Is science wrong? Paranormal phenomena which is real

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458

Paranormal phenomena which you can see,
measure, experience or otherwise be
assured to actually exist.

[John Stockwell]

So you would equate "paranormal" with "unknown"?

1. Medical miracles
Nobody regrows severed limbs, or really comes back from the dead,
so these "miracles" are limited, and most likely overblown by proponents
of the paranormal explanation.

2. Glitches in the Matrix
Memory sucks (no paranormal there)

3. Deja Vu

(see 2.)
4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
a parlor trick

5. Birth order
??

6. Acupuncture

Rana S. Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1313-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.

Fake acupuncture is shown to work as well as real acupuncture. In short
acupuncture is no better than placebo.

7. Stigmata
Interesting, but likely self-inflicted wounds in most cases, but there may
be some that are "real".

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> So you would equate "paranormal" with "unknown"?

You raise an excellent point: Cognitive Dissonance

I use "Paranormal" the exact same way that paranormal
enthusiasts use it. The examples I gave all came from
paranormal websites and one or more "Encyclopedia." I
did not declare myself arbiter as you just did.

> 1. Medical miracles
> Nobody regrows severed limbs

So?

Science has never achieved such a thing. Are you
arguing that science doesn't exist?

Seriously, as far as arguments go THAT ISN'T ONE!

> 2. Glitches in the Matrix
> Memory sucks (no paranormal there)

Asperger's? Judging from the way you see
everything in strict black & white...

> 3. Deja Vu
>
> (see 2.)

You're rationalizing.

There's a lot of "Scientific" explanations,
and that isn't one of them.

> 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”

> a parlor trick

Again, cognitive dissonance.

It's real. You can witness it. You can even
experience it yourself. There is no rational
explanation.

> 5. Birth order
> ??

Birth order is roughly as good as predicting
a person and their life as astrology claims
to be.

> 6. Acupuncture
>
> Rana S. Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1313-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.
>
> Fake acupuncture is shown to work as well as real acupuncture. In short
> acupuncture is no better than placebo.

The placebo effect is real. It exists. It can be
measured & studied. In fact, it HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY
STUDIED since the 1700s.

Yet again: Cognitive dissonance.

> 7. Stigmata
> Interesting, but likely self-inflicted wounds in most cases, but there may
> be some that are "real".

So that's two in a row which you admit are real,
and then conclude that none of them are.

....ah, "Science."




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165529616236

[raven1]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
>
>> a parlor trick
>
>Again, cognitive dissonance.
>
>It's real. You can witness it. You can even
>experience it yourself. There is no rational
>explanation.

You mean there is no rational explanation you will accept.

[Öö Tiib]

Well ... you are one of parts of this universe who are supposed to be
capable to think. So don't be afraid to fail ... do it. Eventually
you may realize that there are endlessly more than few things that you
listed that we do not have explanations for. Lack of knowledge and
explanations is actually the normal (not paranormal) state of affairs.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

raven1 wrote:

> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
> >
> >> a parlor trick
> >
> >Again, cognitive dissonance.
> >
> >It's real. You can witness it. You can even
> >experience it yourself. There is no rational
> >explanation.

> You mean there is no rational explanation you will accept.

You're exposing your cognitive dissonance, again.

There is no explanation. I did find a half dozen or
so websites -- what idiots like you think of as
valid citations -- which claimed to "Scientifically"
explain it, but they were all repeating the exact
same thing. One or more even cited another of them...

The "Explanation" was the furthest thing from
scientific. It made claims that were easily refuted,
even contradictory. They claimed, for example, that
people were exaggerating the height of the levitation.

WHICH REQUIRES THAT, YES, THERE WAS LEVITATION!

If I exaggerate the size of a cat, for example, this
requires that there is a cat.

If I exaggerate the speed of a car, there had to be
a car and it had to be moving.

So, employing rudimentary English skills, if you can,
stating that people exaggerate the height of the
levitation means they were levitating!

There most notable "Scientific Explanation" though was
the claim that people aren't coordinating their lifting
efforts on the first attempt, prior to the ritual. This
is easily debunked by a simple youtube search. You can
witness people performing the levitation who are MORE
coordinated on the first attempt, and still fail!

Oops, there I go, actually looking into matters instead
of spewing dogma...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165538539565

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> you may realize that there are endlessly more than few things that you
> listed that we do not have explanations for.

March right back to that ESL class and *Demand* your
money back!

> Lack of knowledge and
> explanations is actually the normal (not paranormal) state of affairs.

English is clearly not your first language, and thinking
is not your forte, but what makes something "Paranormal"
is not the absence of an explanation, but the fact that
the effect itself (as described) defies science.

Put short: They shouldn't exist, according to science.
They do exist, but according to science they shouldn't.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165538539565

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 21 September 2017 10:20:04 UTC+3, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > you may realize that there are endlessly more than few things that you
> > listed that we do not have explanations for.
>
> March right back to that ESL class and *Demand* your
> money back!
>
> > Lack of knowledge and
> > explanations is actually the normal (not paranormal) state of affairs.
>
> English is clearly not your first language, and thinking

Yes it is my fourth language. So what? How many languages
should I know?

> is not your forte, but what makes something "Paranormal"
> is not the absence of an explanation, but the fact that
> the effect itself (as described) defies science.
>
> Put short: They shouldn't exist, according to science.
> They do exist, but according to science they shouldn't.

Yes but your list contains things that do not contradict
with any science. It is like these two:
We do not know how life appeared on planet earth therefore
life is paranormal activity.
We do not know every detail about how human brain thinks
therefore human brain is paranormal entity.
If it is logical in English then I feel sorry for English. :D To
me it does not make any sense.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 03:44:41 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Thursday, 21 September 2017 10:20:04 UTC+3, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

Of course, it makes sense only if you're JTEM. Like Humpty Dumpty and
some T.O. posters, words mean whatever he wants them to mean.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 03:44:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

>On Thursday, 21 September 2017 10:20:04 UTC+3, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

It's not logical in English, either; it's only logical in
JTEMLand (and FundyLand, if there's a difference).
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:20:04 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > you may realize that there are endlessly more than few things that you
> > listed that we do not have explanations for.
>
> March right back to that ESL class and *Demand* your
> money back!

That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you, is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.

Whereas the sentence you are complaining about has a single minor typo... the substitution of "that" for "than."

>
> > Lack of knowledge and
> > explanations is actually the normal (not paranormal) state of affairs.
>
> English is clearly not your first language, and thinking
> is not your forte, but what makes something "Paranormal"
> is not the absence of an explanation, but the fact that
> the effect itself (as described) defies science.
>
> Put short: They shouldn't exist, according to science.
> They do exist, but according to science they shouldn't.

Not actually true. To the extent that the things you listed exist, they have plausible scientific or non-paranormal explanations.

Medical "miracles:" a pretty broad category, but as a category, well-explained by misattribution of cause, and the statistical reality that the unlikely does happen.

"Glitches in the Matrix:" Well-explained by the fact that, again statistically unlikely things are bound to happen frequently, given how many total things are happening all the time, aided by the over-weaningly pattern-seeking nature of the human mind.

"Deja vu:" One plausible explanation is that the area in the brain that recognizes memories AS memories misfires, applying that feeling of memory to something as it happens.

Two-fingered levitation: We can exert most of the lifting power of our hands with only a couple fingers. The rest is psychological. (BTW: the video you used as an example has each guy lifting 75lbs total... 37.5 per hand. Hardly a radical feat.)

Birth order: Do you mean the fact that there are personality types associated with birth order? While I'm not aware of any studies that this is systematically true (though there might be), it would hardly be shocking to learn that children with different early childhood experiences, with parents of differing experience levels, would see their personalities tweaked in particular ways.

Acupunture: Attributable to the placebo effect, at worst.

Stigmata: There really isn't any compelling evidence to suggest the existence of stigmata that aren't caused by intentional or non-intentional self-harm. Further, since Christ would have been crucified through the wrists, bleeding from the hands as a form of religious phenomena seems a bit... off.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165538539565

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Öö Tiib wrote:


> Yes it is

I gave you examples of things classified as "Paranormal"

which you can see, measure, experience or otherwise be

assured that they really exist. Deal with it. Stop trying
to rationalize away everything.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159522073392

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

> Of course, it makes

You're so mentally ill that you are completely unhinged
over a handful of paranormal phenomena which you can
actually experience or at least be assured that they
exist.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165518439893

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

*This* is so typical of the collective...

Sean Dillon wrote:
> That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you,
> is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.

I listed 14 of them, Einstein.

...or do you not know what "Plural" means?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165342038213

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> It's not

You are so distant from what you pretend to be, so
divorced from science that you have reduced yourself
to simpleton denials.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165525069403

[Sean Dillon]

In fact, what you've given us is a list of phenomena that do occur (at least in a way... stigmata don't necesarily occur as claimed), which are baselessly alleged to be paranormal. None of them demand a paranormal or contrary-to-science explanation.

