J Neil Schulman

I've just written on what Judge Ito famously called "the Simpson matter" for the first time in many years. "Triple Jeopardy" http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2017/tle932-20170723-03.html

Belief in the absurd is something you should never get to. None of this, including your delusional beliefs about God, has anything to with scientific inquiry. Ghs Classifying an ongoing sensory experience as a hallucination because you have a belief that it's impossible is an act of dogmatic faith, not science. You have the methods of science upside down, George H. Smith. Your skepticism isn't rational. It's religious. The ability to distinguish between the real and the imaginary is always based, to some degree, on what one regards as impossible. This is a distinguishing characteristic of sanity, not to mention rationality. My skepticism about your particiular God-claim is based on the same premises as my rejection of thousands of similar claims that have made made for thousands of years. If anything -- and as I have discussed before -- your interpretation of your personal experience is far less credible than many similar claims by other people. On a scale of 1 to 10 in regard to such God-claims, I would rate it a 3 -- possibly a 4, if I am in an especially understanding mood. Ghs George, you're trying to change the subject. I'm not going to let you get away with it. The subject is no longer my interpretation of my experience. Off the table for now, irrelevant, immaterial, out of order. The subject is -- in your own words -- "The weirdest experiences occurred while I was wide awake and completely sober. I would sometimes go for hours at a time without realizing that my father was dead, and I would frequently hear his voice coming from another room. It took at least a year before these voices stopped, and there were other disturbing incidents as well. So don't tell me about your paranormal interpretations of such experiences, as if you are the only one who has ever had them. I had dozens and dozens of them, and I struggled like a son-of-bitch to retain my hold on reality." This is your experience, not mine. While you were wide awake and sober, for a period approaching a year, you had dozens and dozens of experiences that you ultimately dismissed as too fantastic to regard as real. That is a choice of how to interpret this phenomena that you, not I, made. You could have approached this scientifically and attempted to validate whether or not this could be direct evidence of survival after death. Instead, because of your dogmatic, faith-based decision that human consciousness does not survive bodily death, you dismissed the data, declared your own experiences untrustworthy, and placed your faith in the conventional above the evidence of your own senses. You don't again get me to take you seriously as someone who holds reason at the pinnacle of his values until you admit that your denying your own experience of the exceptional makes you incapable of fairly interpreting anybody else's. You're as much of a faith-based evangelical as the Pope.

Belief in the absurd is something you should never get to. None of this, including your delusional beliefs about God, has anything to with scientific inquiry. Ghs Classifying an ongoing sensory experience as a hallucination because you have a belief that it's impossible is an act of dogmatic faith, not science. You have the methods of science upside down, George H. Smith. Your skepticism isn't rational. It's religious.

So do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about your supposed encounter with God? Or is your mind closed on this subject? Ghs I stand with Eleanor Arroway's final testimony regarding her experience of extraterrestrials in Contact. http://youtu.be/-FbSPXC4btU Now, George, I throw the question back to you. Do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about the impossibility of your supposed encounter with your father after his death? Do you acknowledge the possibility that his conscious survived the death of his body and you really were hearing a post-death communication? Or is your mind closed on this subject? Let us hope that your defense is not as incompetent and cliched as that given by Arroway. I never said that I encountered my father after his accidental death. I said I had dreams about him; and that after waking it could take a minute or so before my head cleared. This sort of experience is common, as is the experience you had. Unlike you, however, I don't confuse my dreams and states of semi-consciousness with great insights into the nature of reality. Ghs No, George. I'm asking you, "Do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about the impossibility of your supposed encounter with your father after his death? Do you acknowledge the possibility that his conscious survived the death of his body and you really were hearing a post-death communication? Or is your mind closed on this subject?" because you wrote the following: George H. Smith Message #658, Page 33 of this thread Again, I never thought or imagined that my father was talking to me; in most cases, I thought I heard him talking to my mother in another room, though I could never make out specific words. Moreover, my mother never heard the voice. No, I don't think it is possible that this was really my father talking. It was my active imagination. Call them audio hallucinations, if you will. I distinguish between such experiences, which are fairly common after tragedies, and reality. Do you? Or do you believe everything you think you hear or see? Ghs Belief is something you get to much later. I would not have excluded repeated experiences as evidence of something real. I would not have rejected sensory input because it did not fit into my pre-existing worldview of what was possible. I would not have rejected data in favor of theory. That's putting belief ahead of scientific inquiry.

