The Paranormal (Where is it now?)
BBella has very kindly written an account of some of her own and some of her family's psychic experiences ("Other Forms of Life", 21 December, 4 posts). - Once again, thank you for these extraordinary stories. I feel very privileged to be allowed these glimpses of your mysterious 'other world'. You write that it would probably take a whole book to recount all that has happened, and I only wish you would write it! David Turell, in his book Science vs Religion, devotes a whole chapter to NDEs and OBEs, which I also found quite riveting. You and your family between you have covered a very wide range, which includes UFOs and ... of particular interest in the light of my discussion with David on faith healing ... the control of pain. Another interesting aspect is that these episodes did not involve near-death or out-of-body experiences. The visions and voices simply came to you or your relatives independently of your own situation. The voice that asked if you wished to continue seeing future deaths is particularly strange. One wonders who were these people, and why did they choose you? - It would indeed be enlightening to read about more of these experiences, but also to have explanations and comments from different angles. Some religious people, as you point out, regard such things as demonic, which I find odd since the messages and visions do not seem to encourage evil thoughts, let alone evil deeds. There will no doubt be scepticism or materialistic theories from atheists, but these too could be helpful. How far can scepticism go, particularly when ... as in some of the instances recounted by you and David ... these experiences actually revealed a truth that could not have been known at the time? - I'm putting this on a new thread, as you suggested, in the hope that others will contribute. - Finally, since I firmly believe in the solid reality of roast turkey and plum pudding, plus the joys of family get-togethers and mysteriously shaped wrapping paper, let me wish everyone of all persuasions a very happy Christmas.
The Paranormal
by BBella 
, Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 07:31 (5596 days ago) @ dhw
The voice that asked if you wished to continue seeing future deaths is particularly strange. One wonders who were these people, and why did they choose you? - In the particular situation mentioned above, I was dreaming, and in the dream I was floating on a float on a lake on a gorgeous day with the sun very bright. I was very relaxed and just minding my own business and had just closed my eyes to view the warm sun thru closed eyes, which I do a lot in my day life... when someone floated up next to me and as I looked at them the rays from the sun shone brightly everywhere, almost as tho I could see them plainly, and the person (whom I didn't know in the dream) asked if I wanted to continue to know before hand when deaths or future events will happen in/to the family, and I told them I'd rather not know. But in real life, I had never thought to not want to know, or even pondered the question before, and don't know what I would have answered if someone had asked me in my day life. So, I woke straight away, which I often do after these kinds of dreams, and wrote down what I had dreamed, which I did a lot during my illness because, in so many of my dreams, I would be directed to do this or that or take this or that for my healing by different 'people.' Sometimes I might even be 'adjusted' by people in my dreams and wake up with certain pain, that I was having a particularly bad problem with, disappeared or greatly relieved. - I've always had very vivid dreams and have been directed by and thru my dreams ever since I can remember (altho before the illness I was not listening and would rarely take heed). Maybe these 'people' are/is just my own innate wisdom (which everyone has) that only speak when the mind has shut down because that is the only time we hear. The different scenarios the dream uses might make it easier for us to remember the dream, better than if we heard voices with no scenery. I'm not sure...but of course, I would love to know for sure....but, it is the best reason I can come up with. Some people have told me they believe these people in my dreams are my angels, guides, etc. These people in my dreams always appear as pretty much plain ordinary folks. Sometimes, in the dreams, I will be talking with a person who has a particular ailment (someone I don't know usually) and I will give them the remedy...and then, when I wake up, and am writing what I dream, I realize it is me that needs the remedy and so I take what I suggested to the person in the dream and it will be of great help to some particular problem I may be having at the time....or sometimes, I find, that if I don't take the remedy or do what is suggested, a problem will come up that the remedy could have help prevent. Of course, most of my dreams are no different than anyone elses. - > I'm putting this on a new thread, as you suggested, in the hope that others will contribute. - Thank you dhw for suggesting I recount some of these incidents. I've really not thought to gather in my mind these things before. The many different types of incidents that has either happened to me or to my family is many more than I had realized. I now think about some of the incidents my dad had told us thru the years that happened to him and to his family and, I realize these things probably happen more often to people than I had once thought. I'm not sure if our family is ordinary or not, for such a big family, it my not be that extra-ordinary, but I am curious of some many different kinds of things happens more often than we think. - And, by the way, after perusing my own accounts, I realized I left out number 4 of my family accounts. This account really was a big shocker for me when I heard it, especially coming from the person that told it to me, who I consider very utmost reliable than anyone, other than my own father. She is my father's sister. I will place it in the next post. > Finally, since I firmly believe in the solid reality of roast turkey and plum pudding, plus the joys of family get-togethers and mysteriously shaped wrapping paper, let me wish everyone of all persuasions a very happy Christmas. - Thank you dhw for the happy wishes....sending good wishes for wonderful Holidays and New year to you and yours as well, and to all!
The Paranormal
by BBella , Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 07:48 (5596 days ago) @ BBella
A family experience continued: - 4. A few years back, while visiting down south, I was recounting the story of the bright 'bugs' my daughter and I had witnessed earlier in the year, to my aunt, as we all sat on her back patio at dusk watching the fireflies on their lawn. This aunt is known to be very straight laced, truthful to a fault, and prim and proper as they come, as we say down here in the south. This experience she told us, seemed very hard for me to believe, and if it was anyone of less character reliability than she, I would have my doubts, yet, she claims it is absolutely the "Gods truth" and even has a scar to "prove" it! - It was back in the 70's, and she lived just outside the fence of the base she and her husband, an air force pilot, were stationed at; it was just enough space for a small back yard. One night, while home by herself, as she often was when her husband was on duty overseas, she was awakened seemingly for no reason, other than a feeling that something had startled her, and so she began to wander around the house checking doors and windows making sure all was as it should be. When she came to the dining room sliding door that faced the base, she looked outside and directly in front of her, across the fence, was a saucer shaped vehicle parked on the ground not far from the fence. As she watched, a door underneath opened, and she saw several small men like beings come out and walk under the saucer as if checking it out. I remember she told me they were a certain color, but I don't remember for sure what color it was, but, it seemed they were blue. She watched for a bit and admitted she was very scared and shaking, and could even hear her heart beating very fast and loudly, but also, she felt an amazement that kept her completely still and terrified, thinking they would see her if she moved, as she could easily be seen thru the sliding glass. - The next thing she remembered, she was waking up the next morning and didn't even think about the incident. Then later that day, another of the wives that also lived on the base a few houses down, also on the same back row, came over. She asked her directly if she had seen anything odd during the night before. My aunt said that she had, but wouldn't tell her what it was. The other wife finally could hold it no longer and told her what she too had saw out back the night before. It was almost the same exact story as had happened to her. - This person also told her that she had been to another house earlier, and had found that one other wife (I can't for sure remember if it was only one other or several other wives) had experienced the very same thing. These were women she had not developed any kind of relationship with and did not really know, other than in passing, as they had not been there that long. Later that night, she noticed an odd scar on her right arm. She had never seen the scar before that night. She showed me the scar on her right arm and said, emphatically again, she knew for sure it had never been there before that night and that it had never changed in any way since that day she first saw it. The scar, which isn't really what it looked like, was indented as if a piece of her skin had been perfectly scooped out, and was about as round as a new pencil eraser only about half as shallow...definitely not like any "scar" I had seen before, as it was so perfectly cut out. - I asked her if she asked the other wives if they found anything unusual on their bodies, and she said she didn't because by that time she was very afraid to mention anything else about it, yet she didn't really know why, when I asked her why..and, she also said none of them ever spoke about it, altho, again, she said she didn't really know why, other than it just seemed like something you shouldn't talk about. When she told her husband about it, when he came home, he said they were all delusional and that if she didn't want to appear crazy she should never mention it again to anyone, and hasn't, until then.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 18:56 (5595 days ago) @ BBella
With BBella demonstrating psychic activity in her family I though I should give some exerpts of scientific studies I reviewed in my book: - There have been many scientific approaches to studying why the brain can seem to have psychic activity. Newberg and D'Aquili have studied the religious during meditation and their findings that the brain is geared for religion is reported in "Why God Won't Go Away". Persinger at Laurentian University in Ontario has produced mystical experiences in 80% of subjects by fitting magnets around the skull. Dr, Bernard Haisch worked for the C.I.A. for 24 years studying psychic activity. His findings are partially declassified with the conclusion that psychic brain function 'has been well established'. His book "The God Theory" proposes that there is a universal consciousness, which is God. - Dr. Puthoff Director of the Institute For Advanced Studies in Austin , Texas studies quantum vacuum energy and predicts we will find that the universe is an 'energetic/information cosmologic unity', and that physical and metaphysical have no boundary between them. - Studies in species consciousness are quite impressive. In the 1920's McDougall of Harvard reported training rats in a water maze. By the 20th generation they did the maze ten times faster. This was not genetic adaptation; when he tried unrelated rats, they learned the maze well before the time the 20th generation took. Rupert Sheldrake of the U. of London has reviewed Blue Tits (birds) and monkey studies, and is convinced there is species consciousness; he then studied humans with crossword puzzles and Japanese nursery rhymes. After the first group does the puzzle (timed) or learns the rhyme, the second group does it quicker! - At Princeton two different studies using random pulse generators have shown that individuals can affect the generators, and generators scattered over the Earth can be changed during momentous events like 9/11. The Maimonides Dream Research Lab in the 1960's demonstrated that dreams can carry urgent real messages, and also can be influenced by people near the sleeper who as a group concentrated on a picture.
