Your paranormal experiences

[bluesummer]

My paranormal experiences are what keep me from diving over into atheism. I'm sorry, but until you've experienced it, you're not going to understand. I'm generally a skeptic of the highest order, but I know that this stuff is for real. I've seen some things, and had family go through things that would make some people break down in tears. I don't have enough space in this thread to describe them all.

The difference is, I think, is those with a spiritually open mind, and those who are spiritually shut off. If you meditate, pray, or any of that stuff, you are opening your perceptive abilities. I understand where Doc is coming from. It's not mental mumbo-jumbo. No scientific theory in the world is going to tell me I'm making shit up. I wish I had never seen or experienced some of the things I have. I'd be much rather live ignorantly in bliss.

[Yggdrasil]

If you meditate, pray, or any of that stuff, you are opening your perceptive abilities.

Bluesummer,

I have posted this before and I will post it again (and I am very serious on this part):

First of, I do meditate a lot. I am a firm believer of mindfulness, and meditation is one of the best ways to achieve mindfulness.

Secondly, I would love, seriously love, to have some paranormal or other encounter which cannot be explained by natural causes. It happens to turn out that everytime I think I may have such encounter, it can be explained by natural causes.

Eventhough I am very openminded on this topic, I have no personal or other proof or experience what so ever, that confirms paranormal or other occurences exist, regardless of the fact that I do not exclude the possibility of their existance and regardless of the fact that I would love to have such encounter.

I hope that makes sense.

[vashti]

Actually if You`re beliving in God (no matter if You`re catholic,muslim or jew) , You belive in ghosts as well. Devil,good and bad ghosts - it`s all part of all religions (maybe not all but most)

Sorry hun, but this isn't true of Judaism.

[Lipp]

I'll do you one better... show me that there aren't paranormal entities out and about on this earth.

So she likens your idea to religion and you do the one thing that makes it so obvious.

"I can't prove that it exists, but if you can't prove that it doesn't exist it has to exist, right?"

[tooxshort]

... but Indi ...

I enjoy the craziness in my head!

[Yggdrasil]

As in any case where proof is required, the standard procedure is to prove something exists, not to use the absence of proof as proof of it's existence.

The claim here is: paranormal phenomena happen. The skeptic asks: prove this statement is true.

It's up to the claimant to provide proof of the existence of said phenomena, not to the skeptic.

Arguments such as: the absence of a verifiable and reproducible method of proof does not imply the phenomenon doesn’t exist, are invalid arguments (logical fallacies) in any logical argumentation.

The logical fallacy applied here is called: burden of proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam / appeal to ignorance.).

Description of burden of proof

Burden of proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team.

As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Example 1:

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Example 2:

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

Example 3:
"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

[IndiReloaded]

... but Indi ...

I enjoy the craziness in my head!

Hey, I imagine all kinds of crazy things. My free association would probably compete with standard, everyday ghosts. Thats without drugs.

I've 'seen' colour reversals (blue that is red or 'not blue'), 'seen' the the actual point of a vertex (imagining event horizons), listening to the harmonics in my brain/ear in a really quiet space. I would have been keen to try that sensory deprivation experiment.

This is the tame list, suitable for posting on the internet for those who might actually know me.

But I'm not claiming any of that is real, except in my own mind.

[tooxshort]

But I'm not claiming any of that is real, except in my own mind.

and that's the only way to roll!

[Doc Durian]

As I've said, and continue to say: I do not doubt YOUR experience (nor Blues). I'm just saying there is no proof it is any more real than your dreams.

Actually, you're really saying that there is no proof of the kind you're willing to accept. Aka, if you can't see what I'm pointing at, it's because it doesn't exist to you (Read up on Black Swan Theory.. I'd like to show you my paranormal cutter )

You are right. Your personal assertion alone would not constitute scientific proof. Someone else would need to be able to verify, reliably and reproducibly, your observation.

And then have a powerful religious movement sanction it?

Or governments and washed out hippies latching onto false scientists for a multitude of financial and psychological fallacies while media outlets peddle it?

Do I need a showboating ex vice president to produce a socially polluting piece of tripe?

My personal experiences with the paranormal carries more weight than your obstinate refusal to accept my paranormal experiences because they didn't happen to you or can be replicated in a test tube or lab result.

I wasn't born in a test tube, nor a lab, and because scientists haven't found a manner which they can replicate my life... I'm wrong and they're right? Laughable...

This is a lovely sounding nonsense^ statement. What does it mean, tho? My skepticism is for a very good reason. Not sure why you would consider it a disorder; I'm not the one seeing things.

It's a disorder for you to discount in others what they have seen, you're incapable of seeing thus far, and done in a manner which highlights (in red) your insecurities because of it.

I dunno. They could just be historians. Depends on whether they use the scientific method in their studies.

I "dunno"... does that mean history can be wrongly transcribed and that science as part of history can be falsely warped in favour of some scientists over others, despite the pursuit of "proof/truth" you seem so bent on pushing?

Some archeologists do & I'd consider them scientists. Just b/c something ends in "ology" doesn't make it a science.

(The comment was levelled at those with certifiable "credentials" and not what the scientific community labels crackpots. You knew that... stay on topic)

Although I note your arbitrary sanctioning of credentials amongst archeologists? I do believe you should be an Egyptologist.

Scientology, being a bad example of a non-science. Theologists being another. "Ology" just means 'study of'.

^^ Throw away subterfuge.

That's a non-argument, one that religious folk use all the time to justify their belief as fact. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic logic.

***Slices up a nice piece of black swan for Professor Aboriginal***

The absence of something doesn't constitute proof of. The burden of proof lies with the source of the assertion. The greater the unlikelihood of the claim, the better the proof required.

