![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 81. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 31, 2005, at 23:11:13
In reply to Re: Astrology » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 31, 2005, at 20:28:42
> > have you heard about administering placebos and telling people it is asprin / morphene?
> > placebo affect is very strong for True Believers...
>
> True Believers in what, exactly? I'm a born skeptic, but I make a concerted effort not to prejudge anything. And I mean that. Anything.
>Indeed you are a skeptic, and it's a a very apparent aspect of your personality I'd say.
I think it's odd that people discount this sort of thing out of hand.
I mean.. we're here were alive on a rock in space, isn't that weird enough? Does that really make any logical "sense"?
I find it hard to imagine just about anything else in this realm to be any more fantastical, or illogical than than the fact that we exist at all.>
>
Posted by crazy teresa on January 1, 2006, at 11:55:40
In reply to Re: Astrology » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 31, 2005, at 21:45:56
I believe you experienced what you experienced, but I'm not sure it was necessarily a good thing. How was it to have to look forward her predictions?
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 12:47:47
In reply to Hey Lar,, posted by crazy teresa on January 1, 2006, at 11:55:40
> I believe you experienced what you experienced, but I'm not sure it was necessarily a good thing. How was it to have to look forward her predictions?
They weren't all bad. There were many different predictions. She gave duration. She gave context. And the bad would come to an end. Eventually. Just not right away.
Her predictions didn't affect decisions I made. I was never literally conscious of them. They weren't like "don't get on a bus, April 3rd". More like "Your financial state and your health will get worse, and stay that way for about eighteen months. It will turn around, but you'll have a surprising setback, involving an intersection of health, wealth, and well-being."
Seventeen and a half months later, following surgery I didn't even yet know I needed (putting me on welfare, which didn't even cover my rent), I got back on my feet, got a job, and got mugged before I could even make it to work. The mugging gave me PTSD.
That seems like a pretty good concordance between the prediction and the outcome.
I don't have that piece of paper, the one with her words on it. It's in a box somewhere. All I remember right now is the gist of her words. So, please, nobody jump on me about what I'm trying to describe. My memory for stuff like that is not literal. I remember the meaning, not the language. The "quotation" above is my gist-based memory of what she said. Not literally what she said.
I was already shocked at what had happened in my life (before the day we met). She took the edge off further shocks, yet to come.
It's not like I had some dark cloud over me. In retrospect, her predictions turned out to be true. It may not seem logical, but I was comforted. Because I trusted her, I guess. Her, not the predictions.
She is the mystery, to me. Not the astrology. The Reiki. The astrology. They were just her tools.
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:51:59
In reply to Re: Astrology » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 31, 2005, at 20:28:42
> Fair enough, except it wasn't like that.
Did she delivered her retro-dictions and predictions without any feedback from you (being able to see your face / tension in your body / have access to your tone of voice) whatsoever? Methinks she did not. the example i gave was very blatent. but the same process works much much more subtly.
i've been reading about hypnosis / hypnotism. that works the same...
> When I said, "I am attuned to semantic issues, and I'm conscious of ambiguity of speech, and simple statements masquerading as the profound.", I was meaning that I was not participating in that sort of dialogue.you... you don't want to believe that you were. you want to believe that your experience was veridical. you want to believe... that this woman had what? the power to see into your past and your future and tell you what was going to happen in your life? the power to... temporarily heal you.
and...
suprise suprise...
> I do believe my capacity for critical thinking was sharper then than now. And I'd wager that I'm still able, in that regard.
i know you are more than capable of thinking critically. but i also think... that what happens is that people want to believe. they want to believe. and in those times... their critical thinking skills are not optimal.
> And I don't care what explanation one might give for what occurred that day. I felt things in my body that I have neither felt before nor since. I had my eyes closed, so I can't see how I could have placeboed anything at all. All I knew was that she was near, from her voice. And yet, her nearness was felt within me. She didn't ever touch me. And yet, she did.you 'don't care what explanation one might give for what occurred that day'. thats not much of a 'critical thinking' attitude regarding the source / origin / cause of your experience. because of course i am not denying your experience. i am not denying what seems to be the case to you. what i am a LOT sceptical about is the following:
- that she knew things from your past at better than chance rates. or that if she knew things from your past at better than chance rates then that had to do with either the formulation of what she knew or with feedback that you gave her unconsciously.
