XPost: alt.folklore.ghost-stories, alt.dreams.lucid, bionet.neuroscience   
   XPost: alt.paranormal.channeling   
   From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:45:53 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
      
   > David Mitchell wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:58:20 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > i see what your saying   
   >> >   
   >> > clairaudience is certainly more than the way i'm hearing it continued   
   >> > to be described here   
   >>   
   >> That's a bit puzzling; since you're the one who ascribed the phenomena to   
   >> clairaudience in the first place.   
   >   
   > look up the definition, it's not what you refer to as spirits   
   > whispering in ears . . . a crude attempt to mystify the phenomenon,   
      
   I think you're getting confused...   
      
   I know what clairaudience is defined as; and to my mind it's not what was   
   being discussed here; but you were the one who originally proposed it as   
   an explanation of what was occuring.   
      
   The "voices in the ear" discussion was about the source of the hypnogogic   
   voices.   
      
   I'm not trying to "mystify" anything - the original poster was wondering   
   which of two explanations was correct, and one of them was that the voices   
   had their root cause outside the body, in the form of vibrations of the   
   eardrum.  Since they're voices, and there's no visible cause, it doesn't   
   seem unreasonable to call them the results of "whispering invisible   
   entities".   
      
   > let's demystify, ok?  i say it's not actually sonic, and it't not a   
   > sonic hallucination   
      
   Good for you; but you still haven't given any good reason why you think   
   it's clairaudience and not a hypnogogic hallucination.   
      
   >> Not "proven", in any meaningful way; unless you have a cite for a series   
   >> of well designed experiments that I don't know about.   
   >>   
   >   
   > i can say anything that supports my perspective, and you tend to shoot   
   > it down, so do the research, it's out there,   
      
   I certainly propose alternative explanations for things, and ask you to   
   justify your reasoning - if you want to take that as "shooting down" your   
   claims, feel free; but if your claims are so weak that merely proposing an   
   alternative makes them seem implausible, I think that's your problem, and   
   not mine.  Similarly asking you to justify your reasoning, if you can't   
   then why should we take it seriously?   
      
   As to the research - you claim that it exists, so prove it.   
      
   > but i don't see that   
   > you'll find it evidentiary until your beliefs change, and life itself   
   > speaks to you in a different way   
      
   If it's good evidence, I'll accept it; but I doubt that it is.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)