Nor does the presence of questionable proof (aka theories to be later revised/turfed) constitute acceptance of a phenomenon.

Skeptics generally can't tell their arses from holes in the ground.

Otherwise, all sorts of nonsense could be stated as proof: "I have a jar of antimatter in my basement. Prove I don't."

Or Einstein's "the speed of light is always constant"?

"God/ghosts/smurfs exists. Prove they don't". Until reasonable proof is provided, you would be correct to judge this as highly unlikely (i.e. not true).

And if hundreds of millions of people hold similar views, many based on personal experiences.... tell them they're wrong because you didn't experience the same? heh.. Go fish

Do you know who Bertrand Russell was? He wrote a very nice article about 'burden of proof' to describe the problems with fuzzy thinking like this. The main idea is referred to as "Russell's Teapot". The gist of his point is this:



The wiki link for those interested is here:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot[/url]

I could care less who Russ, and his mere "theories" are. You've demonstrated through your prose beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're unwilling to concede my personal truths because of your scientific insecurities based on whatever psychological hang ups which fuel that.

The same hang ups which in all probability are preventing you from experiencing similar phenomenon which myself and millions of other people do.

You have an undiagnosed sickness of the mind...

Maybe someone in Acadamia will one day permit you to call it something tangible, maybe you'll expire none the more wiser for having it.

So again.... prove that what happened to me... didn't.

You can't... it did happen... case closed.

Thank you, thank you... I'll be signing autographs in the foyer.

Good day

[ecojeanne]

i think ghosts are pre-recordings the brain has made and is then replayed and projected wherever one looks at the time.

having learnt about how powerful the brain can be for healing it wouldn't surprise me that when these recording are played out that the brain triggers the senses too. i've often heard phantom sounds of my phone ringing. it would normally be just after i received a phone call. i just reckon my brain is on high alert and replays the sound in my head.

i'm not opposed to the idea of the paranormal as it can actually help people heal through the placebo effect and can indeed make people feel better about 'knowing' there is more. like when people visit mediums- some people say they take advantage of depressed people who miss dead family members, but i honestly think that they are doing a great service by offering closure to people. that also has a healing effect for the people. afterall the leading cause of disease is stress

[Doc Durian]

So she likens your idea to religion and you do the one thing that makes it so obvious.

"I can't prove that it exists, but if you can't prove that it doesn't exist it has to exist, right?"

Can you or her prove that what I experienced didn't happen?

Right... then, piss off.

Tell me that you're feeling unaffected by that comment... and I'll demand scientific "proof" (what a misnomer) that you weren't.

See how it works?

[Doc Durian]

i think ghosts are pre-recordings the brain has made and is then replayed and projected wherever one looks at the time.

having learnt about how powerful the brain can be for healing it wouldn't surprise me that when these recording are played out that the brain triggers the senses too. i've often heard phantom sounds of my phone ringing. it would normally be just after i received a phone call. i just reckon my brain is on high alert and replays the sound in my head.

i'm not opposed to the idea of the paranormal as it can actually help people heal through the placebo effect and can indeed make people feel better about 'knowing' there is more. like when people visit mediums- some people say they take advantage of depressed people who miss dead family members, but i honestly think that they are doing a great service by offering closure to people. that also has a healing effect for the people. afterall the leading cause of disease is stress

Indireloaded wants your proof to that.

[bluesummer]

To those whose think logic explains everything: I don't need to prove that it wasn't made up in my head. Several of the things I witnessed were witnessed in the presence of several other people.

I guess we were all delusional at the same time, huh.

I don't care what other people think. And Ygg, I don't mean to say that because you meditate you will definitely experience these things, simply that your mind is more open to the universe, and such people have a tendency to invite these experiences in. That said, they don't just happen because you want them to. Like I said before, there's some instances in which I wish I'd never experienced it. I'd gladly trade with you.

I'm not religious, but I definitely believe there is a higher power or energy (not 'God' as defined by most). To think otherwise is sort of close-minded, but to each his own.

[Gribble]

BS, I don't think you're full of BS. I believe that you believe you experienced something supernatural. You and even your group of friends. I don't think that's conclusive evidence, however. Assuming there was anything at all and you and your friends haven't simply convinced yourselves of something that never even happened to begin with, I think if you were to break it down and really look at it you'd see that whatever happened was perfectly grounded. Your experiences have a mundane explanation. You just need to look for it. However, people overreact. Groups especially.

In either case, personal experiences are irrelevant. There are far too many factors in human psychology for me to take someone else's experiences, even someone I know and like, seriously.

[Mish]

Just wanted to point out that the paranormal challenge was setup as early as 1968 and has now grown to one million dollars to anyone who can prove under lab conditions their paranormal abilities. To date, over 1,000 applications have been filed but no one has passed a preliminary test, which is set up and agreed upon by both provider and the applicant. Surely if paranormal events and abilities are so frequent someone should have already passed the challenge by now?

[url]http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html[/url]

On Larry King Live, March 6, 2001, Larry King asked Sylvia Browne if she would take the challenge and she agreed.[51] Then Randi appeared with Browne on Larry King Live on September 3, 2001 and she again accepted the challenge.[52] However, she has refused to be tested and Randi keeps a clock on his website recording the number of weeks that have passed since Browne accepted the challenge without following through.[53] During Larry King Live on June 5, 2001, Randi challenged Rosemary Altea to undergo testing for the million dollars. However, Altea would not even address the question.[54] Instead Altea, in part, replied "I agree with what he says, that there are many, many people who claim to be spiritual mediums, they claim to talk to the dead. There are many, people, we all know this. There are cheats and charlatans everywhere."[54] Then on January 26, 2007, Altea and Randi again appeared on Larry King Live. Once again, she refused to answer whether or not she would take the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.[55]

As it stands these are the current results: