Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Paranormal - normal or para? (Read 23851 times)

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
looks like Stevenson's results consistently steered him that way.

Curious there's no other direction to confirm anything he claims.

One might assume he stuck to the area that gave the results desired.

Scientists - conscientious scientists at least, and his overall career seems to have been marked by conscientiousness - do not claim so much as they report. The genre of his studies suggests that Stevenson was just reporting. That's data.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

I'll have to part with wiki on what's empirical to respond. You'd be wise to remove as much of the human element as possible in the data. Universally repeatable results are required not just human sensory observations. Or simply saying this person is sensitive to <blank> that I'm not isn't gonna cut it.

Your extent of skepticism is irrational, well into the territory of denialism. What do you mean by "universally repeatable results"? Should everybody invariably pole vault 6 metres for you to acknowledge that 6 metres can be pole vaulted? Should chimps get the same results as humans for you to believe it?

Besides, didn't Stevenson remove as much of the human element as possible by concentrating on children? Children are uneducated, free from indoctrination, they don't have a crystallised personality conditioned by the culture yet, etc.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

Telepathic transference would be an easier road for me to walk. Memories alone being transferred under certain conditions. There is no doubt the brain emits electromagnetic waves. To what extent it can function as an antenna or transmitter is questionable but gives a ledge to stand on outside how you or I feel about results.

So, telepathy would seem plausible to you? But let me guess, you would subject it to the condition of "universally repeatable results", i.e. you would not believe it unless everybody everywhere anytime would be able to transfer thoughts to each other without any loss, nevermind that people often can't even catch ordinary physical objects they throw at each other.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #26 –
"Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?" is the sillies title ever. Very this or that.

But first, we're gonna have to take a ride on the perspective train. Sit back, take in the views and feel free to answer the questionnaire and tell us what you think at the end of the ride.

Quote from: ersi on
Besides, didn't Stevenson remove as much of the human element as possible by concentrating on children? Children are uneducated, free from indoctrination, they don't have a crystallised personality conditioned by the culture yet, etc.


They are primal. All they have are feelings and have derived social skills from them. Not much difference than, say, a horse and herd socialization. What sets humans apart is we grow well beyond that state and fill our heads with stuff. Sometimes stuff that makes us forget that primal connection to feelings.

My niece's imaginary friend was a tiger. No idea how this came about but nevertheless she would sell it to ya. Answer for everything. She also was totally random with it. There were times she'd be playing dolls or whatnot, ain't heard about the tiger in days, hop up run around a corner and scream/takeoff running then fall in the floor... Other than there was no tiger, you'd swear you were watching a tiger attack. She's 5 now and there's no mention of the tiger ever.

Kids come up with the most off the wall things and are clever. They absorb information so quickly it's often hard to derive the source.

Anyway, more to the point:
Quote from: ersi on
Your extent of skepticism is irrational, well into the territory of denialism.

Labeling. Why that is the silliest title ever is because it rejects the idea you could be a little bit of both. Or neither.  I've barely shown any skepticism beyond- one article isn't going to persuade me. Most would call that either reasonable skepticism or common sense. You can get so caught up in labeling everybody and everything that your definitions can get screwed up. "If it's this - it's not that" or " If I/he/she is this - they are not that" are fallacies in logic when you account for the variances in people.

Quote from: ersi on
What do you mean by "universally repeatable results"? Should everybody invariably pole vault 6 metres for you to acknowledge that 6 metres can be pole vaulted? Should chimps get the same results as humans for you to believe it?

As a standard; With the same source others should be able to prove it is what you say and not something else. Not an unreasonable request. No idea why you jumped to an extreme as a response tho?

If there are memories there is a difference form one who does remember and one that doesn't. Proving it's not cultural will be hard enough without even using medical scanners. But then you do always go for the "human element", at least as you see it. The article goes out of it's way with the author explaining how he was a skeptic and rational and intelligent and everything else that his reader might be. Meant to evoke emotion and make it relatable, which matters greatly if the labeling system in the title is something you subscribe to.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

"Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?" is the sillies title ever. Very this or that.

If you can only think in binary terms, then this is what it looks like, yes. In reality, there are two options explicitly spelled out right there, so you can settle on something in between the two, as you wish. Apparently you have no such wish. For you it's either all or nothing.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

They are primal. All they have are feelings and have derived social skills from them. Not much difference than, say, a horse and herd socialization. What sets humans apart is we grow well beyond that state and fill our heads with stuff. Sometimes stuff that makes us forget that primal connection to feelings.

