Do You Believe In the paranormal and Did you ever experience supernatural Phenomena?

[Revolte]

There is nothing fantastical or fictional about experiencing real paranormal activity.

I agree with that 100 percent. When all is said and done though, I don't think most people will believe in the paranormal if they dont experience it first hand, and if they do believe in it just for the sake of believing in it, they tend to believe false ideas. Like every haunting being demonic. I've delt with the paranormal starting when I was a child up until now and though there have been a few, more then startling, experiences, for the most part all was calm and far from what most people would expect from spiritual activity.

[Babbalanja]

There is nothing fantastical or fictional about experiencing real paranormal activity.I'd say there's nothing paranormal about it either.

Regards,

Istvan

[Niamh]

I agree with that 100 percent. When all is said and done though, I don't think most people will believe in the paranormal if they dont experience it first hand, and if they do believe in it just for the sake of believing in it, they tend to believe false ideas. Like every haunting being demonic. I've delt with the paranormal starting when I was a child up until now and though there have been a few, more then startling, experiences, for the most part all was calm and far from what most people would expect from spiritual activity.

Exactly. :) Somethings, especially in the case of the paranormal, need to be seen to be believed. I know many people who were very sceptical about the paranormal until they experienced things even they couldnt explain via science.


I'd say there's nothing paranormal about it either.

Regards,

Istvan

Well you are intitled to your opinion.

[Babbalanja]

Somethings, especially in the case of the paranormal, need to be seen to be believed. I know many people who were very sceptical about the paranormal until they experienced things even they couldnt explain via science.
But the point is you're not explaining them simply by referring to them as paranormal either. Telling ghost stories and celebrating weird sensations isn't expanding our knowledge about the universe, it's just fetishizing the unknown.

Regards,

Istvan

[soundofmusic]

I never believed in such things; then I had a bad car accident in '93...it was terrible, I was always seeing things stepping in front of the car, running over disappearing people...I didn't dare tell the neurologist and the sensation disappeared completely after 10 years.

Then, I began to do hospice nursing at night. I would sit in a dark room in the wee hours of the morning and just as the patients would die, I would see a bright light over them...I asked my workmates if they experienced this also; and many agreed they did...I decided to switch to days and have seen nothing in the rooms since.

After my husband died, I began to see him at the foot of my bed every night. (He was retired from the military and was to be cremated immediately; but the services would take place a few weeks later at the national cemetary with several other vets) Each night, his apparition became more bloated and purple. I was so disturbed that after a few days I called the funeral home. His body had been lost on its way to the crematory. For two weeks, his body was unidentified and for two weeks he showed at the end of my bed; each night more horrifying than the previous. Once they found him and he was with his friends, he never again came to me.

[DanielBenoit]

There's a responsible way to indulge our thirst for fantasy, and that's through poetry, music, and fiction. Let's follow the human imagination down the path of artistic invention, not the deep dark rabbit hole of numbnuttery.

Magical thinking isn't an admirable trait in adults. Once you're past a certain age, credulity is the real metaphysical sin.


Well I'd prefer talking to William Blake over Richard Dawkins any day.

[Babbalanja]

Well I'd prefer talking to William Blake over Richard Dawkins any day.:rolleyes5:

Um, right, Blake would qualify as a visionary poet, the type of artist I praised in that post you quoted. Can you actually see the words I post here, Daniel?

And I assume your view of Dawkins is based on careful reading of his most fascinating work, like Unweaving the Rainbow, and isn't just a bias developed from watching youtube videos and reading hatchet jobs from wacko websites. Am I right?

Regards,

Istvan

[soundofmusic]

There's a responsible way to indulge our thirst for fantasy, and that's through poetry, music, and fiction. Let's follow the human imagination down the path of artistic invention, not the deep dark rabbit hole of numbnuttery.

Magical thinking isn't an admirable trait in adults. Once you're past a certain age, credulity is the real metaphysical sin.

Regards,

Istvan

It seems that while you are fulfilling your thirst for fantasy in a "safe and crowd pleasing" manner; the government is spending millions of dollars funding paranormal studies.
Perhaps you should take a look outside your box and accept those of us who are not too afraid to consider that there may be something on our planet that is greater than ourselves.

[JuniperWoolf]

the government is spending millions of dollars funding paranormal studies.

Really? That's... depressing.

[Babbalanja]

Perhaps you should take a look outside your box and accept those of us who are not too afraid to consider that there may be something on our planet that is greater than ourselves.
Where did I ever say I don't accept you? I'm simply humble enough to realize that there are many things that compromise our objectivity when we start defining things as paranormal: grief, wishful thinking, and plain old thrill-seeking.

I'm not going to apologize for being too staggered by what we already know about our universe to start making weird claims about the unknown.

Regards,

Istvan

[soundofmusic]

Where did I ever say I don't accept you? I'm simply humble enough to realize that there are many things that compromise our objectivity when we start defining things as paranormal: grief, wishful thinking, and plain old thrill-seeking.

I'm not going to apologize for being too staggered by what we already know about our universe to start making weird claims about the unknown.

Regards,

Istvan

Thank you for clarifying, Babbalanja (I really like that name; how'd you come up with it?) Anyway, I think the term "magical thinking" which is not a term that the mental health community generally pairs with minor depressive disorders, led me to the assumption that you were not accepting of others with different beliefs...and then the adjectives like wierd to describe peoples ideas.
I do appreciate, however, your ideas of a universe totally lacking in any supernatural influence; but of course, even in our time, while many may not believe in ghosts, a majority believes in a god, angels and other supernatural entities.

[soundofmusic]

Then, I began to do hospice nursing at night. I would sit in a dark room in the wee hours of the morning and just as the patients would die, I would see a bright light over them...I asked my workmates if they experienced this also; and many agreed they did...I decided to switch to days and have seen nothing in the rooms since.

After my husband died, I began to see him at the foot of my bed every night. (He was retired from the military and was to be cremated immediately; but the services would take place a few weeks later at the national cemetary with several other vets) Each night, his apparition became more bloated and purple. I was so disturbed that after a few days I called the funeral home. His body had been lost on its way to the crematory. For two weeks, his body was unidentified and for two weeks he showed at the end of my bed; each night more horrifying than the previous. Once they found him and he was with his friends, he never again came to me.

I was thinking of what Babbs had said; and it occurred to me that as I, personally, do not believe in heaven or hell, there was no reason to "imagine" that I saw a bright light in the darkness when someone died.

Also, I had no way of knowing; before the appearance, that my husbands body had been lost. (I have never known anyone to get "lost" between the hospital and crematorium) And, if out of grief, I would have desired a visit from him; I would have envisioned him either as I had last seen him before death or as I would hope, a much younger, healthier version of my husband.

[DanielBenoit]

:rolleyes5:

Um, right, Blake would qualify as a visionary poet, the type of artist I praised in that post you quoted. Can you actually see the words I post here, Daniel?

No I was referring to Blake's well-known idiosyncratic piety and "visions". Wordsworth best expresses my sentiments when he said this: "There was no doubt that this poor man was mad, but there is something in the madness of this man which interests me more than the sanity of Lord Byron and Walter Scott."

Frankly I would be more engaged in a conversation with a guy who thought that he was seeing angels and demons all around than say a guy like Dawkins (or your typical fundamentalist preacher as well) whose view of the world I find to be lifeless and empty. This is not to say that Dawkin's work is empty and dull, but whenever he makes an attempt at philosophical discourse, it is a little pitiful.



And I assume your view of Dawkins is based on careful reading of his most fascinating work, like Unweaving the Rainbow, and isn't just a bias developed from watching youtube videos and reading hatchet jobs from wacko websites. Am I right?

Regards,

Istvan

You know I don't know why you have to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is either uninformed or under some delusion. Yes I have in fact read much of Dawkin's work and was even an admirer of him at one point. A book like The Selfish Gene is popular science writing at its best, a book where Dawkin's indulges in ideological dogmatism like The God Delusion. I'm not criticizing Dawkin's rhetoric in-so-much as I am criticizing his dogmatizing of atheism and of starting a movement which is about just as close-minded and dogmatic as the people they themselves criticize (when I refer to 'movemnt' I refer to Dawkins himself as well).

[Babbalanja]

This is not to say that Dawkin's work is empty and dull, but whenever he makes an attempt at philosophical discourse, it is a little pitiful.
I guess we disagree there. I think his thesis in Unweaving the Rainbow is at least an interesting defense of the materialist perspective. In terms of the subject of this thread, Dawkins would argue that people who thirst after the supernatural and the paranormal aren't giving the universe proper credit for its staggering wonders. The naturalistic perspective regards the marvels of the universe much more honestly than we do when we make up things in our ignorance.

Why couldn't these ghost-hunters find fascination in the wonders of astronomy, or the miraculous world of microbiology? Is it too much to ask that people get inspiration from the amazing things we know about the world we live in, instead of playing make-believe about some fantasy world of ghosts and spirits?

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

I guess we disagree there. I think his thesis in Unweaving the Rainbow is at least an interesting defense of the materialist perspective. In terms of the subject of this thread, Dawkins would argue that people who thirst after the supernatural and the paranormal aren't giving the universe proper credit for its staggering wonders. The naturalistic perspective regards the marvels of the universe much more honestly than we do when we make up things in our ignorance.

Why couldn't these ghost-hunters find fascination in the wonders of astronomy, or the miraculous world of microbiology? Is it too much to ask that people get inspiration from the amazing things we know about the world we live in, instead of playing make-believe about some fantasy world of ghosts and spirits?

Regards,

Istvan

But what's wrong with having a passion? Just because you disagree with the it or find it ridiculous or absurd doesn't mean that everyone has to bow down to your opinion or in the case of Niamh, give up their interest in the paranormal and go to the more "virtuous" vocation of biology and whatnot.

Actually you know what? I don't like that there are so many engineers on this website, they should all quit and become. . . .. film directors, yeah that's right! I'd like it if they did that!

Believe it or not but science can't provide all of the answers to life.

[Babbalanja]

But what's wrong with having a passion? Just because you disagree with the it or find it ridiculous or absurd doesn't mean that everyone has to bow down to your opinion or in the case of Niamh, give up their interest in the paranormal and go to the more "virtuous" vocation of biology and whatnot. My point wasn't that their passion was misplaced, only that they seem more interested in what we don't know than what we know. Are they really searching for answers to these weird phenomena, or are they merely fascinated with its weirdness? Is this what empirical inquiry is truly all about?


Actually you know what? I don't like that there are so many engineers on this website, they should all quit and become. . . .. film directors, yeah that's right! I'd like it if they did that!Tee hee.

The difference between what I was saying and your bizarre parody of it is that I was actually taking the paranormal folks at their word that they were engaging in responsible inquiry and not just cheap thrills. If they are, they should approach the paranormal in an objective way. If not, they shouldn't expect people to respect their hobby.


Believe it or not but science can't provide all of the answers to life.Well, regarding phenomena in our world, Daniel, empirical evidential inquiry has done a remarkable job at explaining things that were once considered mysterious.

And what mysteries, pray tell, has the 'woo' mindset ever explained? Did it explain how DNA is the basis of heredity? Did it explain the structure of our solar system? Did it inform us about the shared ancestry of all life on Earth?

So what answers does 'woo' provide us, Daniel?

Regards,

Istvan

[DanielBenoit]

My point wasn't that their passion was misplaced, only that they seem more interested in what we don't know than what we know. Are they really searching for answers to these weird phenomena, or are they merely fascinated with its weirdness? Is this what empirical inquiry is truly all about?

Whatever dude, take that up with Niamh I'm not into this stuff in the first place.



The difference between what I was saying and your bizarre parody of it is that I was actually taking the paranormal folks at their word that they were engaging in responsible inquiry and not just cheap thrills. If they are, they should approach the paranormal in an objective way. If not, they shouldn't expect people to respect their hobby.

Oh so I guess science is the only 'objective' way of figuring out things, when in fact its epistemological origins are just as subjective as anything else. More pragmatic yes, but not infinite.



Well, regarding phenomena in our world, Daniel, empirical evidential inquiry has done a remarkable job at explaining things that were once considered mysterious.

And what mysteries, pray tell, has the 'woo' mindset ever explained? Did it explain how DNA is the basis of heredity? Did it explain the structure of our solar system? Did it inform us about the shared ancestry of all life on Earth?

So what answers does 'woo' provide us, Daniel?

Regards,

Istvan

See this is why it's so hard to have a debate with you because you are so condescending to the opposition. First off, I don't even know what the hell you're talking about when you say 'woo' nor do I understand why you have come under the impression that I am some rabid anti-science wizard who believes in magic. Is it not possible for me to criticize aspects of science and still believe it to be a valid tool? (I cannot believe that this whole thing started with me calling-out Dawkins, which I now regret).

What I meant by what I said was that science simply cannot provide all of the answers to life's questions. Why? Because the scientific method is limited logical system. It can't establish normativity (so to hell with the questions of ethics, the Is-Ought Problem, etc.), it cannot be self-reflexive nor can it deal with its own problems, such as the limits of induction, it cannot deal with how we treat its own concepts themselves, etc.

Also, as a critique of empiricism: natural phenomena is not all which concerns the world we live in because so much of what we conceive and think of are in themselves simulations and signified subjects. Science cannot explain the infinite regress between the signified and the signifier because it would undermine its very own system to do so. Scientific empiricism cannot deal with the problems of perception, of representation, of the nature of language, because to do so it would have to reflect back on its very own nature, science itself being a certain representation of nature.

The claim that reason will solve everything is a meta-narrative just like those of world religions which uses a certain logical system to look into the world and explain things the way it is seem from that window of reason.

[Babbalanja]

Daniel,

You're preaching to the choir. I understand the philosophical issues with empirical evidential inquiry. Like you, I still feel it is a valid tool for expanding our understanding. And contrary to your view of me as arrogant, I celebrate the way empirical inquiry is geared toward circumventing our human narcissism.

The scientific method is just a process by which we model reality in a way that can be tested. The testing is the way we ensure that we're not just affirming a model of reality that validates our prejudices. It's a protection against the cognitive biases that compromise objectivity. I submit that the type of inquiry involved in paranormal investigation merely panders to our species' notoriously inflated sense of self-worth.

Regards,

Istvan

[Niamh]

My point wasn't that their passion was misplaced, only that they seem more interested in what we don't know than what we know. Are they really searching for answers to these weird phenomena, or are they merely fascinated with its weirdness? Is this what empirical inquiry is truly all about?




Why couldn't these ghost-hunters find fascination in the wonders of astronomy, or the miraculous world of microbiology? Is it too much to ask that people get inspiration from the amazing things we know about the world we live in, instead of playing make-believe about some fantasy world of ghosts and spirits?


Thats a rather big assumption to make seeing as you know absoloutely nothing about me. I might be one of "these ghost hunters" but I previously was an Archaeologist, have studied areas of geology, anthropology, history and enviornmental studies and am still greatly passionate about them all. I'm currently back studying Heritage and Literature. I've been interested in astronomy since i was a child. I definitely would not consider my passions "misplaced".

Studying the paranormal (and my interest in parapsychology) is just another one of my interests as it is with many others due to the fact that (as i have previously cited) i have had many things occur in my life that i would consider "unexplainable" or paranormal. When i'm dealing with the paranormal or events that could be paranormal i always apply scientific reasons or logic to why certain things occur or what could have caused something to happen. If i cant find any rational reason for it or am left stumped and it appears as if it could be paranormal, then i'll accept that it could be.

In the case of the photograph, it was taken on a digital camera and the photo was shown to the group only minutes later so an explaination of photoshopping can be discarded. As can the concept of double exposure. All the team are accounted for in the original photo so we can safely say its no one involved in the investigation. But yet the face is there.

I appriciate and respect the fact that you do not believe in these things but i'd appriciate it if you could show the same respect for the fact that i do and cease accusing me of fetishizing, playing make-believe and telling ghost stories, and insulting my intelligence.
Thank you.

[JuniperWoolf]

There's one thing that always bothers me about people who report to have seen ghosts... it's that there are in many cases only two options: either they really did see something, or they're lying. In a lot of these stories it would have to either be a straight-up for-realzies ghost (which I don't believe in), or someone that you know is telling a bald-faced lie.

For example, right after that little kid from my town was killed when his grandpa ran him over (the one I blogged about), a nurse claimed that she saw the boy standing by his grandpa's bed, holding his hand and saying "I'll be okay, poppa."

Aaaalrighty... there is really no way that this could be a mistake on the part of the nurse coupled with wishful thinking (this is no "I smelled his aftershave" or "I heard my mother's voice last night," she knew the kid and claimed that she recognized him). So I'm left with one conclusion: this woman is just lying right to everyone's face. I could think of dozens of similar stories that people have told me with which I have arrived at the same conclusion: they didn't make a mistake, it's not some funny psychological glitch, either they REALLY DID see a ghost (which again, I find impossible to believe no matter how hard I try) or they're just lying. Sometimes they're lying in a very delicate situation (like claiming to have seen someone's family member in pain), so it's not like they're lying out of the goodness of their heart to relieve the suffering of someone who's grieving.

Oh, and I'm not accusing you of lying Niamh. I don't believe that you've seen ghosts, but I'm willing to accept the fact that you believe that you have.


In the case of the photograph, it was taken on a digital camera and the photo was shown to the group only minutes later so an explaination of photoshopping can be discarded. As can the concept of double exposure. All the team are accounted for in the original photo so we can safely say its no one involved in the investigation. But yet the face is there.

Okay, a couple of questions (because I never get to grill people who claim to have seen ghosts, on account of I don't want to offend them or burst their bubble and kill their fun).

Where were you? Was it closed off to the rest of the public? While you were there, did you see any other people around? You're sure that everyone in your group is in the picture except for the one holding the camera?

[Niamh]

Okay, a couple of questions (because I never get to grill people who claim to have seen ghosts, on account of I don't want to offend them or burst their bubble and kill their fun).

Where were you? Was it closed off to the rest of the public? While you were there, did you see any other people around? You're sure that everyone in your group is in the picture except for the one holding the camera?


http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q268/niamhking/GhostFaceinthecrowd.jpg


Original photo from a couple of pages back. I'm the one in the green coat. I'm facing where that face should be and there was no one there. I can name everyone else in that photo including the photographer and the owner of the red coat that you can faintly see beside me. She was standing facing the same way. No one is missing. Not sure if you can see the back of the photo. the bunker is open. It is on both sides because i once had trains running through it. Its located close to a beach at the end of The Pembrey Estate and Woods in Wales. No residence near by. If anyone else had turned up, it would have been the park rangers or coast guard and they would have been spotted and heard before they even approached the bunker. Yet there is still a face in the photo.

