational but more
extropic/transhuman as well. The way you describe the events as happeneing
are not impossible, but rather highly improbable.
As Robert Carroll put it when he replied to a reader of his Skeptic's
Dictionary: "There are many people out there who salivate at 'anomalies'
such as yours. To them, such stories make life interesting because they open
the door to 'infinite possibilities' and make life 'interesting' and full of
'exciting possibilities.'" This at least deals with motivation for
providing extraordinary explainations.
I think this may be enough for now, so in the spirit of David Hume and
Thomas Huxley: ask yourself what is more likely, that the claim is true or
that the one making the claim is deceived, in error or intentionally trying
to deceive you?
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:40 MST