Ghosts and paranormal activity in ED & PR

[fabfor]

Just came across the attached and immediately thought of this thread. :-))

[El Pibe]

Maybe I'm alone, but weirdly I'd reverse the captions.

[El Pibe]

which probably speaks volumes

[fabfor]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe I'm alone, but weirdly I'd reverse the

> captions.

Now come on, El Pibe, it's definitely a case of people's experiences vs established scientific knowledge here. Not reversible!

[Otta]

The point is, you can join those dots up in any number of ways. Your experience will lead you to do it a certain way, but that's not to say it's the right way.

[fabfor]

The point is that experiencing the paranormal inevitably makes you attempt to join the dots (correctly or not is another debate) whereas you're essentially walking blind on a long and winding road without experience. In short, you don't even start and dismiss it as unrealistic.

[Burbage]

fabfor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point is that experiencing the paranormal

> inevitably makes you attempt to join the dots

> (correctly or not is another debate) whereas

> you're essentially walking blind on a long and

> winding road without experience. In short, you

> don't even start and dismiss it as unrealistic.

That relies on you being able to tell the difference between an experience and an imaginined, hallucinational or delusional 'experience'. The well-documented and testable prevalence of bogus experiences (e.g. deja-vu, phantom limbs and false memory syndrome) suggests you can't. In which case, however you choose to 'join the dots', it'll only ever be correct by pure chance.

Given that, you'd expect those who claim to have experienced paranormal activities to have more general problems with rationality, and that does seem to be the case. Although Musch and Ehrenberg* generously concluded that "Poor probabilistic reasoning skill may thus be only a concomitant of low cognitive ability and not in itself a decisive factor in the forming of paranormal belief." later work by Hergovich and Arendasy** found that "Subjects with lower reasoning ability scored higher on Traditional Paranormal Belief and New Age Philosophy". There may not be a lot in it, but that's the point.

* British Journal of Psychology (2002), 93, 169?177

** Personality and Individual Differences (2005), 38, 1805?1812 (a confirmation, in effect, of Blackmore's earlier work which can be found here))

[fabfor]

Must admit that I've had bogus experiences and I do behave irrationally a lot of the time. That's exactly what I'm doing now "preaching to the deaf", so to say. I'm certifiable!

However, I do like getting to the bottom of things and can usually expose my bogus, delusional fantasies for what they are - eventually (whose side am I on?!).

Anyway, that still leaves the handful of experiences without which I'd be blindly cheering on the doubters here instead of trying to join those damn dots in a sensible way.

As usual, I'm unable to provide scientific proof of any of these experiences but there is one that's been bugging me for years and I'd appreciate input from both sides of the divide to help me put it to bed. I'll write it up and post it as soon as I can.

[root]

Just in case someone thinks they're onto something:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

[fabfor]

Very lucrative;it's certainly increased Randi's fame. BTW, only the famous can apply.

And this is interesting:http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/james-randi-a-conjurer-attempts-to-debunk-research-on-animals

I'm sceptical....

[root]

fabfor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Very lucrative;it's certainly increased Randi's

> fame. BTW, only the famous can apply.

> And this is

> interesting:http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/jam

> es-randi-a-conjurer-attempts-to-debunk-research-on

> -animals

>

> I'm sceptical....

very interesting as is the 'banned' ted talk. Maybe you would like to see what Ted actually said:

http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html

Always telling when you merit your own page on rationalwiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

[binary_star]

By it's very definition paranormal activity lies outside the laws of science. Why is there this delusion that science will explain the supernatural?

Unless Sheldrake or anyone else can prove natural laws are operating behind this stuff then science will never provide an answer for it because science requires empirical evidence of phenomenon occurring within natural laws.

Would you expect maths to answer questions about God, physics to answer questions on religion? It's daft, stop it.

[StraferJack]

Just as I don't expect maths or science to explain Santa or little green men

It's really very simple. If someone makes something up, they can wave away any scepticism by saying "mere science cannot deal with the majesty of what I believe"

[root]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By it's very definition paranormal activity lies

> outside the laws of science. Why is there this

> delusion that science will explain the

> supernatural?

Indeed. If something by definition operates outside the laws of science (i.e. nature) then it cannot have any observable effect on reality in which case it's existence is irrelevant.

>

> Unless Sheldrake or anyone else can prove natural

> laws are operating behind this stuff then science

> will never provide an answer for it because

> science requires empirical evidence of phenomenon

> occurring within natural laws.