[Babbalanja]

i have had many things occur in my life that i would consider "unexplainable" or paranormal. When i'm dealing with the paranormal or events that could be paranormal i always apply scientific reasons or logic to why certain things occur or what could have caused something to happen. If i cant find any rational reason for it or am left stumped and it appears as if it could be paranormal, then i'll accept that it could be.

In the case of the photograph, it was taken on a digital camera and the photo was shown to the group only minutes later so an explaination of photoshopping can be discarded. As can the concept of double exposure. All the team are accounted for in the original photo so we can safely say its no one involved in the investigation. But yet the face is there.
I'm not accusing you of lying about this, I'm just playing the odds. It's much easier for me to believe that the face is either someone in the group you don't recognize, or someone who was there that you don't remember, than that it's some sort of otherworldly apparition.

This is what I meant about Homo Sap's exaggerated sense of self-worth. We not only like to believe that humans go on to live strange, exciting lives after death, but we also tell ourselves that our departed ancestors have nothing better to do in the great beyond than appear to the living in weird ways. The afterlife must be pretty dull if these spirits get amusement from following us around in the dark to get their pictures taken, knocking the caps off our hair spray bottles, and pulling our hats off while we're spelunking.


I appriciate and respect the fact that you do not believe in these things Really? Like when you said, "Not everything can be explained by science"? Isn't that your way of saying that anyone who considers these phenomena quite explicable is kidding themselves? If you have such a strong background in empirical inquiry, why are you denigrating "science" like it's inadequate for use in paranormal investigation? What is it about these weird experiences that's so inaccessible to the scientific method?

I'm always a little amused at the way paranormal believers like to characterize skeptics as arrogant, emotionally stunted killjoys. In this thread, I've been upbraided for my rigidity and dogmatism. It's as if expecting evidence for extraordinary claims is itself a weird fetish, and asking questions is an inexcusable affront to those who tout their supernatural experiences.

However, I insist it's the paranormal believers who display a marked lack of humility: they have crossed the line to the invisible world, they have lifted the veil of Maya, and their momentous experiences don't deserve to be questioned.

Regards,

Istvan

[Niamh]

Really? Like when you said, "Not everything can be explained by science"? Isn't that your way of saying that anyone who considers these phenomena quite explicable is kidding themselves?
Thats not what i was saying at all. That was merely an opinion expressed at the end of my post and in no way was i implying anything of the kind.
That wasnt aimed at you so i dont even understand why you are taking offense to it.


If you have such a strong background in empirical inquiry, why are you denigrating "science" like it's inadequate for use in paranormal investigation? What is it about these weird experiences that's so inaccessible to the scientific method?


I'm not denigrating anything. I've already mentioned i look towards science for answers, but they are not always there, hence "science cant explain everything." Because it cant. there are still so many things out there in our existence and in our universe that there are no answers for yet, and the same goes for things considered paranormal.

[soundofmusic]

This topic has a great deal of potential and I would love to hear of others experiences. As for those who don't believe; okay, we all know now that you don't believe; so why don't you open a thread of your own that discusses this?

Many of us who have had encounters don't go looking for them; we simply see what we see and go on with our lives. I doubt that the original buyers of the Amityville house were happy when they had to leave behind their investment.

I was also thinking that many people who trash the idea of the paranormal are disappointed former believers. I recall the story of Houdini, who became so disappointed after he could not talk to his dead mother ; that he went on a one man mission to "out" the paranormal community.

ie: Over the years, I have shown many people how to take their pulse; after placing their fingers over the vein, half of the people still cannot feel it. This does not mean that there is no heart beat; it only means that those people lack the sensitivity to feel it.

Now, let's get on with the telling of experiences....
And to Daniel and papayahed::hurray::thumbsup:

[Nikhar]

I wonder why people even care to vote when they have 'no opinion'.

[billl]

I wonder why people even care to vote when they have 'no opinion'.

Perhaps they want to proclaim their humility, for all to hear? Or they are dedicated to statistics, and think even the 'no opinion voice' needs to be counted?

[JuniperWoolf]

As for those who don't believe; okay, we all know now that you don't believe; so why don't you open a thread of your own that discusses this?

The title of the thread is "Do You Believe In the paranormal and Did you ever experience supernatural Phenomena?"


I was also thinking that many people who trash the idea of the paranormal are disappointed former believers.

Well, first of all we're not trashing the idea of the paranormal, we're just challenging it. To challenge something isn't an insult. It's very important, that's how most of the greatest discoveries have been made (for example, if Aristotle's concept of the four elements had never been challenged we wouldn't have the periodic table).

Secondly, I would disagree. I think that the widespread belief in the paranormal is a combination of thrill seeking (fear is exciting, and the weirdness of ghosts is a nice break from the drudgery of everyday life) and denial that death is the end (unlike Istvan though, I don't see anything wrong with that... fear of death is human, nothingness is a hard thing to come to terms with).

[soundofmusic]

I wonder why people even care to vote when they have 'no opinion'.


Perhaps they want to proclaim their humility, for all to hear? Or they are dedicated to statistics, and think even the 'no opinion voice' needs to be counted?
I think it helps to have their vote, too. It's like an undecided in the presidental elections.

The title of the thread is "Do You Believe In the paranormal and Did you ever experience supernatural Phenomena?"

Well, first of all we're not trashing the idea of the paranormal, we're just challenging it. To challenge something isn't an insult. It's very important, that's how most of the greatest discoveries have been made (for example, if Aristotle's concept of the four elements had never been challenged we wouldn't have the periodic table).

Secondly, I would disagree. I think that the widespread belief in the paranormal is a combination of thrill seeking (fear is exciting, and the weirdness of ghosts is a nice break from the drudgery of everyday life) and denial that death is the end (unlike Istvan though, I don't see anything wrong with that... fear of death is human, nothingness is a hard thing to come to terms with).

Yes, Juniper, I realized that after I made the post.
Really, though, when people begin to say that a person is either "hearing things or flat out lying"; it becomes insulting to those who are claiming such things. I think anything worth being discussed should hold up to challange; but, this topic is breaking down into an argument and passive-aggressive bullying.
The people who have told of their experiences have not claimed that they have any empirical data. On the other hand; none of those who are challanging their experiences are backing it up with anything other than, "Oh yeah, um...Dawkins, uh...science, uh...well you're wierd"

[Babbalanja]

Really, though, when people begin to say that a person is either "hearing things or flat out lying"; it becomes insulting to those who are claiming such things.And it's not insulting to be called dogmatic and rigid for not approaching these claims with utter credulity? It's not insulting to be told that we're the ones in denial for thinking these strange experiences are figments of the imagination or understandable products of grief?


The people who have told of their experiences have not claimed that they have any empirical data. On the other hand; none of those who are challanging their experiences are backing it up with anything other than, "Oh yeah, um...Dawkins, uh...science, uh...well you're wierd"Well, we offered perfectly reasonable explanations for the ghost-face-in-the-picture. But the burden of proof isn't on us. The people who are claiming that naturalistic science is helpless to explain these momentous, otherworldly experiences are the ones who are expecting others to believe their ghost stories. And they are the ones acting insulted when people ask questions or offer rational explanations for these not-particularly-inexplicable phenomena.

Regards,

Istvan

[Janine]

Original photo from a couple of pages back. I'm the one in the green coat. I'm facing where that face should be and there was no one there. I can name everyone else in that photo including the photographer and the owner of the red coat that you can faintly see beside me. She was standing facing the same way. No one is missing. Not sure if you can see the back of the photo. the bunker is open. It is on both sides because i once had trains running through it. Its located close to a beach at the end of The Pembrey Estate and Woods in Wales. No residence near by. If anyone else had turned up, it would have been the park rangers or coast guard and they would have been spotted and heard before they even approached the bunker. Yet there is still a face in the photo.


Niamh, I am glad you posted this. I absolutely believe you. I went to a library night discussion on this same thing and the ghost investigators seemed to be totally honest. I also saw photos of the orbs and within the photo there was a face much like this one. I was prompted to go to the lecture, because my son stayed in a house his friend had purchased recently and the friend felt the house was haunted. I didn't know to if I should believe it, then but later my son, Sean, got really excited when he found a similar photo on his computer....he takes tons of photos all the time and he had not reviewed them; when he blew them up he was in for a surprise. This one definitely could not have been altered - he knows nothing of Photoshop or how to go about altering a photo. Clearly (even more than your photo) in the background through a window behind his friend was a face. It looked to be a woman from the 1800's by her hairstyle. Now, I guestioned him if maybe someone was peeking in the window, but he said it would be impossible. They set the shot up again and the window was too high for that to work. Also, when I looked at it, the demensions seemed a bit off. She would have had to be 8 foot tall and somehow the forshortening in the photo seemed wrong. But everyone said it was definitely a woman's face. He discussed the photo with his friends and they send it to the paranomial group at Rutgers University. They were very happy to have it. Needless to say, my son was scared out of his wits for months after the strange night he spend in the house.

Preceeding all of this the young man (his friend) had been renuvating the house and they took down part of a wall. Inside the wall they found an old toy. When they removed the toy is when the odd occurances began to happen. Later they put the toy back into the wall and now they spirit seems to have departed. Odd story, isn't it?

[Satan]

Do You Believe In Ghosts or The Paranormal?
Non, non et non!

I wasted months looking for a paranormal slave during my early years: under my bed, in bathroom at night, in the ruins and everywhere else. What a disappointment!

Normal is weird enough as it is.

[DanielBenoit]

Normal is weird enough as it is.

True dat.

[JuniperWoolf]

An example of how easily people are willing to believe in ghosts, and then how easy it is to disprove these stories:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_9DmF3Zc24

I love this guy, he's funny and good-natured. He has a lot of ghost story debunks, I recommend them.

[soundofmusic]

And it's not insulting to be called dogmatic and rigid for not approaching these claims with utter credulity? It's not insulting to be told that we're the ones in denial for thinking these strange experiences are figments of the imagination or understandable products of grief?

Well, we offered perfectly reasonable explanations for the ghost-face-in-the-picture. But the burden of proof isn't on us. The people who are claiming that naturalistic science is helpless to explain these momentous, otherworldly experiences are the ones who are expecting others to believe their ghost stories. And they are the ones acting insulted when people ask questions or offer rational explanations for these not-particularly-inexplicable phenomena.

Regards,

Istvan

No, I appreciate your explanation of grief; and it is one that many psychologists would offer also, if we were ever brave enough to share these things with our psycholgists and neurologists. :cold:
I didn't find your explanation for the picture, I looked several pages back.

I know that both sides of this argument have been insulted; which is why I have suggested making the discussion less personal. We can learn alot from each other. For instance, I know little of scientific explanations for much of this phenomena.
For me, I appreciate peoples experiences; and, I must admit, it was no more difficult for me to "take in" than the concept of "Fido" walking into the water one day and becoming a whale...Now, I buy both ideas.
I don't think people can bear the "burden of proof" for their personal experiences; because what we see is subjective. It is up to the scientific community to prove or disprove such things.

An example of how easily people are willing to believe in ghosts, and then how easy it is to disprove these stories:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_9DmF3Zc24

I love this guy, he's funny and good-natured. He has a lot of ghost story debunks, I recommend them.
Thank you, Juniper. That really is something. I didn't think the thing in the window looked like a ghost; but I wasn't quite sure it looked like Ted Danson either. You make a good point though; there are many incidences in film where the paranormal was used to increase interest in the productions.
I seem to recall that there were several rumors of the "Poltergeist" and "Twilight Zone" movies being cursed because of multiple deaths.


Niamh, I am glad you posted this. I absolutely believe you. I went to a library night discussion on this same thing and the ghost investigators seemed to be totally honest. I also saw photos of the orbs and within the photo there was a face much like this one. I was prompted to go to the lecture, because my son stayed in a house his friend had purchased recently and the friend felt the house was haunted. I didn't know to if I should believe it, then but later my son, Sean, got really excited when he found a similar photo on his computer....he takes tons of photos all the time and he had not reviewed them; when he blew them up he was in for a surprise. This one definitely could not have been altered - he knows nothing of Photoshop or how to go about altering a photo. Clearly (even more than your photo) in the background through a window behind his friend was a face. It looked to be a woman from the 1800's by her hairstyle. Now, I guestioned him if maybe someone was peeking in the window, but he said it would be impossible. They set the shot up again and the window was too high for that to work. Also, when I looked at it, the demensions seemed a bit off. She would have had to be 8 foot tall and somehow the forshortening in the photo seemed wrong. But everyone said it was definitely a woman's face. He discussed the photo with his friends and they send it to the paranomial group at Rutgers University. They were very happy to have it. Needless to say, my son was scared out of his wits for months after the strange night he spend in the house.

Preceeding all of this the young man (his friend) had been renuvating the house and they took down part of a wall. Inside the wall they found an old toy. When they removed the toy is when the odd occurances began to happen. Later they put the toy back into the wall and now they spirit seems to have departed. Odd story, isn't it?
That is amazing! What did your son do with the picture; I think it's a definite keeper. So, do you think the spirits were attached to the toy.
I remember when the Amityville house was up for sale for 11,000 dollars. It was close to the ocean and I told my husband that the land, alone would be worth that much. I doubt if I'd move into it though. I got so freaked out in the Tower of London, I had to leave before I got to the torture chamber.

Non, non et non!

I wasted months looking for a paranormal slave during my early years: under my bed, in bathroom at night, in the ruins and everywhere else. What a disappointment!

Normal is weird enough as it is.

Are you sure; I could have sworn I saw your face in the papers: Satan keeps man...oops, too late, ghost in chains under bed:smilielol5:

[Satan]

Are you sure; I could have sworn I saw your face in the papers: Satan keeps man...oops, too late, ghost in chains under bed:smilielol5:

Argh! You know my secrets. I have to return some videotapes tonight. Coming with me? :ihih:

[Babbalanja]

I didn't find your explanation for the picture, I looked several pages back. My explanation ---get ready for this--- is that it's a living human's face. I think it's conceivable that Niamh is having us on, or that it's someone she doesn't recognize, or that it's a reflection of someone's face. Aren't all of these more likely than that the face is a disembodied spirit, mugging from the great beyond?

Janine didn't do us the courtesy of posting the picture she considers so otherworldly, but the principle is the same. She, too, could be having us on. Maybe her son is better at Photoshop than she realizes. Not having seen the face, I can't even say it looks like a face. If it does, maybe there really was a person outside the window, or it was a reflection of someone inside the room. Sound farfetched? Well, once again, how farfetched is it to believe it was the face of a ghost peering at the camera through a supernatural portal?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just trying to show that there's a way to play the odds when we're dealing with questions like these.

Regards,

Istvan

[soundofmusic]

Argh! You know my secrets. I have to return some videotapes tonight. Coming with me? :ihih:

Oh my god, I haven't been out on a date in a year and I just bagged the king of hell...the man himself...though, if you don't mind, I prefer sleeping on the bed to sleeping under it:lol:

My explanation ---get ready for this--- is that it's a living human's face. I think it's conceivable that Niamh is having us on, or that it's someone she doesn't recognize, or that it's a reflection of someone's face. Aren't all of these more likely than that the face is a disembodied spirit, mugging from the great beyond?

Janine didn't do us the courtesy of posting the picture she considers so otherworldly, but the principle is the same. She, too, could be having us on. Maybe her son is better at Photoshop than she realizes. Not having seen the face, I can't even say it looks like a face. If it does, maybe there really was a person outside the window, or it was a reflection of someone inside the room. Sound farfetched? Well, once again, how farfetched is it to believe it was the face of a ghost peering at the camera through a supernatural portal?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just trying to show that there's a way to play the odds when we're dealing with questions like these.

Regards,

Istvan

Istvan, I sincerely appreciate your honesty:nod: NOw, I wouldn't go running for a popularity contest anytime soon; you might get dragged behind a pick up to area 51::wink5:

[JuniperWoolf]

Thank you, Juniper. That really is something. I didn't think the thing in the window looked like a ghost; but I wasn't quite sure it looked like Ted Danson either. You make a good point though; there are many incidences in film where the paranormal was used to increase interest in the productions.
I seem to recall that there were several rumors of the "Poltergeist" and "Twilight Zone" movies being cursed because of multiple deaths.


I love him, he's funny. Here he takes on the most common example of paranormal phenomenon cited by ghost believers: the so-called "ghost orb" (ie. the little balls of light that sometimes show up in pictures).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh80XIhRsSY&feature=channel

Here's another one, this is my absolute favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyR_WHEmO_4


That is amazing! What did your son do with the picture; I think it's a definite keeper. So, do you think the spirits were attached to the toy.
I remember when the Amityville house was up for sale for 11,000 dollars. It was close to the ocean and I told my husband that the land, alone would be worth that much. I doubt if I'd move into it though. I got so freaked out in the Tower of London, I had to leave before I got to the torture chamber.

I once stayed at a graveyard all night to see what would happen (I like to test things). It was creepy, and a deer in the woods scared me when it jumped through the trees. I also hung out in a hole in the ground of Louisburg where dozens of french Canadians got locked in and died of suffocation (this was like, 300 years ago). That was also pretty creepy. The marks were still on the walls from their fingernails.

[soundofmusic]

I love him, he's funny. Here he takes on the most common example of paranormal phenomenon cited by ghost believers: the so-called "ghost orb" (ie. the little balls of light that sometimes show up in pictures).

I once stayed at a graveyard all night to see what would happen (I like to test things). It was creepy, and a deer in the woods scared me when it jumped through the trees. I also hung out in a hole in the ground of Louisburg where dozens of french Canadians got locked in and died of suffocation (this was like, 300 years ago). That was also pretty creepy. The marks were still on the walls from their fingernails.

I love the ball guy!
You are braver than I am; I don't even like graveyards during the day.

[papayahed]

~Reminder~

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments and/or showing intolerance towards other's beliefs will be removed or edited without any further notice.

[Janine]

That is amazing! What did your son do with the picture; I think it's a definite keeper. So, do you think the spirits were attached to the toy.
I remember when the Amityville house was up for sale for 11,000 dollars. It was close to the ocean and I told my husband that the land, alone would be worth that much. I doubt if I'd move into it though. I got so freaked out in the Tower of London, I had to leave before I got to the torture chamber.