- that she knew things about your future at better than chance rates. or that if she knew things about your future at better than chance rates then that had to do with either the formulation of what she predicted or with your unconscious seeking out / acceptance of that course for your future.
- that she was able to do more in alleviating your pain than a hypnotist or good placebo would have done if only you had as much faith in their suggestion as hers.
> > Hmm. I've had similar style predictions courtesy of community mental health...
> Based on what? Do they do charts?aye. i like to think of it as numerology
(stats)
;-)
(i am half joking)
> > > P.S. Ghosts exist, too. Data points not in accord with accepted knowledge.> > is that what a ghost is?
> > an anomaly?
> That's one descriptive term that applies, yes.there could be anomalies, there could be 'data points not in accord with accepted knowledge' but there could still be no such things as ghosts.
> You meant to trick me. <finger wagging>i'm not meaning to trick you.
if you assert that it is possible that ghosts exist...
well... i want to counter that there is no such things as ghosts.there aren't any unicorns, there isn't a tooth fairy, there is no such thing as phlogiston, or witches, or satan, or angels, or ectoplasmic spiritual stuff that needs to be written into the periodic table of elements before chemistry is complete...
your ontology is more complex than mine (because you are asserting the existence of some kind of... ectoplasmic spiritual stuff... and thus the burden of proof...
> > what do you mean by 'ghost'?
> You know. Spirit thing. Haunted premises. "not in accord with accepted knowledge" spooky things.so...
the periodic table of elements is incomplete because science has yet to acknowledge the 'spirit thing'?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:58:07
In reply to Re: Astrology » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 31, 2005, at 21:45:56
> I don't even care *how* she did it. It was impressive.see...
thats one thing i can't muster...
the 'i don't even care *how* she did it' thing.
i do care.
i care a great deal.
and...
i don't believe in ghosts or demons or spirits or souls or phlogiston or the tooth fairy etc etc etc
because...
IMO
acceptance of a 'super-natural' explanation...
acceptance that one doesn't even want an explanation...well...
that is not scientific.
it is not.
natural explanations for natural phenomena.
the trouble with natural explanation...
is that it can be demystifying...
and sometimes...
people believe they need mystery
they believe they need to believe in magicbut if you believe in good magic and that helps you...
do you believe in bad magic?
and does that make you feel afraid?
i don't believe in either.
i have nothing to fear.
i have a naturalistic explanation to gain.
of course we don't have everything explained yet.
science is far from complete.
but i'd rather work towards its completion (which may never arrive...) but i'd rather work towards it than...
accept a magical explanation.
which is of course akin to accepting defeat.
giving up on a naturalistic understanding of our world.
can you think of some experiments Larry?
some experiments to see whether she can tell the past / future / heal people?
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 19:10:11
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:58:07
I think Larry deserves the chance to believe. :-)
I don't believe, but I'll believe for his sake. :-)
Deneb
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 19:43:48
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:51:59
I'm going to simplify this whole thing significantly.
> you want to believe... that this woman had what? the power to see into your past and your future and tell you what was going to happen in your life? the power to... temporarily heal you.
I had now want to believe anything. I observed what apparently were those things.
> you 'don't care what explanation one might give for what occurred that day'.
Because I am not trying to explain it.
> thats not much of a 'critical thinking' attitude regarding the source / origin / cause of your experience.
I don't know the source, origin, or cause. And I have no opinion thereof.
> > That's one descriptive term that applies, yes.
>
> there could be anomalies, there could be 'data points not in accord with accepted knowledge' but there could still be no such things as ghosts.Of course. But I meant to describe a ghost.
> well... i want to counter that there is no such things as ghosts.
> the periodic table of elements is incomplete because science has yet to acknowledge the 'spirit thing'?
Nothing like that. The science I have been exposed to does not include the observations I made. Upon looking for appropriate language of categorization, I attributed my experience to what is known as a ghost.
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 19:58:11
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:58:07
> > I don't even care *how* she did it. It was impressive.
> i don't believe in ghosts or demons or spirits or souls or phlogiston or the tooth fairy etc etc etc
If it makes you more comfortable, let's rule those out. Where are we then? No further, IMHO.
