"Can you feel it?"

reply to post by Jedimind

Originally posted by Jedimind
This exchange has been stressful and a waste of my time. I had a feeling that I shouldn't have responded to you in the first place.
When I started my post in the way that apparently rubbed you the wrong way, it was just a post replying to and agreeing with the OP. When you posted however, you were directly replying to me in an manner of ridicule and started the ball rolling. After I retaliate in kind (and you fail to provide evidence about a vibrational shift to shut me up btw) you now say we're both to blame? I don't think so pal.

Look Jedi, all I did pointed out your inaccurate use of generalisations which are directly insulting to people who think differently to you. Yes I did in a manner which wasn’t really conducive to a civil exchange of ideas which I now regret and I have apologised for. This is why I think we’re both at fault. I have admitted and apologised for what I said but you still seem to feel you haven’t done anything wrong…

Short of actually changing my point of view (which you have not given me any reason to do) there’s really not much more I can do.

As for evidence of a vibrational shift, I would have thought the masses of people who do seem to feel such a thing would be evidence enough. I highly doubt anyone’s actually ever even done a study looking for such phenomena, so I did the best I could and provided you with evidence on how such a shift could be sensed.

These type of things are why I don't debate politics online but I'm surprised to run into this friction in this area.

This tends to happen when you express an opinion using stereotypes.

It's funny to think too that we'd probably get along in real life but when people wanna talk crap online and come at me in the way you did trying to talk down to me like I'm stupid, I'm not gonna put up with it.

And I’m afraid I will not put up with insulting lies hurled by those who think like me by either you or anyone else on this forum. I’m sure we probably would get on well in real life, but I am quite surprised that you feel so ‘wronged’ by what I have said that you cannot seem deal with anything else that I’ve posted.

I would have thought anyone who’s been here for nearly 5 years would well be used to a few sarcastic jibes by now. Again though I'm obviously wrong and I'm truly sorry that I made you feel stressed in anyway.

I think for me, it is very difficult for me to communicate what I am feeling or want to say to others because they think I am "crazy." I am actually glad that I found ATS, but we're not doing anything about it, but then again, in this country, we don't have much power to do anything about it.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


"As for evidence of a vibrational shift, I would have thought the masses of people who do seem to feel such a thing would be evidence enough."

-Masses of people feel all sorts of ridiculous things that aren't true. Just look at religion to point out the obvious. Masses of people feeling something is of course not evidence of anything. It's often quite the contrary.

-The two wikipedia links about the double slit experiment aren't evidence of the monumental shift that the OP and myself say that certain people refer to. That's just quantum physics stuff. Regarding the tenuous studies about predicting the future and psychic phenomena, the articles themselves admit that the effect size was just barely larger than chance. Even if these are legitimate phenomena (and these studies are interesting mind you), this is not the type of stuff that the OP or I was getting at.

-Honestly I think you are confused as to what I'm talking about regarding this vibrational shift, impending massive change stuff. You're saying I'm wrong about something that I'm not even referring to. I'd take blame for not defining it but I was pretty clear. The OP was ranting about people believing in some invisible something occurring or soon to occur which they don't even know what it is!! I agree with this!

-If you have an actual clearly defined idea (which you've yet to state, surprisingly) that can be possibly supported by science as far as what this vibrational shift stuff entails, then you're not who I'm talking about anyway and I'm not talking about you or "stating lies" about you in the first place so you shouldn't be concerned.

-You're half hearted apology and saying that I can take a sarcastic jibe is whatever. Basically saying that I need to not be so sensitive and stop being so offended. I get it, passive aggressive insult. No need to apologize anyway as I wasn't offended. It's simply frustrating when it isn't really a jibe and the person is trying to hold something you didn't say against you simply because they misunderstand what you're saying in the first place.
(-I officially don't want to take about vibrational change for at least a week or two. haha. It's all good. the song communication breakdown by zepplin is coming to mind and when operating in this medium of an online forum with limited space, strongly held opinions, anonymity, etc. it's likely to happen. I'm not perfect at it I admit but I'm getting better.)

reply to post by Jedimind

Originally posted by Jedimind
"As for evidence of a vibrational shift, I would have thought the masses of people who do seem to feel such a thing would be evidence enough."

-Masses of people feel all sorts of ridiculous things that aren't true. Just look at religion to point out the obvious. Masses of people feeling something is of course not evidence of anything. It's often quite the contrary.

See this is the type of statement that pissed me up in the first place. Just because you do not feel something does not automatically make it ridiculous. It simply means that you did not feel it. By making this very statement you automatically assume your point of view to be right, and the only evidence you use is completely subjective.

There have been many phenomena through the ages that people have thought or felt that has had to wait decades, even centuries before science had the tools capable of proving it was real. The flat round Earth theory being one of them. Look at the behaviour of animals prior to an earthquake. My theory is (though no it cannot be proved) is that these ‘shifts’ which many people feel are a similar phenomena to that.

-The two wikipedia links about the double slit experiment aren't evidence of the monumental shift that the OP and myself say that certain people refer to. That's just quantum physics stuff. Regarding the tenuous studies about predicting the future and psychic phenomena, the articles themselves admit that the effect size was just barely larger than chance. Even if these are legitimate phenomena (and these studies are interesting mind you), this is not the type of stuff that the OP or I was getting at.

Like I said, I highly doubt there has in fact ever been a scientific study conducted on this so there will be no evidence either for or against it. I have done the best I can and provided evidence of psychic phenomena which I can only assume is somewhat related.

The articles show that evidence of psychic phenomena which is well beyond just pure chance

-Honestly I think you are confused as to what I'm talking about regarding this vibrational shift, impending massive change stuff. You're saying I'm wrong about something that I'm not even referring to. I'd take blame for not defining it but I was pretty clear. The OP was ranting about people believing in some invisible something occurring or soon to occur which they don't even know what it is!! I agree with this!

No the OP was referring to large amounts of people feeling ‘vibrational shifts’ and then started making sarcastic remarks (or in his words ‘snarky irony)as to what people attribute them to. Many posters including yourself wrongly stated that everyone who feels these shifts automatically assumes the world will either end or enter a golden age, when in fact most of the ‘do you feel it’ type threads do have this as the main focus.

-If you have an actual clearly defined idea (which you've yet to state, surprisingly) that can be possibly supported by science as far as what this vibrational shift stuff entails, then you're not who I'm talking about anyway and I'm not talking about you or "stating lies" about you in the first place so you shouldn't be concerned.

You’ve never once asked me for a definition so I never gave one. What I refer to is people who feel some kind of ‘change’, or an energetic shift’ each person feels it differently so it, like most psychological phenomena can be hard to pin down. Once again you go on about science. Please point me in the direction of a study which proves these shifts do not take place, or are we simply to assume that because you did not feel anything that it must be false…

As for your lies, I was referring to your stereotyping of everyone who feels these shifts, which were completely false and quite insulting.

-You're half hearted apology and saying that I can take a sarcastic jibe is whatever. Basically saying that I need to not be so sensitive and stop being so offended. I get it, passive aggressive insult. No need to apologize anyway as I wasn't offended. It's simply frustrating when it isn't really a jibe and the person is trying to hold something you didn't say against you simply because they misunderstand what you're saying in the first place.

Think what you like. I was being genuine in my apology for I would not want to make anyone feel stressed if at all possible. Unfortunately the limitations of the written word make it difficult for this to be conveyed.

(-I officially don't want to take about vibrational change for at least a week or two. haha. It's all good. the song communication breakdown by zepplin is coming to mind and when operating in this medium of an online forum with limited space, strongly held opinions, anonymity, etc. it's likely to happen. I'm not perfect at it I admit but I'm getting better. I love to write so this is actually fun. )

Well I’m glad now at least you’re having fun… (no sarcasm here either)

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Yea, well I get pissed off when people change the definitions of words just to suit their cause.

Evidence - definition:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Where in that definition do you see anything about feeling.

Someone 'feeling' something isn't actual evidence of anything. If you can't get this through your head I can't help you because this is a very simple concept. Try such an approach in a court of law or with an actual scientist and see how far you get. A feeling is not evidence and I don't see how any rational person can argue against this.

Whatever you are getting at about flat round earth theory (I guess you mean that some people had a feeling that the earth was round while most everyone else was saying it was flat), the evidence for a round earth didn't come until actual scientific verifiable mathematical evidence arrived, not people's feelings. Again, a feeling isn't evidence of anything. I agree with you that a feeling might lead to new discoveries and evidence but the feeling itself isn't evidence, sorry. Again, your not allowed to just change language definitions just to suit your cause.