The Paranormal
by BBella , Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 05:15 (5589 days ago) @ David Turell
Dr, Bernard Haisch worked for the C.I.A. for 24 years studying psychic activity. His findings are partially declassified with the conclusion that psychic brain function 'has been well established'. His book "The God Theory" proposes that there is a universal consciousness, which is God. - I have not read the Dr.s book above but I have read about his conclusions in some of my own research. >Dr. Puthoff Director of the Institute For Advanced Studies in Austin , Texas studies quantum vacuum energy and predicts we will find that the universe is an 'energetic/information cosmologic unity', and that physical and metaphysical have no boundary between them. - By my own observance I have concluded that the seen and the unseen are both equally as 'real' it's just man only developes his ability to discern the unseen/seen as needed. Because of the way society has deveoped, with all the superstitions and religious beliefs, and because mans needs have been met more readily, man no longer has need for many of these abilities. Man of the past may have had even better abilities than we have now because of the need for these abilities for survival. > Studies in species consciousness are quite impressive. In the 1920's McDougall of Harvard reported training rats in a water maze. By the 20th generation they did the maze ten times faster. This was not genetic adaptation; when he tried unrelated rats, they learned the maze well before the time the 20th generation took. Rupert Sheldrake of the U. of London has reviewed Blue Tits (birds) and monkey studies, and is convinced there is species consciousness; he then studied humans with crossword puzzles and Japanese nursery rhymes. After the first group does the puzzle (timed) or learns the rhyme, the second group does it quicker! - Over the years I have kept up with Sheldrakes studies/experiments and on what he calls the morphogenic field. Having had/have many animals I've observed for myself their ability to sense things before they happen and so on... I believe we all have these senses altho, for the most part, they remain undeveloped mainly because we have no need of them. - >At Princeton two different studies using random pulse generators have shown that individuals can affect the generators, and generators scattered over the Earth can be changed during momentous events like 9/11. The Maimonides Dream Research Lab in the 1960's demonstrated that dreams can carry urgent real messages, and also can be influenced by people near the sleeper who as a group concentrated on a picture. - It seems to me when we are in the dream state we may be more open to the many sound waves traversing the universe than when we are awake, because of our own thought/mental process interference. What is curious is what draws certain waves to ones particular base (mind). I believe it is possibly determined by both each persons ability to comprehend what flows thru as well as the natural tendency of like drawing like. A person will interpret what he receives by his own knowledge. For example: I mnay have not known certain people were going to die but I did personally know the people as well as understood that people do die. Because of the possibility of the bending of space, futures waves can flow from the future to now, the past. So, because I knew these people who were to die, and am a vivid dreamer and remember my dreams, I was the more likely candidate to receive the waves that were put out by their deaths. Yet, the most curious thing is how I was asked if I wanted to continue this and answered no. But, maybe, my ability was waning anyway and this was the way my dreaming mind interpreted this, knowing it was to come to pass by the future waves flowing back to me with this knowledge.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 16:28 (5588 days ago) @ BBella
edited by unknown, Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 17:16
Over the years I have kept up with Sheldrakes studies/experiments and on what he calls the morphogenic field. - I appreciate your comments on the brief summary I gave of paranormal studies. I am convinced we all have a tiny portion of another level of consciousness at the psychic level. - Sheldrake's word 'morphogenesis' gets into the issue of how is a fetus formed according to a construction plan? Darwin does not explain any of that process. There is extremely complex feedback chemical loops that control the timing of appearance and insertion of protein parts as the fetus is put together. The level of information contained in the DNA/RNA code is fantasically large. Any code reveals hidden information. The philosophic/ theologic issue is where did that information come from originally. Remember codes don't make information, intelligence does!
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Friday, January 02, 2009, 16:44 (5586 days ago) @ David Turell
Since I've been offline in course of my move since 10th December I've just been catching up on the most recent posts, mostly by Bella and DT, on so-called paranormal experiences. There are so many anecdotes similar to these, and so little actual evidence. - Research into such effects has been carried out for at least 150 years and has produced no definite results that can't be adequately explained in terms of imagination, natural phenomena, hoaxes or statistical anomalies (to mention only the more common types). - So I remain totally sceptical that there is any reality in "the paranormal". If it could be shown that there were "psionic waves", or something, pervading the universe that we could somehow tune in to and gain knowledge from the future, past, or distant places, it would be an enormous paradigm change in our knowledge and would earn its discoverers bags of Nobel Prizes. But I suspect they will only ever be winning the Hugo or Nebula awards for science fiction.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Saturday, January 03, 2009, 22:37 (5585 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> Research into such effects has been carried out for at least 150 years and has produced no definite results that can't be adequately explained in terms of imagination, natural phenomena, hoaxes or statistical anomalies (to mention only the more common types). > > So I remain totally sceptical that there is any reality in "the paranormal". - I have quoted a few of the numerous sources in my book from established scientific papers and authoritative books that raise legitimate suggestions that some paranormal (using George's term) phenomena are real. Princeton University,for example, is not a third rate institution. There are many documented third party verifications of NDE's. George's declarative statement does not get rid of that evidence, even if it satisfies him.