I think perhaps he still has the photo somewhere on his hard drive; but he is so 'touchy' when I have asked about it. The night he stayed in their house - he was suddenly awakened with some strange noise and he got up to investigate to see if his friends were playing games on him. He swears they both were sound asleep. I can tell you he must have been scared out of his wits; because he didn't sleep himself that night. This was before the photo was take and later found on his HD. His friends had told him they experienced some odd occurances in the house. The house was way out in the country. When my son showed my mother and I the photo and then he blew it up, it definitely looked to be a woman's face. I brought up the idea of it being reflected in the glass. He said absolutely no one else was in the house, but he and his friend, Joe. I know my son was not lying, if you could have seen the fearful excitement in his eyes. He's a joker sometimes; but I can tell when he is joking. He absolutely knows nothing of altering photos. I can swear for that. These were the raw files on his laptop, he bought just for his photography. He takes thousands of photos. He was very frightened everytime, I have mentioned that one photo. I just talked to Joe not long ago and he said he gave a copy to the Rutgers University Paranormal Society. If there wasn't any credence to it they would not have accepted the photo. They were pleased to have it. I found it fascinating, when I first viewed the photo, and I still do. I didn't feel any fear but then again I wasn't to the house.

My aunt lived in a historical house and she and her husband claimed to have experienced a spirit; not on one, but many occasions. Her mother moved in the top floor apparment and she also had sitings. I do not any longer think it far-fetched at all. I don't know about the orbs, not just being some sort of natural phenomena; but I have seen photos like Nimah's which cleary show faces...one was away from a group in a graveyard, between what looked to be orbs of light. I notice those in the right of your photo, Niamh; did they disguss those at your group? My son's face photo was even clearer.

[soundofmusic]

I think perhaps he still has the photo somewhere on his hard drive; but he is so 'touchy' when I have asked about it. The night he stayed in their house - he was suddenly awakened with some strange noise and he got up to investigate to see if his friends were playing games on him. He swears they both were sound asleep. I can tell you he must have been scared out of his wits; because he didn't sleep himself that night. This was before the photo was take and later found on his HD. His friends had told him they experienced some odd occurances in the house. The house was way out in the country. When my son showed my mother and I the photo and then he blew it up, it definitely looked to be a woman's face. I brought up the idea of it being reflected in the glass. He said absolutely no one else was in the house, but he and his friend, Joe. I know my son was not lying, if you could have seen the fearful excitement in his eyes. He's a joker sometimes; but I can tell when he is joking. He absolutely knows nothing of altering photos. I can swear for that. These were the raw files on his laptop, he bought just for his photography. He takes thousands of photos. He was very frightened everytime, I have mentioned that one photo. I just talked to Joe not long ago and he said he gave a copy to the Rutgers University Paranormal Society. If there wasn't any credence to it they would not have accepted the photo. They were pleased to have it. I found it fascinating, when I first viewed the photo, and I still do. I didn't feel any fear but then again I wasn't to the house.

My aunt lived in a historical house and she and her husband claimed to have experienced a spirit; not on one, but many occasions. Her mother moved in the top floor apparment and she also had sitings. I do not any longer think it far-fetched at all. I don't know about the orbs, not just being some sort of natural phenomena; but I have seen photos like Nimah's which cleary show faces...one was away from a group in a graveyard, between what looked to be orbs of light. I notice those in the right of your photo, Niamh; did they disguss those at your group? My son's face photo was even clearer.

Like you, Janine, I do believe in ghosts. It has been asked why ghosts would "hang around". I have no idea; but I will say this: I don't find that people gain a great deal of insight or change a great deal on their death bed; so I don't see why ghosts would suddenly be any different than they were in life.
Personally, I expect that if I come back, I will still be a couch potato.

[lostworld]

Yes I believe in the paranormal...but perhaps not in the traditional sense. I have seen far to much evil that is unexplainable to believe otherwise. The flip side however is to ask if it is only evil that seems to remain here after passing...

[blazeofglory]

It is difficult not to believe in ghosts. Things happen here, normal and paranormal and we try to rationalize the phenomena we come across every so often in every walk of life.

I have so many moments I have across things that are paranormal and the experiences mystical. The words I use cannot contain all my feelings and experiences.
If there can be a mind to mind communication then only I can convince the other person I want to share with

[TurquoiseSunset]

Well, I don't want to believe in ghosts :lol: but a couple of creepy things have happened to me, so I'll tell and you decide.

When my grandparents moved to an old age home all their furniture was divided between their children and grandchildren. I got my grandma's cabinet with a sewing machine built into it and we keep all our sewing things in the cabinet... I always lock the cabinet; it's got this tough lock that crunches when you turn the key.

My mom's usually the one that uses the cabinet and my brother will open it occasionally to get a needle, but both of them are forever leaving the cabinet door open. So a few years back there was a period where the door was almost permanently open. Whenever I got home I'd have to close it, or when I was done watching t.v. or reading in the lounge I'd go to my room and the ruddy thing would have its mouth wide open again. So I'd go to my mom and brother and ask them to just lock it when they are done, pretty please. However, every time I asked them they would always say they didn't open the cabinet that day. I just assumed they were lying because they are always getting into trouble for leaving doors and cupboards open. It kept going on like that until they started to get irritated with me for asking them to close the door all the time. One Friday my parents and my brother were getting things ready to go away for the weekend, but I decided to stay home. I went into my room and saw the door was open. I closed and locked it, turned around and stood in my doorway while everyone was walking past me into the kitchen and out the back door. I followed them out, saw them get into the car and drive off. I went back into the house, walked down the passage and, low and behold, the door is open again. There was literally no way that anyone could have opened it since I was the last person to leave the house and the only one to go back into it. There are no back doors or windows to get in and why would anyone do that anyway?

Anyway, make of it what you will, but it totally freaked me out that day. I locked it again and then put my bag in front of it. For a long time I always had something in front of the door...now only occasionally, but due to space issues, hehehe. It was only a year or so after that day that I realised the ’open-door’ period started right after my gran’s death...dum dum duuuuummmmmm :D

[soundofmusic]

I think it's interesting. If you checked the lock to make sure it doesn't slip and make sure the cabinet doors are even so they don't slip; then I'd believe for myself it was gran...then again, I find the idea of the supernatural very natural and comforting.

[Pryderi Agni]

No, and no.

[TurquoiseSunset]

I think it's interesting. If you checked the lock to make sure it doesn't slip and make sure the cabinet doors are even so they don't slip; then I'd believe for myself it was gran...then again, I find the idea of the supernatural very natural and comforting.

Actually, I checked the lock every time I locked the door after my mom or brother 'left it open'. It's diffcult to turn the key...and the door doesn't slip, so even if I didn't lock it if will stay closed because it's a tight fit. That's what freaked me out even more, because I might have been able to blame it on the cat/s somehow (I would have found a way - denial is such a lovely thing :D), but it's impossible for anything/one else but a human to open that door...and only if you intended to, not just by bumping the cabinet or brushing past the key and thereby turning it.

Anyway, whatever, I'm not saying it was a ghost. It was however the fist time in my life where I felt totally freaked out by the possiblity.

[cranberry]

Hello there :)

Where I come from and as someone stated that spirits are not ghosts...
what i know that spirits of dead people come to their family and friends for extra help
as in prayer ...when they are not peaceful or facing trouble in grave.

they usually visit people whom they know.
but they cannot be seen.

however there is what is called : Jin and or perhaps gennies in english but ofourse has nothing ever to do with a lamp like aladdin that was a story LOL :D
there are good and bad and they can be seen sometimes.

[Dodo25]

I dont believe in the paranormal.

And of course I have never experienced any supernatural phenomena.

I think it's a tragedy how easily people adopt the viewpoint that there are paranormal things. I went to the book store recently and found 2 shelves of science literature next to a shocking 7 shelves of esoterics and paranormal activity and stuff. That ratio is a disgrace to the human species.

I'm not dogmatically insisting that all paranormal claims are nonsense (yet I very much believe so), I'd quickly change my view if evidence came up. Yet seriously, there are so many alternative explanations for all the phenomena mentioned here. It's so far fetched to think that there are ghosts, souls, demons or whatever responsible for this.

Twice I have been asked to check out 'psi' sites where they claim to have evidence for paranormal mind power stuff. I did so and found obvious inconsistencies in the statistical data, i.e. they claimed the 'James Randi Challenge' is unfair because odds of 100'000 to 1 against chance are impossible to achieve, even with (not too strong) paranormal powers. On another part of the very same website, they claim experiments with results of billions to 1 against chance have been done. Now if that isn't dishonest!

As a side note, Paul the Octopus managed to get 256 to 1 against chance at predicting games in the soccer world cup, and to some people this is actually sufficient evidence that the thing is psychic! I've gotten beat in poker hands where odds were above 1000 to 1, yet this stuff happens if the sample is big enough. There are 6 billion people on earth, if everyone started 10 series of coin-flipping with the intent of getting as much heads as possible, odds are decent that one person will get heads 36 times in a row. And that's nothing supernatural, it's simple statistics!

Now if the same thing was done by everyone on earth, every day for one's whole life, it is actually likely that one person will hit a fantastic, incredibly amazingly awesome streak of legendary 50 times heads (another would hit 50 times tails if we change the rule to pursue tail streaks as well). And it will all mean: literally nothing.

[free]

I like parapsychology. It is not only about ghosts and other scary things. It is investigation of things about our world and human beings in it that have not been explained yet.

[cacian]

I voted no. there is no such thing as paranormal. it is us that are or imagine to be.

[Iain Sparrow]

I like parapsychology. It is not only about ghosts and other scary things. It is investigation of things about our world and human beings in it that have not been explained yet.

Thus far in human history it has been, and will continue to be Science that unlocks the mysteries of the universe.:)

[YesNo]

I just voted yes, because I have seen the ghost of my aunt when she died over 20 years ago. I was in Maine, in graduate school, minding my own business, when she appeared in the student common room of the house where I was staying. We had a brief conversation in our minds and she vanished. Later I got a call from my parents saying that she had died.

Raymond Moody, who coined the term, "near death experience" called these experiences "shared death experiences". Although rare they are not that uncommon. There are two other members of my extended family who experienced something similar when a relative died.

When someone who is supposedly a scientist, who doesn't believe that such experiences are real, explains such things, what that person does is comes up with a rationalization of the experience so that it doesn't disturb his or her materialist metaphysics. That process is not science. It is rationalization or an inappropriate way to deal with cognitive dissonance.

There are scientists who study the paranormal. One that I have liked to read is Dean Radin.

[cacian]

I just voted yes, because I have seen the ghost of my aunt when she died over 20 years ago. I was in Maine, in graduate school, minding my own business, when she appeared in the student common room of the house where I was staying. We had a brief conversation in our minds and she vanished. Later I got a call from my parents saying that she had died.

Raymond Moody, who coined the term, "near death experience" called these type of experiences "shared death experiences". Although rare they are not that uncommon. There are two other members of my extended family who experienced something similar when a relative died.

When someone who is supposedly a scientist, who doesn't believe that such experiences are real, explains such things, what that person does is comes up with a rationalization of the an experience so that it doesn't disturb his or her materialist metaphysics. That process is not science. It is rationalization or an inappropriate way to deal with cognitive dissonance.

There are scientists who study the paranormal. One that I have liked to read is Dean Radin.

YesNo how do you mean by
''a conversation in our mind''?
and what was it that you said?

[YesNo]

Basically, words were exchanged, but I didn't actually hear them. It is like talking to oneself. She seemed concerned. I lived with her when I was around 10 for a year. She was a little hard to please from a 10-year old's perspective, but all she was was impatient and she and my uncle were arguing to help keep her on edge. What she said was, more or less, "I'm sorry." What I said was, more or less, "It OK."

[cacian]

Basically, words were exchanged, but I didn't actually hear them. It is like talking to oneself. She seemed concerned. I lived with her when I was around 10 for a year. She was a little hard to please from a 10-year old's perspective, but all she was was impatient and she and my uncle were arguing to help keep her on edge. What she said was, more or less, "I'm sorry." What I said was, more or less, "It OK."

interesting.
the other thing is why would she appear in a place you were at but one that she does not know of.
I thought ghosts only appeared in the place where they either died or they know,

[YesNo]

interesting.
the other thing is what would she appear in a place you were at but one that she does not know.
I thought ghosts only appeared in the place where they either died or they know,

Neither of us had any reason to know where the other one was. We were not close and had not seen each of in over a decade. She died thousands of miles from where I was studying. And yet the first time I thought of her in years was the time when she died.

Even if it was all in my mind, which is what I thought at the time, the coincidence of her death and this conversation makes me think there was more to it. Add to that the reports of other people who have had similar experiences and I conclude, whatever it was, it was not all in my mind.

There may be other types of ghosts that haunt places. I haven't experienced ghosts in that way, but, given the experience with my aunt, I have no reason to believe that such things don't happen.

[free]

Thus far in human history it has been, and will continue to be Science that unlocks the mysteries of the universe.:)

Sure. :)

[Emil Miller]

Thus far in human history it has been, and will continue to be Science that unlocks the mysteries of the universe.:)

Except the one that overides all others i.e. What is the reason for the universe ?

[free]

You mean, the ultimate truths, Emil? Why shouldn't they be the subject for science?

[Emil Miller]

You mean, the ultimate truths, Emil? Why shouldn't they be the subject for science?

I don't say that they shouldn't be of concern to science but human beings have been asking themselves what is the meaning of life and the universe since time immemorial and they are no nearer the answer than they have always been.

[YesNo]

Science has been studying the paranormal for over 100 years. Dean Radin's writing summarize the scientific results: http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/TCUindex.html Rupert Sheldrake attempts to build a falsifiable, scientific theory that incorporates mind on the idea of morphic fields. The bottom line for me of this research is that one cannot reduce mind or consciousness or first person awareness to any of the three currently promoted, and presumably unconscious, candidates: subatomic particles, selfish genes or neurons.

At the same time, we haven't figured out the meaning of life although the best first step is a belief that it is good.

I realize I could have avoided all that rambling by just saying I agree with both free and Emil Miller.

[Pompey Bum]

First of all, I want to carp about the category "I'm open minded about the subject." That is something that could apply to those who chose any of the other categories, from not believing to believing that everything can be explained by science (especially the latter, since science remains open to any new empirical data squeezing through its method). It would have been interesting to see the categories people would have chosen if that had not been an option. I suspect more people would have said no if they really had to choose.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I will believe in ghosts when they can be conjured up in laboratory conditions with repeatable results. Until then, they remain a matter of faith, and I do not have faith in their existence. (It is a source of amazement and amusement to me, by the way, how many people believe in ghosts, or souls, or soul mates, or a host of other things they find cool, but disdain faith in God as wishful thinking--but I guess that is for another discussion). I don't believe in ghosts, but of course I am open-minded to the possibility of their eventual "discovery."

I did have a strange experience, though, and I fully admit that at the time it was a little scary. It happened a few years ago when I was living in a country town in New England--not too remote but remote enough. My wife was visiting her family in the Far East at the time and I had been living on my own for about two months. One night in late September I was standing at our kitchen sink rinsing off some dishes. There is a window over the sink that looks into the back yard, and as I stood there, I saw a sudden small flash of light, maybe six feet above the ground, and about 100 feet away. It was much too large to have been a firefly but too small to have been much of anything else. If anyone here is old enough to remember that long extinct dinosaur of photography known as a flash cube, it had that sort of size and intensity.

My initial response was: What the hell was that? The thought or feeling that it had been supernatural didn't enter into my mind. It had happened so quickly and unexpectedly, though, that I didn't really know what I had seen. I wasn't ready for it. Then, perhaps 20 seconds later, there was a second flash, directly in front of the window. It created the frightening illusion that whatever had flashed the first time had flown directly at my face. That startled me to the point of physical fear, by which I mean that the hair on my arms stood on end. (Yes, yes, "PAM has hair on his arms." :) )

At that point I left the kitchen and sat in the chair where I like to read. I thought rational thoughts and read rational things, and after some time, I got a grip and actually went into the back yard. There was no sign of spooks, or aliens, or even soul mates. It was much to cold for anything like fireflies, though--the first cold night of the year.

That's sort of the end of the story, except for a strange dream I had that night (or actually the next early morning) that those who believe in ghosts may consider evidence for their view. It was a type of dream I have had all my life, although I get it only once or twice every few years. I dream that I wake up and get out of bed--the dream being so vivid, realistic, and accurate in detail that it may as well be real as far as my perception is concerned. But these dreams are always nightmares and always involve evil spirits or ghosts or whatever you want to call them. This was a relatively mild one.

In this dream, I awoke and, as usual, I talked a little with my wife a little before getting up. (That, of course, should have been the tell-tale sign that something was fishy, since she was in Taipei at the time). As we talked, though, I became increasingly aware that, although she looked and sounded like my wife, there was something missing; in some intangible way, it just wasn't her. At one point, she told me that the ground was very cold. "Just look outside," she said, "and you will see the frost." I got up, drew the curtains on a window back, and saw frost glistening in the morning light. I continued to have a strong feeling that this was not really my wife.

At that point, I turned and faced the woman, who unbeknownst to me had also risen and was standing directly behind me. I got a little start since she was closer to me than I had thought. Finally I looked her in the eyes and said, "Look, I don't mean to offend you, but I should tell you that I know that you aren't really [my wife's name]. The woman glared at me with a mixture of hatred and disdain, then turned around and stalked out of the bedroom. At that point I awoke for real and in terror. No ghost was there, and of course the window curtain was closed; but when I did draw it back, I looked down on the same frost glittering on the late September grass.

This was a dream, nothing more. It may have been brought on by the earlier fright, with the detail of the frost added simply because it was a cold night. Although it has not been exclusively so, I have tended to get that kind of vivid dream on nights when I find myself alone. After considerable scientific and spiritual reflection, I have decided that it's because I am a big wuss.

[Ecurb]

Abut five years ago my friend and longtime work colleague got married (she was middle-aged -- her second marriage). I had dinner at a table with her aunt and uncle. The uncle was Lewis Mudge, a theologian, Episcopal Priest, and former professor at Amherst and University of Chicago -- and my friend thought her aunt (a documentary film-maker) and uncle and I would hit it off, which is why she seated us together.

She was right. We had a great time at dinner and at the wedding. I told her how much I enjoyed her relatives.

About two months later, she came into my office at work. "Let's look google my uncle, whom you met at the wedding," she said. "I just want to show you how famous he is and how many books he's written."