My sense of "impressive" was that her presentation was so beyond chance as to be startling. And, just for clarity, much of that sense arose years later when I chanced again upon her written words, and sat down and compared the chronology of real events to hers.
> that is not scientific.
>
> it is not.Precisely my point in mentioning it at all.
> but if you believe in good magic and that helps you...
I didn't once say I believed in magic.
> of course we don't have everything explained yet.
>
> science is far from complete.Right. And just as it was once believed that maggots were a property of meat, and where viral infection was a spiritual curse, so we stand with other phenomena.
> but i'd rather work towards its completion (which may never arrive...) but i'd rather work towards it than...
>
> accept a magical explanation.I wasn't invoking magic. I'm not explaining anything.
> which is of course akin to accepting defeat.
You make assumptions which are simply beyond my ken.
> some experiments to see whether she can tell the past / future / heal people?
Of course. As I said, I'd seek her out if I had any idea where she'd gone.
I would seek to obtain more observations.
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 20:05:38
In reply to Re: Astrology » alexandra_k, posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 19:10:11
> I think Larry deserves the chance to believe. :-)
>
> I don't believe, but I'll believe for his sake. :-)
>
> DenebBelieve what, exactly. I haven't once mentioned belief in this entire thread.
Lar
Posted by Damos on January 1, 2006, at 20:19:54
In reply to Re: Astrology » Angela2, posted by Larry Hoover on December 30, 2005, at 23:53:16
Hey Lar,
Reiki is one of the best things I've ever done. Like you I don't know why it works, but it does. I have a session every few months just depending on how I'm feeling and always come away feeling better than I went in. My therapist Alison is also very intuitive, doesn't do astology or anything just different forms of energetic healing.
BTW: New Years day in Sydney 45 C or about 113 F, hope you had a good one.
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 20:30:54
In reply to Re: Astrology » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 20:05:38
> > I think Larry deserves the chance to believe. :-)
> >
> > I don't believe, but I'll believe for his sake. :-)
> >
> > Deneb
>
> Believe what, exactly. I haven't once mentioned belief in this entire thread.
>
> Lar
>I'm sorry Larry. :-( I didn't mean for my post to imply that you believe in stuff such as astrology.
I just thought maybe you were saying that you believe that certain people have special abilities that cannot yet be explained, abilities like being able to "read" or "heal" people.
I'm sorry Lar.
Deneb
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:08:32
In reply to Re: Astrology » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 20:05:38
i'm sorry larry...
i've been 'indoctrinated' (yes, perhaps it does amount to that) regarding naturalism and the place of philosophy as on a continuum with the natural sciences...
it is sometimes known as the 'canberra plan' of philosophy, and it is a style of philosophy that is accepted at other places too...
and it is a style of philosophy that some people don't like. don't like at all. and... well... if the canberra plan was to make *all* philosophy part of the canberra plan then there might be a problem or two... and perhaps... well perhaps they do this by ignoring / casting aside all other kinds of philsophy... i don't know.
my point is just that...
i am interested in explanation.
i am interested in the cause of your experience.
and...
i accept naturalistic explanations (ones that cohere well with current naturalistic explanations)
over supernatural explanaitons
where supernatural explanations involve us making changes to the assumptions of the naturalistic explanations
(which have helped us out rather a lot you will admit with modern advances in medicine and technology and tv and computer and sattelight and radar and rockets to the moon etc etc)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:09:43
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by Damos on January 1, 2006, at 20:19:54
> BTW: New Years day in Sydney 45 C or about 113 F, hope you had a good one.
oh my god.
dunno what it was over here...
maybe about 27 C
but it was hot!!!
<whine>
(humidity)
Posted by Damos on January 1, 2006, at 22:27:36
In reply to Re: Astrology » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:09:43
Hey :-)
Yeah it was hot alright and the humidity was around 10% with a North Westerly wind. Consequently lots of bad fires around. Cool change came through about 11:30pm was only 38 then. Much better today around 28.
Want to reply to your post on psyshe too just having trouble stringing 2 words together, let alone anything remotely intelligent.
Hope the new year has been good to you so far.
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 22:40:36
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on December 31, 2005, at 23:11:13
> > > have you heard about administering placebos and telling people it is asprin / morphene?
