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

[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.

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]

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?