The Paranormal
by BBella , Sunday, January 04, 2009, 04:28 (5585 days ago) @ David Turell
The level of information contained in the DNA/RNA code is fantasically large. Any code reveals hidden information. The philosophic/ theologic issue is where did that information come from originally. Remember codes don't make information, intelligence does! - This issue takes for granted there is an origin. Doesn't the word 'origin' pretty much mean beginning? Why does there have to be an origin? Maybe everything just is, always was and always will be, altho maybe just evolving (intelligently) as it goes.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Sunday, January 04, 2009, 13:57 (5584 days ago) @ BBella
The level of information contained in the DNA/RNA code is fantasically large. Any code reveals hidden information. The philosophic/ theologic issue is where did that information come from originally. Remember codes don't make information, intelligence does! > > This issue takes for granted there is an origin. Doesn't the word 'origin' pretty much mean beginning? Why does there have to be an origin? Maybe everything just is, always was and always will be, altho maybe just evolving (intelligently) as it goes. - BBella: The word I used is "originally", meaning that DNA/RNA encoding was created by intelligence at some point in time. I admit that your scenario could be true and we are part of something eternal, and evolving, with DNA/RNA originating at a definite point. On the other hand everything could have been created at the same point and reality as we know it is not eternal.
The Paranormal
Just before Christmas, which I hope gave everyone a great deal of enjoyment (secular or otherwise), BBella told us about more of her own and her family's psychic experiences, and theorized about their origin. I find all these experiences and theories fascinating and thought-provoking. - I'm struck by the fact that there are two different sorts of vision here: one seems like a direct projection of the subconscious in the form of dreams, while the other comes from outside ... the UFOs and the message given to your niece while she was driving with her sister-in-law. In the first type, one might well argue that your subconscious is coming up with answers and information that your conscious doesn't have access to. In some ways, this is analogous to the creative process. When a writer writes a play or novel, there are all kinds of scenes, events and characters in the imagination. The characters may well be projections of himself, but they take on a life and an impetus of their own. He's aware of what's happening, and he treads a very fine line between watching and directing, though generally the subconscious seems to know what is right. Interestingly, a newspaper report caught my eye the other day, with the statement: "Scientists have found that our unconscious brains are designed to make the best decision possible." The report concerns a study of decision-making at the University of Rochester in New York, published in the journal Neuron, but unfortunately doesn't offer much detail on the extent of the research. - Your visions originally included prophecies of death, and that means that the subconscious ... if it really was responsible ... also has access to future time. The implications of this are enormous, of course, since knowing the future suggests that things are preordained. David Turell quotes Dr Puthoff's prediction: "we will find that the universe is an 'energetic/information cosmological unity' and that physical and metaphysical have no boundary between them." All your experiences, even the prophetic ones, seem to fit in with this idea, except for the UFOs. Those would mean that there are other physical beings like ourselves in the universe, and so I would put them in a different category. - It seems to me that if we can shake off the prejudices associated with religion and with materialism, we might yet come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the mysterious world we live in. On the other hand, it would be interesting to know what our theists and our atheists make of these particular experiences. Once again, BBella, thank you for opening up these avenues.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Sunday, December 28, 2008, 18:15 (5591 days ago) @ dhw
dhw found this report in the paper. It reminds me of group studies estimating numerical values (beans in a jar, for example) reported from the 1920's into the 1950's. The groups come close to the real value. But how? - > "Scientists have found that our unconscious brains are designed to make the best decision possible." The report concerns a study of decision-making at the University of Rochester in New York, published in the journal . - See this website: http://books.google.com/books?id=ul7gEh6wwe8C&pg=PA5&dq=studies+of+group+estima...
The Paranormal
by John Clinch , Thursday, January 08, 2009, 12:46 (5580 days ago) @ David Turell
It's the "wisdom of crowds" idea, isn't it? Although when humans get together in actual crowds and develop crowd consciousness, nasty things often ensue: mass hypnotism, fear and panic, frenzied hatreds, Nuremburg. It is often forgotten that we behave, in so many ways, in a way that is utterly vile. - At the risk of sounding pompous, I'm afraid this rather silly discussion on the paranormal has reminded me, on this return visit to this site, why I left it nearly a year ago. I was asked, in the way favoured by the pseudo-scientific, to be "open-minded" about all of this stuff. - None of BBella's "amazing experiences", or those of her family require, any supernatural entity or alien visitation to explain them. Why is it, incidentally, that self-declared "psychics" are prone to witness spacecraft, on the face of it two quite different things? What's the common link? Hmmmm... - The fact that these and similar experiences are felt by people today and throughout history is evidence of nothing except how some minds work, given certain cultural and environmental conditions. Nothing. If this was the seventeenth century, BBella woud be seeing witches on broomsticks. - The plural of anecdote is not "data".
The Paranormal
John Clinch writes: None of BBella's "amazing experiences", or those of her family, require any supernatural entity or alien visitation to explain them. - Welcome back! You describe this as a "rather silly discussion on the paranormal", so it's a little surprising that you've chosen such a thread for your comeback. I hope that further discussion of it won't send you packing again, as you engendered some very interesting and lively exchanges on other subjects first time round. However, since you've focused on this one, presumably you're geared up for a response to the above claim. - I myself am particularly intrigued by those experiences that provide people with information they couldn't possibly have known beforehand. Perhaps we can take four instances: 1) BBella's niece and her sister-in-law received a message that was to be relayed to a total stranger (the post of 21.12 at 23.39); it later turned out that the message came from the stranger's sister, who had died. 2) BBella dreamed in advance of imminent deaths in the family (21.12 at 23.14). 3) David Turell's wife has the ability to describe the location of lost objects. 4) David in his latest post (8.1 at 17.50) refers to NDE patients reporting someone else's death. - A dictionary definition of "paranormal" is: "unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge". I must confess to being mystified by these experiences, and so it would be very helpful to hear your scientific explanation of how this information is obtained.