> > > placebo affect is very strong for True Believers...
> >
> > True Believers in what, exactly? I'm a born skeptic, but I make a concerted effort not to prejudge anything. And I mean that. Anything.
> >
>
> Indeed you are a skeptic, and it's a a very apparent aspect of your personality I'd say.I have read and re-read every word I posted to this thread, in one continuous stream. I found zero instances where I invoked explanations for what I experienced, or, instances where I mentioned belief in paranormal or any other extra-scientific realms. (A single specific instance in which I teasingly referred to ghosts is be further discussed, below.)
In fact, I took pains to remain descriptive throughout. I challenge any reader to do something. Go back, and read what I said, all over again. And while you're doing so, monitor your own thinking for bias and prejudice. I didn't offer explanations. If there were any, I think they're internal.
What I described is simply what happened, to the best of my ability to make clear exactly what that was. What happened. When it happened.
Not how. Not why.
I don't know how. I don't know why. I explained nothing, although I described the method allegedly used by Margaret. That's what she said she was doing. I have no evidence to support, nor evidence to refute, her alleged method. It's simply what she said she was doing.
I described what I experienced. I did not say I believed in astrology.
Now, about ghosts. I was being a bit of a smart *ss, taking a chance/hoping that I'd trigger a sub-thread. I purposely was sparse of word, when I added that little P.S. to my first message.
I wanted to delve into the difference between experienced or observed anomalous phenomena and the myths or "secondary beliefs" associated with the language required to even communicate the observations themselves.
I don't believe in Casper. However, I have had experiences which have no scientific explanation. Upon seeking language to communicate about certain of those observations, 'ghost' seemed to fit best.
I purposely limited the words I used, when I added my postscript. And alex did probe my intended meaning. She does take the fun out of things, some times. ;-)
Words like ghost or astrology are pregnant with meaning. It's extremely important to recognize that, when you see words with these multiple connotations. If you do not guard against it, you will be biased whenever you come across them. You have judgments preformed about them.
Now, as I just mentioned to Deneb, I will reiterate here. I don't know why. I don't how. I do know what, which is to say, I believe my senses. I observed anomalies.
To expand on that, I have no reason to believe that I took leave of my senses. To my knowledge, such a thing has never happened, except during drug-induced hallucinations. In the moments when I was making 'unexplainable' observations, observing 'anomalies'(whatever language you wish to choose), I have belief in the veracity of my senses. Nothing else in the realm of the observed was concurrently distorted or inappropriate. One instance of such an anomaly/ghost was observed by a group of six individuals. Coincidence, or error, doesn't begin to cover such a circumstance. There were six people, six busy people, simultaneously distracted by an 'anomaly'. And, there existed, in the common language of us all, words for what we saw. From that, I infer only that it is unlikely that we were either the first, or the only, to make similar observations. Ghost. We all agreed on that.
That is all that I ever meant to convey throughout this dialogue. I believe my senses. I believe I experienced these things. I leave explanations to others. What surprises me is that anybody would dismiss my observations out of hand. I didn't get published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal while I was but a college sophomore because I'm a poor observer.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 22:49:30
In reply to Re: Belief » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 22:40:36
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 22:53:57
In reply to Re: Belief » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 22:40:36
I didn't mean to accuse Larry of believing/forming theories of why.
Maybe I'm going crazy. Is Larry yelling at me?
I get that he means that he recorded observations. He didn't derive any meanings from the observations. they are just that.
Deneb
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 22:54:28
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by Damos on January 1, 2006, at 20:19:54
> Hey Lar,
>
> Reiki is one of the best things I've ever done. Like you I don't know why it works, but it does. I have a session every few months just depending on how I'm feeling and always come away feeling better than I went in.Right. And I that's the important bit.
> My therapist Alison is also very intuitive, doesn't do astology or anything just different forms of energetic healing.
Ya. It's an intuitive art, of some sort.
> BTW: New Years day in Sydney 45 C or about 113 F, hope you had a good one.
Holy canoli, mate! 45 C! That's too hot for me.
Thanks, I did, in my quiet way. I hope yours was good, and safe. No cooked bits.