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 7:45:05 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Stockwell wrote:
>
> > So you would equate "paranormal" with "unknown"?
>
> You raise an excellent point: Cognitive Dissonance
>
> I use "Paranormal" the exact same way that paranormal
> enthusiasts use it. The examples I gave all came from
> paranormal websites and one or more "Encyclopedia." I
> did not declare myself arbiter as you just did.

"Paranormal enthusiasts" collect weird things, couch descriptions
of them in such a way that "we don't know today" to mean the same
thing is "we will never know," and therefore some woo or other must
be true.

>
> > 1. Medical miracles
> > Nobody regrows severed limbs
>
> So?
>
> Science has never achieved such a thing. Are you
> arguing that science doesn't exist?
>
> Seriously, as far as arguments go THAT ISN'T ONE!

It's a pretty good argument. The "medical miracle" of 1900 is
routine medicine. The "medical miracle" of just a few years ago
is the routine of today. But there are limits. The "window of
the paranormal" in medicine is shrinking by the day.

>
> > 2. Glitches in the Matrix
> > Memory sucks (no paranormal there)
>
> Asperger's? Judging from the way you see
> everything in strict black & white...

Nope. Everytime you remember something, you rewrite the memory.

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2014/02/how-your-memory-rewrites-the-past

Our memories are not tape recorders. They are incomplete and what we have
we rewrite continously.

>
> > 3. Deja Vu
> >
> > (see 2.)
>
> You're rationalizing.

Nope.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2101089-mystery-of-deja-vu-explained-its-how-we-check-our-memories/

>
> There's a lot of "Scientific" explanations,
> and that isn't one of them.
>
> > 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
>
> > a parlor trick
>
> Again, cognitive dissonance.
>
> It's real. You can witness it. You can even
> experience it yourself. There is no rational
> explanation.

It's simply distributing the weight among the 4 or 5 people who
are doing the "two finger" lifting. No mystery there.

>
> > 5. Birth order
> > ??
>
> Birth order is roughly as good as predicting
> a person and their life as astrology claims
> to be.

Which is to say, it is a cliche' generality that likely has more to
do with the biases of the observer, than as an actual phenomenon.
However, it makes sense that placement in a family hierarchy might have
some effect, based on social competition.

>
> > 6. Acupuncture
> >
> > Rana S. Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1313-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.
> >
> > Fake acupuncture is shown to work as well as real acupuncture. In short
> > acupuncture is no better than placebo.
>
> The placebo effect is real. It exists. It can be
> measured & studied. In fact, it HAS BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY
> STUDIED since the 1700s.

The placebo effect is just a person getting better on their own. Medicine
is about finding treatments that work significantly better than placebo.

>
> Yet again: Cognitive dissonance.
>
> > 7. Stigmata
> > Interesting, but likely self-inflicted wounds in most cases, but there may
> > be some that are "real".
>
> So that's two in a row which you admit are real,
> and then conclude that none of them are.
>
> ....ah, "Science."

I would conclude that you are either a magical or just a sloppy thinker.

Combining that with your
obvious personality disorders (not having the self control to avoid
hurling insults every 5 words) most likely was why you failed in grad school
and have a chip on your shoulder ever since.

Likely, you were a "bright boy who never applied himself".


>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165529616236

[Sean Dillon]

Yes, numbnuts. That's why the grammatically correct subject line would have read "Is science wrong? Paranormal phenomena which ARE real"

Instead of your erroneous:
"Is science wrong? Paranormal phenomena which IS real"

A plural noun demands a plural verb. That's how English works. Look to the beam in your own eye before you criticize other peoples' typos.

[John Bode]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:30:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> *This* is so typical of the collective...
>
> Sean Dillon wrote:
> > That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you,
> > is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.
>
> I listed 14 of them, Einstein.
>
> ...or do you not know what "Plural" means?
>

He's pointing out that you used a plural subject with a singular verb - you
should have written "paranormal phenomena which *are* real".

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Stockwell wrote:

> "Paranormal enthusiasts" collect weird things

Yes. And I provided 14 things which they collected
which are genuine, you can see/measure/experience
them or otherwise be quite certain that they exist.

...some of them you have experienced already!

The point being, all 14 phenomena are things that
are real, that actually exists and they call them
"Paranormal." And, yes, some of these things lie
outside science's ability to explain.

> > > 1. Medical miracles
> > > Nobody regrows severed limbs
> >
> > So?
> >
> > Science has never achieved such a thing. Are you
> > arguing that science doesn't exist?
> >
> > Seriously, as far as arguments go THAT ISN'T ONE!

> It's a pretty good argument.

No it's not! If regrowing lost limbs is the test,
then science fails the test. There is no science,
by your argument!

> The "medical miracle" of 1900 is
> routine medicine.

Cites.

The point is, you're making things up. You're
rationalizing: "Cognitive Dissonance." You
were confronted with things that you can't
explain, and this sparked discomfort, so you
invented a "Solution" that makes your discomfort
go away.

I can't debate an irrational person. Seriously,
the very first example you "Dispute" and you
start with fallacious shifting-goalpost on a
scale that would embarrass an ordinary moron,
then followed that up with a made up story you
can't support -- the one about 19th century
medicine.

...and you're so far gone you can't see
your mistakes, NOT EVEN AFTER THEY'RE POINTED
OUT TO YOU!

You're a believer, not a thinker.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/67538934387

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> > You're so mentally ill that you are completely unhinged
> > over a handful of paranormal phenomena which you can
> > actually experience or at least be assured that they
> > exist.

> In fact, what you've given us is a list of phenomena that do occur

Yes. But I did miss one rather obvious example:

The Placebo Effect.

> (at least in a way... stigmata don't necesarily occur as claimed)

There's variations, yes. I hardly think that alters
the point as Stigmata does indeed exist, and there
is no conventional explanation.

...some people suggest a condition associated with
malaria, but it doesn't match the symptoms. Psychologically,
there is a form of "Cutting" -- self harm -- where the
sufferer compulsively scratches/picks at themselves, and
this could be an explanation. But what would the results
of such wounds look like, and how would you test this?

"Rational Explanations" are only "Rational" if we approach
them properly.

> None of them demand a paranormal or contrary-to-science
> explanation.

One (Obvious) problem that people like you have -- and
it's a trait shared with many paranormal enthusiasts --
your ASSOCIATIONS have been subconsciously incorporated
into your DEFINITIONS.

Meaning, the "Paranormal" is never something concrete.
Ten people can walk though a "Haunted House" without
seeing a goddamn thing, and then someone else can walk
through and have dozens of supernatural experiences...

Put short: In your mind, something "Paranormal" is
difficult if not impossible to establish as existing,
let alone explain.

Re-re-stated: A UFO is something SOMEONE ELSE sees,
a ghosts is something SOMEONE ELSE sees, a paranormal
experience is something SOMEONE ELSE has. If you can
have it then by definition it's not paranormal.

The problem here is you.

The problem is your mind.

You have limitations to your thinking. Only you can
fix you. Now that you see what you do to yourself,
now that your problems with thinking have been pointed
out to you, go fix you.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/67538934387

[John Bode]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 8:45:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Stockwell wrote:
>
[snip]

>> 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
>
>> a parlor trick
>
> Again, cognitive dissonance.
>
> It's real. You can witness it. You can even
> experience it yourself. There is no rational
> explanation.

Oh, for the love of...

300 lbs divided by 8 hands = 37.5 lbs per hand. That's not that much, even
for a weakling like me. And they way they twist their hands under when
they lift - let's just say they're cheating a bit and supporting the weight
on more than just their index fingers.

There's nothing at all paranormal going on there, it's just distributing
the load among enough hands to make it possible. Call me when *one* person
performs the lift - then you'll have something worth talking about.

>
> > 5. Birth order
> > ??
>
> Birth order is roughly as good as predicting
> a person and their life as astrology claims
> to be.
>

So, not at all, then?

A quick google brought up this article from PNAS:

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/46/14224.full

From the abstract:

> In our analyses, we confirmed the expected birth-order effect on
> intelligence. We also observed a significant decline of a 10th of a SD
> in self-reported intellect with increasing birth-order position, and this
> effect persisted after controlling for objectively measured intelligence.
> Most important, however, we consistently found no birth-order effects on
> extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, or
> imagination. On the basis of the high statistical power and the consistent
> results across samples and analytical designs, we must conclude that birth
> order does not have a lasting effect on broad personality traits outside
> of the intellectual domain.

Boiled down, birth order *does* have a measurable effect on IQ, but not
overall personality.

Granted, this is one study, and one study by itself isn't definitive proof
of anything, but given the size of the data set, I'm inclined to give it
some weight.

[Sean Dillon]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:15:03 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>
> > > You're so mentally ill that you are completely unhinged
> > > over a handful of paranormal phenomena which you can
> > > actually experience or at least be assured that they
> > > exist.
>
> > In fact, what you've given us is a list of phenomena that do occur
>
> Yes. But I did miss one rather obvious example:
>
> The Placebo Effect.

Yes, the placebo effect occurs. No, there is no reason to think that the placebo effect is paranormal.

>
> > (at least in a way... stigmata don't necesarily occur as claimed)
>
> There's variations, yes. I hardly think that alters
> the point as Stigmata does indeed exist, and there
> is no conventional explanation.