So we googled him, and talked about my conversation with him and his wife, and how much I enjoyed their company.

The next day, my friend told me that her father had called that morning and told her that the uncle had died suddenly (he was 80 years old) at almost the exact time we were having our conversation the day before. What possessed her to think about her uncle at that precise moment?

Of course, any supernatural experience was hers -- not mine.

One side note: my friend's aunt and uncle once lived in Emily Dickinson's old house in Amherst.

[free]

human beings have been asking themselves what is the meaning of life and the universe since time immemorial and they are no nearer the answer than they have always been.

I agree with this. But, being an incurable optimist :), I still believe and hope that when we here, on Earth, stop investing most of our intelligence into fighting and distruction, the day will come to reveal the mysteries of life that interest us.

[Paulclem]

That's interesting stuff Pompey. I like your attitude in that you don't overblow it but are willing to share.

I've had a few experiences - nothing very startling - where it just defies explanation, and I think an open sensible mind is the right approach. One of the difficulties with strange experiences is the fact of them being unrepeatable. In that sense science can't comment on it, but should be open minded too. Ghosts in all likelihood do not exist in the way they are traditionally presented otherwise we would see more of them. The x factor in such recounts is the human mind and it's potential.

[Carousel]

I was a profound sceptic on all things that come under the paranormal banner my attitude was show me some positive evidence then I’ll consider it. Then, a few years ago I was shown positive evidence.

My wife and I had recently moved to the Romney Marsh in the county of Kent. The Romney and the Walland Marsh’s are flat wetlands reclaimed over the centuries from the sea. You can easily acquire more info from the web.
The roads across the marsh twist and turn dramatically, bends are very near the left and right turns. They are unlit at night, very narrow and many have irrigation ditches either side. None have paths or pavements. To sum up they can be very dangerous to drive on at night.

We had made our Christmas Eve rounds to our London relatives and friends and had left it late to drive home so it was two o’clock on Christmas morning when I was driving across the Marsh. It was a cold crystal clear night with a heavy frost on the road I could see ice forming in the headlights. I was approaching a very sharp bend, so sharp that it was impossible to see round the other side.
Halfway round the bend a figure was standing by the side of the road. My wife screamed as I swerved to avoid hitting him, the car skidded across towards a steep ditch. I don’t know how but I regained control and braked to a stop.

My wife was in a state of shock, I was absolutely livid; the idiot had almost killed the both of us. I opened the car door,
“John don’t, it never had a face”
“That’s not all he’ll be missing if I get hold of him”
I ran around the corner, there was no one there. He couldn’t have gone anywhere, there was a bright moon and in the flat empty fields, there was simply no where to hide.

My recollection of the figure is only based on a second or two but it was tall wearing an ankle long garment, it held its hands high to its face as if it was reading a book.
It could have only been no more than a foot from my wife on the nearside passenger seat but still to today she never discusses it and hates it when I tell friends of the experience.

Personally I don’t care if anyone believes this tale of not, I know its true and that’s all that matters. Have I any explanation? Well no, but if you twist my arm I have come round to the theory that we experienced a Time Slip. We were witnessing an episode from the past. The figure itself had no substance; it never belonged to our time. It wouldn’t have mattered if I had driven straight through it, though that option wasn’t available at the time.

The occurrence of Time Slips is not as rare as I once thought and they fit more comfortably with an explanation of ghostly experiences than many others.

[Emil Miller]

I agree with this. But, being an incurable optimist :), I still believe and hope that when we here, on Earth, stop investing most of our intelligence into fighting and distruction, the day will come to reveal the mysteries of life that interest us.

I think that one will need more than optimism. The digital revolution has enabled science to make some headway in answering the question, 'how'? but until it can answer 'why'?, it will have failed to solve the fundamental problem that besets the human race.

[Emil Miller]

I was a profound sceptic on all things that come under the paranormal banner my attitude was show me some positive evidence then I’ll consider it. Then, a few years ago I was shown positive evidence.

My wife and I had recently moved to the Romney Marsh in the county of Kent. The Romney and the Walland Marsh’s are flat wetlands reclaimed over the centuries from the sea. You can easily acquire more info from the web.
The roads across the marsh twist and turn dramatically, bends are very near the left and right turns. They are unlit at night, very narrow and many have irrigation ditches either side. None have paths or pavements. To sum up they can be very dangerous to drive on at night.

We had made our Christmas Eve rounds to our London relatives and friends and had left it late to drive home so it was two o’clock on Christmas morning when I was driving across the Marsh. It was a cold crystal clear night with a heavy frost on the road I could see ice forming in the headlights. I was approaching a very sharp bend, so sharp that it was impossible to see round the other side.
Halfway round the bend a figure was standing by the side of the road. My wife screamed as I swerved to avoid hitting him, the car skidded across towards a steep ditch. I don’t know how but I regained control and braked to a stop.

My wife was in a state of shock, I was absolutely livid; the idiot had almost killed the both of us. I opened the car door,
“John don’t, it never had a face”
“That’s not all he’ll be missing if I get hold of him”
I ran around the corner, there was no one there. He couldn’t have gone anywhere, there was a bright moon and in the flat empty fields, there was simply no where to hide.

My recollection of the figure is only based on a second or two but it was tall wearing an ankle long garment, it held its hands high to its face as if it was reading a book.
It could have only been no more than a foot from my wife on the nearside passenger seat but still to today she never discusses it and hates it when I tell friends of the experience.

Personally I don’t care if anyone believes this tale of not, I know its true and that’s all that matters. Have I any explanation? Well no, but if you twist my arm I have come round to the theory that we experienced a Time Slip. We were witnessing an episode from the past. The figure itself had no substance; it never belonged to our time. It wouldn’t have mattered if I had driven straight through it, though that option wasn’t available at the time.

The occurrence of Time Slips is not as rare as I once thought and they fit more comfortably with an explanation of ghostly experiences than many others.

I think I can explain this phenomenon. It was also in the early hours of the morning when I was a passenger in a car being driven along a deserted country road in Somerset. The driver and his wife were seated in the front and, as we turned a bend, I saw a strange figure standing at the side of the road ahead. My friends told me that on one occasion they had seen what looked exactly like a man standing by the road at a similar hour and only later did they discover that, for some reason, pockets of fog form shapes momentarily before disappearing into the atmosphere. I must say that the object I saw certainly looked solid enough but their explanation put my mind at ease.

[Pompey Bum]

I think that one will need more than optimism. The digital revolution has enabled science to make some headway in answering the question, 'how'? but until it can answer 'why'?, it will have failed to solve the fundamental problem that besets the human race.

Bravo. I once saw a science book for children called The Big Book of Why. Wrong!--I remember thinking--Science is The Big Book of How. Why can be quite another matter.

[Carousel]

I take your point and its true that the Marsh can be misty but not on that night. It was a crystal clear night with a three quarter moon and any mist would have been reflected back because the car headlights were at full beam.
I spoke to my wife who said that if her side window had been open she could have put her hand out and touched the figure, she was that close to it, so there was no way it could have been a mist.

About 15 miles from where I live is Dover Castle which stands high on the white cliffs above the port and town of Dover. The largest castle in Britain; it was originally built a thousand years ago and was added to over the centuries to defend the shortest gateway to the realm.
If you are looking for Walt Disney palaces and pretty turrets from where Rapunzel dangled down her golden locks, walk on by, Dover castle wasn’t built for fairy tales, it was built for business.
Underneath this fortress are maze of tunnels the latest of which where dug just before WW2. Deep down remains a command post, a hospital, canteens sleeping quarters and a telephone switchboard all now open to the public on guided tours. From time to time visitors experience strange events in these tunnels. The most disturbing to date was a Dutch lady in a group of tourists who later said she moved to one side to let a man in uniform walk round her when he walked straight through her. She was taken to hospital in a traumatic fit.

[Pompey Bum]

That's interesting stuff Pompey. I like your attitude in that you don't overblow it but are willing to share.

Thanks Paul. Not believing in ghosts doesn't make one closed-minded any more than it does credulous. And apparently (based on my experience), it doesn't even stop them from messing with you. :)


I've had a few experiences - nothing very startling - where it just defies explanation, and I think an open sensible mind is the right approach. One of the difficulties with strange experiences is the fact of them being unrepeatable. In that sense science can't comment on it, but should be open minded too.

That is something you often hear religious apologists say about miracles: that they are one-time events or that they are inherently outside of natural science. I know what they mean, I suppose, but as an argument, I don't find it very convincing. In fact, it's a tautology: it's just saying that the supernatural is supernatural or the miraculous is miraculous. It doesn't advance the argument that either the supernatural or the miraculous actually exist. So science can comment inasmuch as it can say No, I'm sorry, that won't quite cut the mustard. But of course science remains open to new data.


Ghosts in all likelihood do not exist in the way they are traditionally presented otherwise we would see more of them. The x factor in such recounts is the human mind and it's potential.

Well let me put it this way: I'm glad that Pendragon and Carousel are thinking of their ghosts (a Confederate soldier and a mysterious robed figure, respectively) as time anomalies, because otherwise we would need to address the troubling issue of whether they were wearing the ghosts of their respective uniform and robe. At a certain point, it's time for string theory. :)

[Carousel]

Well let me put it this way: I'm glad that Pendragon and Carousel are thinking of their ghosts (a Confederate soldier and a mysterious robed figure, respectively) as time anomalies, because otherwise we would need to address the troubling issue of whether they were wearing the ghosts of their respective uniform and robe. At a certain point, it's time for string theory. :)



No I am not talking of ghosts in the literal sense of the word those who experience a time slip are witnessing a real event of the past much like a replayed scene for an old movie as an intruder. Doing a bit of research in the subject I’ve found that the time slip for the majority is very short no more than a few minutes while a few are longer.

The one who is in a time slip can see and some can hear but is in the roll of an invisible observer. What they see is nearly always mundane, people and traffic pass by, workers in fields, just folks going about their normal lives.

A more interesting account concerned a young apprentice plumber by the name of Harry Martindale. I haven’t the time to spend in writing the account myself but here is one I downloaded.
It was 1953, and the Treasurer’s House was having modern central heating installed. Harry was tasked with checking over the joints of pipes installed by his more experienced colleagues, which was why he went down into the cellar - alone.
Harry was intent on his work when the incident began. He was up a short ladder so that he could check piping that was running along just below the cellar ceiling. He heard a muffled trumpet blast, but took no notice. He thought perhaps a band was nearby practising. The trumpet came again, nearer this time. Again Harry ignored it. Then a horse stepped out of the solid wall right in front of Harry’s eyes. Thunderstruck and terrified in equal measure, Harry fell off his ladder and tumbled to the floor. As he scrambled to get away from the figure of the horse, Harry could not tear his eyes from the apparition.

The horse continued to emerge from the wall into the cellar. On its back was a man in a long cloak and a helmet with a feather crest on it. Behind the horseman came a dozen or more men on foot. As Harry gradually recovered from his shock, he was deeply relieved to see that the ghosts paid him not the slightest bit of attention but marched on as if he were not there. The men on foot carried large, round shields with long spears slung over their shoulders and short swords hanging from their belts. They had what looked like kilts, dyed a dark green colour, and mail shirts. One of them carried a trumpet that was long, straight and battered as if from long years of hard use.

As the men marched across the cellar, Harry realised that he could not see them from the knees downward. Then the horsemen came to a spot where a hole had been dug into the floor. Harry could now see the horse’s legs almost down to the hooves. They carried shaggy hair around the fetlocks, similar to those on a modern shire horse. As the men on foot passed the hole, Harry could see their legs down to the ankles. They were wearing leather sandals attached by straps that ran criss-cross fashion up to the knees. The men marched on, giving out an aura of dejection and despondency, until they vanished into the wall opposite.

Excavations have shown that a Roman road runs underneath the Treasurer’s House leading from what had been a gate in the fortress walls to the east toward the headquarters building that stood where the Minster nave is now. The ghosts follow the route of this former road precisely. Even more interestingly, the surface of the road is about 18 inches below the cellar floor, and some three inches lower than the bottom of the hole that was there in Harry’s day. The ghosts are, of course, seen only from the knees up so it would seem that they are marching along the surface of the old road that existed when they were alive.

[Pompey Bum]

My point exactly. You're going to do better with that sort of thing than trying to explain how dead souls are wearing the ghosts of their clothes (especially if Grannie's nighty is still in the closet). Time slips get mixed reviews these days--apparently the original claim of two 20th century English academics that at least one of them had chanced upon Marie Antoinette near Versailles during a trip to France turns out to have been considerably embellished after their own research into "things they couldn't possibly have known at the time."

From the Museum of Hoaxes website:

The most damaging analysis of their claims appeared in 1950, written by W.H. Salter. Salter concluded, based upon a close review of Jourdain and Moberly's correspondence with the Society for Psychical Research, that many details included in the accounts they had (supposedly) written in 1901 had actually been added at a much later date, in 1906, after the women had conducted extensive historical research. This discovery cast serious doubt upon their claims, because their entire case had rested upon the impossibility of the two of them, in 1901, being able to give an accurate description of 1789 Versailles.

And as far as Harry Martindale goes, anecdotal evidence about seeing ancient Romans--not even reported until 20 years after the alleged event--only gets you so far. But time travel, parallel universes, the multiverse--there may not be a shred non-theoretical evidence for any of them, but they're all way better than ghosts. And the multiverse may even be real. :)

[YesNo]

But time travel, parallel universes, the multiverse--there may not be a shred non-theoretical evidence for any of them, but they're all way better than ghosts. And the multiverse may even be real. :)

It depends on what you want to believe. I am pretty sure there is a "multiverse" because our universe had a beginning and I assume that beginning was not a unique event. I don't see why those other universes would be much different from our own. That means I want to believe that events aren't too unique. I like the metaphor of the cosmic egg that hatched into our universe. It is organic rather than mechanical.

However, I think that a "many worlds" multiverse depends on wanting to believe in complete determinism in spite of quantum mechanics insisting that is false. It is too mechanistic for me, so I don't want to believe in mechanistic metaphors. Also time travel depends on time being real and not just changes in position. It implies there is a sort of "block universe" which also implies determinism which doesn't seem organic enough for my taste. So I don't want to believe in it.

I don't mind believing in ghosts. I want to believe that consciousness is primary and even more important than matter, if matter has any substance at all to it after quantum physics got through with it.

[Pompey Bum]

It depends on what you want to believe.

I agree with you to the extent that making meaning of our lives is a matter of choosing the things we believe. Personally I don't make those choices based on what I want to believe, but on a number of criteria, including reason, common sense, experience, and various types of knowledge; nor do I imagine that my belief in something in itself makes it so. Like everyone else, I can only do up to my best to understand--and I seldom do that! :)


I am pretty sure there is a "multiverse" because our universe had a beginning and I assume that beginning was not a unique event. I don't see why those other universes would be much different from our own. That means I want to believe that events aren't too unique.

I have to confess to being well out of my depth with theoretical physics. After I wrote my response to Carousel, I remembered that according to the mathematical theory of the multiverse (at least as it was spoon fed to me on public television), there can be no intercourse between universes--so that wouldn't account for the sort of time anomaly he is proposing. But you probably know more about it than me.


I like the metaphor of the cosmic egg that hatched into our universe. It is organic rather than mechanical.

Metaphors on the other hand are free. :) But cosmic eggs suggest cosmic chickens, and that puts me in fear of cosmic chicken sh*t. I choose the handsome monkey king's war with Heaven as a metaphor for the human condition, although I don't really get that story's cosmology (stone monkey eggs are just weird).


I don't mind believing in ghosts. I want to believe that consciousness is primary and even more important than matter, if matter has any substance at all to it after quantum physics got through with it.

As I said before, I have no faith in the silly things. But your mention of the primacy of consciousness over matter is interesting. There's a book I've been meaning to read called Biocentricity (by the physician who pioneered stem cell science) that sounds remotely similar. I know very little about the subject. Are you familiar with it?

[108 fountains]

I guess I fall under the "not in the usual sense" category in that I think there are some phenomena that science cannot (yet) explain.

A few things have happned to me that were unusual, but one stands out far in front of the rest. I lived in Nepal for about two years and among the many friends I made was a man named Musafi. He was a big strong guy, with a prominent mustache, probably in his mid-thirties, and sold meat in a local market. He wasn't among my closest friends, but he was a friend nevertheless. Although I don't remember, at some point I must have given him my home mailing address in the United States.

Some six or seven months after returning to my home in the United States, I had an extremely vivid dream about Musafi. It was like I was looking down at him from the ceiling. He was sitting on a wooden chair in a small jail cell lit by sunlight streaming in from a single barred window near to where I was looking down from. He was writing a letter, and I could read the letter. Although I don't remember every word now (this happened many years ago), the gist was that he was writing a letter to me telling me that he had been arrested for murder and that he was innocent and asking if I could do anything to help him. One of the mnost vivid parts of the dream was the sensation I had that he was writing out of desperation and terror. Then I woke up.

This was in the early 1980s before e-mail and cellphones. It would normally take 10 days to two weeks to send or receive a letter between Nepal and the United States. About two weeks after my dream, I received a letter from Musafi. In it, he told me he had been arrested and was in jail (it said nothing about a murder) and asking if there was anything I could do to help. And there was a definite sense of desperation in the tone of the letter (written in somewhat broken English). Of course, I couldn't do anything to help, and I never answered the letter. But to this day, I am convinced that (given the 12 hour time difference and the fact that I received the letter two weeks later) I actually saw Musafi writing the letter from his jail cell.

I'll relate one more incident, not experienced by me, but by a neighbor of my late aunt. This elderly aunt of mine, who had been sick for many months and who had not been outside of her house in weeks, died in the afternoon in her home. At the funeral home a couple of days later, her neighbor told me that he saw her the evening that she died walking down the road past his house (he didn't know at the time that she had died a couple of hours earlier). He saw her from the window and he remarked to his wife that he was surprised to see Marie walking outside since she had been sick so long. His wife corroborated the story, but it was clear she didn't want him to be talking about it at the funeral home.

I'm actually writing a short story based on this incident and hope to post it on the Forum soon.

[Paulclem]

Thanks Paul. Not believing in ghosts doesn't make one closed-minded any more than it does credulous. And apparently (based on my experience), it doesn't even stop them from messing with you. :)



That is something you often hear religious apologists say about miracles: that they are one-time events or that they are inherently outside of natural science. I know what they mean, I suppose, but as an argument, I don't find it very convincing. In fact, it's a tautology: it's just saying that the supernatural is supernatural or the miraculous is miraculous. It doesn't advance the argument that either the supernatural or the miraculous actually exist. So science can comment inasmuch as it can say No, I'm sorry, that won't quite cut the mustard. But of course science remains open to new data.