The Paranormal
by BBella , Friday, January 09, 2009, 21:09 (5579 days ago) @ dhw
John Clinch writes: None of BBella's "amazing experiences", or those of her family, require any supernatural entity or alien visitation to explain them. - I very well agree that these experiences are probably not "supernatural" and may have said so in my post. I believe these are natural experiences, just not understood by most. Some claim they understand these things but I cannot know if that is true. All I know is these things did happen and I have no idea how or why. - I also wanted to make a note of a recent experience: My sister's son has been engaged for over a year dating this girl for much longer. We have all embraced her as a part of the family and have been very close to her right from the beginning. A month or so before Christmas, I dreamed that his fiance bought two teddy bears, one for her and one for him. Both teddy bears were holding hearts (not sure what they were made of) but the one she was giving my sister's son was holding a broken heart. It wasn't like it was a perfectly broken heart, like it was meant to be, but like the heart was whole but may have been dropped and broken, so the teddy bear didn't look new anymore. I asked his fiance in the dream why she was giving him something that was broken and asked her wouldn't it be better to give him the one that was not broken, and she said no, that the one that was broken seemed more appropriate. - At the Christmas party I told my sister the dream when I remembered as I saw the two come in...and she said she couldn't imagine what it could mean because they were so in love but she said she didn't want to tell him because they had been fussing before the party. One week later, his fiance broke up with him, telling him she wanted to start seeing a guy she had known/dated(?) when she was younger, and wanted him to also start seeing other people, if he wanted. Needless to say, her son was shocked and devastated, as most of us were. - > A dictionary definition of "paranormal" is: "unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge". I must confess to being mystified by these experiences, and so it would be very helpful to hear your scientific explanation of how this information is obtained. - I too would like to have a scientific explanation altho, I have read a few more 'openminded' scientist explanation that these and/or other kind of experiences like these can be explained by quantum physics.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, January 10, 2009, 10:16 (5579 days ago) @ BBella
DHW has asked me to comment on BBella's descriptions of paranormal experiences. I had some difficulty in locating them as they are under the heading "Other Forms of Life" which is a subsection of the "Catastrophes" thread. - Her first story relates seeing a figure near her bed upon waking from sleep. This is not uncommon. We are programmed by evolution to interpret patterns we see as people or animals that might be a danger to us. This can particularly occur at night, when the light-evidence is limited, and after sleep when we are not fully alert, or may still retain dream-images. When she put on the light the image vanished, as one would expect. - Her second story concerns seeing lights in the sky moving in a line. What is needed here is further data. If the date and time were known it may be that astronomers and airforce or meteorological personnel would have noted the same phenomena, which could have numerous explanations. - Her third story is similar to the first, but more detailed. She was ill at the time and perhaps this enhanced her dreams or affected her vision more. - A fourth story seems to have gone missing. - In her fifth story she admits to belonging to a family that believes in psychic powers. She mentions dreaming things that actually happen, like births and deaths. There is little surprising in this. Births and deaths are seldom unexpected. There is also the mental effect known as deja-vu, that we have experienced something before, though we know we haven't; this may lead one to suppose that we must have dreamt it before. BBella also claims to be able to relieve pain by mental activity. This has been known to practitioners of Yoga for centuries. - Her sixth story is another "light in the sky" experienced by her brother. The same comments apply as before. - Her seventh story is of "a large dark triangular flying vehicle". Sounds like a stealth bomber to me! Perhaps it was on test around that time. - Her eighth story is about a relative receiving a "spirit meassage" from a foggy cloud. It seems that the name was vague but fitted that of someone who live near where the cloud was seen. This vagueness is typical of such messages. It gives more chance of there being someone to whom it could apply. - The latest story about the dream of the teddy-bears hardly needs much explanation, certainly not in terms of quantum physics! I would simply put it down to a woman's intuition (BBella's) about other women (her nephews's fiance), or just to her imagination happening to prove correct.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
George writes: DHW has asked me to comment on BBella's descriptions of paranormal experiences. I had some difficulty in locating them.... - First of all, many apologies if my request was not clear. I was in fact asking specifically about four experiences listed in my response to John Clinch (9 January at 10.12), and rather lazily I had referred you to that post instead of again listing the four I was interested in. Two of these were BBella's (which you have commented on), and two were David Turell's, and the feature all four had in common was that they entailed obtaining information which could not have been known beforehand. - All the same, I'd like to thank you for responding ... as always ... with such thoroughness. Personally, I find most of your explanations convincing, and it would be interesting to know what BBella makes of them. I'd like to add further thanks to her and to David Turell. BBella has offered us these personal experiences without any prejudgements as to their provenance. David, in his response to John Clinch, has rightly stressed that the point of the website is to "poke into any and all areas that one of us brings up". The subject of the "paranormal" and, by extension, the nature of the human mind, seems to me to be well worth delving into. - I think most of us would agree that some people do have what David calls "extra mental powers, beyond what the average mind can accomplish". It should also go without saying that we discount the fraudulent and the gullible. I wanted to focus on cases where previously unknowable information is relayed, because I can't come up with any rational explanation myself. The subject has enormous ramifications in relation to time and place, and with OBEs/NDEs there is the additional dimension of the nature of perception. George has offered possible explanations of the two BBella experiences: (1) births and deaths are seldom unexpected, or perhaps déjà vu; 2) the vagueness of the message is typical of such episodes. We'd need BBella to tell us if the deaths were unexpected or not, but as regards 2) this doesn't explain where the message came from in the first place, or why it was "delivered", since the whole thing involved total strangers. BBella herself is not opting for a supernatural explanation. I don't think any of us are. But I don't think we've found a natural explanation either, for this or for David's examples. Perhaps John Clinch will come up with one.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Sunday, January 11, 2009, 01:16 (5578 days ago) @ dhw
The subject has enormous ramifications in relation to time and place, and with OBEs/NDEs there is the additional dimension of the nature of perception. - I wish George would comment on OOB's and NDE's. A number have been corroborated and I can cite references by medical professionals in the literature as well as the one I heard by the hospice doctor here in Houston.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, January 11, 2009, 11:27 (5577 days ago) @ David Turell
DT: "I wish George would comment on OOB's and NDE's. A number have been corroborated and I can cite references by medical professionals in the literature as well as the one I heard by the hospice doctor here in Houston." - I would comment on these things if I could find them, but they don't seem to have been mentioned earlier in this thread. I looked back at the "near death experiences" thread but couldn't find anything there that I haven't already commented on.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Sunday, January 11, 2009, 14:20 (5577 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I would comment on these things if I could find them, but they don't seem to have been mentioned earlier in this thread. I looked back at the "near death experiences" thread but couldn't find anything there that I haven't already commented on. - Sorry I didn't give the most recent reference to NDE and OOB. Jan. 8th in How to Decide There is a Deity. The point of third party corroboration.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, January 11, 2009, 16:20 (5577 days ago) @ David Turell
The 8th January item from DT was: - "In NDE's patients, who could not have found out the information beforehand, come back from an NDE and tell of a recent death of a person they know, and describe the information to a nurse or doctor at the bedside (primarily in hospice care). I have personally heard one hospice doctor incredulously describe this on a radio program in Houston. The literature is filled with them. George may choose not to believe professional caregivers. This is third party corroboration. I agree that a mind may be too open to silliness, but it also can be too firm in previous convictions that are now being overturned." - There is not sufficient explicit data here to come to any opinion. Professional caregivers are not immune from error or gullibility. There was a professor of mathematics and physics who endorsed Yuri Geller's spoon-bending. - When you say they (A) "tell" of the recent death of a person (B) that they know, do you mean someone (B) who has died while they (A) were in their near death state, and that they (A) are able to give details of how they (B) died? Would these be people in the same hospice, or elsewhere?
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Sunday, January 11, 2009, 16:50 (5577 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> There is not sufficient explicit data here to come to any opinion. Professional caregivers are not immune from error or gullibility. There was a professor of mathematics and physics who endorsed Yuri Geller's spoon-bending. > > When you say they (A) "tell" of the recent death of a person (B) that they know, do you mean someone (B) who has died while they (A) were in their near death state, and that they (A) are able to give details of how they (B) died? Would these be people in the same hospice, or elsewhere? - They 'learn' of a death during their communication with 'the other side' at the end of the tunnel where the light is. Communication is said to be telepathic. The death is of someone they know but not at the same hospice. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross gave an early description of this in a story about a young American Indian girl who 'knew' of her father's death, even though he was across the country. I have never seen a report where the mode of death is described by the individual of the NDE. In this type of event the NDE'er is told it is not yet their time and to go back down the tunnel. Generally the NDE'er states they wanted to stay and not come back. These experiences are consistently the same (other than reporting another death, which is not as common).