So do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about your supposed encounter with God? Or is your mind closed on this subject? Ghs I stand with Eleanor Arroway's final testimony regarding her experience of extraterrestrials in Contact. http://youtu.be/-FbSPXC4btU Now, George, I throw the question back to you. Do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about the impossibility of your supposed encounter with your father after his death? Do you acknowledge the possibility that his conscious survived the death of his body and you really were hearing a post-death communication? Or is your mind closed on this subject? Let us hope that your defense is not as incompetent and cliched as that given by Arroway. I never said that I encountered my father after his accidental death. I said I had dreams about him; and that after waking it could take a minute or so before my head cleared. This sort of experience is common, as is the experience you had. Unlike you, however, I don't confuse my dreams and states of semi-consciousness with great insights into the nature of reality. Ghs No, George. I'm asking you, "Do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about the impossibility of your supposed encounter with your father after his death? Do you acknowledge the possibility that his conscious survived the death of his body and you really were hearing a post-death communication? Or is your mind closed on this subject?" because you wrote the following: George H. Smith Message #658, Page 33 of this thread

Got a million bucks you're not using? Under Section 181 of the IRS code its a 100% write-off. But the write-off is only good through the end of 2011

It's possible you might be the first person to read I Met God who understands that I am no less hostile to religion, its dogmas, and its dogmatic clergy than I was when I was an atheist.

Look at the work of UC Irvine cognitive scientist Donald D. Hoffman, PhD: http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ and http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanPubs.html

So do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about your supposed encounter with God? Or is your mind closed on this subject? Ghs I stand with Eleanor Arroway's final testimony regarding her experience of extraterrestrials in Contact. http://youtu.be/-FbSPXC4btU Now, George, I throw the question back to you. Do you acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong about the impossibility of your supposed encounter with your father after his death? Do you acknowledge the possibility that his conscious survived the death of his body and you really were hearing a post-death communication? Or is your mind closed on this subject?

I don't think you're even aware that you're assuming your conclusion. All perception is subjective. Whether the perception is of something externally stimulated and therefore real is the question under discussion. Surely you will acknowledge that there is a difference between an actual eyewitness testimony and the type of "waking experience" someone has who "sees" something in his mind only? Conventional eyesight works by light hitting the retina and being conveyed to the brain for interpretation as an image. In an experimental lab the brain can be electrically stimulated to produce that same image without light hitting the retina. In a dream multi-sensory experience can be as real as what is experienced while conventionally awake. When a tune gets stuck in our head, we can hear it as clearly as if it was being played to our ears. The brain does a good deal of processing of sensory data such that perception often creates a memory at variance from an actual occurrence. This is often demonstrated in classroom performances showing how eyewitness testimony can be commonly false to what was presented. All perception requires reflection and integration with the whole of our life experiences. You're asking me to make a binary distinction between conventional perception and extraordinary perception. This I can not do. Just because events are unusual and iconic doesn't force one to accept by fiat epistemology that they are less real than conventional perceptions.

There is an objective reality in which we exist. But the interfaces and filters between what exists and what we perceive make for a lifetime of philosophical study and crossing disciplines ranging from information theory to the physical sciences to neurobiology to "fringe" areas which are just as worthy of serious treatment as other sciences but which have protocols that are confounding and theories that are perplexing. I have accumulated enough data -- not just my own but data from others -- to conclude that conventional views of what is obviously true leave far too many anomalous data points to accept conventional worldviews. As a thought experiment, though, consider that if a medium were perfected that emulated reality -- sort of a hyper-3D reality emulation like you see in movies like The Matrix and The 13th Floor, or even the Star Trek holodeck -- so convincingly that the emulation was not readily distinguishable from an unprogrammed direct-sensory-feed reality, then the external source of a data feed is objectively real whether or not it's programmed media, but the meaning of "real" would require further definition.