Well let me put it this way: I'm glad that Pendragon and Carousel are thinking of their ghosts (a Confederate soldier and a mysterious robed figure, respectively) as time anomalies, because otherwise we would need to address the troubling issue of whether they were wearing the ghosts of their respective uniform and robe. At a certain point, it's time for string theory. :)


The whole time slip thing is as speculative as claiming a traditional ghostly prescence don't you think? I feel that given the dominance of the scientific worldview, the idea of a time slip seems to be a more acceptable explanation, whereas there is no more actual evidence for it being the explanation than for a dead person. I put that down to a kind of conditioning - it is deeply - unfashionable is the wrong word- unfashionable to refer to hauntings and ghosts whereas reference to physics, time and scientific sounding theories is ok.

Culturally, that is interesting - I'm not trying to be critical of you here by the way. How could I be - there's no evidence either way for the truth of the matter? I do feel that science - with good reason - has become the default setting. Email's comment about the fog forming shapes is a clear attempt to rationalise a situation for which he couldn't possibly know anything about - especially given that the clearness of the night had already been stated.

The problem it throws up is not that it contradicts earlier beliefs in ghosts for example, but that it might blind or obscure the actual facts of the matter which could be something equally radical and new.

It is a fascinating topic as much for the reactions to it as the possibilities it might present.

[YesNo]

I'll relate one more incident, not experienced by me, but by a neighbor of my late aunt. This elderly aunt of mine, who had been sick for many months and who had not been outside of her house in weeks, died in the afternoon in her home. At the funeral home a couple of days later, her neighbor told me that he saw her the evening that she died walking down the road past his house (he didn't know at the time that she had died a couple of hours earlier). He saw her from the window and he remarked to his wife that he was surprised to see Marie walking outside since she had been sick so long. His wife corroborated the story, but it was clear she didn't want him to be talking about it at the funeral home.


My niece's young daughter, about 7 or 8 years old, saw my father, her great-grandfather, walk across the backyard of the house they lived in together shortly after he died. She thought her daughter was delusional.

I told her about how I saw my aunt and had a brief mental conversation with her around the time she died. Her boyfriend said he experienced something similar with a grandparent of his.

My niece was at least consistent in receiving all this evidence. She had no problem thinking all three of us were delusional.

[YesNo]

I have to confess to being well out of my depth with theoretical physics. After I wrote my response to Carousel, I remembered that according to the mathematical theory of the multiverse (at least as it was spoon fed to me on public television), there can be no intercourse between universes--so that wouldn't account for the sort of time anomaly he is proposing. But you probably know more about it than me.

Almost everything I might think I know about physics (big bang, many worlds, quantum physics, astronomy) or religion or even literature comes from Lit Net. Someone writes something and I look it up either in the library or on the internet. I'm no expert on any of this, but I figure it doesn't hurt to give my opinion.

So, taking what I have to say with a grain of salt, I think you're right that those many worlds are not able to communicate with each other except when it is convenient for them to do so such as account for the indeterminacy in our world. It is also convenient that you can't see Santa go down the furnace flue to deliver the presents.



Metaphors on the other hand are free. :) But cosmic eggs suggest cosmic chickens, and that puts me in fear of cosmic chicken sh*t. I choose the handsome monkey king's war with Heaven as a metaphor for the human condition, although I don't really get that story's cosmology (stone monkey eggs are just weird).

After I wrote that about the cosmic egg, I thought that metaphor is probably not good either. It does account for a beginning. One can get a male/female role in place. The female (Shakti, yin) lays the egg that the male (Shiva, yang) fertilizes. But how does the universe continue the process? Does the egg hatch into a Shiva or Shakti?

I probably need a better metaphor.



As I said before, I have no faith in the silly things. But your mention of the primacy of consciousness over matter is interesting. There's a book I've been meaning to read called Biocentricity (by the physician who pioneered stem cell science) that sounds remotely similar. I know very little about the subject. Are you familiar with it?

I'll see if I can find Biocentricity.

I've been reading George Berkeley, the 17th century idealistic empiricist. I see him anticipating quantum physics. Consciousness seems so fleeting, like sound, that it doesn't seem as substantial as this computer I'm using right now, but if I understand quantum physics (and I probably don't) there is nothing substantial underlying matter. To assume there is leads to a contradiction. That idea came from Rosenblum and Kuttner's "Quantum Enigma".

[Pompey Bum]

The whole time slip thing is as speculative as claiming a traditional ghostly prescence don't you think?

Yes, I do. Personally I'm as skeptical of one as the other.


I feel that given the dominance of the scientific worldview, the idea of a time slip seems to be a more acceptable explanation, whereas there is no more actual evidence for it being the explanation than for a dead person. I put that down to a kind of conditioning - it is deeply - unfashionable is the wrong word- unfashionable to refer to hauntings and ghosts whereas reference to physics, time and scientific sounding theories is ok.

I agree that there is about as much evidence for time slips as there is for ghosts. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the evidence is of the same inconclusive and unconvincing type: anecdotal. Time slips may also be an example of reification, which means creating or seeming to create the existence of a phenomenon by naming it and treating it as real. But again, I don't know enough about theoretical physics to be sure of that. On the surface, however, it seems less absurd at least than ghosts. Whether that's because of cultural conditioning, as you say, or just because the quantum universe is a zany place, I don't know. But I imagine that's the reason for the prevalence of such stories.


Email's comment about the fog forming shapes is a clear attempt to rationalise a situation for which he couldn't possibly know anything about - especially given that the clearness of the night had already been stated.

I'm not so sure about that. The night was clear, but it was night, and night on a marshland at that. There is an interesting psychological phenomenon--more of an optical illusion--called pareidolia, which is the mind's construction of human or human-like forms from random background material (The Virgin Mary on a taco shell, that sort of thing). Some pareidolic images are cartoonish, but others appear virtually photographic. There are scientists who think that pareidolia is an evolutionary vestige of the millions of years that our hominid ancestors needed to be able to detect the faces and forms of predators at night against a topography that aided camouflage (natural selection favoring those who erred on the side of caution over those who erred on the side of "Meh--it's probably just a rock!") Emil can speak for himself about whether he was talking about something like that, but in the meantime, I wouldn't be too dismissive. It's a more likely explanation than a time slips (or ghosts).

I have an amazing photograph, by the way, that I took in the early 90s at a Taoist/animist (spirit worship) temple in the hills near Taipei. I was in a decrepit and nearly abandoned upper floor of this Temple (I had jumped a chain with a sign telling me not to go up there) and was photographing shrines to various animistic deities, typically with grotesque-looking effigies. One of them featured two small and not terribly scary looking figures; but when I got the pictures back (this was before digital cameras), there was a near-photographic image of a face that resembled pictures of Pan or Satan, over the alter. Its head was tilted back and its eyes seemed to be open in rage. it definitely looked like it didn't like having its picture taken. This was (and is--I still have the picture) a perfect example of a pareidolic face because, even though it looks like a photograph of the devil, you can see the things on the alter that compose it (the eyes, for example, are the heads of the two small effigies). It is also remarkable (from a psycho-neurological perspective) in that the photographic aspect of the image is much more pronounced in the lower to middle part of the face. The horns at the top of the head are obviously from a design on a painted board behind the alter. It's a creepy picture in a way (especially considering the circumstances in which it was taken); but in another way, it's easy to see that the whole thing is an optical illusion.

[Carousel]

I have no interest or desire in ‘wanting’ to believe in anything, UFOs, Parallel Universes etc. but when an incident happens to you when there’s no adequate explanation its only natural that you look to make sense of it.
Time Slips are not common in relation to other reported paranormal experiences and differ from the accounts of ghostly witnesses i.e. encounters with the dead, fuzzy images etc, and time Slips are not confined to the past, the can also be glimpses of the future.

So what are the possible explanations, hoaxers, attention seekers, well possible but not probable. If I was going to the trouble to invent a hoax I think I would do a bit better than a two second glimpse of a figure standing on a road and apart from the initial shock many of these slips in time are witnesses to the mundane as I mention before. You don’t get to have a chat with Napoleon or have a front row seat to the battle of Agincourt.

So that leaves hallucinations which are a more probable explanation but then you have to account for two or three individuals that are having the same vision at the same time; which is most improbable.

Of course the existence of slips in time is just speculation and I would have agreed but for my own experience but I suggest they are a more feasible understanding than dead spirits retuning to scare the living daylights out of you.

[Pompey Bum]

I suggest they are a more feasible understanding than dead spirits retuning to scare the living daylights out of you.

Well perhaps. Or perhaps Paul's right--maybe time slips only sound less silly than ghosts because they appear to have the trappings of science about them. Do we even know, for example, that time slips are theoretically possible (by which I mean, have they been suggested by the mathematics of theoretical physics)? If not, then count me out. It's bad logic (classic circular thinking) to say that time slips exist because people who have seen revenants (or claim to have seen them) have experienced time slips.


So what are the possible explanations, hoaxers, attention seekers, well possible but not probable. If I was going to the trouble to invent a hoax I think I would do a bit better than a two second glimpse of a figure standing on a road and apart from the initial shock

Oh I take it on faith that you're not lying. But I don't agree that many others wouldn't do so--to gain fame, or to feel important, or to believe that they were clever enough to pull one over on the supposedly smart people. And to take the Thomas Ockham approach, lying is the simplest explanation for the presence of ancient Romans in the cellar of the York treasury building ("We've tried sprays, we've tried powders, we just can't get those Romans out!"). It is the most likely explanation by (by far).


many of these slips in time are witnesses to the mundane as I mention before. You don’t get to have a chat with Napoleon or have a front row seat to the battle of Agincourt.

Well to be fair, the original "time slip" allegation (the so-called "Versailles time slip") included a sighting of Marie Antoinette, who may have been worldly but was hardly mundane. But it's not clear to me what mundane features of a story have to do with its veracity. An allegation of ancient Romans walking through walls in 20th century York is about as far-fetched as a 20th century celebrity sighting of Marie Antoinette, isn't it?


So that leaves hallucinations which are a more probable explanation but then you have to account for two or three individuals that are having the same vision at the same time; which is most improbable.

Well it doesn't "leave hallucinations" in the sense of hallucinations being the only possible solution besides time slips. But in your case, let's dismiss the idea that you and your wife were hallucinating. I will tell you exactly what I think happened that night, but I want you to understand that no part of it is a criticism of you. As you said, you are merely making meaning from an experience, and of course, you must make that meaning yourself. But here's what I think happened:

You were driving along Romney Marsh at night when, very suddenly and unexpectedly, in what you have described as "a two second glimpse," you and your wife simultaneously perceived a pareidolic image against the background of moonlight on the marsh. (Paradolia is a scientifically recognized phenomenon while time slips are not; and it was not a "shared hallucination" since any number of people may perceive such images). You pulled your car to a halt, but because it had moved, the the momentary illusion was lost. You saw no one on the marsh because there was no one to be seen. Almost immediately your memory played this dramatic but lightning fast event back for you, as it has many times since. Each time, you have retained not only the memory of the event but your memory of the memory--somewhat embellished by reduplicative error (this is the classic problem with the reliability of eye-witness testimony). At this point, you remember the experience and the image much more distinctly than the sudden two-second illusion that it was, and for which you were completely unprepared.

If we eliminate the possibility of dishonest testimony (which, as I said, I am more than willing to do in this case), then my explanation is far more likely than a time slip. If it is discredited, though, I fear we must fall back on one of two of my alternate hypotheses, both more likely than time slips (or ghosts):

1. The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (who turned out to be a local clergyman, I think)

2. Well, I didn't want to say this before, but it was Christmas Eve... :)

[YesNo]

If we eliminate the possibility of dishonest testimony (which, as I said, I am more than willing to do in this case), then my explanation is far more likely than a time slip. If it is discredited, though, I fear we must fall back on one of two of my alternate hypotheses, both more likely than time slips (or ghosts):

1. The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh (who turned out to be a local clergyman, I think)

2. Well, I didn't want to say this before, but it was Christmas Eve... :)

How do we justify that one explanation is "more likely" than another?

[Ecurb]

How do we justify that one explanation is "more likely" than another?

My guess: any ONE SPECIFIC explanation for such an event is exceedingly UNLIKELY. There are thousands of possible explanations -- picking any one of them is merely making a wild guess. Obviously, the more general the explanation (there's a "natural" explanation, for example, as Pompey suggests, but without the specific details he suggests), the more likely it is to be at least somewhat correct.

[Pompey Bum]

How do we justify that one explanation is "more likely" than another?

If you dig through all my blither, yes/no, you will find that my criteria for the likelihood of pareidolia over time slips were that time slips have not been demonstrated, nor are they indicated by the mathematics of theoretical physics (but again, if they are, please let me know); whereas pareidolia is a commonly accepted neuro-psychological phenomenon that has been frequently demonstrated.

As for the part of my post you quote, my principle was taken from the great John Le Carre, who once wrote: I believe an eleven bus will take me to Hammersmith. I don't believe it's driven by Father Christmas. :)

[Carousel]

You were driving along Romney Marsh at night when, very suddenly and unexpectedly, in what you have described as "a two second glimpse," you and your wife simultaneously perceived a pareidolic image against the background of moonlight on the marsh. (Paradolia is a scientifically recognized phenomenon while time slips are not; and it was not a "shared hallucination" since any number of people may perceive such images). You pulled your car to a halt, but because it had moved, the the momentary illusion was lost. You saw no one on the marsh because there was no one to be seen. Almost immediately your memory played this dramatic but lightning fast event back for you, as it has many times since. Each time, you have retained not only the memory of the event but your memory of the memory--somewhat embellished by reduplicative error (this is the classic problem with the reliability of eye-witness testimony). At this point, you remember the experience and the image much more distinctly than the sudden two-second illusion that it was, and for which you were completely unprepared.

I

Pareidolia images relate to seeing faces, objects etc in cloud formations, ink blots, if you look long enough its possible to see The Man in the Moon. The figure we saw that night was standing half in the road, lit by full beam headlights, which makes your explanation seem even less likely than mine.
Bold Street in Liverpool where bookshops of 1996 change to 1950 clothes shops, both inside and out. That’s one of a hell of a Pareidolia image.

[Pompey Bum]

The figure we saw that night was standing half in the road, lit by full beam headlights, which makes your explanation seem even less likely than mine.

Oh on the contrary, headlights at night create an even more likely scenario for a pareidolic figure. But I have no desire to convince you. As I said before, you're the one who needs to make meaning of your own experience. Once again I wish you all the best.

[Carousel]

There’s only one way to reach any kind of a definitive conclusion and that is to experience the phenomena yourself, then only to know what it isn’t’ not what it is.

[YesNo]

My guess: any ONE SPECIFIC explanation for such an event is exceedingly UNLIKELY. There are thousands of possible explanations -- picking any one of them is merely making a wild guess. Obviously, the more general the explanation (there's a "natural" explanation, for example, as Pompey suggests, but without the specific details he suggests), the more likely it is to be at least somewhat correct.

I wonder what a "natural" explanation is. I think it involves explaining the experience (evidence) of ghosts as illusions. The goal of that explanation is to remove the evidence from consideration in determining what reality is about. The key point being to convince oneself that there was nothing conscious out there that generated the experience, because the underlying "natural" belief system assumes that nothing conscious can be out there.

So, according to the "natural" explanation, when I saw and talked to my aunt around the time she died, there was no consciousness out there talking to me, but it was all in my mind. No doubt my mind (and I don't mean neurons) was involved in my experience, but how do I know that "natural" explanation is "more likely"? Maybe she was there. She seemed real to me.

The problem is this. Who is more delusional, the one who saw the ghost or the one who refused to believe that the ghost the other person saw was real?

[Ecurb]

I wonder what a "natural" explanation is. I think it involves explaining the experience (evidence) of ghosts as illusions. The goal of that explanation is to remove the evidence from consideration in determining what reality is about. The key point being to convince oneself that there was nothing conscious out there that generated the experience, because the underlying "natural" belief system assumes that nothing conscious can be out there.

So, according to the "natural" explanation, when I saw and talked to my aunt around the time she died, there was no consciousness out there talking to me, but it was all in my mind. No doubt my mind (and I don't mean neurons) was involved in my experience, but how do I know that "natural" explanation is "more likely"? Maybe she was there. She seemed real to me.

The problem is this. Who is more delusional, the one who saw the ghost or the one who refused to believe that the ghost the other person saw was real?

Well, ONE natural explanation to Carousel's experience was "Pareidolia". There are, doubtless, dozens of others. I'm not sure what constitutes a "natural explanation" to talking to one's dying aunt-- but if you knew she was dying, you might have been more likely to think about her, or dream about her, or day dream about her.

It's a well known fact (or at least a well-established rumor) that no space ships were sighted before the possibility of space travel was established. It's likely that people saw the same things they see today, but interpret them within a conceptual framework with which they feel comfortable.

In general, the "evidence" is something you saw and heard -- to think of it as "evidence of ghosts" involves a conceptual framework that includes ghost stories. Without this framework, you might think of it as evidence of a hallucination, or evidence of something else. "Evidence" is always interpreted. My friend the sasquatch hunter claims he has seen a sasquatch (which is different, because nobody claims sasquatches are supernatural)). He saw it at night, peeking out from behind a tree, from about 50 yards away. Everyone knows that the woods at night are strange places, and we see dozens of things that disquiet us. If we are looking for sasquatches, we might see them.

Of course you don't know if the "natural explanation" is more likely than (what we now see as) a supernatural explanation. However, there are dozens of possible supernatural explanations, just as there are dozens of more natural explanations.

[Ecurb]

By way of clarification: dreams used to be considered "supernatural". Today, most people accept a more naturalistic explanation of dreams. The dreams are probably much the same as they were in the past; we just think about them in a different way.

[Pompey Bum]

I wonder what a "natural" explanation is.

My understanding is that a natural explanation is one consistent with naturalism, which is the materialist philosophical view that everything that exists arises from nature phenomena that can be (or could be, given adequate technology) demonstrated to exist using strictly empirical criteria. (That is why Darwin is often referred to as a naturalist, as opposed to a botanist, which is what he actually did for a living).