Your utter mistrust for raw data shows here. This is called skepticism.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

My niece's imaginary friend was a tiger. No idea how this came about but nevertheless she would sell it to ya. Answer for everything. She also was totally random with it. There were times she'd be playing dolls or whatnot, ain't heard about the tiger in days, hop up run around a corner and scream/takeoff running then fall in the floor... Other than there was no tiger, you'd swear your were watching a tiger attack. She's 5 now and there's no mention of the tiger ever.

Kids come up with the most off the wall things and are clever. They absorb information so quickly it's often hard to derive the source.

In addition to utter mistrust for raw data, also wilful lack of analytical skills shows here. This goes further than mere skepticism. What could be the reason? Are there some kids in your neighbourhood who pull pranks on you and you find no way to retaliate?

Quote from: ensbb3 on

Anyway, more to the point:
Quote from: ersi on
Your extent of skepticism is irrational, well into the territory of denialism.

Labeling.

Every word you use is a label. If you mean "labeling" as a kind of objection, then show how the label is inappropriate. The label "shop" on a shop and "cat" on a cat is just common sense. What is there to object? 

Quote from: ensbb3 on

As a standard; With the same source others should be able to prove it is what you say and not something else. Not an unreasonable request.

And how has this standard not been met? You think Stevenson is the only one to have conducted such studies? It's probably just that his standard is higher than ordinarily is the case. Or are there studies that disprove these results?

Very few people care to investigate paranormal topics at all. No consistent grants, hence no consistent standard, hence no consistent proof, and no decisive disproof either.

Don't get me wrong. I am as skeptical of empirical data as you are. But I am not scared to call it for what it is - data, and I am not afraid to do with it what should be done with data. Data is not going away by denial. If you get lucky, it goes away by exorcism, like in mjmsprt40's case.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: ersi on
Are there some kids in your neighbourhood who pull pranks on you and you find no way to retaliate?

Please explain how you came to this conclusion? I'd like to understand what you mean before I respond.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
Are there some kids in your neighbourhood who pull pranks on you and you find no way to retaliate?

Please explain how you came to this conclusion? I'd like to understand what you mean before I respond.

You said, among many other things in similar vein, "Kids come up with the most off the wall things and are clever." Now, clever is not an absolute. It's a relative term. So, you must mean kids are cleverer than someone else. Who else? From the context - kids are cleverer than you.

Your entire post presses the point that children are incomprehensible and unmanageable, and this is the basis on which you mistrust Stevenson's study. I hope you understand when I label your reasons flimsy at best, but likely something worse is at play.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: ersi on
but likely something worse is at play.

You don't play nice with others. There's little point.

You've gone to great lengths to skew my meaning. It's clear you don't respect me, and that's fine. I feel it's earned and nothing I need. But, not everyone feels that way and some will demand respect. You'd have to wonder what their definition is vs mine. I may not believe he is getting that respect but meh. I'm willing to understand all he wants is people to be decent to him. Whether I'd call it respect or not.

Quote from: ersi on
The label "shop" on a shop and "cat" on a cat is just common sense. What is there to object?

Nice that you picked things I can empirically prove no problem when I said:
Quote from: ensbb3 on
when you account for the variances in people.

Because we are talking about ideas or paranormal. Kinda rules out that argument for you. Confirmation of one thing's label is not confirmation any label fits where applied.

Other than you want to try and make me look foolish, and maybe you have, what was your point in responding? While on label how about refute vs attack.

Did you try to change my position or attack it as foolish?

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Because we are talking about ideas or paranormal. Kinda rules out that argument for you. Confirmation of one thing's label is not confirmation any label fits where applied.

The question is what labels you think are applicable in case of ideas and paranormal. My point is that yes, there are perfectly applicable labels for ideas and paranormal, and the principle of applying the labels is the same as with empirical things. Also the standard of verifying the correctness of labels of ideas and paranormal are analogical to empirical labels. I have been making the analogy between the empirical and the paranormal all along, because to me there's no big difference.

Anyway, Stevenson's study is completely empirical. It concerns empirical people and places, their readily verifiable names, features, etc. All this should be within your grasp. It doesn't set out to psychoanalyse the character profiles of the subjects. It reports on reappearance of visible physiological features across rebirth.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

Did you try to change my position or attack it as foolish?

Your position on Stevenson's study is that kids say the darndest things and the thing to do about it is to pay no attention. Is this an unfair summary? Feel free to correct my impression of your position. Or elaborate what you really meant, if you meant something totally different.

In a day or two I will state my own reasons why I dismiss Stevenson's study, so you can compare my reasons and yours.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: ersi on
The question is what labels you think are applicable in case of ideas and paranormal.

And the reply was nothing shows one ambiguous label fits better than another. The cause is assumed. (Based on a cosmological constant isn't enough?)

You were trying to show I'm an irrational skeptic because I'm not interested in weighing this one man's life work out. I'd offer you showed you're the cynic in the process.

Quote from: ersi on
In a day or two I will state my own reasons why I dismiss Stevenson's study, so you can compare my reasons and yours.

Comparison is important to you. No need to wait, please. I don't see overdue attention as more rational.

But then you seem to play for stalemate (unless in thesis form, then Katy bar the door) and assume I am playing to win. This conversation didn't go anywhere. Well, not from a point progressive standpoint. All I had to do was ask nicely tho. What was my last issue about? Feelings affecting outcomes, or something? IDK.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #33 –
it is like some people that insist this world is matrix world .
it is like begging another people to hate you ...


Sir , Please ...


Science is antidot for Stupidity .

so they can  save themself from the Charlatans .

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #34 –
How does science measure the paranormal? One problem that science has is that you can't actually measure this stuff to see what it weighs, how large it is, whether it moves and so on.

Sometimes they try taking photos of ghosts, but there always seem to be problems. Ill-defined shapes, sometimes just hovering balls of light, something which may or may not be there.... you know how it is. The spirit is willing, but the flash is weak. :faint:
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #35 –
Perhaps  because they search ghost in the wrong place .

find them inside the Hallucinated mind .

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #37 –
few months ago  , something appeared in my mind .

if there are device that can match Brain wave to language ( Mind to text ) then automatically do  Google search in internet  .

Perhaps we can read everybody mind in details  easily .
especially children mind , which their language development is in progress , and  some people that lack in grammar .

or probably something ambitious such  to see what is inside the Animal Mind .

therefore,  there will some good  methode to Solves Mysterious  thingy .



well , maybe it is just my tradition that lack  of English .

so perhaps  i just can not find The  right keyword to find  that kind of Project .
to check if it is already existed or currently there are development in that way .

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
The question is what labels you think are applicable in case of ideas and paranormal.

And the reply was nothing shows one ambiguous label fits better than another.

But you haven't shown that the labels are ambiguous. We are quite clear on what we are talking about. Reincarnation, reappearance of physiological features across rebirth, memories of past lives... What is unclear here?

A monster in the closet or some such may be spooky and it may scare you to heart attack - and it may not exist -, but it is by no means unclear.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

The cause is assumed.

The cause is assumed as opposed to denied. Which one is better? "Yeah, the effects seem to be there, but really, there's no cause. Cannot be."

Quote from: ensbb3 on

You were trying to show I'm an irrational skeptic because I'm not interested in weighing this one man's life work out. I'd offer you showed you're the cynic in the process.

You participated in this thread while evidently not being very interested in the topic. I don't quite know how to label it, but there's no ambiguity about what it is that I am failing to label right now. If I gave it enough time (I won't), I would eventually find the right label. Until then, thanks for your contribution. This thread would not be half as long without you.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

Comparison is important to you.

Yes, because this is how standards become so clear that there will be no ambiguity about their labels. Skepticism minus scientific curiosity is denialism.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: ersi on
You participated in this thread while evidently not being very interested in the topic.

Well. You've got me there.

Quote from: ersi on
We are quite clear on what we are talking about. Reincarnation

I offered telepathic transference. Memories being transferred could have an affect on the brain causing under development or any other random effect. Mind over matter. I wouldn't have to attach too many other papers I've read on para-issues to have data supposedly supporting the idea. But like both of us have said at one point or another, if that's what I'd actually have is another question.  

Quote from: ersi on
Skepticism minus scientific curiosity is denialism.

I disagree that denialism applies. I understand the subject and it's not by any means well accepted everywhere. Only in the data's query. I brought up a label for that earlier but you denied it. :P

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Sparta on
so perhaps  i just can not find The  right keyword to find  that kind of Project .
to check if it is already existed or currently there are development in that way .