If you think the existence of Jane is impossible, no number of witnesses reporting sighting Jane can reach a high enough threshold to be convincing. Let's stay within the framework matching your experience. The issue is not about witnesses reporting - (like in a eye-witness testimony where there is a connection to objecitive reality) - it is about person's subjective experience limited to what went on in this person's head. I don't think you're even aware that you're assuming your conclusion. All perception is subjective. Whether the perception is of something externally stimulated and therefore real is the question under discussion.

Here's the rebuttal: No problem throwing out the non-locality. But you will have to throw out your security camera as well. Since both of us obviousy did not apply Occam's razor (it's never a good idea to neglect Occam's razor), including unnecessary elements into our argumentation, let's make a better effort to tailor the "waking experience" of Jane's alleged bike theft to resemble your own waking experience as much as possible. Okay, here goes: John has a "waking experience" (of the type you had) where he "sees" Jane steal a bicycle. But there is no evidence that the "Jane" he sees even exists. Your turn. If you think the existence of Jane is impossible, no number of witnesses reporting sighting Jane can reach a high enough threshold to be convincing. Even if you believe Jane exists, but your belief system excludes anyone not on a received list of official Jane sighters, the threshold is too high to be convincing. Both of these are pre-judices against accepting reports of Jane sightings at face value.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real. Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real. Not a "mere belief." Neil, The "mere belief" does not refer to your perspective, (for you are convinced you actually did meet god). It refers to the epistemological status of your assertion. For example, suppose John states: "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that", he would present something as a fact (Nancy's alleged theft of a bicycle) which, from an epistemological standpoint, is a mere unsubstantiated belief. "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that" is testimony that gets Nancy convicted of theft in just about any court of law. No. For a waking experience of the type as as you described it is not an eyewitness experience. So John may have the "waking experience" in Nevada where he 'sees' Jane steal a bicycle in New York. He would be laughed out of court. Re-cross, your honor? "So if Jane was in New York while you were in Nevada, how did you see Jane steal the bicycle?" "I was watching an Internet video feed from the security cameras in New York." You're smuggling in unstated conditions of non-locality to support your own prejudices.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real. Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real. Not a "mere belief." Neil, The "mere belief" does not refer to your perspective, (for you are convinced you actually did meet god). It refers to the epistemological status of your assertion. For example, suppose John states: "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that", he would present something as a fact (Nancy's alleged theft of a bicycle) which, from an epistemological standpoint, is a mere unsubstantiated belief. "I know that Nancy stole a bicycle because I had a 'waking experience' seeing her do that" is testimony that gets Nancy convicted of theft in just about any court of law.

Neil presented a waking experience of his as if it was evidence of something real. Not accepting it on faith any more than accepting any other waking experience as real. Not a "mere belief." Nothing that can be accepted by anyone else as anything but anecdotal evidence, but in the spirit of opening other minds to the necessity of challenging one's view of what is possible.

Published I Met God on my blog for free. Published Escape from Heaven on my blog for free. I think I sold five or six copies of the audio book edition of I Met God. Have received zero interest from book publishers on the I Met God manuscript and don't feel motivated in publishing the I Met God book, myself. Pissed off a lot of my atheist fans by going public with my God encounter. Haven't gained anything like a replacement theist fan base by doing it. Have not received an invitation from a single major talk or news show, or a single write up in a magazine or other media with significant audience, from doing this. If I were just after money or attention, the strategy was an utter failure and my best move would be to identify it as a psychotic episode and revert to being an atheist in public. Not doing that. I stand by my claims that what happened to me was a real encounter.