There is a conventional explanation for the instances that have been examinable: self-harm, whether intentional or delusional.

>
> ...some people suggest a condition associated with
> malaria, but it doesn't match the symptoms. Psychologically,
> there is a form of "Cutting" -- self harm -- where the
> sufferer compulsively scratches/picks at themselves, and
> this could be an explanation. But what would the results
> of such wounds look like, and how would you test this?
>
> "Rational Explanations" are only "Rational" if we approach
> them properly.
>
> > None of them demand a paranormal or contrary-to-science
> > explanation.
>
> One (Obvious) problem that people like you have -- and
> it's a trait shared with many paranormal enthusiasts --
> your ASSOCIATIONS have been subconsciously incorporated
> into your DEFINITIONS.
>
> Meaning, the "Paranormal" is never something concrete.
> Ten people can walk though a "Haunted House" without
> seeing a goddamn thing, and then someone else can walk
> through and have dozens of supernatural experiences...

Or anyway, believe they have had supernatural experiences. Odds are, there are perfectly rational explanations for those experiences. It isn't surprising to learn that the people who have such experiences also tend to have high levels of suggestibility.

I am skeptical of such claims because they have never stood up to scrutiny.

>
> Put short: In your mind, something "Paranormal" is
> difficult if not impossible to establish as existing,
> let alone explain.

It wouldn't be, if it existed. But then, things that exist are very usually explicable scientifically.

>
> Re-re-stated: A UFO is something SOMEONE ELSE sees,
> a ghosts is something SOMEONE ELSE sees, a paranormal
> experience is something SOMEONE ELSE has. If you can
> have it then by definition it's not paranormal.

No, it is certainly possible I COULD have a paranormal experience. But the usual varieties of allegedly paranormal experience have all been pretty well scientifically debunk, or at least plausibly explained.

>
> The problem here is you.
>
> The problem is your mind.
>
> You have limitations to your thinking. Only you can
> fix you. Now that you see what you do to yourself,
> now that your problems with thinking have been pointed
> out to you, go fix you.

You know, I'm okay with me, but thank you.

>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/67538934387

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:36:03 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:20:04 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>> > you may realize that there are endlessly more than few things that you
>> > listed that we do not have explanations for.
>>
>> March right back to that ESL class and *Demand* your
>> money back!
>
>That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you, is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.
>
>Whereas the sentence you are complaining about has a single minor typo... the substitution of "that" for "than."

Pithy and pointed, petard hoist at its finest. Good job!

[jillery]

My impression is he's pointing out that JTEM is a hypocritical ass. Of
course, I could be wrong.

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

<nothing intelligent>

Calling something paranormal doesn't make it so. It should be called
"apparentnormal".

There's a difference between "UFO" and "flying saucer". Write that on
your forehead backwards, to remind you when you look in the mirror.

[John Bode]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:36:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:30:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> >> *This* is so typical of the collective...
> >>
> >> Sean Dillon wrote:
> >> > That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you,
> >> > is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.
> >>
> >> I listed 14 of them, Einstein.
> >>
> >> ...or do you not know what "Plural" means?
> >>
> >
> >He's pointing out that you used a plural subject with a singular verb - you
> >should have written "paranormal phenomena which *are* real".
>
>
> My impression is he's pointing out that JTEM is a hypocritical ass. Of
> course, I could be wrong.
>

Why not both?

[jillery]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:35:45 -0700 (PDT), John Bode

<jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 5:25:02 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:36:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>> <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:30:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> >> *This* is so typical of the collective...
>> >>
>> >> Sean Dillon wrote:
>> >> > That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you,
>> >> > is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.
>> >>
>> >> I listed 14 of them, Einstein.
>> >>
>> >> ...or do you not know what "Plural" means?
>> >>
>> >
>> >He's pointing out that you used a plural subject with a singular verb - you
>> >should have written "paranormal phenomena which *are* real".
>>
>>
>> My impression is he's pointing out that JTEM is a hypocritical ass. Of
>> course, I could be wrong.
>>
>
>Why not both?

Quite so.

[Sean Dillon]

And notice the total silence that resulted. After insulting my and Oo Tiib's English skills, no acknowledgement, humility, or apology when shown that the worst of the bad English was coming from inside the house...

[John Bode]

Projection only works one way.

JTEM is here to be heard, not to listen.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><nothing intelligent>
>
>Calling something paranormal doesn't make it so. It should be called
>"apparentnormal".
>
>There's a difference between "UFO" and "flying saucer". Write that on
>your forehead backwards, to remind you when you look in the mirror.

Yep. I've seen at least 20 UFOs this week alone, and I
wasn't even looking for them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:38 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:36:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
><jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:30:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>> *This* is so typical of the collective...
>>>
>>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>> > That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you,
>>> > is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.
>>>
>>> I listed 14 of them, Einstein.
>>>
>>> ...or do you not know what "Plural" means?
>>>
>>
>>He's pointing out that you used a plural subject with a singular verb - you
>>should have written "paranormal phenomena which *are* real".
>
>
>My impression is he's pointing out that JTEM is a hypocritical ass. Of
>course, I could be wrong.

Not wrong; just incomplete. He has *many* unmentioned flaws.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:24 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><nothing intelligent>
>>
>>Calling something paranormal doesn't make it so. It should be called
>>"apparentnormal".
>>
>>There's a difference between "UFO" and "flying saucer". Write that on
>>your forehead backwards, to remind you when you look in the mirror.
>
>Yep. I've seen at least 20 UFOs this week alone, and I
>wasn't even looking for them.

I should have written "Write that backwards on your forehead" to avoid
tempting the pedantically obsessed.

[jillery]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:36:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:38 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:36:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>><jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:30:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>> *This* is so typical of the collective...
>>>>
>>>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>> > That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you,
>>>> > is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.
>>>>
>>>> I listed 14 of them, Einstein.
>>>>
>>>> ...or do you not know what "Plural" means?
>>>>
>>>
>>>He's pointing out that you used a plural subject with a singular verb - you
>>>should have written "paranormal phenomena which *are* real".
>>
>>
>>My impression is he's pointing out that JTEM is a hypocritical ass. Of
>>course, I could be wrong.
>
>Not wrong; just incomplete. He has *many* unmentioned flaws.

You can't really expect anybody to mention *all* of his flaws. That
would likely take longer than the lifetime I have left.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:57:01 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:36:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:38 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:36:05 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
>>><jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 2:30:05 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>>> *This* is so typical of the collective...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>>>> > That's ironic, since the topic of this thread, by you,
>>>>> > is grammatically incorrect. Hint: Phenomena is plural.
>>>>>
>>>>> I listed 14 of them, Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...or do you not know what "Plural" means?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He's pointing out that you used a plural subject with a singular verb - you
>>>>should have written "paranormal phenomena which *are* real".
>>>
>>>
>>>My impression is he's pointing out that JTEM is a hypocritical ass. Of
>>>course, I could be wrong.
>>
>>Not wrong; just incomplete. He has *many* unmentioned flaws.
>
>
>You can't really expect anybody to mention *all* of his flaws. That
>would likely take longer than the lifetime I have left.

True. Or than the universe has left, although that might be
a *bit* of a stretch...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:55:32 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><nothing intelligent>
>>>
>>>Calling something paranormal doesn't make it so. It should be called
>>>"apparentnormal".
>>>
>>>There's a difference between "UFO" and "flying saucer". Write that on
>>>your forehead backwards, to remind you when you look in the mirror.
>>
>>Yep. I've seen at least 20 UFOs this week alone, and I
>>wasn't even looking for them.
>
>
>I should have written "Write that backwards on your forehead" to avoid
>tempting the pedantically obsessed.

Could be, although I saw nothing wrong with the phrasing,
and only wanted to provide confirmation.

[jillery]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:21:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:55:32 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>>>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><nothing intelligent>
>>>>
>>>>Calling something paranormal doesn't make it so. It should be called
>>>>"apparentnormal".
>>>>
>>>>There's a difference between "UFO" and "flying saucer". Write that on
>>>>your forehead backwards, to remind you when you look in the mirror.
>>>
>>>Yep. I've seen at least 20 UFOs this week alone, and I
>>>wasn't even looking for them.
>>
>>
>>I should have written "Write that backwards on your forehead" to avoid
>>tempting the pedantically obsessed.
>
>Could be, although I saw nothing wrong with the phrasing,
>and only wanted to provide confirmation.

I wasn't referring above to you or anything you posted. Ironically,
my post shows I am among those pedantically obsessed.

[Mike_Duffy]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:20:47 -0400, jillery wrote:

> Ironically, my post shows I am among those pedantically obsessed.

That applies to anyone who posts here, myself included. I guess admitting
it is the first step in our path to recovery.

