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

[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[ing] 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 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?