Not every naturalistic hypothesis, however, implies acceptance of a strictly naturalist or materialist viewpoint. I am not a materialist, for example, but choose to exhaust naturalistic explanations for phenomena that are perceived by the physical senses (as opposed, say, to a vision, or dream, or experience of gnosis). I also believe in God, something for which that I have no empirical evidence whatsoever.


I think it involves explaining the experience (evidence) of ghosts as illusions.

I suppose it could--or lies or heartfelt delusions. But again, not every naturalistic explanation arises from an exclusively naturalistic viewpoint. It would be wrong to tar all of those who don't believe in ghosts with the brush of exclusive materialism.


The goal of that explanation is to remove the evidence from consideration in determining what reality is about. The key point being to convince oneself that there was nothing conscious out there that generated the experience, because the underlying "natural" belief system assumes that nothing conscious can be out there.

At this point, I'm afraid you have lurched into a straw man argument. (It's really dicey to try to impute the motives of others). I certainly am not interested in "remov the evidence from consideration in determining what reality is about"--far from it! It does not follow that I do simply because I draw a distinction between sensory experience and gnostic experience. And it is frankly somewhat prejudiced to assume that all who may employ naturalistic hypotheses seek to do so. If I have misunderstood what you meant to say, then I apologize for that comment.


So, according to the "natural" explanation, when I saw and talked to my aunt around the time she died, there was no consciousness out there talking to me, but it was all in my mind.

A strict naturalist would surely say something of the sort. Philosophical naturalism excludes the spiritual. You can take that up Carousel, our resident materialist, but leave me out of it. I am not going to defend a philosophy that I do not share.


No doubt my mind (and I don't mean neurons) was involved in my experience, but how do I know that "natural" explanation is "more likely"? Maybe she was there. She seemed real to me.

Now you're talking. What makes you think that the [I]physical apparition of a ghostly revenant to your physical senses is more significant than an experience of the mind? True, that experience would not demonstrable to others, but did your auntie come to talk to you so that you could bear witness to others? Or was something more personal going on? If it was the latter, then who cares what the materialists think? And if it was the former, then welcome to religion. :)


The problem is this. Who is more delusional, the one who saw the ghost or the one who refused to believe that the ghost the other person saw was real?

Well I never said either one was delusional, did I? An optical illusion is not a mental delusion, and if my reconstruction of the Romney Marsh incident is correct, there was nothing delusional about what Carousel experienced.

I'm awfully sorry to hear about your auntie, by the way. I meant to say that in an earlier post, but I forgot. It sounds like she was important to you. (My mom, who died when I was 29, puts her arms around me all the time, by the way :) ). I'm also glad that Carousel and his wife were spared a serious accident. If it were me and my wife, I would consider that to have been the pertinent aspect of the experience. But we all must make our own meaning of our lives.

[Ecurb]

After my mother read "Treasure Island" to me as a young boy, I kept hearing Blind Pew's staff tap... tap... tapping down the street in front of my house. Does that count?

[Pompey Bum]

After my mother read "Treasure Island" to me as a young boy, I kept hearing Blind Pew's staff tap... tap... tapping down the street in front of my house. Does that count?

No, no. That was psychosis. :) (Even if I did sleep with garlic around my neck after reading Dracula at 12).

[ladderandbucket]

I've had a few dreams which seem to have contained premonitions of places which I would later visit, and of which I couldn't possibly have had any prior knowledge.

The first time I had this experience I was convinced something awful was going to happen. In fact all these 'premonitions' have been quite mundane.

I suppose it is possible that my mind is playing tricks on me, but my memory of the dreams has been very clear - I can remember dwelling on them before my real life experience - and the premonitory parts of the dream were often integral to the overall narrative. If my brain had fabricated these memories then it would mean that I can't trust anything that's going on in my head.

I guess in a contest between the laws of physics and my mental experience, physics holds the stronger position. But still, there's a lot of stuff we don't know yet. I think almost anything is possible.

[YesNo]

Well, ONE natural explanation to Carousel's experience was "Pareidolia". There are, doubtless, dozens of others. I'm not sure what constitutes a "natural explanation" to talking to one's dying aunt-- but if you knew she was dying, you might have been more likely to think about her, or dream about her, or day dream about her.

In the case of my aunt, I didn't know she was dying. She moved to Phoenix many years previously from Indiana and I was a grad student in Maine. My brother and I lived with her for some months when we were under 10 years old and I did not want to see her again. She treated us OK. I just didn't feel welcome. I was not thinking of her at all and she was not someone I would have expected to appear to me.



It's a well known fact (or at least a well-established rumor) that no space ships were sighted before the possibility of space travel was established. It's likely that people saw the same things they see today, but interpret them within a conceptual framework with which they feel comfortable.

Some people see "orbs" which are similar and are not related to space ships. I don't know much about them, but they make me think that space travel is not the cause of people seeing these bright, round things.



In general, the "evidence" is something you saw and heard -- to think of it as "evidence of ghosts" involves a conceptual framework that includes ghost stories. Without this framework, you might think of it as evidence of a hallucination, or evidence of something else. "Evidence" is always interpreted. My friend the sasquatch hunter claims he has seen a sasquatch (which is different, because nobody claims sasquatches are supernatural)). He saw it at night, peeking out from behind a tree, from about 50 yards away. Everyone knows that the woods at night are strange places, and we see dozens of things that disquiet us. If we are looking for sasquatches, we might see them.

I think I agree. Evidence is evidence "for" something. If one sees a ghost, then that is evidence "for the existence of ghosts". To say the evidence is an hallucination is to try to discredit the evidence for the existence of ghosts.

But that brings up the point I was trying to make. Who is delusional, the one who saw the ghost or the one who refuses to accept the evidence for their existence because it does not agree with their framework of what reality should look like?

In the case of ghosts, too many people have seen them. Some people see them more often than others and so much so that they can market their skills as mediums.



Of course you don't know if the "natural explanation" is more likely than (what we now see as) a supernatural explanation. However, there are dozens of possible supernatural explanations, just as there are dozens of more natural explanations.

My main point was that a "natural" explanation is one that does not involve consciousness. Natural explanations do not want to expand consciousness beyond what it has to accept because of our existences. A ghost is a form of consciousness. That is why it is rejected.

[YesNo]

Not every naturalistic hypothesis, however, implies acceptance of a strictly naturalist or materialist viewpoint. I am not a materialist, for example, but choose to exhaust naturalistic explanations for phenomena that are perceived by the physical senses (as opposed, say, to a vision, or dream, or experience of gnosis). I also believe in God, something for which that I have no empirical evidence whatsoever.


I am not trying to make a theistic argument. One could accept other forms of consciousness without involving theism which would imply some transcendent (outside space and time) consciousness. I would use Thomas Nagel's panpsychism as an example of a non-theistic approach to expanding consciousness beyond ourselves.




I suppose it could--or lies or heartfelt delusions. But again, not every naturalistic explanation arises from an exclusively naturalistic viewpoint. It would be wrong to tar all of those who don't believe in ghosts with the brush of exclusive materialism.

It is more of a challenge than a tarring. Many people have claimed to see ghosts. Some even claim to communicate in various ways with those who have died. After hearing these accounts, if one does not accept them, why not? The same would go for UFOs. Or Sasquatch.



At this point, I'm afraid you have lurched into a straw man argument. (It's really dicey to try to impute the motives of others). I certainly am not interested in "remov the evidence from consideration in determining what reality is about"--far from it! It does not follow that I do simply because I draw a distinction between sensory experience and gnostic experience. And it is frankly somewhat prejudiced to assume that all who may employ naturalistic hypotheses seek to do so. If I have misunderstood what you meant to say, then I apologize for that comment.

I don't know what you mean by "gnostic" experience.



A strict naturalist would surely say something of the sort. Philosophical naturalism excludes the spiritual. You can take that up Carousel, our resident materialist, but leave me out of it. I am not going to defend a philosophy that I do not share.

I think most of us are materialists, even those who are theists. Even myself. That is why I like these discussions. I want to become conscious of what I am assuming is true about reality in order to question it.



Now you're talking. What makes you think that the [I]physical apparition of a ghostly revenant to your physical senses is more significant than an experience of the mind? True, that experience would not demonstrable to others, but did your auntie come to talk to you so that you could bear witness to others? Or was something more personal going on? If it was the latter, then who cares what the materialists think? And if it was the former, then welcome to religion. :)


It was an experience of my mind. Just like looking at this computer is an experience of my mind.



Well I never said either one was delusional, did I? An optical illusion is not a mental delusion, and if my reconstruction of the Romney Marsh incident is correct, there was nothing delusional about what Carousel experienced.

Perhaps the distinction is like this. Seeing a ghost may be an "illusion" if the experience were false. If the experience were true, then those denying that experience because their view of reality insists such forms of consciousness are impossible would be suffering from a "delusion". Their ideas of what are real block them from seeing reality.



I'm awfully sorry to hear about your auntie, by the way. I meant to say that in an earlier post, but I forgot. It sounds like she was important to you. (My mom, who died when I was 29, puts her arms around me all the time, by the way :) ). I'm also glad that Carousel and his wife were spared a serious accident. If it were me and my wife, I would consider that to have been the pertinent aspect of the experience. But we all must make our own meaning of our lives.

The event happened decades ago. Thank you for your condolences, but I was not close to her. I don't know why she appeared.

[Pompey Bum]

I've had a few dreams which seem to have contained premonitions of places which I would later visit, and of which I couldn't possibly have had any prior knowledge.

The first time I had this experience I was convinced something awful was going to happen. In fact all these 'premonitions' have been quite mundane.

I suppose it is possible that my mind is playing tricks on me, but my memory of the dreams has been very clear - I can remember dwelling on them before my real life experience - and the premonitory parts of the dream were often integral to the overall narrative. If my brain had fabricated these memories then it would mean that I can't trust anything that's going on in my head.

Yes, I've had dreams that foretold future events. The most remarkable of those required some interpretation, but the interpretation proved accurate in a very short time (unfortunately).


I guess in a contest between the laws of physics and my mental experience, physics holds the stronger position. But still, there's a lot of stuff we don't know yet. I think almost anything is possible.

Perhaps. I have a tendency to keep the physical and the mental/spiritual in separate drawers. So if someone had a dream that produced the over-powering conviction that one's mother was terminally ill (as I did), and she was diagnosed with terminal-stage cancer within the month (as she was), I would prioritize a gnostic interpretation over a naturalistic one (although coincidence. which which I suppose would be the naturalistic explanation, would remain a possibility). On the other hand, If I perceived physical lights with my physical eyes in my physical back yard, (as I also did), then I would prioritize a naturalistic explanation for them, even if I did not know what caused them, and despite a dream on the same night in which a ghost crawled in bed with me. That's how I make meaning--at least so far.

But as I mentioned to yes/no, I am open minded to learning more about biocentrism, a theory proposed by Robert Lanza, the physician who pioneered stem cell science, that could change things. And just to clarify, I am open minded enough read Dr. Lanza's book, called Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, which I haven't read or even purchased yet. So I'm not advocating biocentrism. I may hate it as a theory--who knows?

At present, my understanding is that when Lanza's scientific reputation was at its height (he had gone from being a working class kid from Stoughton, Massachusetts to being called one of the three most important scientific thinkers alive by the New York Times), he proposed a radical paradigm shift in which physics would be removed from its now ascendant position and replaced with biology, correcting physics current "belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence." Rather, he claimed, the physical universe is a product of consciousness, and not, as current physics contends, the other way around.

On the surface, this sounds like mystical religion, but Lanza offers evidence for his claim, much apparently pertaining to paradoxes of physics. Some respected scientists got behind Lanza when he published--one even said something like, Yes, we've all sort of thought that, but no one's had the nerve to say it before. But the reaction of the entrenched physics community was, as you might imagine, explosively negative, and Lanza went from being a hero of science to--at least in the eyes of some--a traitor and a quack. Apparently no one likes to be told that his or her religion turns out to be full of sh*t.

This is a synopsis of Biocentrism, from an NBC WEBSITE:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31393080/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/biocentrism-how-life-creates-universe/

Let me emphasize that I do not fully understand Lanza's argument because I have not read his book yet (I have not even read the synopsis above, since I just found it). Also, as I told yes/no earlier, theoretical physics is not really my thing. Usually I stand back and let the Tyrannosaurus rexes (Tyrannosauri reges?) of science duke it out for themselves. But in this case, I may make an exception. I love a rebel, especially one from Massachusetts. :)

[YesNo]

This is a synopsis of Biocentrism, from an NBC WEBSITE:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31393080/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/biocentrism-how-life-creates-universe/

Let me emphasize that I do not fully understand Lanza's argument because I have not read his book yet (I have not even read the synopsis above, since I just found it). Also, as I told yes/no earlier, theoretical physics is not really my thing. Usually I stand back and let the Tyrannosaurus rexes (Tyrannosauri reges?) of science duke it out for themselves. But in this case, I may make an exception. I love a rebel, especially one from Massachusetts. :)

I love rebels as well, even if I don't completely agree with them. I like Thomas Nagel, for example, and Rupert Sheldrake. Thanks for bringing Robert Lanza to my attention.

Overall, I agree with what he has to say. Here would be one question that I have: If we create the universe by our individual observations, why do we see a similar universe as others do? Or, to phrase this differently, if the universe is our private dream, why does it sync so well with the private dreams of others around us?

George Berkeley uses this to justify the existence of a transcendent consciousness who keeps the universe consistent. I think Berkeley is right, but I don't know how Lanza deals with the problem of solipsism.

[Pompey Bum]

I am not trying to make a theistic argument. One could accept other forms of consciousness without involving theism which would imply some transcendent (outside space and time) consciousness.

No, I didn't mean to suggest that you were. I was just using the case of my faith in God as a example of how a non-materialist can still employ naturalistic arguments. It doesn't make you an exclusive materialist.


I would use Thomas Nagel's panpsychism as an example of a non-theistic approach to expanding consciousness beyond ourselves.

Okay, sure. Dr. Nagel himself might look out across his little faculty front yard at NYU one day, throw his hands up and cry out, "Oh the trash is all over the driveway! That damned corgi from next door must have been at it again!"--a perfectly naturalistic explanation that doesn't compromise his panpsychism in the least. (Personally I'd compliment him for not going straight for a poltergeist. :) )


Many people have claimed to see ghosts. Some even claim to communicate in various ways with those who have died. After hearing these accounts, if one does not accept them, why not? The same would go for UFOs. Or Sasquatch.

Because people can be mistaken about what they see, as the man who reported the first "flying saucer" later insisted he was. And people also lie, as the man responsible for the famous Loch Ness monster photograph later confessed to be doing; as the man responsible for the famous bigfoot video of my youth later confessed to be doing; and as the little girls who snookered Sir Arthur Conan Doyle into thinking that they hung out with fairies also later confessed to be doing.

If making a claim in itself constituted an established fact, then we could all go back to the days of King John's England where human rights are concerned. Jews would have horns and blacks would have tails just because someone said so. If a student claimed that a teacher had raped him or her in a satanic ritual with local parents, then that would just settle the matter. If white supremacist claimed that he had seen a black neighbor molesting his daughter, that would settle it, too. And if a rapist claimed that a victim had begged her to play along with a secret rape fantasy, that claim would be sufficient to exonerate him.

You get the picture. A claim in itself does not establish a fact, especially when it is not otherwise substantiated (and sometimes when it is--there was photographic evidence for all the frauds I mentioned in the previous paragraph). And it doesn't matter how many people make the claim, how heartfelt their claims seem to be, or what their reputations are. Lots of people claimed that Jews had horns and blacks had tails (photographic evidence based on birth defects was even circulated for the latter claim). The Loch Ness photo hoax was perpetuated by a doctor, the man who actually took the Bigfoot (big?-)footage was innocent of the hoax and spent the rest of his life earnestly claiming that he was telling the truth (which he was--but the guy in the monkey suit wasn't). And the Cottingley fairies hoax was fronted by a beloved (and deluded) British author, and two innocent looking girls who just couldn't be lying.

As I wrote the above paragraph, I kept thinking about the Salem/Danvers (Massachusetts) witch accusations of 1692-1693, in which 20 people, mostly women, some elderly or handicapped, were executed; while many more were imprisoned under inhuman conditions, because of the uncorroborated claims of a handful of teenage girls. The girls uttered strange sounds and contorted their bodies, claiming that the specters of those they were accusing of witchcraft were pinching them and pricking them with pins (even though the individuals were elsewhere). At first the girls went for local weirdos no one liked, then family enemies, and finally anyone they felt like destroying. Later, as adults, they confessed that they had concocted the entire humbug from the beginning. Then there is the blood libel against Jews, endless harmful stereotypes of various ethnic groups (and women), and the terrors of political denunciations. Not every claim is harmless, and a degree of skepticism, it seems to me, is a healthy thing.


I don't know what you mean by "gnostic" experience.

Oh sorry. When I use that term, at least in this context, I mean a profound experience of knowledge unmediated by normal rational thought or language. It's hard to describe if you haven't experienced it yourself, but it's what rational thought or language makes an attempt to articulate. Gnostic experience a direct connection--that's the best way I can describe it. It's only happened to me three (or maybe four) times: when I was 29, when I was around 7, when I was probably around 5, and possibly during my baptism, although it is very difficult to be sure about the last one. The part of the brain that stores memory isn't very well developed in infancy (Freud turns out to have been a total wanker), although I was not actually baptized until I was 3. I retain the experience, though.


I think most of us are materialists, even those who are theists. Even myself. That is why I like these discussions. I want to become conscious of what I am assuming is true about reality in order to question it.

Thanks. I like these discussions, too. But when I said materialist, I meant an exclusive materialist--a naturalist. You are not one of those and neither am I.


It was an experience of my mind. Just like looking at this computer is an experience of my mind.

Maybe Lanza can convince me.


Perhaps the distinction is like this. Seeing a ghost may be an "illusion" if the experience were false.

It would be an illusion if it was false because it was an illusion; it would be a delusion (or at least a mistake) if the illusion were taken for real; and it would be a lie if the illusion were seen through but nevertheless inspired a false claim, or if there was no illusion at all, just a fabrication.


If the experience were true, then those denying that experience because their view of reality insists such forms of consciousness are impossible would be suffering from a "delusion".

Or at least a mistake--if it were true about the ghost. But in that case it would also be a mistake for those who denied the experience for reasons other than an insistence that "such forms of consciousness are impossible"--those, for example, did not credit the testimony, but might have been convinced by more compelling evidence. They would not be deluded--just skeptical.


Their ideas of what are real block them from seeing reality.