One of my favorite books of all time -- from any genre -- is J. Neil Schulman's "The Rainbow Cadenza". I wept at the end because I was so inspired by it. Probably out of print; look for it at www.abebooks.com. Judith Judith, thanks. It's in print: http://www.rainbowcadenza.com

This is not about wanting to be "cheered". Cheers are emotional outbursts and unsuitable as tools of cognition anyway. As for the "objective" part: It is an objective fact that the existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproved. And no impartial referee is needed to make a decision on that. You weren't there during the experience. I was. You don't know the difference between experience and belief. I do.

At the very beginning (0:25), the interviewer says to Rand: "There is no proof that there [is a god], so therefore you have concluded that there isn't one." Rand: "That's right." (Link to the interview in post # 878). This so-called "argument from ignorance" is a fallacy. Well, fallacy or not, if you substitute "the moon is made of green cheese" for "God" in the interview, her meaning is clear enough. The moon isn't made of that for there is no evidence of that. If you believe it is it's a matter of faith. There is no "proof." However, in the future we may discover that not far below the surface it's nothing but green cheese. Then we'll have to go with that, but not on faith. --Brant I'm inclined to give Rand, speaking in a second language she mastered only as an adult, the benefit of the doubt when she was being interviewed in real time and not having the benefit of editing what she wrote. She did not find proof of the existence of God so she concluded there wasn't one. She thought it was myth, unsubstantiated rumor, or a con game. All of which is beside the point for this particular thread, which is about a guy who had that exact same view as Rand: I did not find proof of the existence of God so I concluded there wasn't one until I had experiences I considered proof and changed my mind. In neither Ayn Rand's case nor my case were either of us ever willing to accept the existence of God on faith.

At the very beginning (0:25), the interviewer says to Rand: "There is no proof that there [is a god], so therefore you have concluded that there isn't one." Rand: "That's right." (Link to the interview in post # 878). This so-called "argument from ignorance" is a fallacy. One would think you have already made funeral arrangements for this thread which has unexpectedly been revived by its founder. ;) I have mostly enjoyed this thread since it has shown how easily theistic claims collapse if one gets the theists in the epistemological corner. So if in the future any other theists should for some reason land here at OL, this is the thread to invite them to. Xray, once again raising her hands in a boxer's victory, but unfortunately with no one but her own cheering section to join her, since there is no impartial referee to make an objective decision.

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available? http://pulpless.com/0606.html Jeez... you didn't even say, "Thanks for your interest." We appreciate your business. Due to the high volume of messages there might be a delay of up to 24 hours before a representative gets back to you. If you'd like a faster response time you may call our enhanced Customer Relations Hotline, but you will have to converse in Hindi. एक अच्छा दिन है.

I'd like to read your book, J Neil. Where is it available? http://pulpless.com/0606.html

