Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!

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.

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))

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.

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

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.

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"

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?

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.

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?

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).

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!!

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.
  • 2 months later...

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don’t think Reform will withstand the heat of any election.  Finding enough people to stand will be bad enough. Finding credible ones quite a bid tougher  I think yes this government is lacking in a long term plan and has not had a good first year. Today the least.   but the speed with which this was dealt with is a notable shift compared to last 14 years where months would drag by and we would constantly be told to draw a line under  if Labour called an election tomorrow, there is not a single party that could present a better alternative with any credibility. And that’s a low bar Reform are dangerous lunatics but more worrying is the descent of the Tories into the same swamp i also worry that England voters have contracted some melodrama virus after the Tories where we had 5 PMs in almost as many years  it’s ok for governments to be unpopular without needing to have an election every 1-2 years      
    • Well, I made £50 out of it and Alice owes me another bullseye, so I had a good day Clearly the thread has moved on, but just a final few words on Rayner (from me, at least). If she hadn't gone like this (with a chance to revive her career at some point in the future) there's plenty of other stuff loaded up and ready to be fired at her about the motivation, finances and machinations of her move down South. It's not pretty reading. Tawdry doesn't come close. I was born in Ashton Hospital and grew up in Tameside, I've got a lot of friends and family who weren't as lucky as me and didn't make it out, some close to her constituency party, and there's been a lot of bad feeling around 'Our Ange' for a long time. My favourite quote was: 'She should fuck off back to Stockport.' And that was from a party member. The writing was on the wall for her. Moving from Ashton (majority c6.5k, large Pakistani minority, but predominantly white working class and targeted by both the Independent Alliance and Reform) to Hove (majority c20k, neither of these issues with the electorate) was a pretty cynical move, and she's fucked it royally. 'The Honourable Member for Hove and Portslade' will be sleeping a lot easier in their bed tonight. This thread was never supposed to about Labour bashing, and I'm not sure it is. It's definitely descended into 'Whataboutery', and that seems to be the problem, in my mind at least, with British politics. It's playground stuff, he said/she said, blame-game bollocks. Watch PMQs and ask yourself if you'd accept this sort of behaviour amongst toddlers, let alone in an elected parliament. One thing that does stand out is the opposition to Reform across the board, and yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards a likely scenario where Farage could head up a minority Reform government. I've 'followed' politics since the late Seventies - mainly because the BBC News came on right after 'Roobard and Custard' or 'The Magic Roundabout' - and I can't remember an era where both major parties are so bereft of leadership, direction or ideas. There's a certain irony that we'll all be getting a test text on Sunday to warn us of an impending 'National Emergency'. Seems quite prescient.
    • But not old enough to remember the highest unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates in history in the early eighties under the Tories? A rather selective memory you have. There has never been a four-day week: it was a three-day week imposed by the Conservative government under the Blasted Heath.
    • I see that there was a government consultation started in July 2024, a response, and then a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework, and then to the Green Belt guidance in February 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt .  It includes the updates but doesn't give the nescient much clue of what was materially changed. There will probably be some good, and less good, summaries to be found. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...