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:53:51 -0400, Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>
wrote:

My impression is obsession is a common human trait. Whether it's
useful depends on what one obsesses about. I assume that's at least
partly a matter of choice, but that might be just another symptom of
my obsession. Oh dear!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:20:47 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:21:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:55:32 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:35:12 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 18:20:24 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>>>>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><nothing intelligent>
>>>>>
>>>>>Calling something paranormal doesn't make it so. It should be called
>>>>>"apparentnormal".
>>>>>
>>>>>There's a difference between "UFO" and "flying saucer". Write that on
>>>>>your forehead backwards, to remind you when you look in the mirror.
>>>>
>>>>Yep. I've seen at least 20 UFOs this week alone, and I
>>>>wasn't even looking for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>I should have written "Write that backwards on your forehead" to avoid
>>>tempting the pedantically obsessed.
>>
>>Could be, although I saw nothing wrong with the phrasing,
>>and only wanted to provide confirmation.
>
>
>I wasn't referring above to you or anything you posted. Ironically,
>my post shows I am among those pedantically obsessed.

It's a common failing (if it's a failing at all), and gets
worse the more one knows.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:53:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>:

We should recover from a desire for precision?

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:30:35 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:53:51 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:20:47 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically, my post shows I am among those pedantically obsessed.
>>
>>That applies to anyone who posts here, myself included. I guess admitting
>>it is the first step in our path to recovery.
>
>We should recover from a desire for precision?

To be precise (augh!) I try to avoid *pedantic* precision, of
objecting to every jot and tittle regardless of relevance to the
topic....

... unless I think it amusing/ironic to do exactly that!

[Mike_Duffy]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:28:23 -0400, jillery wrote:

> To be precise (augh!) I try to avoid *pedantic* precision, of
> objecting to every jot and tittle regardless of relevance to the
> topic....
>
> ... unless I think it amusing/ironic to do exactly that!

I know what you mean. It is both a blessing and a curse. I feel guilty
doing so, yet I enjoy doing it.

So, what you *should have said* about writing backwards on one's forehead
should have to do with the spatial orientation & left-right orientation of
the letters as opposed to the chronological order in which they were
written. As far as I can tell, "Write that on your forehead backwards" and
"Write that backwards on your forehead" are semantically identical, unless
you are referring to reversing the order in which the letters are written.

And, just to make sure my post contains information thart is marginally
useful, I will state that it is actually much easier for most people to
mirror-write on their own forehead than it is to write properly, and using
a mirror to watch actually makes the process more difficult. The 'mind's
eye' view of that drawing surface is already 'mirrored'.

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 23:54:53 -0400, Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:28:23 -0400, jillery wrote:
>
>> To be precise (augh!) I try to avoid *pedantic* precision, of
>> objecting to every jot and tittle regardless of relevance to the
>> topic....
>>
>> ... unless I think it amusing/ironic to do exactly that!
>
>I know what you mean. It is both a blessing and a curse. I feel guilty
>doing so, yet I enjoy doing it.
>
>So, what you *should have said* about writing backwards on one's forehead
>should have to do with the spatial orientation & left-right orientation of
>the letters as opposed to the chronological order in which they were
>written. As far as I can tell, "Write that on your forehead backwards" and
>"Write that backwards on your forehead" are semantically identical, unless
>you are referring to reversing the order in which the letters are written.

You're right, writing the last letter first is another logical
interpretation.

Pedantically, backwards isn't the same as mirror-image; in the latter,
the orientation of each letter is also flipped. But many letters are
symmetrical about the vertical axis, so it isn't always obvious. And
most people think "backwards" and "mirror-image" mean the same. But
still....

Pedantically, the placement of "backward" helps to emphasize what is
to be made backwards. In both cases, the reference to "mirror"
typically resolves the ambiguity. However, the original could
logically be interpreted to mean for one to turn around 180 degrees,
ie backwards, and then write the sentence in the standard way on one's
forehead.

A really old commercial shows the problem:

A: "Sekalf Nroc Sggollek"
B: "What???"
A: "I just said 'Kelloggs Corn Flakes' backwards."
A: "Can you say 'Kelloggs Corn Flakes' backwards?"
B: "Sure." [turns 180 degrees] "Kelloggs Corn Flakes".

Obviously, commercials have since improved.

There's an actual example of a similar ambiguity from a recent reply
to one of Bob Casanova's post. Bob wrote:

"And since you and I have exactly the same qualifications as
biologists (zero), my opinion is just as valid as yours."

And the recipient replied, in several posts:

"You are saying that biologists have ZERO qualifications..."

Most normal people would understand that (zero) applied to the
qualifications of "you and I", not of "biologists". If Bob had
anticipated the recipient's special needs, he could have avoided the
ambiguity by writing something like:

"As biologists, you and I have exactly the same qualifications (zero).
So my opinion is just as valid as yours."

>And, just to make sure my post contains information thart is marginally
>useful, I will state that it is actually much easier for most people to
>mirror-write on their own forehead than it is to write properly, and using
>a mirror to watch actually makes the process more difficult. The 'mind's
>eye' view of that drawing surface is already 'mirrored'.

Just to show how pedantically obsessed I am, I tried it. You're
right.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Bode wrote:

> Oh, for the love of...
>
> 300 lbs divided by 8 hands = 37.5 lbs per hand.

It's 8 fingers, dipshit.

And none of this matters because, like I said, you can
see it with your own two eyes, you can even experience
it yourself. It's real. And there is no explanation.

> That's not that much, even
> for a weakling like me.

You try it. You will fail. You will perform the ritual.
You will succeed.

It works. It's real. It can be observed.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165635221308

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> Yes, the placebo effect occurs.

So there are physical results. We have physical
responses to nothing more than a belief. A
person's belief can alter their body.

Yup, that's paranormal...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165635221308

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

> My impression

If anyone cared you wouldn't have to keep inventing
sock puppets.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165635221308

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Yep. I've seen at least 20 UFOs this week alone, and I
> wasn't even looking for them.

In your zeal to be right, because of your need to
convince yourself you're not retarded, you ignored
the context. The UFO industry, the "Believers," the
books, THE PEOPLE CALLING IT PARANORMAL as *Not*
excited over the fact that they can't state with
absolute certainty what a UFO is. They believe they
know what it is.

You're not a skeptic, you're a retard.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165734489448

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> True. Or

I am so impressed by the courageous way you
keep agreeing with yourself.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165734489448

[Sean Dillon]

Not really. It is medically/scientifically explicable:

"Say you are experiencing pain and spontaneously decide to eat a sugar pill – chances are you won’t feel better. However, if you describe your symptoms to a physician, who then prescribes you the same pill (unbeknownst to you, it’s just sugar), you expect that pill to have a therapeutic benefit. This expectation activates reward pathways in the brain, in turn stimulating the release of substances called endorphins, which are chemically similar to opiates like morphine. Like morphine, these endorphins bind to opioid receptors and cause pain relief. Therefore, in response to positive expectations of treatment, your brain becomes flooded with its own supply of natural painkillers.
...
The opioid system is not the only pathway at play when it comes to placebos. For example, placebos also increase the release and uptake of dopamine, a neurotransmitter involved in reward-motivated behavior and decreased pain sensitivity. Specifically, in anticipation of benefit when a placebo is administered, dopamine receptors are activated in regions of the brain associated with reward."

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/just-sugar-pill-placebo-effect-real/

[Burkhard]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
>> Yes, the placebo effect occurs.
>
> So there are physical results. We have physical
> responses to nothing more than a belief. A
> person's belief can alter their body.

Yup. They relax so that they don't wriggle as much, makes the lifting easier

[John Bode]

On Monday, September 25, 2017 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Bode wrote:
>
> > Oh, for the love of...
> >
> > 300 lbs divided by 8 hands = 37.5 lbs per hand.
>
> It's 8 fingers, dipshit.
>

Look more closely at how they're using their hands to lift. They're not
putting all the weight on their index fingers. The guy closest to the camera
rotates his hand perpendicular to the floor and supports the weight between
his thumb and knuckle. He's definitely not carrying his share just on his
index finger.

Even so, I've briefly carried bags of cat litter weighing about 20 lbs with
a single finger (palm facing up), and I'm a fat, out-of-shape weakling.
It's not *fun*, it often hurts like hell, but I've done it more than once.
For someone young, in shape, who actually works with their hands on a
regular basis? No sweat.

> And none of this matters because, like I said, you can
> see it with your own two eyes, you can even experience
> it yourself. It's real. And there is no explanation.
>

Have you done it for yourself?

> > That's not that much, even
> > for a weakling like me.
>
> You try it. You will fail. You will perform the ritual.
> You will succeed.
>

The ritual is nothing more than cheap stagecraft. It does nothing. It's
meaningless gabble meant to impress gullible rubes like yourself. They're
just *pretending* not to be able to lift the first time around. And you
fall for it.

You are living proof that half of everyone is below average for believing
this *obvious* bullshit.

> It works. It's real. It can be observed.
>

So you've done it for yourself?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 16:28:23 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:30:35 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:53:51 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 02:20:47 -0400, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ironically, my post shows I am among those pedantically obsessed.
>>>
>>>That applies to anyone who posts here, myself included. I guess admitting
>>>it is the first step in our path to recovery.
>>
>>We should recover from a desire for precision?
>
>
>To be precise (augh!) I try to avoid *pedantic* precision, of
>objecting to every jot and tittle regardless of relevance to the
>topic....
>
>... unless I think it amusing/ironic to do exactly that!

Precisely!

[jillery]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:50:45 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote...

...nothing intelligent or relevant.

You're not a skeptic, you're a retard.

--

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Bode wrote:

> Look more closely at how they're using their hands to lift. They're not
> putting all the weight on their index fingers. The guy

They try. They fail. They perform the ritual. They
succeed.

This is true even if they hold no expectations, even if
they have no idea what they are attempting to do.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/157048853973

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> In fact, what you've given us is a list of phenomena that do occur

I know. I said that.

> (at least in a way... stigmata don't necesarily occur as claimed)

Cites.

> which are baselessly alleged to be paranormal.

You're experiencing Cognitive Dissonance.

These things ARE paranormal. They are precisely what
people mean when they say "Paranormal." When you ask
them for examples of what they mean, they will describe
these very thing, amongst others.

You deal with this by defining the paranormal as not
the paranormal...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/157048853973

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Sean Dillon wrote:

> Not really. It is medically/scientifically explicable:

Your explanation can not & does not explain the effect.

> "Say you are experiencing pain and spontaneously decide to eat a sugar pill – chances are you won’t feel better. However, if you describe your symptoms to a physician, who then prescribes you the same pill (unbeknownst to you, it’s just sugar), you expect that pill to have a therapeutic benefit. This expectation activates reward pathways in the brain, in turn stimulating the release of substances called endorphins, which are chemically similar to opiates like morphine. Like morphine, these endorphins bind to opioid receptors and cause pain relief.

Your cognitive dissonance is leading you astray,
again. This does not explain the placebo effect.

For starters, it works even when people know they
are taking a placebo. And one or more study claims
that a placebo lowered cholesterol, though not by
much. Others claim that it increased insulin
production.

Your rationalization would not account for these
changes.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/79148508849

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Ass tumor, jillery wrote:

[nothing]

Wow, another emotional reaction towards me...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/79148508849

[John Stockwell]

You must be head-up-the-ass stupid if you think that there is anything
more than distributed weight going on here.


>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165635221308

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 08:41:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com>:

Well, The Incredibly Boring and Stupid JTEM apparently *did*
come up with "phenomena" as singular...

[jillery]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:30:17 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote...


...nothing intelligent.

Everybody already knows you're a stupid troll, you don't have to keep
proving it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 23:51:33 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:30:17 -0700 (PDT), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote...

>...nothing intelligent.

....as always.

>Everybody already knows you're a stupid troll, you don't have to keep
>proving it.

Maybe he has a *really* short attention span?

[Sean Dillon]

You are entirely too credulous, JTEM.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > Not really. It is medically/scientifically explicable:
>
> Your explanation can not & does not explain the effect.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/just-sugar-pill-placebo-effect-real

And that very directly explains the placebo effect.

>
> > "Say you are experiencing pain and spontaneously decide to eat a sugar pill – chances are you won’t feel better. However, if you describe your symptoms to a physician, who then prescribes you the same pill (unbeknownst to you, it’s just sugar), you expect that pill to have a therapeutic benefit. This expectation activates reward pathways in the brain, in turn stimulating the release of substances called endorphins, which are chemically similar to opiates like morphine. Like morphine, these endorphins bind to opioid receptors and cause pain relief.
>
> Your cognitive dissonance is leading you astray,
> again. This does not explain the placebo effect.
>
> For starters, it works even when people know they
> are taking a placebo. And one or more study claims
> that a placebo lowered cholesterol, though not by
> much. Others claim that it increased insulin
> production.

Cites.

[Sean Dillon]

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 9:15:02 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > In fact, what you've given us is a list of phenomena that do occur
>
> I know. I said that.
>
> > (at least in a way... stigmata don't necesarily occur as claimed)
>
> Cites.

You've never provided any to me, when requested, so sorry... I'm going to maintain the same policy.

>
> > which are baselessly alleged to be paranormal.
>
> You're experiencing Cognitive Dissonance.
>
> These things ARE paranormal. They are precisely what
> people mean when they say "Paranormal." When you ask
> them for examples of what they mean, they will describe
> these very thing, amongst others.
>
> You deal with this by defining the paranormal as not
> the paranormal...
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/157048853973

Paranormal = not scientifically explicable.

Many people believe the phenomena you have named are paranormal. However, by and large, those people are wrong. These things ARE scientifically explicable.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 9:15:02 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Sean Dillon wrote:
>>
>> > In fact, what you've given us is a list of phenomena that do occur
>>
>> I know. I said that.
>>
>> > (at least in a way... stigmata don't necesarily occur as claimed)
>>
>> Cites.
>
>You've never provided any to me, when requested, so sorry... I'm going to maintain the same policy.

But he/she/it is *special*!

Ordinary rules only apply to ordinary people, not to
Usenet's "Special Children".

>> > which are baselessly alleged to be paranormal.
>>
>> You're experiencing Cognitive Dissonance.
>>
>> These things ARE paranormal. They are precisely what
>> people mean when they say "Paranormal." When you ask
>> them for examples of what they mean, they will describe
>> these very thing, amongst others.
>>
>> You deal with this by defining the paranormal as not
>> the paranormal...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- --
>>
>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/157048853973
>
>Paranormal = not scientifically explicable.
>
>Many people believe the phenomena you have named are paranormal. However, by and large, those people are wrong. These things ARE scientifically explicable.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

There's a difference between skepticism &
naysaying.

Sean Dillon wrote:

> You are entirely too credulous, JTEM.

You're an idiot.

Nothing I've said is the slightest bit controversial.
You could probably have little difficulty finding a
number of people who've witnessed AND TAKEN PART in
the phenomenon themselves. I know when I first raised
this elsewhere several people said exactly that.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117095069068

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Cognitive Dissonance:

John Stockwell wrote:
> You must be head-up-the-ass stupid if you think that there is anything
> more than distributed weight going on here.

You've tested that idea? Did someone else? Where?
Do you have a cite?

You're uncomfortable. You were confronted by something
you can't explain, that conflicts with your idea of
how things should be, and this makes you uncomfortable.
So you came up with a thought that eliminates that
discomfort.

The funny thing here? Cognitive Dissonance really
does exist... unlike your "explanation."



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117095069068

[Sean Dillon]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 4:10:05 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> There's a difference between skepticism &
> naysaying.
>
> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
> > You are entirely too credulous, JTEM.
>
> You're an idiot.

Sticks and stones, sunshine.

>
> Nothing I've said is the slightest bit controversial.
> You could probably have little difficulty finding a
> number of people who've witnessed AND TAKEN PART in
> the phenomenon themselves. I know when I first raised
> this elsewhere several people said exactly that.
>
>

Yes, I'm sure I've even done it myself at some point in my childhood. But there is nothing scientifically inexplicable happening, and therefore, nothing paranormal happening.

>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117095069068

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Snot covered fingers, Bob Casanova wrote:

> Well, The

Seriously, who cares?

Post the URL to whatever usenet article, posted
in the last couple of months, you are most
proud of. Show us YOU at YOUR best!

Come on, have you ever managed anything other than
mindless ad hominem? Are you ever capable of rising
above your infantile lashing-out at people you
don't like?

Prove it. Post the URLs to your articles on the
Google archive.

HINT: You can't. You won't. You're pathetic.





-- -

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

The stupidity is compounded...

Bob Casanova wrote:

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
> <seand...@gmail.com>:

> >> Cites.
> >
> >You've never provided any to me, when requested, so sorry... I'm going to maintain the same policy.

> But he/she/it is *special*!
>
> Ordinary rules only apply to ordinary people, not to
> Usenet's "Special Children".

So you didn't read the cite, either!

Amazing. You should be embarrassed...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117095069068

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

This is utterly *Hilarious*!

Sean Dillon wrote:

> The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> > For starters, it works even when people know they
> > are taking a placebo. And one or more study claims
> > that a placebo lowered cholesterol, though not by
> > much. Others claim that it increased insulin
> > production.
>
> Cites.

Try reading your own cite. The one that confirms what
I said. Moron.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/117095069068

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Redundant AND stupid! Boy, fetal alcohol
syndrome really took it's toll...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/84450297313

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

jillery wrote:

[nothing intelligent]

Try to figure out what enraged you this time. It'll
help you to see what a spazz you look like to
normal people.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/84450297313

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:15:04 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> spazz


It's good that you found something you're qualified to do.

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:16:20 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>Redundant AND stupid! Boy, fetal alcohol
>syndrome really took it's toll...

Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

[jillery]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 21:52:57 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Snot covered fingers, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Well, The
>
>Seriously, who cares?

Seriously? Not you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 09:48:42 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:16:20 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>Redundant AND stupid! Boy, fetal alcohol
>>syndrome really took it's toll...
>
>
>Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

For most idiots, if I have them in my killfile, in a spirit
of fairness I refrain from making comments about them since
I can't see their replies directly. For a very few, however,
I make an exception, The Incredibly Boring and Moronic JTEM
being foremost of that small group. The determinant is
whether the individual in question has ever made a single
post which wasn't solely invective, with no redeeming
qualities whatsoever. TIBAMJTEM qualifies unreservedly, as
did The Jabbers while he was around. Others, such as The
Good DrDr, Glenn, Ray et al, don't.