I think what we need to fully understand before we come up with an answer is what we are asking in the first place?

>

> Would you expect maths to answer questions about

> God, physics to answer questions on religion? It's

> daft, stop it.

What is a God?

[binary_star]

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think what we need to fully understand before we come up with an answer is what we are asking in the first place?

This is the problem....if we're asking: "is something supernatural behind this", then we are looking for ontological/metaphysical explanations...which are equally valid but NOT scientific. If we are asking: "is something natural behind this", then we need to come up with a scientific theory to test that can be replicated and verified by other scientists.

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is a God?

Depends on your definition, but again science probably not the right answer. Unless you believe God to be a natural phenomenon obv.

[root]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> root Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think what we need to fully understand before

> we come up with an answer is what we are asking in

> the first place?

>

> This is the problem....if we're asking: "is

> something supernatural behind this", then we are

> looking for ontological/metaphysical

> explanations...which are equally valid but NOT

> scientific. If we are asking: "is something

> natural behind this", then we need to come up with

> a scientific theory to test that can be replicated

> and verified by other scientists.

You mean make stuff up and expect your beliefs to be taken seriously and respected?

>

> root Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What is a God?

>

> Depends on your definition, but again science

> probably not the right answer. Unless you believe

> God to be a natural phenomenon obv.

You mean more made up stuff that is expected to be taken seriously and treated with respect?

[binary_star]

It depends who you want your theories to be taken seriously by. Theologians, philosophers and scientists all have very different ideas of what might validate truth, as does the EDF, clearly. I'm just saying you can't expect the scientific community to accept non scientific explanations...even though scientists may do that in their personal lives they still accept that there are things it is not science's position to explain (religion is an obvious example).

[fabfor]

Ok, here?s the story. It?s not an easy one to tell because whenever I think about it, my mind starts working on a multitude of threads and my breathing deepens automatically. Wooo?.

Ok, here we go:

Take a look at a horse named Lammtarra, winning a very exciting 1995 Epsom Derby:

I started betting on the horses from the age of 16. It took me about 10 years to decide that it was a hobby for people much richer than me and by the time Lammtarra?s Derby came along the once familiar betting shop had become a strange land to me. So I was very surprised when I woke up one morning with three numbers in my head and the belief that they represented the first, second and third of the Derby - in correct order!

In fact, I didn?t really believe it, but, at the same time, I had to believe it.

I checked to confirm that the Derby would be run in a couple of days? time, decided how much of my scarce cash I could afford to risk on this madness and asked my friend, Viv, to place some (hedged) bets for me ( I was busy at work and also felt uncomfortable at the thought of setting foot in the Bookies).

I didn?t even watch the race live and only recently discovered it on magical Youtube. Anyhow, I popped round to a sheepish and embarrassed Viv that evening, only to learn that he had done some more ?hedge-ing? of the bets, resulting in a reduction in my winnings.

The money came in handy but, to tell the truth, I didn?t really care about that. I?d been interested in the paranormal from childhood but this experience broke all the rules. By 1995, I?d already discovered J. Krishnamurti, the philosopher, and agreed with him, 100%, that the future and the past did not exist except as projection and memory (and, of course, wonderful sci-fi stories).

I still hold the same view today and so remain at a loss to explain my Derby experience. I?m hoping someone on the forum might be able to shed some light on the various aspects of this experience (and yes, I do expect the usual ?woo-ing?!).

Oh, I nearly forgot (really!) a most important part - my horses came in first, second and FOURTH!!

[Jaws]

Here's my twopence - I've been on many ghost hunts, seen a ghost (only once), played ouija board, been in a seance, seen a psychic and seen some weird shit on some of the ghost hunts. I do believe in ghosts, but that's my personal opinion. Are they real or not? I have no idea, hence why I go on these hunts.

[fabfor]

Speaking of ghosts, I found this after writing about Lammtarra here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/lammtarra-joins-legends-1585844.html

Wooo....

[fabfor]

Is there anybody there?

[root]

fabfor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there anybody there?

 

[fabfor]

Just for the record, not one but 10+ scientific studies that prove consciousness can alter our material world:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/

I find the first one particularly shocking.

[El Pibe]

Given that they're are only 8 rather than 10 is a good indication of the quality of the science on show.

[fabfor]

And what does the fact that there are more than 10 (as stated) indicate about your scientific curiosity, EP?