Project Stargate.

I don't remember the Soviet program's name offhand.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
We are quite clear on what we are talking about. Reincarnation

I offered telepathic transference. Memories being transferred could have an affect on the brain causing under development or any other random effect. Mind over matter.

You mean you offered telepathy as an explanation for the rebirth effects? Like, traumatic memories get carried over into the next person (pre-birth in the womb?), and the memories cause the deformations to take shape?

This is what I didn't get. I thought you brought up telepathy as a separate topic, just like mj brought up ouija board.

So, care to elaborate your ideas on telepathy?

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: ersi on
You mean you offered telepathy as an explanation for the rebirth effects? Like, traumatic memories get carried over into the next person (pre-birth in the womb?), and the memories cause the deformations to take shape?

Yessir. I was using it more to make a different point tho.

Quote from: ersi on
So, care to elaborate your ideas on telepathy?

Perhaps, as time permits.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
You mean you offered telepathy as an explanation for the rebirth effects? Like, traumatic memories get carried over into the next person (pre-birth in the womb?), and the memories cause the deformations to take shape?

Yessir. I was using it more to make a different point tho.

What was the different point? Because to me the entire telepathy reference looked like a loosely dangling remark.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: ersi on
What was the different point? Because to me the entire telepathy reference looked like a loosely dangling remark.

That reincarnation wasn't the only para-solution. And thus favoring one over the other is labeling bias given no reason to discount the other without proof. The greater point being one has to follow their feelings not a process to make the distinction. Does one want there to be a soul so bad you simply deny the possibility that's not what happens and really something else paranormal or just regular normal is the result.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
What was the different point? Because to me the entire telepathy reference looked like a loosely dangling remark.

That reincarnation wasn't the only para-solution. And thus favoring one over the other is labeling bias given no reason to discount the other without proof.

You mean you see reincarnation and telepathy as somehow mutually exclusive? You will really have to explain how this works for you. I don't get it.

To me reincarnation and telepathy are different aspects of the same thing. Both are transference of mind, but telepathy is the miniature version - thought transference between two (rarely more) people. In contrast, reincarnation is personality transference across a rebirth - a single personality drops a body and adopts another, ordinarily a subconscious deeply hypnotic or traumatic procedure.

Quote from: ensbb3 on

The greater point being one has to follow their feelings not a process to make the distinction.

:eyes:

Elaborate on this one too. Why follow feelings rather than a process? What does it mean to follow a process? A process of what? And make the distinction of what? Between reincarnation and telepathy?

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: ersi on
You mean you see reincarnation and telepathy as somehow mutually exclusive?

You'll have trouble showing me they are or aren't.

Quote from: ersi on
Why follow feelings rather than a process? What does it mean to follow a process? A process of what? And make the distinction of what? Between reincarnation and telepathy?

Now you're getting it. There's just no way to be sure.

Re: Paranormal - normal or para?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: ersi on
So, care to elaborate your ideas on telepathy?

Perhaps, as time permits.

You don't need to do it ensbb3, with telepathy ersi will know it.

Indeed. I know he wasn't talking about time. I provided definitions for him that he refuses to deny or confirm, so his point is that as soon as we approach anything resembling an explanation, the discussion is over.

I guess we have covered Stevenson's material as thoroughly as could reasonably be hoped. Let's move on to item number 2. Explain this:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_VaT5-x83M[/video]

This is from a Russian TV series Battle of the Witches. The witch (the lady who enters in the beginning) is supposed to find a male from among the seated ladies without looking at the face.  To test yourself, see if you are able to spot the male by the face. The witch gets the male's passport from the host (forbidden to open the passport) for help, but the witch doesn't need it.

This particular test (and the whole TV series) has a lot more to it than what is shown in this clip. At each test there are several witches involved who have to pass the test at their own turn. Some concentrate on the passport while some don't need it. Some fair better than others. Some reveal personal material of such nature that the subjects break down emotionally. The full material is not for those weak at heart. It's a good thing that you cannot understand the language, but I will answer if you have questions.

Obviously, there's mind-reading involved here. Anyone can do it to an extent. The ordinary human language, speech and text, is the most elementary form of meaning-inference from signs. Mind-reading is similarly an inference of meanings from other kinds of signs.