Just my 20 mills...

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> For most idiots

How many are you?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167403627398

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Multiple replies don't make you any more clever,
they make your stupidity that much more obvious.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167403627398

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:34:53 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Multiple replies don't make you any more clever,
>they make your stupidity that much more obvious.

So do something about your multiple stupid replies besides blaming me
for them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 16:04:45 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:34:53 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Multiple replies don't make you any more clever,
>>they make your stupidity that much more obvious.
>
>
>So do something about your multiple stupid replies besides blaming me
>for them.

Is it just me, or are posts by TIBAIJTEM and The Good DrDr
beginning to sound more and more alike, full of noise and
bombast but signifying nothing (or damned little)?

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:55:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 16:04:45 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:34:53 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Multiple replies don't make you any more clever,
>>>they make your stupidity that much more obvious.
>>
>>
>>So do something about your multiple stupid replies besides blaming me
>>for them.
>
>Is it just me, or are posts by TIBAIJTEM and The Good DrDr
>beginning to sound more and more alike, full of noise and
>bombast but signifying nothing (or damned little)?

Definitely not just you. And it's not just TIBAIJTEM and The Good
DrDr either.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Idiot & mental case, Bob Casanova wrote:

> Sock Puppet, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> > [snip]

> [snip]

"Birds of a feather," right there.

Stupidity provided you with plenty of company, I see.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167403627398

[jillery]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:09:35 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Idiot & mental case, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Sock Puppet, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>> > [snip]
>
>> [snip]
>
>"Birds of a feather," right there.
>
>Stupidity provided you with plenty of company, I see.

Yes, you have been trolling way too much.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 20:07:14 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:55:10 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 16:04:45 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:34:53 -0800 (PST), The Incredibly Lucky JTEM
>>><jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Multiple replies don't make you any more clever,
>>>>they make your stupidity that much more obvious.
>>>
>>>
>>>So do something about your multiple stupid replies besides blaming me
>>>for them.
>>
>>Is it just me, or are posts by TIBAIJTEM and The Good DrDr
>>beginning to sound more and more alike, full of noise and
>>bombast but signifying nothing (or damned little)?
>
>
>Definitely not just you. And it's not just TIBAIJTEM and The Good
>DrDr either.

OK; thanks.

His usual post brings up (carefully chosen term; projectile
reference intentional) an urge to respond "Oh, look!
Everyone's out of step but TIBAIJTEM!", as is the usual case
with posts by The Good DrDr.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Bob Casanova wrote:

[---snip---]

Well thank God you thought to post to this thread
12 times already, an even dozen, and that's just
counting this "Bob" handle, or nobody would have
been able to gleam your lack of interest in the
topic...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/123920968253

[John Bode]

On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC-5, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Bode wrote:
>
> > Look more closely at how they're using their hands to lift. They're not
> > putting all the weight on their index fingers. The guy
>
> They try. They fail. They perform the ritual. They
> succeed.

They *pretend* to try. They *pretend* to fail. They engage in a bit of cheap stagecraft.
Then they do it like they mean it, and succeed.

You are living proof of the maxim that there's a sucker born every minute. I suppose you
believe that David Copperfield *actually* made the Statue of Liberty disappear that time.
Thank God these people don't ask for donations, I'd hate to think how much they'd soak
you for.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Bode wrote:

> They *pretend* to try. They *pretend* to fail.

Who do you think you're fooling? Who do you think
you can fool? Maybe people who are ignorant of the
topic? People who never witnessed it or tried it
themselves? Other than those people, who have you
NOT just exposed yourself as moron?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167608852823

[Pro Plyd]

The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:

> Sean Dillon wrote:
>
>> In fact, what you've given us is a list of phenomena that do occur
>
> I know. I said that.
>
>> (at least in a way... stigmata don't necesarily occur as claimed)
>
> Cites.

Amusing. Look who is asking for cites.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1:55:04 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458
> >
> > Paranormal phenomena which you can see,
> > measure, experience or otherwise be
> > assured to actually exist.
>
> So you would equate "paranormal" with "unknown"?
>
> 1. Medical miracles
> Nobody regrows severed limbs, or really comes back from the dead,
> so these "miracles" are limited, and most likely overblown by proponents
> of the paranormal explanation.


No but doctors have proven that the afterlife exists for at least 3 minutes after the heart stops. This means it probably goes on for much longer, and in at least one case it did. But they rarely can bring someone back after 3 minutes.

You will likely say the scientists were biased. How convenient for you. Skeptics praise scientists until it gives them something other than what they wanted.



>
> 2. Glitches in the Matrix
> Memory sucks (no paranormal there)

I don't know about this but I doknow a scientist found what looks like computer coding at the quantum level as well as artificial limits on certain governing processes. They also found we're more likely to be virtual by the laws of probability, that the Universe should not hold together by the laws we know, and that there's a superstructure around a star.


>
> 3. Deja Vu


Possibly the Akashic Record? Or tapping in to an "alternate dimension" via the "God Particle?"
Just speculation on my part.


>
> (see 2.)
> 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
> a parlor trick

really? You've seen it done live?

>
> 5. Birth order
> ??

Not sure what this is.

>
> 6. Acupuncture
>
> Rana S. Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1313-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.
>
> Fake acupuncture is shown to work as well as real acupuncture. In short
> acupuncture is no better than placebo.


Oh yeah? What acupuncture practitioner did they use? 'healers" vary considerably in skill from practitioner to practinioner. Nothing else could do shit for my shoulder. We've been using it for 10,000 years according to Otzi's tattoos.

Have you tried reiki? If so, do you think you are hallucinating the intense heat that transfers from the practitioner's hands to your own body?




>
> 7. Stigmata
> Interesting, but likely self-inflicted wounds in most cases, but there may
> be some that are "real".

Along with this you can include "incubus attacks." Like stigmata, the bite marks appear on the neck. It's documented in thousands of clinical cases, and most often happens to women at puberty or menopause age. Stan Gooch theorized it was a similar phenomena to stigmata, a physical manifestation of mental activity.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> John Stockwell wrote:

> > 1. Medical miracles
> > Nobody regrows severed limbs, or really comes back from the dead

> No but doctors have proven that the afterlife exists for at least 3 minutes after the heart stops. This means it probably goes on for much longer, and in at least one case it did. But they rarely can bring someone back after 3 minutes.

What's interesting, and you didn't pick up on, is that
by the stated criteria -- "Medical miracles aren't
real BECAUSE severed limbs & death" -- medical science
isn't real.

If medical miracles can't exist without doing these things,
if that's the test of existence, than medical science is
a hoax.

...going by THEIR criteria.

I see this a lot, this sliding scale AKA "Hypocrisy."

Nobody can "Prove" that an atheists exists, not
without accepting personal testimony as PROOF
(let alone "evidence"), but personal testimony
isn't really "Evidence" (let alone "Proof") when
it's a theists relating an experience with the
divine.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/167907550328

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

What's "Amazing" is you can't tell the difference
between your brand of idiocy and my calling
bullshit.

When I ask for cites it's because I looked.

I mean, I have internet access. I know how
to Google something. It ain't hard. And
there's nothing there, not what you are
defending.

So, yes, put up a cite. Pretend you have
integrity and put up a cite.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/4715436659

[Sean Dillon]

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1:55:04 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > > http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458
> > >
> > > Paranormal phenomena which you can see,
> > > measure, experience or otherwise be
> > > assured to actually exist.
> >
> > So you would equate "paranormal" with "unknown"?
> >
> > 1. Medical miracles
> > Nobody regrows severed limbs, or really comes back from the dead,
> > so these "miracles" are limited, and most likely overblown by proponents
> > of the paranormal explanation.
>
>
> No but doctors have proven that the afterlife exists for at least 3 minutes after the heart stops. This means it probably goes on for much longer, and in at least one case it did. But they rarely can bring someone back after 3 minutes.
>
> You will likely say the scientists were biased. How convenient for you. Skeptics praise scientists until it gives them something other than what they wanted.

I don't think the scientists were biased, I just think you are using overly-colorful language, to imply something that isn't quite true.

"Death" here is being defined as cardiac death, which is pretty outdated notion. The synapses in the brain are still alive. That's why experience continues, and that's why -- if you can get the heart pumping again -- you may be able to catch the brain before it is too late. The only thing that this study showed was that life -- regular old life, not an "afterlife" -- continues in the brain longer than previously believed. Which is an important (and perhaps chilling) discovery, but it isn't a miracle in the sense of a supernatural intervention.

>
>
>
> >
> > 2. Glitches in the Matrix
> > Memory sucks (no paranormal there)
>

> I don't know about this but I do know a scientist found what looks like computer coding at the quantum level as well as artificial limits on certain governing processes. They also found we're more likely to be virtual by the laws of probability, that the Universe should not hold together by the laws we know, and that there's a superstructure around a star.

I'd be really curious to see links to the studies you're citing here.

>
>
> >
> > 3. Deja Vu
>
>
> Possibly the Akashic Record? Or tapping in to an "alternate dimension" via the "God Particle?"
> Just speculation on my part.