But that only works, of course, where "reality" is consistent with their actually being a ghost. How would you know that the claim was true? (You sure sound like a theist to me! :) )

And again, this is a tautology and gets us nowhere. It just means that those who insist that such forms of consciousness are impossible have ideas that preclude such ideas. A is A. We already knew that.


The event happened decades ago. Thank you for your condolences, but I was not close to her. I don't know why she appeared.

You're welcome. And yes, I remember now that you said something of the sort earlier. Still it must have been meaningful for you as a kind of--apology? You would think they'd be lined up and down the streets to talk to me. :)

[Carousel]

I once had similar convictions until an encounter changed my mind, then my self taught explanations seemed to fit no explanation at all.

[YesNo]

Because people can be mistaken about what they see, as the man who reported the first "flying saucer" later insisted he was. And people also lie, as the man responsible for the famous Loch Ness monster photograph later confessed to be doing; as the man responsible for the famous bigfoot video of my youth later confessed to be doing; and as the little girls who snookered Sir Arthur Conan Doyle into thinking that they hung out with fairies also later confessed to be doing.

If making a claim in itself constituted an established fact, then we could all go back to the days of King John's England where human rights are concerned. Jews would have horns and blacks would have tails just because someone said so. If a student claimed that a teacher had raped him or her in a satanic ritual with local parents, then that would just settle the matter. If white supremacist claimed that he had seen a black neighbor molesting his daughter, that would settle it, too. And if a rapist claimed that a victim had begged her to play along with a secret rape fantasy, that claim would be sufficient to exonerate him.

You get the picture. A claim in itself does not establish a fact, especially when it is not otherwise substantiated (and sometimes when it is--there was photographic evidence for all the frauds I mentioned in the previous paragraph). And it doesn't matter how many people make the claim, how heartfelt their claim seems, or what their reputation may be. Lots of people claimed that Jews had horns and blacks had tails (photographic evidence based on birth defects was even circulated for the latter claim). The Loch Ness photo hoax was perpetuated by a doctor, the man who actually took the Bigfoot (big?-)footage was innocent of the hoax and spent the rest of his life earnestly claiming that he was telling the truth (which he was--but the guy in the monkey suit wasn't). And the Cottingly fairies hoax was fronted by a beloved (and deluded) British author, and two innocent looking girls who just couldn't be lying.

As I wrote the above paragraph, I kept thinking about the Salem/Danvers (Massachusetts) witch accusations of 1692-1693, in which 20 people, mostly women, and some elderly or handicapped, were executed; while many more were imprisoned under inhuman conditions, because of the uncorroborated claims of a handful of teenage girls. The girls uttered strange sounds and contorted their bodies, claiming that the specters of those they were accusing of witchcraft were pinching them and pricking them with pins (even though the individuals were elsewhere). At first the girls went for local weirdos no one liked, then family enemies, and finally anyone they felt like destroying. Later, as adults, they confessed that they had concocted the entire humbug from the beginning. Then there is the blood libel against Jews, endless harmful stereotypes of various ethnic groups (and women), and the terrors of political denunciations. Not every claim is harmless, and a degree of skepticism, it seems to me, is a healthy thing.

People can be mistaken or deceitful and skepticism has its place.




Oh sorry. When I use that term, at least in this context, I mean a profound experience of knowledge unmediated by normal rational thought language. It's hard to describe if you haven't experienced it yourself, but it's what rational thought or language makes an attempt to articulate. Gnostic experience a direct connection--that's the best way I can describe it. It's only happened to me three (or maybe four times): when I was 29, when I was around 7, when I was probably around 5, and possibly during my baptism, although it is very difficult to be sure about the last one. The part of the brain that stores memory isn't very well developed in infancy (Freud turns out to have been a total wanker), although I was not actually baptized until I was 3. I retain the experience, though.

I don't think I've ever had a gnostic experience.



Thanks. I like these discussions, too. But when I said materialist, I meant an exclusive materialist--a naturalist. You are not one of those and neither am I.

You sound more like a Cartesian dualist. I would be an idealist like George Berkeley.

After quantum physics and relativity sunk in, other philosophies of mind tried to save what they could of materialism by questioning reductionism or adding mind to matter in some way. I see Nagel's attempt as one of these. I don't think it works, but I may not understand it.

One thing to note is that if materialism is gone so is dualism since it accepts materialism as part of the explanation.



But that only works, of course, where "reality" is consistent with their actually being a ghost. How would you know that the claim was true? (You sure sound like a theist to me! :) )

I would be a generic panentheist. Examples of panentheism would be traditional judeo-christo-islamic-hindu religions. Probably more ancient religions were panentheistic as well. I don't have a favorite one. They all work for me.

I think one can show that such a theism is correct using Berkeley's arguments which received scientific confirmation by relativity and quantum physics.


EDIT: I found a copy of Lanza's "Biocentrcism". I like this line from page 4: "The universe is like a watch that somehow wound itself and that, allowing for a degree of quantum randomness, will unwind in a semi-predictable way." I agree with him that that watch metaphor is getting tiring.

[Pompey Bum]

You sound more like a Cartesian dualist.


So, according to the "natural" explanation, when I saw and talked to my aunt around the time she died, there was no consciousness out there talking to me, but it was all in my mind. No doubt my mind (and I don't mean neurons) was involved in my experience, but how do I know that "natural" explanation is "more likely"?

Same church, different pew? :)


I would be an idealist like George Berkeley.

Berkeley's views are immaterial! :)

Just kidding. Yes, I am a gnostic dualist and you are a subjective idealist. But didn't Berkeley believe that spirits cannot be perceived by us except through their effect, upon inward reflection, on our subject consciousness (our ideas)? And wasn't that more or less what I was saying about your auntie?


After quantum physics and relativity sunk in, other philosophies of mind tried to save what they could of materialism by questioning reductionism or adding mind to matter in some way. I see Nagel's attempt as one of these. I don't think it works, but I may not understand it.

All I know about Nagel is that he teaches at NYU. So I told you about Lanza and you told me about Nagel. Thank you. Even my nieces aren't going to do that well for Christmas.


One thing to note is that if materialism is gone so is dualism since it accepts materialism as part of the explanation.

Perhaps, but I don't think we're quite there yet. As religious radicals go, I guess that makes me a moderate. Faith is a fine invention for gentlemen who see/But microscopes are prudent in an emergency. I don't know how Lanza handles it, but I don't think Berkeley denied the existence of physical objects, just their significance to metaphysics. That is not necessarily inconsistent with my sort of dualism (the gnostic Christian variety). They can throw you to the lions, break you on the wheel, torture you for years. That is all real, and it matters terribly for now, but in the much larger picture it shrinks to insignificance.

That is an non-Orthodox but still faith-oriented position; but the truth is that the secular/materialist view isn't very different. With the certain obliteration of each human being and the ultimate extinction of humankind, human suffering and death also shrink to insignificance in the 5 billion years until the sun expands. And think of the human suffering and death (and hopes and joys) that are lost in the millions of years of prehistory that constitute more than 90% of human experience on this planet.

That's an aside, I suppose. Destroy materialism ("no one will miss it," to take Berkeley a little out of context), and we can talk about abandoning dualism. :)


I would be a generic panentheist.

Interesting. So you would look for theos pervading the matter of the universe where I would look for zoe (psyche?) imprisoned in the matter--or perhaps just at school for a term. How do you reconcile that position with subjective idealism? If matter doesn't exist in a really significant way, then would divinity really pervade it? Perhaps we'll both need a new religion if materialism goes the way of lava lamps and the bustle. :)


Examples of panentheism would be traditional judeo-christo-islamic-hindu religions.

Well, traditional Christianity is a problematic concept (to say the least); so is traditional Judaism. I don't really know enough about Islam or Hindu religions to offer much of an opinion. (In the case of Hinduism, I assume you are referring to Brahman--but is that a case of panentheism or pantheism?)


Probably more ancient religions were panentheistic as well. I don't have a favorite one. They all work for me.

I suppose it depends what you consider ancient. Christian traditions that emphasized a sharp distinction between the Creator and the created (as in some aspects Eastern Orthodoxy) were panentheistic. It was supposed to be part of the whole Nicene package, but Christian theologians were always trying to fudge the difference, especially in the West where the Church (Catholic or Reformed) became hyper-involved in secular affairs. Some of the pre-Nicene Christian traditions had panentheistic elements, too, but our knowledge of them is limited because the Nicene Christians torched most of their writings. Bahai is pretty panentheistic, but then again it's pretty modern. Were you thinking of any ancient religions in particular?


I think one can show that such a theism is correct using Berkeley's arguments which received scientific confirmation by relativity and quantum physics.


George Berkeley uses this to justify the existence of a transcendent consciousness who keeps the universe consistent. I think Berkeley is right, but I don't know how Lanza deals with the problem of solipsism.

I'd be interested to hear that argument. My understanding is that Berkeley attempted to solve the problem you asked about Lanza's ideas, namely:


If we create the universe by our individual observations, why do we see a similar universe as others do? Or, to phrase this differently, if the universe is our private dream, why does it sync so well with the private dreams of others around us?

...and suggested that because the other minds/spirits that we perceive through their effects on us show such a commonality of purpose that we are drawn to recognize what you have called a "transcendent consciousness," which is in some way their source. But I don't know Berkeley nearly as well as I should (many universes have imploded since I studied him), so I probably have it wrong. How would you make an argument for theism using Berkeley/Quantum?

[YesNo]

Same church, different pew? :)

Yeah, that's one way of putting it.


Just kidding. Yes, I am a gnostic dualist and you are a subjective idealist. But didn't Berkeley believe that spirits cannot be perceived by us except through their effect, upon inward reflection, on our subject consciousness (our ideas)? And wasn't that more or less what I was saying about your auntie?

The spirits are what manifest the world around us when we aren't doing it ourselves.




All I know about Nagel is that he teaches at NYU. So I told you about Lanza and you told me about Nagel. Thank you. Even my nieces aren't going to do that well for Christmas.

I've read over half of Lanza's book and I think Rupert Sheldrake may be more relevant, not that Lanza's book isn't refreshing in its own way.



Perhaps, but I don't think we're quite there yet. As religious radicals go, I guess that makes moderate. Faith is a fine invention for gentlemen who see/But microscopes are prudent in an emergency. I don't know how Lanza handles it, but I don't think Berkeley. Denied the existence of physical objects, just their significance to metaphysics. That is not necessarily inconsistent with my sort of dualism (the gnostic Christian variety). They can throw you to the lions, break you on the wheel, torture you for years. That is all real, and it matters terribly for now, but in the much larger picture it shrinks to insignificance.

The only dualism that would be undermined if materialism were discredited is Cartesian dualism: we have minds; everything else is a materialistic machine--at least that is how I see that form of dualism.



That is an non-Orthodox but still faith-oriented position; but the truth is that the secular/materialist view isn't very different. With the certain obliteration of each human being and the ultimate extinction of humankind, human suffering and death also shrink to insignificance in the 5 billion years until the sun expands. And think of the human suffering and death (and hopes and joys) that are lost in the millions of years of prehistory that constitute more than 90% of human experience on this planet.

That's an aside, I suppose. Destroy materialism ("no one will miss it," to take Berkeley a little out of context), and we can talk about abandoning dualism. :)

For Berkeley, the world is out there. It's real. It's just not there because of some unconscious material substance that gives it existence, but it exists as the dream of a divinity who keeps it going. If there were no mind making it up, it would not exist.



Interesting. So you would look for theos pervading the matter of the universe where I would look for zoe (psyche?) imprisoned in the matter--or perhaps just at school for a term. How do you reconcile that position with subjective idealism? If matter doesn't exist in a really significant way, then would divinity really pervade it? Perhaps we'll both need a new religion if materialism goes the way of lava lamps and the bustle. :)

If zoe is imprisioned in unconscious matter, then we would have a difference of opinion. My idealism is not subjective. The world is out there for everyone to enjoy or run experiments on, if that suits them.




Well, traditional Christianity is a problematic concept (to say the least); so is traditional Judaism. I don't really know enough about Islam or Hindu religions to offer much of an opinion. (In the case of Hinduism, I assume you are referring to Brahman--but is that a case of panentheism or pantheism?)

I don't know that much about all of these religions, but I don't want to exclude anyone. I think of those Hindu deities like I think of Catholic saints or angels. Reciting a mantra to Saraswati would be like reciting a prayer to Saint Francis, or paying homage to a Greek muse.



I suppose it depends what you consider ancient. Christian traditions that emphasized a sharp distinction between the Creator and the created (as in some aspects Eastern Orthodoxy) were panentheistic. It was supposed to be part of the whole Nicene package, but Christian theologians were always trying to fudge the difference, especially in the West where the Church (Catholic or Reformed) became hyper-involved in secular affairs. Some of the pre-Nicene Christian traditions had panentheistic elements, too, but our knowledge of them is limited because the Nicene Christians torched most of their writings. Bahai is pretty panentheistic, but then again it's pretty modern. Were you thinking of any ancient religions in particular?

I heard that about Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I wasn't thinking of any ancient religion in particular.



How would you make an argument for theism using Berkeley/Quantum?

I would use Berkeley's observation that everything we perceive is an "idea" or perception that we have. It requires a mind to perceive. There is nothing unconscious underlying what we perceive since only a mind can experience something.

Locke would have said that there is something out there that is unconscious that gives it properties such as extension or length that are independent of any observer. Einstein later said that such extension depends on our frame of reference, so even that is part of a mind's experience. Furthermore with quantum physics, there is no underlying material substance since we can choose to observe quantum stuff and get two contradictory conclusions about what it was prior to the observation: was it a particle or a wave?

Berkeley insists the world is out there. That is what drives his conclusion that there must be some mind that manifests the world like we would manifest a dream state. We don't manifest the universe so that it stays consistent even when we are not paying attention to it. Since the universe is there, there must be a Mind manifesting it.

That's the argument as I understand it. Berkeley had the whole thing in place hundreds of years ago. Einstein confirmed that things like extension are really relative and not part of the unobserved object. Quantum physics confirmed that there is no unconscious material substance. The only question that remains is whether the world is really out there. If it is, then Berkeley's conclusion of the existence of a deity that dreams that world follows. If it is not, it probably doesn't matter.

[YesNo]

I finished Lanza's "Biocentricism". Although I liked the way he presented the double slit experiments, his position appears to be a form of solipsism. I will have to keep it in mind as an example of how some people might interpret the quantum enigmas.

I would be looking for something more substantial. The universe is real. It is just not made out of some unconscious material substance.

[Pompey Bum]

I've read over half of Lanza's book and I think Rupert Sheldrake may be more relevant, not that Lanza's book isn't refreshing in its own way.

I've looked over the NBC synopsis, but I probably won't buy the book until my next big Amazon haul in January (after my brothers' mechanical but appreciated forking over of their Christmas gift cards). One of the reasons I haven't bought Biocentrism until now is that it's only 200 pages. I budget my book money (or else I'd spend everything), and I sometimes feel--rationally or not--that I'm wasting my money on a book that short. (Okay, I'm a miser).

I have dug out good ol' volume 37 of The Harvard Classics series, though (well, the cyber version), which gives a representative sampling of Berkeley, Locke, and Hume. It's been a lot of fun to thumb through it and remember some of this stuff.


The only dualism that would be undermined if materialism were discredited is Cartesian dualism: we have minds; everything else is a materialistic machine--at least that is how I see that form of dualism.

Thanks. I had a classical education, so I tend to see everything through the lens of the ancient world. The distinction between Cartesian dualism and some parts of Stoicism sometimes gets a little hazy to me. (I figured Descartes just got fed up with religious baggage during the Thirty Years War and tried to produce a "cleaner" version of what Augustine had Christianized). But your explanation helps.


For Berkeley, the world is out there. It's real. It's just not there because of some unconscious material substance that gives it existence, but it exists as the dream of a divinity who keeps it going. If there were no mind making it up, it would not exist.

Sounds Hindu. But who dreams the dreamer? Is that our job? Or is it turtles right on down. :)


I don't know that much about all of these religions, but I don't want to exclude anyone. I think of those Hindu deities like I think of Catholic saints or angels. Reciting a mantra to Saraswati would be like reciting a prayer to Saint Francis, or paying homage to a Greek muse.

I suppose one could do that to some extent, although a more in-depth look would reveal some limits. Duty, for example, is a major ethical component of Hinduism, including rather strict attention to ritual as a matter of piety. So a Hindu prayer to Saraswati (depending obviously on the context) might be somewhat similar to an Ave Maria or Pater Noster being liturgically recited, but it probably wouldn't have much in common with the spontaneous prayers favored by many Protestant denominations; and it would be a world away from Homer or Hesiod inviting the Muse to possess their bodies. (They definitely told us not to do that sort of thing in confirmation class). :)


If zoe is imprisioned in unconscious matter, then we would have a difference of opinion.

And that's because the matter is produced by subject consciousnesses or by an all-pervasive Universal Mind when the subject consciousnesses are busy?

I don't know if I buy that completely, but I do feel I understand it better now. For one thing, I will insist that Divinity pervading matter and matter itself are not the same thing (in other words, I can accept panentheism but not pantheism). You seem to agree by your use of the term "panentheism," but I'm unclear whether you cross the line in asserting:


The spirits are what manifest the world around us when we aren't doing it ourselves.

For the sake of clarification:

1) Are you suggesting that subject consciousnesses ("the spirits") and the Universal Mind share a nature (physis)? (In other words, is the soul a spark of the Divine?)

2) Are you suggesting that the subject consciousnesses and the Universal Mind (or just the Universal Mind) and physical matter share a nature (physis)? In other words, is the Divine not only everywhere and beyond (panentheism) but everything and beyond as well?

I may not object if the answer to the first question is yes. That's Valentinian gnosticism, more or less, and I am at least open to it. I do suspect that you (and Berkeley) are venturing a bit into the realm of speculative theology (I'm one to talk), but I don't reject the notion per se (as Orthodox Christians certainly would do).