A couple inches of snow. Not too cold. Just quiet. The snow quiets things. No snowmobiles racing around. Just nice, and quiet.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:01:52
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 20:30:54
> > > I think Larry deserves the chance to believe. :-)
> > >
> > > I don't believe, but I'll believe for his sake. :-)
> > >
> > > Deneb
> >
> > Believe what, exactly. I haven't once mentioned belief in this entire thread.
> >
> > Lar
> >
>
> I'm sorry Larry. :-( I didn't mean for my post to imply that you believe in stuff such as astrology.<sigh> I didn't want anybody feeling upset, either. I'm sorry you're sorry.
And not to make a mockery of this exchange, but I quite purposely did not express belief or disbelief in astrology. I did mean to suggest there is mystery around it.
> I just thought maybe you were saying that you believe that certain people have special abilities that cannot yet be explained, abilities like being able to "read" or "heal" people.
Now, that's a separate point entirely. And I do believe that. I don't mean miracles though. Just extra stuff. It could be nothing more than the ability to integrate observable data in ways that most people don't even consider. Coming to rational conclusions where most could not, may be seen as having a special ability by those not so abled. <shrug>
> I'm sorry Lar.
>
> DenebSo am I.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:04:15
In reply to Re: Astrology » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:09:43
> dunno what it was over here...
>
> maybe about 27 C
>
> but it was hot!!!
>
> <whine>
>
> (humidity)Sissy. ;-)
That's not hot. Last summer we had 43 days over 30. 11 nights were over 30. You'd never make it through, in Canada.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:14:38
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:08:32
> i'm sorry larry...
Okay, now I'm wishing I refreshed the page before I posted about belief.
I'm sorry too.
> i've been 'indoctrinated' (yes, perhaps it does amount to that) regarding naturalism and the place of philosophy as on a continuum with the natural sciences...
>
> it is sometimes known as the 'canberra plan' of philosophy, and it is a style of philosophy that is accepted at other places too...
>
> and it is a style of philosophy that some people don't like. don't like at all. and... well... if the canberra plan was to make *all* philosophy part of the canberra plan then there might be a problem or two... and perhaps... well perhaps they do this by ignoring / casting aside all other kinds of philsophy... i don't know.
>
> my point is just that...
>
> i am interested in explanation.
>
> i am interested in the cause of your experience.
>
> and...
>
> i accept naturalistic explanations (ones that cohere well with current naturalistic explanations)
>
> over supernatural explanaitons
>
> where supernatural explanations involve us making changes to the assumptions of the naturalistic explanations
>
> (which have helped us out rather a lot you will admit with modern advances in medicine and technology and tv and computer and sattelight and radar and rockets to the moon etc etc)True. But need everything have an explanation? Is it inherent to the Canberra Plan, to explain everything?
I suppose that what I was trying to describe has a naturalistic explanation. It wouldn't have happended otherwise, would it? We just don't yet know what the explanation is. I don't, anyway.
Lar
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 23:17:48
In reply to Re: Astrology » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:01:52
I'm sorry for acting crazy again.
Don't know what's up with me.
Sigh...
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:23:35
In reply to This thread upsets me, posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 22:53:57
> I didn't mean to accuse Larry of believing/forming theories of why.
Did you do that? I took it as teasing. Good-natured teasing.
> Maybe I'm going crazy. Is Larry yelling at me?
No. I'm not yelling at you. I haven't yelled at anybody in this thread. Not in my mind. Not "on paper". No yelling, anywhere.
I've tried to tighten my prose, to become very explicit, because I felt misunderstood.
> I get that he means that he recorded observations. He didn't derive any meanings from the observations. they are just that.
>
> DenebThat is how I think, and how I meant to be read. Yes. That is correct.
May we put my story to rest? May I offer you The Cyber Butter Tart of Peace? And one for you, too, alexandra?
Lar
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 23:29:27
In reply to Re: A peace offering » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:23:35
>May I offer you The Cyber Butter Tart of Peace? And one for you, too, alexandra?
>
> LarThanks Larry :-)
I feel better now.
My mind isn't thinking straight so it misinterprets what people write.
Deneb
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 23:56:52
In reply to This thread upsets me, posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 22:53:57
> I didn't mean to accuse Larry of believing/forming theories of why.
>
> Maybe I'm going crazy. Is Larry yelling at me?I'm not accusing Larry of yelling at me. I was just asking.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.