Definitely just speculation. The current scientific guess I've heard for this phenomenon is that there is a misfire of the part of the brain that "labels" an experience as a memory. As a result, we experience NOW as a memory, which gives us cognitive dissonance and the intuition that we experienced what we're experiencing now, before.

>
>
> >
> > (see 2.)
> > 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
> > a parlor trick
>
> really? You've seen it done live?

I've DONE it. In cub scouts in... maybe 4th grade? It isn't paranormal, it just takes advantage of human psychology and our bad intuitions about weight and body function.

>
> >
> > 5. Birth order
> > ??
>
> Not sure what this is.

I assume he means the fact that siblings in different positions in birth order trend toward certain personality types. I've seen some studies that suggest that this isn't even true. But to the extent that it may be true, it is pretty obviously explicable by the fact that people who have common experiences may see common psychological impacts. Having younger siblings is a common experience, so is having younger siblings. So is being a middle child or only child, etc.

>
> >
> > 6. Acupuncture
> >
> > Rana S. Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1313-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.
> >
> > Fake acupuncture is shown to work as well as real acupuncture. In short
> > acupuncture is no better than placebo.
>
>
> Oh yeah? What acupuncture practitioner did they use? 'healers" vary considerably in skill from practitioner to practinioner. Nothing else could do shit for my shoulder. We've been using it for 10,000 years according to Otzi's tattoos.

And what makes you sure you didn't experience the placebo effect? It isn't just something that happens to other people.

>
> Have you tried reiki? If so, do you think you are hallucinating the intense heat that transfers from the practitioner's hands to your own body?

I think it is partly psychological, and partly the fact that when you trap air between two exothermic surfaces, it is going to heat up.

>
>
>
>
> >
> > 7. Stigmata
> > Interesting, but likely self-inflicted wounds in most cases, but there may
> > be some that are "real".
>
> Along with this you can include "incubus attacks." Like stigmata, the bite marks appear on the neck. It's documented in thousands of clinical cases, and most often happens to women at puberty or menopause age. Stan Gooch theorized it was a similar phenomena to stigmata, a physical manifestation of mental activity.

I've generally seen "incubus attacks" associated more with sleep paralysis than wounds. I'd be mighty curious to see backup for the claim that there are thousands of clinically studied cases of incubus wounding. I haven't been able to find any.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 12:50:02 AM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
> > The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>
> > > Sean Dillon wrote:

> > >> (at least in a way... stigmata don't necessarily occur as claimed)

> > >
> > > Cites.
>
> > Amusing. Look who is asking for cites.
>
> What's "Amazing" is you can't tell the difference
> between your brand of idiocy and my calling
> bullshit.

Amusing, not amazing. Your calls for citations are no better or worse than anyone else, sweetie.

>
> When I ask for cites it's because I looked.
>
> I mean, I have internet access. I know how
> to Google something. It ain't hard. And
> there's nothing there, not what you are
> defending.
>
> So, yes, put up a cite. Pretend you have
> integrity and put up a cite.
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/4715436659

From literally the first article that comes up when you Google "explanation for stigmata":

"There are no documentary photographs, films or videos of wounds appearing and beginning to bleed; instead the evidence for the existence of stigmata comes from eyewitnesses who see wounds that are already bleeding, and whose origin explanation must be taken on faith."

https://www.livescience.com/42822-stigmata.html

As I said, we lack evidence that stigmata occur as claimed, and are not knowingly or unknowingly self-inflicted. Because no case of stigmata (at least that I've been able to find) has been made available to forensic scientific study, there is no way to conclude against this possibility, which is much more parsimonous explanation than psychosomatic spontaneous wounds or (wilder yet) actually divine intervention.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:20:03 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1:55:04 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > > > http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458
> > > >
> > > > Paranormal phenomena which you can see,
> > > > measure, experience or otherwise be
> > > > assured to actually exist.
> > >
> > > So you would equate "paranormal" with "unknown"?
> > >
> > > 1. Medical miracles
> > > Nobody regrows severed limbs, or really comes back from the dead,
> > > so these "miracles" are limited, and most likely overblown by proponents
> > > of the paranormal explanation.
> >
> >
> > No but doctors have proven that the afterlife exists for at least 3 minutes after the heart stops. This means it probably goes on for much longer, and in at least one case it did. But they rarely can bring someone back after 3 minutes.
> >
> > You will likely say the scientists were biased. How convenient for you. Skeptics praise scientists until it gives them something other than what they wanted.
>
> I don't think the scientists were biased, I just think you are using overly-colorful language, to imply something that isn't quite true.
>
> "Death" here is being defined as cardiac death, which is pretty outdated notion. The synapses in the brain are still alive. That's why experience continues, and that's why -- if you can get the heart pumping again -- you may be able to catch the brain before it is too late. The only thing that this study showed was that life -- regular old life, not an "afterlife" -- continues in the brain longer than previously believed. Which is an important (and perhaps chilling) discovery, but it isn't a miracle in the sense of a supernatural intervention.

Then would you say the doctors are biased when they claim the patients know things that happened in the "heart-death" time that they shouldn't know, even if they could hear in an unconscious state? Are the patients all experiencing the same hallucinations because of a chemical exchange?

> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2. Glitches in the Matrix
> > > Memory sucks (no paranormal there)
> >
> > I don't know about this but I do know a scientist found what looks like computer coding at the quantum level as well as artificial limits on certain governing processes. They also found we're more likely to be virtual by the laws of probability, that the Universe should not hold together by the laws we know, and that there's a superstructure around a star.
>
> I'd be really curious to see links to the studies you're citing here.

Here's a skeptic's take on the various reports that made headlines over the past few years:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/great-minds-think-universe-is-a-computer-program/

The one who claims there's a code is mentioned if you want to study him further, but that's a good rundown of the various camp's findings.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > 3. Deja Vu
> >
> >
> > Possibly the Akashic Record? Or tapping in to an "alternate dimension" via the "God Particle?"
> > Just speculation on my part.
>
> Definitely just speculation. The current scientific guess I've heard for this phenomenon is that there is a misfire of the part of the brain that "labels" an experience as a memory. As a result, we experience NOW as a memory, which gives us cognitive dissonance and the intuition that we experienced what we're experiencing now, before.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (see 2.)
> > > 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
> > > a parlor trick
> >
> > really? You've seen it done live?
>
> I've DONE it. In cub scouts in... maybe 4th grade? It isn't paranormal, it just takes advantage of human psychology and our bad intuitions about weight and body function.

Damn you go to great links to deny the existence of any subtle forces. What is your rebuttal for the Chinese and Japanese papers showing the effects of ki energy on cancer cells? More placebo effect?

>
> >
> > >
> > > 5. Birth order
> > > ??
> >
> > Not sure what this is.
>
> I assume he means the fact that siblings in different positions in birth order trend toward certain personality types. I've seen some studies that suggest that this isn't even true. But to the extent that it may be true, it is pretty obviously explicable by the fact that people who have common experiences may see common psychological impacts. Having younger siblings is a common experience, so is having younger siblings. So is being a middle child or only child, etc.
> >
> > >
> > > 6. Acupuncture
> > >
> > > Rana S. Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1313-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.
> > >
> > > Fake acupuncture is shown to work as well as real acupuncture. In short
> > > acupuncture is no better than placebo.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah? What acupuncture practitioner did they use? 'healers" vary considerably in skill from practitioner to practinioner. Nothing else could do shit for my shoulder. We've been using it for 10,000 years according to Otzi's tattoos.
>
> And what makes you sure you didn't experience the placebo effect? It isn't just something that happens to other people.

Since I don't generally trust in people who claim such things, and can't even be hypnotized, and since hallucinogenics in college couldn't even make me hallucinate...I tend to trust myself.

That's all we have in the end, when it comes down to it.

I've tried all kinds of bullshit. Only a few things worked, and it wasn't because of how much or how little I believed in the teacher or the practice.

>
> >
> > Have you tried reiki? If so, do you think you are hallucinating the intense heat that transfers from the practitioner's hands to your own body?
>
> I think it is partly psychological, and partly the fact that when you trap air between two exothermic surfaces, it is going to heat up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 7. Stigmata
> > > Interesting, but likely self-inflicted wounds in most cases, but there may
> > > be some that are "real".
> >
> > Along with this you can include "incubus attacks." Like stigmata, the bite marks appear on the neck. It's documented in thousands of clinical cases, and most often happens to women at puberty or menopause age. Stan Gooch theorized it was a similar phenomena to stigmata, a physical manifestation of mental activity.
>
> I've generally seen "incubus attacks" associated more with sleep paralysis than wounds. I'd be mighty curious to see backup for the claim that there are thousands of clinically studied cases of incubus wounding. I haven't been able to find any.