The Paranormal
by John Clicnh , Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 14:57 (5575 days ago) @ dhw
Hi dhw. - The scientific explanations are probably close to what George J has already detailed. - My broader point was simply that exploring the so-called paranormal is a complete blind alley and was a regrettable diversion from the really quite intelligent discussions we had on this website on agnosticism. - The so-called paranormal requires no explanation beyond the limited understanding required to explain why people feel the need to believe this sort of thing. I'm not a psychologist but I'll hazard that the causes of such beliefs are multi-factorial - possibly a desire for attention, maybe a fear of death, a certain weariness with the mundanity of the world as it seems to be, and certainly the seemingly eternal and immense appeal of magical thinking. And there are certain actual mental experiences (for example, hypnopompic hallucination when emerging from sleep) that account for some apparently inexplicable experiences. - When you think about it, it is odd to ask someone for a scientific explanation of something that is a direct outcome of pre-scientific thinking. The reality is that, if there was evidence - and I mean any good evidence at all - for ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance, ghosts and all the rest of it, the scientists would be over it like a rash. There must surely be a Nobel prize to the person who could demonstrate that that mind can exist and perform without being supported by a body in space and time. This astounding confirmation of radical mind-body dualism would make the individual instantly famous and probably rich. - The others are grasping at straws when they refer to particular studies or stories they have heard in support of this idea. If the studies were any good, you can bet there'd be a productive and potentially lucrative line of research for the determined scientist chasing what would be the greatest discovery in the history of psychology and brain sciences. Instead, there's next to nothing. - And, to repeat, an anecdote is not good evidence and its plural is not "data". Anecdotes may, in some cases, provide grounds to conduct research but no-one can accept them - not even in their thousands - as good evidence. Just before Zeppelins made their first appearance, there was a lot of coverage in the press. And there were thousands of sightings before the first one had even flown. Your asking me for a scientific explanation of BBella's stores is like me asking you for one of that. I'm afraid the explanation is very trite. When you dig deeper the evidence evaporates, leaving just suggestibility, confirmation and selection bias, reconstructed false memory, press sensationalism, a desire for attention and flattery and the appeal of a good story.
The Paranormal
by John Clinch , Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 15:07 (5575 days ago) @ dhw
This is how a genuinely "open-minded" scientist approached the question of the paranormal. I give you the brilliant Prof. Susan Blackmore: - "Imagine me, if you will, in the Oxford of 1970; a new undergraduate, thrilled by the intellectual atmosphere, the hippy clothes, joss-stick filled rooms, late nights, early morning lectures, and mind-opening cannabis. - I joined the Society for Psychical Research and became fascinated with occultism, mediumship and the paranormal — ideas that clashed tantalisingly with the physiology and psychology I was studying. Then late one night something very strange happened. I was sitting around with friends, smoking, listening to music, and enjoying the vivid imagery of rushing down a dark tunnel towards a bright light, when my friend spoke. I couldn't reply. - "Where are you Sue?" he asked, and suddenly I seemed to be on the ceiling looking down. - "Astral projection!" I thought and then I (or some imagined flying "I") set off across Oxford, over the country, and way beyond. For more than two hours I fell through strange scenes and mystical states, losing space and time, and ultimately my self. It was an extraordinary and life-changing experience. Everything seemed brighter, more real, and more meaningful than anything in ordinary life, and I longed to understand it. - But I jumped to all the wrong conclusions. Perhaps understandably, I assumed that my spirit had left my body and that this proved all manner of things — life after death, telepathy, clairvoyance, and much, much more. I decided, with splendid, youthful over-confidence, to become a parapsychologist and prove all my closed-minded science lecturers wrong. I found a PhD place, funded myself by teaching, and began to test my memory theory of ESP. And this is where my change of mind — and heart, and everything else — came about. - I did the experiments. I tested telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance; I got only chance results. I trained fellow students in imagery techniques and tested them again; chance results. I tested twins in pairs; chance results. I worked in play groups and nursery schools with very young children (their naturally telepathic minds are not yet warped by education, you see); chance results. I trained as a Tarot reader and tested the readings; chance results. Occasionally I got a significant result. Oh the excitement! I responded as I think any scientist should, by checking for errors, recalculating the statistics, and repeating the experiments. But every time I either found the error responsible, or failed to repeat the results. When my enthusiasm waned, or I began to doubt my original beliefs, there was always another corner to turn — always someone saying "But you must try xxx". It was probably three or four years before I ran out of xxxs. - I remember the very moment when something snapped (or should I say "I seem to ..." in case it's a false flash-bulb memory). I was lying in the bath trying to fit my latest null results into paranormal theory, when it occurred to me for the very first time that I might have been completely wrong, and my tutors right. Perhaps there were no paranormal phenomena at all. - As far as I can remember, this scary thought took some time to sink in. I did more experiments, and got more chance results. Parapsychologists called me a "psi-inhibitory experimenter", meaning that I didn't get paranormal results because I didn't believe strongly enough. I studied other people's results and found more errors and even outright fraud. By the time my PhD was completed, I had become a sceptic. - Until then, my whole identity had been bound up with the paranormal. I had shunned a sensible PhD place, and ruined my chances of a career in academia (as my tutor at Oxford liked to say). I had hunted ghosts and poltergeists, trained as a witch, attended spiritualist churches, and stared into crystal balls. But all of that had to go. - Once the decision was made it was actually quite easy. Like many big changes in life this one was terrifying in prospect but easy in retrospect. I soon became "rentasceptic", appearing on TV shows to explain how the illusions work, why there is no telepathy, and how to explain near-death experiences by events in the brain. What remains now is a kind of openness to evidence. However firmly I believe in some theory (on consciousness, memes or whatever); however closely I might be identified with some position or claim, I know that the world won't fall apart if I have to change my mind." - If all the other wannabe believers are right, Susan just didn't look hard enough.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 15:40 (5575 days ago) @ John Clinch
This is how a genuinely "open-minded" scientist approached the question of the paranormal. I give you the brilliant Prof. Susan Blackmore: > > > If all the other wannabe believers are right, Susan just didn't look hard enough. - I take an opposite viewpoint to the praise of Susan. First of all, her self-described NDE was really an OBE from Canabis. Doesn't she know they are different? Secondly I've read her book "Dying to Live" very carefully, read the other books by medical physicians she referred to in her book with derision, and discovered she has no credible knowledge of anoxia effects. My book has a thorough review of hers. What happened is her OOB sent her off on a wild goose chase, and she closed her mind to any other possibilities. As I have noted before there is credible third party evidence that NDE's are something very unusual. Information is gained that should not have been available.
The Paranormal
by BBella , Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 18:19 (5575 days ago) @ John Clinch
This is how a genuinely "open-minded" scientist approached the question of the paranormal. I give you the brilliant Prof. Susan Blackmore: > >What remains now is a kind of openness to evidence. However firmly I believe in some theory (on consciousness, memes or whatever); however closely I might be identified with some position or claim, I know that the world won't fall apart if I have to change my mind. - It's a normal human trait to decided if we have searched long and hard (even some have given their life) to prove something (believed) is true and found no evidence to prove it, to conclude just the opposite. - I have not read Dr. Susan's book, but just from this post and Davids, it appears as tho she has become close minded as well as a skeptic even tho in the above statements she claims differently (obviously skeptics make money too). And, altho the definition to the word skeptic, is one that is thoughtful and considerate of what they observe, it seems her experience has caused her to become close minded which of course is the opposite of open minded. - If Dr. Susan truly remains open minded then her experiences, whatever they may be, will simply be more data gathered, and no 'conclusion' made. I would hope she would have learned from her past mistake that coming to a conclusion before all facts are in, then living her life to prove it, may be a waste of a good mind (altho lucrative). Sometimes, something IS real just because it IS. Why or how something IS real may be beyond human comprehension or maybe we just aren't 'there' yet. - As for my conclusions about my own or others I know experiences; I do believe most can be explained in someway by someone, yet, there are those not so easily explained or yet commonly understood how they are so.