Thank you, Mr. Selene. Necessity is the mother of invention. ;) But still I have no idea what Brant meant by cookin' in that context, so if you or others here would be so kind as to enlighten me on that, TIA. You really are quite an imaginative and inventive writer, Mr. Schulman, one has got to hand it to you. Oh my. Like I said, you really, really are an imaginative and inventive writer, a quality which no doubt in comes in handy when writing science fiction, since this deals with highly improbable, and often even downright impossible scenarios. But when you transfer those science-fiction-fantasy writer qualities of yours to actual crime scenes, you get above scenarios like OJ was tricked into believing Jason did it, and Jason in turn was tricked by the killer - hey, that looks like the beginning of an infinite regress. How's that for a sequel: now that killer was a contract killer, a hit man hired by the master minds, the real wirepullers behind all that. This clears the path for you now to throw any conspiracy theories into the mix. There is no limit to the imagination. You can now pick and choose between the LAPD as the bad guys, or say the drug mafia did it, or, if you want, connect it all to the mysterious non-existing "Small Foreign Faction" that allegedly killed the victim in another infamous criminal case. I don't think you intended the first part of the phrase sound so unintentionally funny as it does when one reads: "And that my book contains not a single scenario consistent with the evidence". Could the omission of the word "only" have been Freudian slip? ;) I have no doubt you enjoyed it but there no is reason to project your own joy on that onto me. I have now seen the documentary for the first time. I must say I'm quite impressed by Bill Dear. That's some real good sleuth. A picture-book private eye, so to speak, both thorough and creative in his thinking, but who unfortunately did not use his talents to look in the right direction. Also, he put the cart before the horse by first presenting his theory and then looking for evidence which might fit it, instead of letting the evidence lead him to the theory. I have a question: in the documentry, is that the video which allegedy shows Simpson happy and relaxed after the dance recital? For Simpson is lightyears away from being relaxed there. And if Bill Dear is the highly intuitive person he claims to be, then of course he will have seen it too on examining Simpson's face more closely. For when you to stop the video at intervals to study Simpson's face, you can see it. At one time, he even has a shockingly agressive, staring look in his eyes, opening them widely. When Simpson smiles, it is a frozen smile, he curves his mouth upward but his eyes don't participate in the feeling he wants to bring across. Simpson was faking the relaxed man there, no question. This also fits with (I think it was Nicole's sister and her friend who said that) him, during the dance recital, having a glowering look; they had the impression he was "simmering". Still not interested in going through the documentary in detail with me here, Neil? If you think I'm that wrong on certain points, what keeps you from pointing out the errors and correct them? Simpson grimaced when picking up one of his kids. He was having back problems. Actually, I'm about ten years past wanting to re-argue the Simpson case. If you want to read my book I'm happy to email you a PDF. If you want to argue with Bill Dear I can put you in touch. In my book I explored both far-fetched and simple theories. My simplest theory is that O.J. came to the crime scene after the murder and panicked. I'm not sure the precise moment he first had the thought that Jason might be the murderer. I don't know whether Jason first called his dad for help or called Ron Shipp for help. I'm still convinced that Ron Shipp was involved, and I consider him a wild-card with regard to what happened the first night before the LAPD officially arrived on scene. And I have reason to believe that Bill Pavelic later covered up for whatever Ron Shipp did that first night. I do know that Shipp was involved because he told Tom McCollum in a phone call about the murders about the time the LAPD detectives first showed up at Simpson's Rockingham home. I consider Bill Dear's documentary presents a strong enough case against Jason Simpson for an indictment and trial. But even Bill can't account for the info I dug up on Ron Shipp, and if you read Bill's book on the subject the first person he was told to investigate was Ron Shipp. I think Bill made a mistake in not following up on Shipp since he would have been able to find out things I didn't have the ability to unearth. Bottom line. You're not going to reference any evidence I'm not already familiar with. And I don't consider you open to changing your mind. So what's the point?

I still would call an "attack on reason" a theory which explains away the mountain of evidence that so clearly marks OJ Simpson as the killer. Xray preaching on the Mount of Evidence. Which lost the prosecution its case. Therefore, continuing to refer to a mountain of evidence is asinine, unless by mountain you mean a hill of garbage in a landfill. Read Bugliosi's book if you are looking for an expert. I have started watching Bill Dear documentary, and as for your own book: what is the point in reading it since you have switched from your God's version ("OJ was framed") to Bill Dear's version which is different. Bill Dear seems to be somewhat smarter than your God as he places Simpson at the crime scene, knowing that is what the forensic evidence indicates. Gee, let me think. Perhaps if you'd read it you'd have a clue that in several scenarios in my book I placed Simpson at the crime scene. And that in my book I suggested that Simpson might have been tricked into believing that Jason did it, but that Jason was framed as well by the actual murderer. And that my book contains not a single scenario consistent with the evidence, but several. But, no, no, no. No need for the omniscient Xray to read anything before making ignorant comments on it. By the way, I hope you enjoy the part of Bill Dear's documentary where he's being interviewed in front of a book shelf with two copies of my book directly behind his head.