"The articles show that evidence of psychic phenomena which is well beyond just pure chance "

- If your going to misrepresent your own sources then it's even more clear now that we can't have a rational discussion about this. I quote from the article about psychic phenomena:

"One question you may be asking is how big of a difference was there? Does studying for a test after it has occurred, or priming you with a word after categorizing the photo make a dramatic change, or is it just a slight bump in performance? Essentially, these are questions of "effect size." It is true that the effect sizes in Bem's studies are small (e.g., only slightly larger than chance). "

So there's your article saying that the effects sizes of the study are only slightly larger than chance, but you say that the article shows evidence which is well beyond pure chance.
You yourself are saying something which goes against your own sources (one of the other sources also spoke of small effect size as well).

Granted, the experiments will continue on and effect size may grow but that's yet to come. Also, the article never once spoke of evidence like you so loosely do. It spoke of studies, effect sizes, and possible hypothesis.

As far as your request for a study which proves these shifts do NOT take place, you're probably well aware of the difficulties, if not the impossibility, of proving a negative.

This has been a fun exercise in banging my head against the wall but I've had enough. You can reply to get the last word in, which I'd expect you to do, but I'm tapping out. Honestly though, have a good one. Like I said, trying to craft a nicely worded response has an element of fun to it so thanks for that. I enjoy debate. It's just frustrating when you can't get on the same page with someone and you start to lose track of what the heck you're debating about.

Originally posted by thepixelgarden
This thread has got me thinking. I'm trying to work on setting my ego aside in order to get a better, unbiased perspective on things (sooooo NOT perfect at it, but getting a little better day-by-day). So I'm thinking "instead of getting offended at those who ridicule the types of threads that I identify with, why don't I try to understand where these people are coming from?"

Anyway, what I'm 'hearing" (for lack of a better term) when I read the posts in this thread is that people here are basically frustrated when someone posts about a certain "feeling", but can't properly elaborate on what that feeling is. They try to understand by asking what the poster means, but the poster either can't or won't explain it. It's a fair complaint to make, and maybe us "feelers" (like that? I just made it up, lol) could try to put more effort into communicating a little better. After all, that is the point of this forum, is it not?

In addition to your (in my opinion unnecesary) ego-ectomy work, you might give some thought to growing a sense of humor. This is a RANT. It's not Aristotle's Discourses on Logic. Things in the rant section don't need to be micro-analyzed this way, bro. This thread is...dare I say it...an expression of my (gulp) feelings. Don't read too much into it.

I’m beginning to get the sense it doesn’t matter what I say it won’t matter as all your have really offered is your own opinion and a critique of various cherry picked points I raised while at the same time seemingly ignoring the general message of what I write.

Originally posted by Jedimind
Yea, well I get pissed off when people change the definitions of words just to suit their cause.

Evidence - definition:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

As I’ve already stated in both my prior posts there is no direct evidence no scientific study into these ‘shifts’ has actually been undertaken. I would also suggest that if there is any direct evidence other than the behaviour of those who do feel it would be far too subtle for any of today’s scientific instruments to measure.

Where in that definition do you see anything about feeling.

Someone 'feeling' something isn't actual evidence of anything. If you can't get this through your head I can't help you because this is a very simple concept. Try such an approach in a court of law or with an actual scientist and see how far you get. A feeling is not evidence and I don't see how any rational person can argue against this.

Yet at the same time would you deny that feelings actually exist? People feel things all the time – happiness, sadness, fear, love. I would like to see you try and convince a jury that people do not actually ‘feel’ things that are real.

Like I said I think it is a similar phenomenon to the behavior seen in many (but not all) animals prior to certain large natural catastrophes such as earthquakes

Whatever you are getting at about flat round earth theory (I guess you mean that some people had a feeling that the earth was round while most everyone else was saying it was flat), the evidence for a round earth didn't come until actual scientific verifiable mathematical evidence arrived, not people's feelings. Again, a feeling isn't evidence of anything. I agree with you that a feeling might lead to new discoveries and evidence but the feeling itself isn't evidence, sorry. Again, your not allowed to just change language definitions just to suit your cause.

Again you twist my words for as mentioned above I quite clearly stated in both my prior posts – I even put it in bold in the last one –

There is no evidence for or against for no scientific studies on these shifts have ever been undertaken

There is no changing the definition of the word evidence because I never said there was any

The flat Earth example was a simple enough I can only assume you didn’t quite read it properly.

Certain people had a feeling the Earth was round (starting with the ancient Greeks) yet it was not til many years later we had the means to prove that this is actually the case.