The Paranormal
John Clinch writes: "My broader point was simply that exploring the so-called paranormal is a complete blind alley and was a regrettable diversion from the really quite intelligent discussions we had on this website on agnosticism." John goes on to explain his scepticism in relation to the paranormal, and has also given us Susan Blackmore's account of her conversion from enthusiastic researcher to sceptic. - Hi, John. Thank you for this very detailed reply. I'll leave Susan Blackmore to David, who has mentioned his review (I'd call it a demolition) of her Dying to Live in his book Science vs. Religion. I still wonder why you've chosen this subject, since you feel it's a blind alley, but you have, and I'm reluctant to let the argument rest with your dismissal of what you call "anecdotes". I will, of course, join you in disregarding cranks and frauds and sensationalists. However, in my first response to you, I specifically asked for your comments on those examples in which information was obtained that could not have been known beforehand. (David has picked up on this as well in his reply to you: "Information is gained that should not have been available.") This is the angle which I personally find intriguing, and which I feel you dismiss too lightly. - Firstly, "anecdotes". If three eyewitnesses identify X as the bank robber, I doubt if even the Counsel for Defence will object that they can't prove scientifically that X was there. With certain provisos, we accept eyewitness accounts as evidence in a court of law. There are countless "anecdotes" of NDEs and other experiences (e.g. the message given to BBella's niece and her sister-in-law ... see her post of 21.12 at 23.39) in which there are witnesses to corroborate the accuracy of the information relayed. Maybe some are fake, maybe some are delusional, but you are dismissing every single one of them. You write: "When you dig deeper the evidence evaporates..." Which cases have you dug deeper into? You are making an assumption that ... for instance ... David's medical colleagues, or BBella's niece and sister-in-law, are all liars or fools or self-deluders. Quite apart from the obvious rudeness of such an assumption ... though I'm sure you do not mean it that way ... wouldn't you say it smacks of prejudice? - But I think you are also missing out on a crucial area of this discussion. BBella herself has made it clear (also in her latest post) that she is not arguing for the supernatural. Nor are any of us. We are simply trying to find an explanation. The difference between you and me is that you dismiss the sources, whereas I am far more inclined to believe that there have been cases in which unknowable information has somehow been made available. Your search stops at: "why people need to believe this sort of thing". I would like to know what realities the human mind is capable of grasping. Do some people's faculties and senses extend beyond the range of what most of us consider to be "normal"? If so, what are the implications? I hope George won't mind if I quote one of his most memorable comments, in a different context, from a post on Atheism (21 August at 18.13): "What does it mean to talk about something "beyond the natural, physical world"? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical." If you are totally convinced that nobody has ever obtained information in the manner David and BBella have described, then let's end the discussion, but perhaps you might consider the possibility that some alleys may only seem blind because people keep their eyes closed.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 14:10 (5574 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: Firstly, "anecdotes". If three eyewitnesses identify X as the bank robber, I doubt if even the Counsel for Defence will object that they can't prove scientifically that X was there. With certain provisos, we accept eyewitness accounts as evidence in a court of law. - There have been cases of many people witnessing supernatural events. This is not sufficent evidence of their occurrence. Mass hysteria cannot be ruled out. Independent evidence is needed before the conclusion can be called "scientific" - DHW: There are countless "anecdotes" of NDEs and other experiences ... in which there are witnesses to corroborate the accuracy of the information relayed. - You and DT keep claiming that, but you don't actually come up with solid examples. None of those I have ever read about has been at all convincing, and can be easily explained. - DHW: Do some people's faculties and senses extend beyond the range of what most of us consider to be "normal"? If so, what are the implications? I hope George won't mind if I quote one of his most memorable comments, in a different context, from a post on Atheism (21 August at 18.13): "What does it mean to talk about something "beyond the natural, physical world"? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical." - As I've said earlier the discovery of any such senses (say reception of "psionic waves") would be a major scientific discovery. None of the results hitherto published come anywhere near, say the findings of Micxhael Faraday on electromagnetism. That is the sort of breakthrough that would be necessary to take these things seriously. As it is they are just material for fantasy fiction. - DHW: If you are totally convinced that nobody has ever obtained information in the manner David and BBella have described, then let's end the discussion, but perhaps you might consider the possibility that some alleys may only seem blind because people keep their eyes closed. - On the other hand, some people are determined to see things that aren't there!
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 15:41 (5574 days ago) @ George Jelliss
You and DT keep claiming that, but you don't actually come up with solid examples. None of those I have ever read about has been at all convincing, and can be easily explained. > - I have repeated on several occasions about the licensed physician, working in a hospice, on the radio in Houston, describing a patient who had an NDE and found out through it someone they knew had died and it was true. There was no way, considering the near terminal condition of the patient, that patient could have known except thru the NDE. He said it happened several times. My Chapter Six is filled with examples. Kubler-Ross and Raymond Moody, both physicians, published in the 1970's reawakening interest in a phenomenon known since ancient times. I am not enough of a typist to copy out a 51 page chapter. Get the book and see the references. I'll send one just for the postage. Or google IANDS or PMH Atwater, with whom I have spoken. Google Dr. Michael Sabom, a skeptical cardiologist whom Moody challenged. Sabom was convinced. See his books. See Kenneth Ring, "Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-the-Body Experiences in the Blind", 1999. The literature is out there; please look for it. - As with Blackmore, blind of acceptence of skepticism is no way to reason out possibilities. Research the literature as I have. I'm not sure I know exactly what is happenening, but the NDE episodes are too consistent in the descriptions by the patients. They are not hallucinations. They are too consistent and organized. After 40 years in medicine I know one when I see it. - Also recognize that OOB and NDE are different, each strange in its own way. OOB can be corroborated by third party in the description of what was going on around the patient durng the episode. In the Pim van Lommel article in Lancet, the patient 'knew' what happened to his dentures even though his EEG was flat (no cerebral function, eyes closed)
The Paranormal
George writes, of eyewitness accounts: "Independent evidence is needed before the conclusion can be called "scientific". - I have two problems with this statement. - Firstly, what constitutes "independent evidence"? If BBella and her family, David, his wife and his medical colleagues have personal knowledge of information obtained in a manner they can't explain, I will not insult them by questioning their intelligence or their integrity. I will join them in looking for an explanation. - Secondly, I couldn't care less whether you call the conclusion "scientific" or not. I only want to know whether it's true. That is not to denigrate the vital role of science (although it too has had its share of frauds and blunders, and not infrequently has to change its tunes), but it does not have a monopoly on truth. On this thread we're not discussing obvious fakes, or "mass hysteria". I have read David's book, have followed up his references earlier on this website to Pim van Lommel, and have taken into account certain experiences of my own and of my wife's. If we limit the field to NDEs and OBEs, my first conclusion is that there is plenty of evidence to confirm that they happen, and that during NDEs and OBEs, information has been obtained that could not have been known beforehand. In some cases, the information has been corroborated by independent third parties. I cannot dismiss such cases as "just material for science fiction", though I would prefer at this stage not to draw any further conclusions. I'd simply like to find an explanation for a phenomenon I can't understand, but I do not subscribe to the view that if I don't understand it, then it can't be there.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, January 16, 2009, 11:57 (5572 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: << George writes, of eyewitness accounts: "Independent evidence is needed before the conclusion can be called "scientific". - I have two problems with this statement. Firstly, what constitutes "independent evidence"? If BBella and her family, David, his wife and his medical colleagues have personal knowledge of information obtained in a manner they can't explain, I will not insult them by questioning their intelligence or their integrity. I will join them in looking for an explanation. >> - I am not insulting anyone or questioning anyone's integrity. It was DHW that introduced the "scientific" claim. He wrote: << If three eyewitnesses identify X as the bank robber, I doubt if even the Counsel for Defence will object that they can't prove scientifically that X was there. >> - I'm afraid more evidence is indeed needed for a scientific conclusion to be reached. For instance evidence of the wherabouts of the accused at the time of the robbery, evidence of the disposal of the goods, etc, etc, etc. Eyewitness testimony alone is notoriously unreliable. - DHW: << Secondly, I couldn't care less whether you call the conclusion "scientific" or not. I only want to know whether it's true. >> - It was you that called the conclusion "scientific" not me. I was just responding. It seems you want to know whether something is true, but are not bothered about the standards of proof. You will settle for three eye-witness statements, I require more stringent evidence. - DHW: << If we limit the field to NDEs and OBEs, my first conclusion is that there is plenty of evidence to confirm that they happen, >> - I agree with this, as I've already stated. - DHW: << and that during NDEs and OBEs, information has been obtained that could not have been known beforehand. >> - I don't agree with this. It looks as though I will have to search out the link to David Turell's book and read it and comment directly on what he claims there. This may take some time.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Friday, January 16, 2009, 14:02 (5572 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> I don't agree with this. It looks as though I will have to search out the link to David Turell's book and read it and comment directly on what he claims there. This may take some time. - George: I am happy to send a copy to you. I will need your postal address. My email is turell@att.net
The Paranormal
John Clinch, George and I are discussing "paranormal" cases in which information is obtained that could not have been known beforehand. George quotes my contention that: "If three eyewitnesses identify X as the bank robber, I doubt if even the Counsel for the Defence will object that they can't prove scientifically that X was there." George thinks I am claiming that eyewitness accounts constitute scientific evidence. - This is a complete misunderstanding. The above quote means that scientific evidence is not the only method of arriving at the truth. Nowhere have I called the conclusion "scientific"! - However, the misunderstanding goes further back. When I responded to John Clinch in my post of 9 January 2009 at 10.12, I offered a dictionary definition of "paranormal", which was: "unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge". I then asked John for his "scientific" explanation of four instances (two BBella and two David Turell) in which unknowable information had been conveyed to various people. I asked how he thought the information had been obtained, but it then transpired that neither you nor he believed the information was obtained/unknowable in the first place. You dismissed the BBella examples as being vague in one case, and "deaths are seldom unexpected" in the other. John did not comment specifically on any of the four. There are therefore no scientific conclusions of any kind by any of us. We are simply left with your scepticism in relation to the claims made by BBella and David Turell.
The Paranormal
by BBella , Saturday, January 17, 2009, 18:42 (5571 days ago) @ dhw
..a dictionary definition of "paranormal", (is):"unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge". - I was speaking to my good friend yesterday of the discussion we are having here about the paranormal and this friend reminded me of the "paranormal" situation of how we came to be friends over 3 years ago. I don't know if it would be under the heading of the paranormal, but thought I would recount the story anyway. - We met in a discussion group about dreams almost 4 years ago. This group had a monthly chat so people in the group could meet and discuss their various dreams. I happened to join one night for the first time, and this person, who is now my friend, began to describe a memorable and vivid dream they had long ago. Oddly, the dream sounded so much like a vivid and memorable dream I had long time ago, I began to insert information about the place and time this dream was about, we were literally finishing each others sentences, to the awe and surprise of ourselves and the other 20-30 people in the chat. We both thot it very odd we would have an almost identical dream about a place neither of us had actually been before. In the dream, we were both different people than who we are. This connection may have sparked this person to say, at the end of the chat, that they felt sure we would meet one day...but I had heard that so many times before by many people all over the world, since being online, and so had never met anyone to that day, and so said so in a possibly too abrupt way (hoping to detour any thought of such as I felt, even tho we may have had a similar dream, I didn't know this person from Adam, and you never know, is how I felt). - This person began to email me every now and then, and at some point, told me their son had woke up one day and said they would be moving soon to a blue house surrounded by a lot of friends and that his best friend is waiting for him to get there and that they needed to hurry up and move there! He described the place very vividly and even said it was surrounded by a lot of trees. At that time, they had no intention in moving, as everything in their life at that point was going smoothly. This person had never even mentioned anything about me or that they had felt we were going to meet one day to their son. The son was only 4 yrs old at the time. - About 6 months later, this person lost their job, and just so happened, a job opened up in our area that this person could take if they so chose to do. Because they had no ties to the area they were in, and because this person could find no other job in that area, altho they looked very hard, they decided to go ahead and take the only job opened to them at the time, and move out this way, which is clear across the country on the opposite coast. They were moving from an almost barren treeless area, to a very lush and green area. So, at first, they moved into a rental, but a while afterward, a house came up for sale in my neighborhood. They bought the house and moved here and have been here now for 3 yrs and our families are all very good friends. It wasn't until months later that it hit both of us that the house they bought is a blue house, just as their son said, and is surrounded by many neighboring children in which one, my nephew, has become his best friend. - There are many coincidences we have with one another which we uncover on a continuous basis. Just one to mention; I have a rather large family (not immediate) I am surrounded by and this person has a very small scattered family across the country. But, almost all of this persons family have the same names as many of my larger family I am surrounded by, so these people are now surrounded by very familiar names as their own family. Of course, this can all be chalked up to coincidence...but maybe there is more to coincidence than just chance. - I tend to believe, like is drawn to like, even tho the old saying says opposites attract, I believe it is just the opposite. Everything carries a vibration within it, and I believe it is the similarities of the vibration that causes the attraction within all that IS. I am open to be proven wrong but my life that surrounds me tells me the 'law' of attraction is very real.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Sunday, January 18, 2009, 14:45 (5570 days ago) @ BBella
I tend to believe, like is drawn to like, even tho the old saying says opposites attract, I believe it is just the opposite. Everything carries a vibration within it, and I believe it is the similarities of the vibration that causes the attraction within all that IS. I am open to be proven wrong but my life that surrounds me tells me the 'law' of attraction is very real. - It may be more than opposites attract. Some of the reading I did pointed out experiments looking at species consciousness. And my own experiences with my wife's abilities make me suspicious that a parnormal level of mental ability can exist in some people.
