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

    • Doesn’t seem that simple   according to fullfact that’s a net figure   ” The £21.9 billion was a net figure. Gross additional pressures totalling £35.3 billion were identified by the Treasury, and approximately £13.4 billion of these pressures were then offset by a combination of reserve funds and other allowances. The additional pressures identified were as follows: 2024-25 public sector pay awards (£9.4bn) ”   I don’t think Labour have set expectation that changing government cures all the ills. In fact some people on here criticise them for saying exactly opposite “vote for us we’re not them but nothing will change because global issues”   I think they are too cautious across many areas. They could have been more explicit before election but such is the countries media and electorate that if they were we would now be stuck with sunak/badenoch/someone else with the 14 years of baggage of their government and infighting  the broad strokes of this government are essentially along right lines  also loving ckarkson today “ Clarkson: Your claim that I bought a farm to avoid taxes is false and irresponsible.  BBC: It’s your own claim.  Clarkson: What’s that got to do with anything?” and by loving I mean “loathing as much as I ever have”    
    • BBC and the IFS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2e12j4gz0o From BBC Verify:   Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank said Reeves "may be overegging the £22bn black hole". What about the rest of the £22bn? The government published a breakdown, external of how it had got from the Treasury's £9.5bn shortfall in February to the £22bn "black hole". It said that there was another £7bn between February and the actual Budget in March, as departments found out about new spending pressures and the government spent more on the NHS and the Household Support Fund There was a final £5.6bn between then and late July, which includes almost a month when Labour was in power. That was largely caused by increases in public sector pay. It was the Labour government that accepted the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies (PRBs), but they said that the previous government should have budgeted for more than a 2% increase in public sector pay. Prof Stephen Millard from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank told BBC Verify: "The 'political' question is whether you would count this as part of the fiscal black hole or not. If you do, then you get to the £22bn figure; if not, then you’re left with around £12.5bn to £13.5bn." It isn't this at all. When you run on an agenda of change and cleaning up politics and you put all of the eggs of despair in a basket at the door of the previous government you better hope you have a long honeymoon period to give you time to deliver the change you have promised. Look at the NHS, before the election it was all...it's broken because of 14 years of Tory incompetence and the implication was that Labour could fix is quickly. Then Wes Streeting (who is one of the smarter political cabinet members and is clearly able to play the long game) started talking about the need to change the NHS before the election - he talked about privatising parts of it (much to the annoyance of the left). He was being pragmatic because the only magic wand that is going to fix the NHS is massive reform - it's broken and has been for decades and throwing money at it has just papered over the cracks. Now Labour talk about the NHS needing 10 years of healing for there to be real difference and people are saying....what..... Words in opposition are easy; actions in government are a lot harder and I fear that given the structural issues caused by Covid, the energy crisis, the war in Ukraine (and now maybe a massive US/China trade war if Trump isn't bluffing) that we are heading to constant one-term governments. I don't think there was a government (and correct me if I am wrong) that survived Covid and in a lot of countries since Covid they have had regular government change (I think what is playing out in the US with them voting Trump in is reflective of the challenges all countries face). Labour massively over-egged the 14 years of hurt (who could blame them) but it is going to make things a lot tougher for them as they have set the expectation that changing government cures all the ills and as we have seen in the first 90 days of their tenure that is very much not the case. Completely agree but the big risk if Farage. If Labour don't deliver what they promised or hit "working people" then the populists win - it's happening everywhere. Dangerous, dangerous times ahead and Labour have to get it right - for all our sakes - no matter what party we support. P.S. Lammy is also one of the better Labour front-bench folks - he just is suffering from Labour's inability to think far enough ahead to realise that some posts might come back to haunt you...but in his defence did anyone really think Americans would be daft enough to vote him in again....;-)
    • My cat has been missing since Sunday evening 17th November he is British short hair male cat colour black with grey stripes. medium to large in size. He is easily identified by a large tooth missing on the top left of his mouth.  He lives in Upland Road just near the roundabout at Underhill Road. His name is Jack but he  only answers to Puss Puss please call me on 0208 299 2275 if you see him.   thank you Linda  
    • I think this could go on endlessly, so I suggest we finish it here!  But why don't you  track down the makers of the sign? Which hopefully has amused a lot of people, as well as brightening my bus journey. Tell  them that their directions to Dulwich are not only wrong, but they do not seem to know where the "real" Dulwich is 🤣 I'm sure they will be delighted 🤣  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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