Stan Gooch, who maintained neanderthal hybridization and predicted many findings we are only confirming in the past few years, wrote a book about this. He cites over a hundred clinical cases, I may have exaggerated the number. Check out his book on paranormal activity- it's the only book by him that's not about Neanderthals.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 2:20:03 PM UTC-5, Sean Dillon wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-6, J.LyonLayden wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 6:15:04 PM UTC-4, John Stockwell wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 1:55:04 PM UTC-6, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > > > > http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149095877458
> > > > >
> > > > > Paranormal phenomena which you can see,
> > > > > measure, experience or otherwise be
> > > > > assured to actually exist.
> > > >
> > > > So you would equate "paranormal" with "unknown"?
> > > >
> > > > 1. Medical miracles
> > > > Nobody regrows severed limbs, or really comes back from the dead,
> > > > so these "miracles" are limited, and most likely overblown by proponents
> > > > of the paranormal explanation.
> > >
> > >
> > > No but doctors have proven that the afterlife exists for at least 3 minutes after the heart stops. This means it probably goes on for much longer, and in at least one case it did. But they rarely can bring someone back after 3 minutes.
> > >
> > > You will likely say the scientists were biased. How convenient for you. Skeptics praise scientists until it gives them something other than what they wanted.
> >
> > I don't think the scientists were biased, I just think you are using overly-colorful language, to imply something that isn't quite true.
> >
> > "Death" here is being defined as cardiac death, which is pretty outdated notion. The synapses in the brain are still alive. That's why experience continues, and that's why -- if you can get the heart pumping again -- you may be able to catch the brain before it is too late. The only thing that this study showed was that life -- regular old life, not an "afterlife" -- continues in the brain longer than previously believed. Which is an important (and perhaps chilling) discovery, but it isn't a miracle in the sense of a supernatural intervention.
>
> Then would you say the doctors are biased when they claim the patients know things that happened in the "heart-death" time that they shouldn't know, even if they could hear in an unconscious state?

Could you give me some verified examples?

> Are the patients all experiencing the same hallucinations because of a chemical exchange?

Are we still talking about the "things they know"? Or are you talking about the white light, etc etc. Because if the latter, yes... I think we can attribute similar hallucinations to the fact that the same thing is happening to their brains.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. Glitches in the Matrix
> > > > Memory sucks (no paranormal there)
> > >
> > > I don't know about this but I do know a scientist found what looks like computer coding at the quantum level as well as artificial limits on certain governing processes. They also found we're more likely to be virtual by the laws of probability, that the Universe should not hold together by the laws we know, and that there's a superstructure around a star.
> >
> > I'd be really curious to see links to the studies you're citing here.
>
> Here's a skeptic's take on the various reports that made headlines over the past few years:
> https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/great-minds-think-universe-is-a-computer-program/
>
> The one who claims there's a code is mentioned if you want to study him further, but that's a good rundown of the various camp's findings.

I wouldn't go citing "EvolutionNews.org" for ANYTHING. Despite the name, it is just the opposite... a pseudo-science factory, aimed at debunking evolution.

But even THAT article isn't supporting some of the assertions you've made above.

> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Deja Vu
> > >
> > >
> > > Possibly the Akashic Record? Or tapping in to an "alternate dimension" via the "God Particle?"
> > > Just speculation on my part.
> >
> > Definitely just speculation. The current scientific guess I've heard for this phenomenon is that there is a misfire of the part of the brain that "labels" an experience as a memory. As a result, we experience NOW as a memory, which gives us cognitive dissonance and the intuition that we experienced what we're experiencing now, before.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (see 2.)
> > > > 4. The two-fingered “Levitation”
> > > > a parlor trick
> > >
> > > really? You've seen it done live?
> >
> > I've DONE it. In cub scouts in... maybe 4th grade? It isn't paranormal, it just takes advantage of human psychology and our bad intuitions about weight and body function.
>
>
> Damn you go to great links to deny the existence of any subtle forces. What is your rebuttal for the Chinese and Japanese papers showing the effects of ki energy on cancer cells? More placebo effect?

Well A) That has nothing to do with the "light as a feather" experience... the subject is firmly changing here. B) What is ki, exactly? May it be that application of body heat (aka infrared radiation) to denatured cancer cells may be causing inhibited growth? That would be an interesting finding, but I think we need to keep both feet on the ground, rather than running toward attributing this to some sort of mystical "life force." After all, one would think that the application of "life force" to living cells would cause them to thrive, not the opposite, right?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 5. Birth order
> > > > ??
> > >
> > > Not sure what this is.
> >
> > I assume he means the fact that siblings in different positions in birth order trend toward certain personality types. I've seen some studies that suggest that this isn't even true. But to the extent that it may be true, it is pretty obviously explicable by the fact that people who have common experiences may see common psychological impacts. Having younger siblings is a common experience, so is having younger siblings. So is being a middle child or only child, etc.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 6. Acupuncture
> > > >
> > > > Rana S. Hinman; Paul McCrory; Marie Pirotta; et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Knee Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(13):1313-1322. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.
> > > >
> > > > Fake acupuncture is shown to work as well as real acupuncture. In short
> > > > acupuncture is no better than placebo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh yeah? What acupuncture practitioner did they use? 'healers" vary considerably in skill from practitioner to practinioner. Nothing else could do shit for my shoulder. We've been using it for 10,000 years according to Otzi's tattoos.
> >
> > And what makes you sure you didn't experience the placebo effect? It isn't just something that happens to other people.
>
>
> Since I don't generally trust in people who claim such things, and can't even be hypnotized, and since hallucinogenics in college couldn't even make me hallucinate...I tend to trust myself.
>
> That's all we have in the end, when it comes down to it.
>
> I've tried all kinds of bullshit. Only a few things worked, and it wasn't because of how much or how little I believed in the teacher or the practice.

Whatever else may be true, I'm glad your pain has been alleviated. But being a skeptic doesn't necessarily inoculate you against the placebo effect.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Have you tried reiki? If so, do you think you are hallucinating the intense heat that transfers from the practitioner's hands to your own body?
> >
> > I think it is partly psychological, and partly the fact that when you trap air between two exothermic surfaces, it is going to heat up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 7. Stigmata
> > > > Interesting, but likely self-inflicted wounds in most cases, but there may
> > > > be some that are "real".
> > >
> > > Along with this you can include "incubus attacks." Like stigmata, the bite marks appear on the neck. It's documented in thousands of clinical cases, and most often happens to women at puberty or menopause age. Stan Gooch theorized it was a similar phenomena to stigmata, a physical manifestation of mental activity.
> >
> > I've generally seen "incubus attacks" associated more with sleep paralysis than wounds. I'd be mighty curious to see backup for the claim that there are thousands of clinically studied cases of incubus wounding. I haven't been able to find any.
>
> Stan Gooch, who maintained neanderthal hybridization and predicted many findings we are only confirming in the past few years, wrote a book about this. He cites over a hundred clinical cases, I may have exaggerated the number. Check out his book on paranormal activity- it's the only book by him that's not about Neanderthals.

I don't have access to his book, nor any sources he may have cited. But based on what I see about him on a quick Google search, it sounds like Gooch's ideas about Neanderthals far over-step what we currently know to be true, and that he runs from there into a whole load of hooey.

[J.LyonLayden]

Of course. back when everyone insisted neanderthals had never-no-never reproduced with a Homo Sapien Spiens he would not relent.

he predicted Archaic African Introgression, though he called the responsible hominids "African Neanderthals." he predicted Denisovan introgression, though he called them "Asian Neanderthals." He predicted the Microcephalin D Hominid in India.
He accurately named the ethnic groups in which the most neanderthal Would be found: Irish, Native American, Ahkenazi Jew, Basues, Ainu, and Papua new Guineans.
he also predicted a type of "intuitive" knowledge an "asymmetrical" art in neanderthals. To gooch they were the first "alchemist." Sure enough, we now find that neanderthals used chemistry instead of sticks to make fire and were manufacturing tar 100 thousand years before homo sapiens. Their confirmed ceremonial rock formations in deep caves show an appreciation for asymmetry and "naturalism."

He also predicted "Neanderthaloid" or "archaic" survival into the Holocene. The Red Deer Cave people, several skulls form Mongolia, Balangoda Man, Iwu Eleru, and the Palau hominids all attest to this realization.

he even predicted where the last surviving "Classic neanderthals" would be found: Iberia.

Of course they won't admit he was right or give him any credit. He used folklore as data...he was obviously crazy!! Folklore can't ever mean anything. Ancient texts are total bullshit if they contain any creature you don't already know about.

[Sean Dillon]

He claims a great deal more than that, and a lot of it kinda nutty. A person being right on something doesn't mean they are right on everything else. Lynn Margulis was right about endosymbiosis. Gaia Theory is still hooey though. Newton was really great when it comes to physics, but his alchemical work was still hooey. Gooch may have been right about some things about Neanderthals -- and folklore may even have been a useful source there -- but that doesn't mean that there have been hundreds of CLINICALLY DOCUMENTED cases of spontaneous psycho-somatic neck wounds occurring, nor that the same should be attributed to our "neanderthal brains" asserting themselves.

[J.LyonLayden]

Well he claims to have gone through many clinical psychology cases and found that "incubus" episodes are most prevalent in women at menopause and puberty age. He cites many of the clinical studies in the book.

Yes I know he made wild claims and that not all of them are correct. I'm just saying you shouldn't discount him because of his wild side. Newton was a mystic too. Each claim should be judged on its own merits, not solely by the claimant's reputation.