"The articles show that evidence of psychic phenomena which is well beyond just pure chance "

- If your going to misrepresent your own sources then it's even more clear now that we can't have a rational discussion about this. I quote from the article about psychic phenomena:

"One question you may be asking is how big of a difference was there? Does studying for a test after it has occurred, or priming you with a word after categorizing the photo make a dramatic change, or is it just a slight bump in performance? Essentially, these are questions of "effect size." It is true that the effect sizes in Bem's studies are small (e.g., only slightly larger than chance). "
So there's your article saying that the effects sizes of the study are only slightly larger than chance, but you say that the article shows evidence which is well beyond pure chance.
You yourself are saying something which goes against your own sources (one of the other sources also spoke of small effect size as well).

This is just an argument based on semantics which does not help further either of our understandings on the matter.

The results of these tests were statistically significant enough that they were not only accepted by many of Bem’s peers (who know far more about it than either of us), but they were published in the well respected Journal of Psychology.

That is enough for me.

At any rate I was not offering these as proof that such shifts happen but as a possible means in which they may perceived.

As far as your request for a study which proves these shifts do NOT take place, you're probably well aware of the difficulties, if not the impossibility, of proving a negative.

Of course, but when no study has been done at all we are basically just left arguing each other’s opinion. Hopefully you understand a little more about what I am saying

This has been a fun exercise in banging my head against the wall but I've had enough. You can reply to get the last word in, which I'd expect you to do, but I'm tapping out. Honestly though, have a good one. Like I said, trying to craft a nicely worded response has an element of fun to it so thanks for that. I enjoy debate. It's just frustrating when you can't get on the same page with someone and you start to lose track of what the heck you're debating about.

My reply is not based on simply ‘trying to get in the last word’ but simply to help clarifying a few points I raised which you seem to misunderstand. Most of what I’ve just written here is simply a reiteration of what I’ve already said earlier. I am glad that you at least took the time to read my links but understand I did not provide them to prove these shifts, just offered them as a means to show how they may be perceived.

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Originally posted by thepixelgarden
This thread has got me thinking. I'm trying to work on setting my ego aside in order to get a better, unbiased perspective on things (sooooo NOT perfect at it, but getting a little better day-by-day). So I'm thinking "instead of getting offended at those who ridicule the types of threads that I identify with, why don't I try to understand where these people are coming from?"

Anyway, what I'm 'hearing" (for lack of a better term) when I read the posts in this thread is that people here are basically frustrated when someone posts about a certain "feeling", but can't properly elaborate on what that feeling is. They try to understand by asking what the poster means, but the poster either can't or won't explain it. It's a fair complaint to make, and maybe us "feelers" (like that? I just made it up, lol) could try to put more effort into communicating a little better. After all, that is the point of this forum, is it not?

In addition to your (in my opinion unnecesary) ego-ectomy work, you might give some thought to growing a sense of humor. This is a RANT. It's not Aristotle's Discourses on Logic. Things in the rant section don't need to be micro-analyzed this way, bro. This thread is...dare I say it...an expression of my (gulp) feelings. Don't read too much into it.

Lol

Even I laughed at this one...

-Masses of people feel all sorts of ridiculous things that aren't true. Just look at religion to point out the obvious. Masses of people feeling something is of course not evidence of anything. It's often quite the contrary.

reply to post by Jedimind


I do not understand the wisdom in disregarding millions of human experiences over thousands of years. This has got to be one of humanity's biggest unsolved mysteries and the thing the scientific community holds the biggest bias towards.

To believers of 'the feeling'

There's a few in depth replies here and lots of contrasting views so let me make it simple and settle the dispute once and for all, if I may.

The op is correct.

There, settled.

Simple, hey?

i dont think masses of people are feeling/sensing anything, seem's like its just a few people on the internet.
mostly the same type of people, who never make much sense anyway.


“By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”

Originally posted by awakendhybrid


I do not understand the wisdom in disregarding millions of human experiences over thousands of years. This has got to be one of humanity's biggest unsolved mysteries and the thing the scientific community holds the biggest bias towards.

edit on 11-8-2012 by awakendhybrid because: (no reason given)

I would just like people to be a bit more specific in what it is they're talking about. "Millions of Human experiences" "Humanity's biggest unsolved mysteries" These terms are very broad and I honestly don't know what you're talking about specifically as far as how these things relate to this thread topic.