See even 10 year olds know when something can be a scam and do something about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbkIUZ5EmE

Thanks for the links. This shows that when certain claims are made, they can be tested and shown to be either true or false. Once proven false, the discussion should be over. It’s reasonable to say that a person who continues to believe a claim after it has been proven false is delusional.

The problem is that not all claims are easily tested, and many can’t be tested at all. And the testing of some claims (such as claims made by channelers) may require the cooperation of those making the claims. I doubt that someone making a false claim would be eager to take part in a test that would conclusively prove their claim to be false!

So do you have any ideas concerning tests for claims made by DMT users? Any way to conclusively prove or disprove some of the common key features of DMT experiences?

Although not directed at me I would like to take a stab at it. Personally I'm split on this issue. It is an incredible substance which seems to have something "beyond us" to it. Now im not at all saying that is does in fact, just simply describing my experience with it. However whether the experience is real or not there is something to be gained. It gives you a chance to view your life and surroundings in a new way, or through a new filter if you will. I am using the word filter metaphorically to describe the mental process of assigning meaning to your experiences. This filter has been tuned by your parents, your peers, your life etc. In everyday life you have a hard time seeing things in anyway other than through your own filter. Psychedelics smash that filter and by comparing your feelings and experiences with and without your filter you can gain a better understanding of many things.

I often feel as though I can view things through others perspectives as if I was that person. Other times I will see my own prejudices and character flaws which previously I had never noticed. Almost every time I realize how important certain aspects of my life are that I dont focus on often and how irrelevant some issues I worry over really are.

For these reasons and many more I find hyperspace useful and rewarding regardless of its truth. The experience was real even if it was only mine.

Very true.

Burnt, your attempt at "humor" is nothing more than making fun of people who do not share the same beliefs as you do, and is therefore petty and childish.

My guess is that you were either the schoolyard bully, or the one that got bullied and now you are trying to make up for that...either way it is pathetic.

I would take it one step further and say that is reasonable to assume that those who believe a claim, especially a nonsensical one, without evidence are delusional.

As Carl Sagan put it simply: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, but then we have to define “evidence”. Are subjective experiences evidence? Are statements from a reliable source evidence? Etc… That’s for another thread.

Actually, a delusion is defined as “a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence”, so belief in a claim that hasn’t been proven false is not delusional.

Faith is defined as “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence”, so I think that “those who believe a claim, especially a nonsensical one, without evidence” are exhibiting faith, not delusion.

I would not define any of these as strong evidence and by no means extraordinary.


Definitions can be tricky

delusion - A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts

delusion - is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception.

delusion - a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea.

delusions - Fixed, irrational ideas not shared by others and not responding to a logical argument.


The only discernible difference between faith and delusion is the emotional connotation.

Who determines if a claim is "nonsensical"?

I struggled over the use of that word for that reason. I was looking for a word that more describes an extreme theory that is not in line with current knowledge. Nonsensical may not have conveyed that as I had intended. If you know of a better word let me know! haha

Outside consensus reality, perhaps?

^^What does consensus reality even mean?



When its not coherent with evidence or known facts about reality.



Yes and the fact that you and some others here can't handle a joke or evidence shows how childish and intellectually immature you are

So lets leave it at that.



Yes they do tend to avoid real testing and inquiry into their claims. That's why this story is so amusing to me. Because a 9 year old girl slammed these people.



I am not so interested in disproving features of the experience because all features are part of the experience and do happen. What I am interested in is understanding what parts of the brain dmt works on. I think the systems and parts of the brain it works on will one day be shown to be things like color perception, facial recognition, object recognizing, sense of self. Your brain actively creates all these perceptions, although the connections are not always fully known and how it makes the "qualia" of experience is also not known. Its amazing how strongly perception correlates with brain function.

My problem is when people make nonsensical claims about dmt based on their own interpretations of what happened. For example man sees alien man talks to alien man claims aliens are real. This is on par with schizophrenics walking down the block telling you there are probes all over the town sending him messages. It should be looked at with the same exact critical inquiry.

More humor from Penn and Teller:

http://www.youtube.com/w...flOo&feature=related

If you can't laugh at this you must have had too much reiki and lost your sense of humor.