But I get off the boat if the answer to the second question is yes. That is not because of religious doctrine (which I make up as I go along), nor from any intolerance of pantheists, but because pantheism ignores the problem of evil. Soldiers rape women because (in the view of Scottish historian and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson) of a procreative instinct produced by the particular evolution of the Homo genus. Cells reproduce incorrectly and children get cancer of their blood and kidneys. American Cowbirds prey on the maternal instinct of other birds by laying eggs in their nests, then flying off. Their offspring kill the birds real chicks, then remain, parasite-like, through their early adulthoods, while the deluded mothers instinctively bring them food. One day, they just fly off, too. A species of wasp lays it's eggs in the bodies of caterpillars. When the larva hatch, they devour their foster mothers from the inside out. Infectious diseases prey on children and the elderly first, clearing the way for the physically fit. Homo antecessor, the first known human beings in Europe, cannibalized the children and young teenagers of rival bands, despite an abundance of food that they were also accessing. Chimps do the same thing today. All life must kill (or have someone else kill) or starve. As Darwin famously reflected: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature." And as Hitler commented to Eva Braun, "Nature is cruel so I must be cruel."

That is not my God, Yes/No. The God of Love and Justice is not identifiable with the physics and chemistry that produce the biology of natural selection, and the trophic pyramid. That god may or may not be the ruling power of the material cosmos (I am inclined to think the former), but it is not Divinity. God's presence may be limitless (at least in potentia) but that does not mean that all things are God.


I heard that about Eastern Orthodoxy as well.

Well even in the West making the "error" of worshipping the created rather than the Creator would have got you burned at the stake at various times in history. As a heretic Christian myself (to talk the Orthodox talk), it's not important to me as a point of dogma, but as a point of religious scruple, the distinction is the reason I am able to share some aspects of my wife's Buddhism with her, but almost none of my brother-in-law's animistic Taoism with him (despite my fondness for the pre-Buddhist Sun Wukong as a literary metaphor; and Sun Wukong in general--he's a hoot!) The same goes for all nature religions: sometimes cool, sometimes enchanting, but not for real, not for me.


I would use Berkeley's observation that everything we perceive is an "idea" or perception that we have. It requires a mind to perceive. There is nothing unconscious underlying what we perceive since only a mind can experience something.

Okay. I'll spare you objections about the unconscious mind since we've already established that Freud was a total wanker. :) But your religious metaphor of Divinity dreaming does seem a little strange in this context. (Can't even God get some shy eye? :) ) But okay, I'm following you so far.


Locke would have said that there is something out there that is unconscious that gives it properties such as extension or length that are independent of any observer. Einstein later said that such extension depends on our frame of reference, so even that is part of a mind's experience. Furthermore with quantum physics, there is no underlying material substance since we can choose to observe quantum stuff and get two contradictory conclusions about what it was prior to the observation: was it a particle or a wave?

Berkeley insists the world is out there. That is what drives his conclusion that there must be some mind that manifests the world like we would manifest a dream state. We don't manifest the universe so that it stays consistent even when we are not paying attention to it. Since the universe is there, there must be a Mind manifesting it.

An unconscious mind, right? A dreaming mind. God is asleep at the wheel. You know, theologically that would explain a lot. :) I kind of like it, actually. God's not dead, he's just nodded off. :)


That's the argument as I understand it. Berkeley had the whole thing in place hundreds of years ago. Einstein confirmed that things like extension are really relative and not part of the unobserved object. Quantum physics confirmed that there is no unconscious material substance. The only question that remains is whether the world is really out there. If it is, then Berkeley's conclusion of the existence of a deity that dreams that world follows. If it is not, it probably doesn't matter.

Thank you. I still have concerns about the problem of evil, and I am still a gnostic dualist, but I am (seriously) delighted to hear that the lonely redoubt of my faith may receive reinforcements from some of those who lately besieged it. You have convinced me that God exists. Congratulations! :)

[YesNo]

I've looked over the NBC synopsis, but I probably won't buy the book until my next big Amazon haul in January (after my brothers' mechanical but appreciated forking over of their Christmas gift cards). One of the reasons I haven't bought Biocentrism until now is that it's only 200 pages. I budget my book money (or else I'd spend everything), and I sometimes feel--rationally or not--that I'm wasting my money on a book that short. (Okay, I'm a miser).

It is probably not worth buying the book. I think the point is his claim that biology needs to be primary in any theory of everything and physics is not able to incorporate consciousness into its unconscious particle and waves. I agree with that, but I would like to know how biocentricism works any better rather than just an account that physics doesn't work.

The biologist's reduction of everything to genes and neurons doesn't work either. There are too many things genes and neurons can't account for such as the paranormal phenomena we are discussing in this thread. Specifically, when we look at someone, there is clearly stuff happening in our brain, but does it stop there? Some people get a sense that they are being watched. What causes that? To explain that there must exist not only the waves coming into our brains, but a wave going back out from our minds associated with our intentionality (consciousness).

This wave going back out would likely be rejected by someone like Lanza, but if he insists that physics must accept consciousness, whatever replaces physics must accept telepathic phenomena associated with consciousness.

I found a copy in one of the local libraries I can borrow from. This site may be adequate to understanding biocentricism, but I haven't looked at all the videos: http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/



I have dug out good ol' volume 37 of The Harvard Classics series, though (well, the cyber version), which gives a representative sampling of Berkeley, Locke, and Hume. It's been a lot of fun to thumb through it and remember some of this stuff.

I have some copies of these works also, but most of them are freely downloadable to a Kindle app.



Thanks. I had a classical education, so I tend to see everything through the lens of the ancient world. The distinction between Cartesian dualism and some parts of Stoicism sometimes gets a little hazy to me. (I figured Descartes just got fed up with religious baggage during the Thirty Years War and tried to produce a "cleaner" version of what Augustine had Christianized). But your explanation helps.

You probably know more about this than I do.




Sounds Hindu. But who dreams the dreamer? Is that our job? Or is it turtles right on down. :)

I saw the reference to dreaming in Berkeley and so used the idea. Once one has an eternal dreamer there is no need to go further. If the universe were eternal there would be no need to question what happened before it or to bring up a deity. However, the universe does not appear to be eternal so the whole question of what started it comes up.




I suppose one could do that to some extent, although a more in-depth look would reveal some limits. Duty, for example, is a major ethical component of Hinduism, including rather strict attention to ritual as a matter of piety. So a Hindu prayer to Saraswati (depending obviously on the context) might be somewhat similar to an Ave Maria or Pater Noster being liturgically recited, but it probably wouldn't have much in common with the spontaneous prayers favored by many Protestant denominations; and it would be a world away from Homer or Hesiod inviting the Muse to possess their bodies. (They definitely told us not to do that sort of thing in confirmation class). :)

There probably are many differences between these religions. I don't understand most of them. If one is in a particular religion, one should follow the practices of that religion, however, I think people in various different religions may be just as well off. They have a different cultural perspective.




And that's because the matter is produced by subject consciousnesses or by an all-pervasive Universal Mind when the subject consciousnesses are busy?

That's how I see it. Now if the stuff we see is not really out there, then one could have solipsism because only my mind matters and you and I and everyone else would be "one" creating the world. I think that is what Lanza tries to argue, but it gets too mystical for me although I agree with a lot that he has to say.



I don't know if I buy that completely, but I do feel I understand it better now. For one thing, I will insist that Divinity pervading matter and matter itself are not the same thing (in other words, I can accept panentheism but not pantheism). You seem to agree by your use of the term "panentheism," but I'm unclear whether you cross the line in asserting:



For the sake of clarification:

1) Are you suggesting that subject consciousnesses ("the spirits") and the Universal Mind share a nature (physis)? (In other words, is the soul a spark of the Divine?)

2) Are you suggesting that the subject consciousnesses and the Universal Mind (or just the Universal Mind) and physical matter share a nature (physis)? In other words, is the Divine not only everywhere and beyond (panentheism) but everything and beyond as well?

I may not object if the answer to the first question is yes. That's Valentinian gnosticism, more or less, and I am at least open to it. I do suspect that you (and Berkeley) are venturing a bit into the realm of speculative theology (I'm one to talk), but I don't reject the notion per se (as Orthodox Christians certainly would do).

But I get off the boat if the answer to the second question is yes. That is not because of religious doctrine (which I make up as I go along), nor from any intolerance of pantheists, but because pantheism ignores the problem of evil. Soldiers rape women because (in the view of Scottish historian and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson) of a procreative instinct produced by the particular evolution of the Homo genus. Cells reproduce incorrectly and children get cancer of their blood and kidneys. American Cowbirds prey on the maternal instinct of other birds by laying eggs in their nests, then flying off. Their offspring kill the birds real chicks, then remain, parasite-like, through their early adulthoods, while the deluded mothers instinctively bring them food. One day, they just fly off, too. A species of wasp lays it's eggs in the bodies of caterpillars. When the larva hatch, they devour their foster mothers from the inside out. Infectious diseases prey on children and the elderly first, clearing the way for the physically fit. Homo antecessor, the first known human beings in Europe, cannibalized the children and young teenagers of rival bands, despite an abundance of food that they were also accessing. Chimps do the same thing today. All life must kill (or have someone else kill) or starve. As Darwin famously reflected: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature." And as Hitler commented to Eva Braun, "Nature is cruel so I must be cruel."

That is not my God, Yes/No. The God of Love and Justice is not identifiable with the physics and chemistry that produce the biology of natural selection, and the trophic pyramid. That god may or may not be the ruling power of the material cosmos (I am inclined to think the former), but it is not Divinity. God's presence may be limitless (at least in potentia) but that does not mean that all things are God.

I don't accept pantheism either. It seems like you have a better understanding of the consequences of these positions.

For (2), I see there being forms of consciousness that have enough freedom to mess things up. That is where the evil comes from. Ultimately, the universe and the Universal Mind are good. My assumptions are (a) some freedom exists, (b) the universe is good and (c) the Universal Mind is good and personal.




Well even in the West making the "error" of worshipping the created rather than the Creator would have got you burned at the stake at various times in history. As a heretic Christian myself (to talk the Orthodox talk), it's not important to me as a point of dogma, but as a point of religious scruple, the distinction is the reason I am able to share some aspects of my wife's Buddhism with her, but almost none of my brother-in-law's animistic Taoism with him (despite my fondness for the pre-Buddhist Sun Wukong as a literary metaphor; and Sun Wukong in general--he's a hoot!) The same goes for all nature religions: sometimes cool, sometimes enchanting, but not for real, not for me.

I read a good part of Journey to the West. My favorite chapter is the one telling of Sun Wukong standing in God's palm claiming he can escape.




Okay. I'll spare you objections about the unconscious mind since we've already established that Freud was a total wanker. :) But your religious metaphor of Divinity dreaming does seem a little strange in this context. (Can't even God get some shy eye? :) ) But okay, I'm following you so far.


An unconscious mind, right? A dreaming mind. God is asleep at the wheel. You know, theologically that would explain a lot. :) I kind of like it, actually. God's not dead, he's just nodded off. :)

I don't think Mind can be unconscious. Our minds, limited by our bodies' abilities to make us aware, just lack full awareness of what we know.



Thank you. I still have concerns about the problem of evil, and I am still a gnostic dualist, but I am (seriously) delighted to hear that the lonely redoubt of my faith may receive reinforcements from some of those who lately besieged it. You have convinced me that God exists. Congratulations! :)

I don't see any way around the existence of God. I don't know much about the various religious positions people have. I assume too quickly they are all the same.

[Pompey Bum]

I saw the reference to dreaming in Berkeley and so used the idea.

As I said before, I am no expert on Hinduism, but the dreaming deity sounds like Lord Vishnu, who dreams the universe while sleeping on the Cosmic Sea. Actually, I think he is lying on a snake on the Cosmic Sea, although where the snake, or the Cosmic Sea, or Lord Vishnu came from, I couldn't say.


Once one has an eternal dreamer there is no need to go further. If the universe were eternal there would be no need to question what happened before it or to bring up a deity. However, the universe does not appear to be eternal so the whole question of what started it comes up.

There arises the question of we know that the Universal Mind is eternal and uncreated. As far as I can see that is a first principle, and a matter of faith. Another question is whether this Mind actually created the material universe in the process of starting things up, or whether that was secondary (and inferior) to the creation of life/consciousness. My point about the problem of evil is that the material universe seems like an awfully flawed and nasty thing to expect from an all-good God. If it's really that bad, then maybe it is the product of a lesser agency, which set things in motion, warts and all. Perhaps it was created by a blind, selfish demiurge (as the Sethian gnostics believed), or by a big, dumb screw-up (as the Valentinian gnostics thought). Orthodox Christians (at least the ones who know their own theology), will tell you that o Christos made the material world. But when you consider what sort of a world that really is, it would make a lot more sense for them to say that o satan was the creator of matter and the God of Love and Justice was the author of life/consciousness--the existential predicament of our experience being that matter has imprisoned life, and the Sotorological significance being that life can be liberated. Or maybe there's another answer.


For (2), I see there being forms of consciousness that have enough freedom to mess things up. That is where the evil comes from. Ultimately, the universe and the Universal Mind are good.

Right, which is pretty consistent with my last paragraph--whatever the mythopoetic trappings. Maybe you're more of a gnostic dualist than you know. :)


My assumptions are (a) some freedom exists, (b) the universe is good and (c) the Universal Mind is good and personal.

I agree with you about freedom; I believe that the Universal Mind is good (but the jury is still out for me on the material aspect of the Universe); and I have faith in the personal quality of God. 2.5 out of three. Maybe we are in the same pew after all. :)


I read a good part of Journey to the West. My favorite chapter is the one telling of Sun Wukong standing in God's palm claiming he can escape.

Yes, and peeing on his fingers and writing graffiti. Only it's not God. It's the Buddha of the Western Heaven, depicted as wiser, holier, and more powerful than the Taoist/Animist "God," the Jade Emperor--whose ally he is. That strange arrangement comes from the Doctrine of the Three Ways, a traditional attempt to harmonize the materialism of Taoism/animism, the immaterialism of Buddhism, and ethics of Confucianism. It's an important aspect of later Chinese culture (including Chinese-American culture), but in terms of our discussion, it is a marriage of things that really don't belong together, at least for Taoism and Buddhism, at least for me.

But that doesn't effect my enjoyment of Journey to the West at all. The scene you mentioned comes at the end of Sun Wukong's war with Heaven, which I see as a metaphor for the human experience of growing up. Mao tried to use it as a symbol of his murderous Cultural Revolution. And others have pointed out similarities with the story of the revolt of Satan. But the author, in my opinion, was talking about something called "monkey mind," (in effect, immaturity, but it's so much better than that when Sun Wukong does it). Monkey mind is one of the phases or stumbling blocks that a Buddhist strives to overcome in the course of a lifetime. Ironically, that is why the character is funnier before his conversion to Buddhism than afterwards, at least in my opinion.

Oh well, I'm blithering again. I wrote you a piece of doggerel about freedom and evil in Paul's poetry thread. Monkey mind is still a problem for some of us. :)

[YesNo]

As I said before, I am no expert on Hinduism, but the dreaming deity sounds like Lord Vishnu, who dreams the universe while sleeping on the Cosmic Sea. Actually, I think he is lying on a snake on the Cosmic Sea, although where the snake, or the Cosmic Sea, or Lord Vishnu came from, I couldn't say.

I didn't know that Vishnu dreamed the universe, but I don't know much about Hinduism. I have read Sally Kempton's Awakening Shakti which gave me a perspective on the Hindu Goddesses.



There arises the question of we know that the Universal Mind is eternal and uncreated. As far as I can see that is a first principle, and a matter of faith.

Yes, one would have to assume the Mind sustaining the world is eternal.



Another question is whether this Mind actually created the material universe in the process of starting things up, or whether that was secondary (and inferior) to the creation of life/consciousness. My point about the problem of evil is that the material universe seems like an awfully flawed and nasty thing to expect from an all-good God. If it's really that bad, then maybe it is the product of a lesser agency, which set things in motion, warts and all. Perhaps it was created by a blind, selfish demiurge (as the Sethian gnostics believed), or by a big, dumb screw-up (as the Valentinian gnostics thought). Orthodox Christians (at least the ones who know their own theology), will tell you that o Christos made the material world. But when you consider what sort of a world that really is, it would make a lot more sense for them to say that o satan was the creator of matter and the God of Love and Justice was the author of life/consciousness--the existential predicament of our experience being that matter has imprisoned life, and the Sotorological significance being that life can be liberated. Or maybe there's another answer.

I tend to think the universe is not that bad and so don't mind having God's mind create it, but I am beginning to understand your gnostic dualism which seems based on the dualism of good and evil.




I agree with you about freedom; I believe that the Universal Mind is good (but the jury is still out for me on the material aspect of the Universe); and I have faith in the personal quality of God. 2.5 out of three. Maybe we are in the same pew after all. :)

After reading Lanza's account of time, I think one could derive from quantum physics either (a) there is no material substance or (b) time does not exist in the sense that we are creating the past as well as the future. One might not need to deny both of them. I prefer denying that material substance exists. That forces Mind to exist. However, if we are creating the past as we need to make the present consistent, then one doesn't need a Mind, but one is caught in solipsism.



Yes, and peeing on his fingers and writing graffiti. Only it's not God. It's the Buddha of the Western Heaven, depicted as wiser, holier, and more powerful than the Taoist/Animist "God," the Jade Emperor--whose ally he is. That strange arrangement comes from the Doctrine of the Three Ways, a traditional attempt to harmonize the materialism of Taoism/animism, the immaterialism of Buddhism, and ethics of Confucianism. It's an important aspect of later Chinese culture (including Chinese-American culture), but in terms of our discussion, it is a marriage of things that really don't belong together, at least for Taoism and Buddhism, at least for me.

But that doesn't effect my enjoyment of Journey to the West at all. The scene you mentioned comes at the end of Sun Wukong's war with Heaven, which I see as a metaphor for the human experience of growing up. Mao tried to use it as a symbol of his murderous Cultural Revolution. And others have pointed out similarities with the story of the revolt of Satan. But the author, in my opinion, was talking about something called "monkey mind," (in effect, immaturity, but it's so much better than that when Sun Wukong does it). Monkey mind is one of the phases or stumbling blocks that a Buddhist strives to overcome in the course of a lifetime. Ironically, that is why the character is funnier before his conversion to Buddhism than afterwards, at least in my opinion.

Well, Sun Wukong was a monkey. I didn't know that Mao used that scene to justify the Cultural Revolution. I don't see how it fits.



Oh well, I'm blithering again. I wrote you a piece of doggerel about freedom and evil in Paul's poetry thread. Monkey mind is still a problem for some of us. :)

Yes, I saw that and responded continuing the idea.

Bringing this all back to ghosts and other paranormal experiences, it seems that the existence of things like telepathy implies that there be some field of consciousness that carries the influence outward from the Mind as the source. This is not an electromagnetic or gravitational field but would explain the effect by using a similar action at a distance idea.