Not funny, Penn and Teller resort to the same sensationalism and shallow depictions used by their targets. Can't you take your condescending attitude somewhere else?

EDIT: Penn and Teller should learn about comedy from Trey and Matt over at South Park. Check out "Cherokee Hair Tampons".

Lighten up!! that was actually very funny!!

I love the constant references to "destressing" and "boosting the immune system"... Does no one see that these statements, particularly "boosting the immune system" by homeopaths and proponents of gensing and echinacea, mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING? Like the guy said in the video, be as vague as you can and people will buy it. IOW, Vagueness sells!! and often, better than sex evidently...

"Boosting your immune system" is an empty phrase - Do these substances increase the # of white blood cells, stimulate antibody production, increase the lymphocytes' ability to identify and target pathogens? Of course not - that is measurable. And these effects have never been MEASURED with these substances. they have tried I imagine (it is hugely in their interests to do so), and failed.

So the phrase is entirely meaningless, and more a marketing phenomena than truth. Ironically, this marketing of misrepresentation and misinformation is what most on this side of the argument accuse the BIGPHARMA of perpetrating. And they are largely guilty, but certainly not alone. Alternative medecine is HUGE business, and if phrases like "destressing" and "boosting the immune system" are given currency and not scrutinized, ie taken at face value, then the user/buyer is the chump.

Caveat Emptor.

Now I need to lighten up!

thanks Burnt, that made me smile.

JBArk

Your reading comprehension and vocabulary skills are as poor as your people skills.

It is not a joke. Please indicate how this is anything but making fun of others for your own amusement and sense of self worth? Making fun of and putting down others is sadistic and in no way a joke.

Intellectually immature? LOL, you sure do give me good laughs sometimes. You can't even debate without resorting to name calling and then running off to sulk when your "intellectual" skills don't impress someone with thier overwhelming brillance.

Secondly, I agreed with the "evidence" you provided. Notice how I said, "Very True" to Gibran2's reply? I was agreeing with your premise and his that once things have been disproven then those who continue to believe in them are doing so on "faith" is the word I think they agreed upon.

Consensus reality is what you would call "objective reality" or in your case, just plain reality since you completely ignore and dismiss the subjective part of the equation. Notice how in this case, consensus = objective, ie: that which we have collectively agreed upon.

I also agree with this Saidan. But what about things that are unprovable? How do you distinguish between the crackpot and the bearer of truth?

I am green with pink polka dots. By your argument, until you track me down and photograph me, what I have said is truth. Let's assume that is not possible. Perhaps I die and am cremated with no remaining photographs, if you like. It is no more true through absence of evidence.

I know, i know, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Nor, however, is it proof of existence...

I don't buy these default arguments. I am not green with pink polka dots, even if I insist and you buy into my assertion. It is patently FALSE. Some things just seem inherently "untrue", and to argue this, as you and Burnt have been doing, is circular.

I repeat: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not the other way around. Extraordinary claims cannot hide behind their un-provability. You can believe them yourself, but it is quite futile to try and convince others. Or, clearly, it should be - apparently there are people who will buy anything...

Cheers,

JBArk

How can you not see the humor in this vid?


Thank you jbark, you have literally expressed the bulk of my frustration with these recent threads in a very succinct and articulate fashion. There are seemingly fantastical claims that are being made and subsequently defended by statements along the lines of, "well, no one can absolutely know so you cant discount it" (duh, you can't prove negatives, what is really being said? not much), which to my mind is a flimsy argument. This was why I stopped commenting in the other thread, not because I felt there was some ultimate truth that had been masked from my reach, but because as jbark says, this argument is circular and goes on forever (as evidenced by the plethora of threads dealing with this exact same argument between the same individuals).

Would you agree that we most likely know far less than 1% of what there is to learn about the universe?

There are some things that can only be proven subjectively, they are esoteric and fall outside of the mainstream of beliefs. I get what you are saying with your example but honestly, can you point to anywhere in any one of my threads where I have claimed the truth of my position? Have I not made a point to acknowledge valid counter arguments to some of the ideas? Have I not encouraged healthy respectful debate, challenging and discussing with others to try to gain a better understanding myself of these concepts?

How many physicists have to say the same thing before people will start conidering the possibility they are on to something?How many people have to have similar psychic experiences before they are accepted? There is a plethora of evidence out there, its just that people choose not to accept it because it falls so far outside their own reality tunnel and what they have been taught to believe. They are all lumped together as scammers, frauds, snake oil salesmen, deluded, crazy, etc...and their sole purpose is to cheat you out of your money. It is also possible that the "proof" is being kept from us for some reason.

All it takes is for one of the millions of UFO sightings to be true for them to exist.

What if...just for a second, you consider the possibility that Darryl Anka is actually allowing his body and mind to be used as a conduit for a non-physical aspect of himself. A "Higher Self" which by definition would be a more evolved aspect and therefore reside in what we would consider the "future". Then it would make sense would it not? Then the proof is right in front of you. How many items from science fiction have become realities in our lives in the past 30 years?

Now of course if you are an athiest, or believe that we come from nothing and return to nothing, then this concept seems ludicrus. If you believe that earth has the only sentient life in the universe, or galaxy, then it is absurd. It is inconcieveable becasue it is completely outside of a particular reality tunnel. It makes us a diamond in the rough, rather than a shining jewel amonst an infinite number of shining jewels. I believe we are unique and common. Logical sense tells us so.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I do not believe I could, nor do I want to change people's beliefs. I am simply expressing my own point of view from what I have learned and experienced over a period of years researcing a variety of different topics. I know a lot about a lot of different things, and I know very little to nothing about many many more. But I have come to an understanding within myself as to how things work which makes sense to me. I see ample evidence all over the place, and wonder how others cannot notice it, but I cannot make others see what they cannot or choose not to. I do not expect it to make sense to anyone else, though I know some will agree with me, and others disagree which is exactly as it is supposed to be. I take issue when someone says, "I'm right and you're wrong" when they cannot possibly know that, and cannot support it with any evidence.

I argue against those who say that this possible structure of our universe cannot possibly be true, when logically they cannot possibly say that with any validity. "This is the way it has to be because we don't know any better!" Claiming absolute truth of an unprovable position while denying others perception of truth of another unprovable position. It is the absense/evidence debate, but one side is claiming their position as THE TRUTH, which cannot be done, correct?

The arguments burnt and I are having are circular in the sense that he is saying, "I know THE TRUTH" and I'm saying, "You cannot possibly know that". I am just calling him on his own BS which he claims he is doing to others. Our arguments wouldn't be circular if he actually contributed something to the discussion rather than just being an asshole.

So...if in my first question you answered in the affirmative, what could possibly be waiting for us to discover out there? It just boggles the mind doesn't it? We truly do not know much of anything being stuck here on this wonderful spinning blue marble.

Some of the ideas floated around don't seem so crazy anymore, an infinity of possibilities...

Wow, you guys sure watched this with colored lenses on...they talked to the Reflexologist, had a bunch of comments from naysayers and snide arrogant comments from Penn, but completely ignored the patient.

What did the patient say? "I feel good, I don't feel any pain in my siatic nerve at all" Hmmm, seems to have cured her of her pain at least temporairly, and if they were truly tring to discover the validity of these treatments they should follow up with her later.

My guess is that the major sponsor of this show was a pharmaceutical company. You gotta go digging deeper for the real bullshit!

Hey burnt, you're in the pharmaceutical industry, a couple questions...

A) Is there proven validity to the placebo effect?
B) Does a drug cure all patients with a particular ailment 100% of the time?

Would you agree that far less than 1% of of the people that claim to have psychic powers and the evidence you refer to are (possibly) true?

Same argument.

In a sea of fraud, it is a fair and safe assumption that any claims of this nature are fraudulent. If you're going to play the numbers game, you have to acknowledge this.

And the difference is that the less than 1% we know about the universe(wherever you got that number ) is a workable, repeatable, reliable and NECESSARY knowledge.



The DID address this! Right afterword, the author of "voodoo science" explained the idea of suggestibility - a real phenomena, without which we would not have the placebo effect, the effect without which the fraudulent 99% of psychics and reflexologists would be out of business!

JBArk