The Paranormal
BBella has kindly recounted another of her strange experiences, which I shan't attempt to summarize. - What interests me especially is the 4-year-old boy's dream about the blue house, which he described so vividly but obviously could not have known anything about. Once again, we're dealing with a kind of perception that transcends the normal. - You talk of vibrations. We can't perceive light waves and sound waves, but something outside us emits them, and there's machinery inside us that transforms them back into the images/sounds of the original. We needn't dwell on how absolutely astonishing this is (though I feel I should mention it), because in this context what springs to mind is the possible presence of other types of wave. There is, of course, no proof, but here are three interesting quotes from Wikipedia: - "The exact nature of this....is a matter of speculation." "It is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory." "It has been noted that the names....serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with 'terra incognita'." - Here are two more quotes: - "Natural objects obey the laws of nature, even those laws that we have not yet discovered." (George) "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and intelligence of their own, they are wiser than we are..." (Heinrich Hertz, quoted by George). - If the laws of nature are clever enough to devise such wonders as life, reproduction, sight, hearing etc., perhaps they can also create other means of perception and communication, as apparently experienced by so many of our fellow creatures, human and non-human. - The three Wikipedia quotes have nothing to do with the paranormal. The bits I left out are "dark energy", which some scientists believe makes up 74% of the universe, and "dark matter", which they think comprises 22% of the universe. There seems to be an awful lot of "terra incognita" up there. Maybe there's some down here as well.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Monday, January 19, 2009, 14:46 (5569 days ago) @ dhw
"Natural objects obey the laws of nature, even those laws that we have not yet discovered." (George) > "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae have an independent existence and intelligence of their own, they are wiser than we are..." (Heinrich Hertz, quoted by George). - Thanks for repeating both quotes. Einstein had the same feeling as Hertz. The math behind the wonders of the world makes it comprehensable. Fractal formulations fit the dendrology patterns of tree branching. Fractals can outline actual coastlines. This aspect of reality needs more discussion by our group.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 10:30 (5569 days ago) @ dhw
There is definite quantitative evidence for dark matter and dark energy (though the use of these names for the phenomena may prove to be premature, as other explanations such as modified laws of gravity may yet be found). However, no such sound evidence has ever been found for the existence of thought waves. - Many houses are "blue". How blue does a house have to be to qualify as a blue house? Does it matter what shade of blue?
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
George and I are discussing the implications of a 4-year-old boy's dream, as reported by BBella. I remarked that scientists believe 96% of the universe consists of dark energy (74%) and dark matter (22%), and it is all a complete mystery, summed up as "terra incognita". - George (bold type mine): "There is definite quantitative evidence for dark matter and dark energy (though the use of these names for the phenomena may prove to be premature, as other explanations such as modified laws of gravity may yet be found). However, no such sound evidence has ever been found for the existence of thought waves." - George: "Many houses are "blue". How blue does a house have to be to qualify as a blue house? Does it matter what shade of blue?" - Let me first extract the salient details of the dream from BBella's account, since your blue comment omits approx. two thirds of them. The family lived in an almost barren, treeless area; they had no intention of moving as their lives were settled. One morning the little boy said he had dreamed that they would be moving soon to a blue house, which he described very vividly and which, he said, was surrounded by trees. 6 months later, owing to an unexpected job loss, the family moved across the country and ended up in a blue house surrounded by trees. - The little boy dreamed of something he could not possibly have known beforehand. This is one of countless such experiences by countless numbers of people through countless generations. There is definite quantitative evidence for "paranormal" experiences, though the use of this name for the phenomenon may prove to be premature, as other explanations such as thought waves may yet be found. - George (14 January at 14.10): "On the other hand, some people are determined to see things that aren't there!" No-one can argue with that. - On the other hand, some people are determined to see only what they are determined to see, which means they are determined not to see what they are determined not to see ... if you see what I mean!
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, January 22, 2009, 10:51 (5567 days ago) @ dhw
The quantitative evidence for dark matter consists in calculations, using the equations of gravitational theory, which indicates that some extra gravity is needed to hold galaxies together. Similarly dark energy relates to a parameter, known as the cosmic conatant, in Einstein's general theory of relativity. This is what I understand by "quantitative" evidence. The value of the cosmic constant can now be calculated more precisely, thanks to the WMAP data on the background radiation. - What DHW calls "quantitative evidence" for paranormal events is mere statistics of opinion polls. What I would call quantititative evidence of, say, thought waves would be some measure of their intensity. What we have in fact is a complete absence of reproducible experiments. - OK the blue house was also "surrounded by trees". But if they were living in a treeless area any move would statistically be to a more tree-ful area. How surrounded did it need to be? Deep in the forest, or just in a tree-lined avenue? OK they had no intention of moving. Neither did I a few months ago. Things happen. If the move hadn't happened, and nothing in the story had matched the reality, would the boy's fanciful dream have been remembered? - DHW says: The little boy dreamed of something he could not possibly have known beforehand. - Correct. That's because he didn't know of it beforehand. Some dreams come true, some don't. We remember those that do.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
GEORGE: What DHW calls "quantitative evidence" for paranormal events is mere statistics of opinion polls. - I don't recall seeing any statistics or opinion polls on this subject, but in any case that is certainly not what I mean. Of the five people who have submitted posts on this thread, three have had experiences which they cannot explain in terms of normal perception. You don't need me to tell you that such examples can be multiplied thousands of times over. "Quantitative" = relating to the amount or number of something. A large number of similar personal experiences, eye-witness accounts, communications subsequently confirmed by third parties do not, I agree, constitute "scientific evidence", but I would still call them "quantitative evidence". - GEORGE: If the move hadn't happened, and nothing in the story had matched the reality, would the boy's fanciful dream have been remembered? - Of course not. But that is the whole point. The dream did match reality, as have countless other experiences (NDEs, OBEs, ESP, strange encounters) in which unknowable information is somehow passed on. The question is how such information enters the mind in the first place. - DHW: The little boy dreamed of something he could not possibly have known beforehand. GEORGE: That's because he didn't know it beforehand. Some dreams come true, some don't. We remember those that do. - That seems a strange reason for having a dream. And yes, we remember things that are out of the ordinary, which again is at the heart of the discussion, since that amounts to a definition of "paranormal". The dream is out of the ordinary because of the accumulation of unknowable factors (the move, the landscape, the colour of the house). A near-death experience is out of the ordinary when you meet someone who has just died, are yourself revived, and then learn that the other person's death has indeed taken place. You can, of course, say that all the scenes or deaths or locations described by Pim van Lommel's patients or BBella's niece or David's wife are sheer coincidence, but I'd say that such an explanation requires a lot of faith in chance.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 08:58 (5562 days ago) @ dhw
On the blue house dream: - I asked: If the move hadn't happened, and nothing in the story had matched the reality, would the boy's fanciful dream have been remembered? - DHW replied: Of course not. But that is the whole point. The dream did match reality, as have countless other experiences (NDEs, OBEs, ESP, strange encounters) in which unknowable information is somehow passed on. The question is how such information enters the mind in the first place. - DHW claimed: The little boy dreamed of something he could not possibly have known beforehand. - I replied: That's because he didn't know it beforehand. Some dreams come true, some don't. We remember those that do. - DHW responds: That seems a strange reason for having a dream. And yes, we remember things that are out of the ordinary, which again is at the heart of the discussion, since that amounts to a definition of "paranormal". The dream is out of the ordinary because of the accumulation of unknowable factors (the move, the landscape, the colour of the house). - This is all a case of "confirmational bias" in thinking. See for example: - http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=confirmation.php - http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html - http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/confirmation.htm - The idea that there has to be a reason for having a dream, or that all dreams predict subsequent events or match reality in some way is a bias of those who favour the reality of paranormal occurrences. - The causes of dreams are various. Some may be wish-fulfilment, like day-dreams, some may just be us churning over the events of the day and trying to make sense of them in some sort of order, some may be like nightmares, where we are trying to sort out our emotional reactions, fears, anxieties, desires and hopes. They may indeed succeed in sorting out our problems, and thus affect our subsequent behaviour (e.g. settling us down before a fearfully anticipated interview or exam). - But the fact that lots of people have experienced dreams coming true in a surprising manner does not imply that cause and effect (or its reverse, precognition) is in action. This fact has to be balanced against all those people who have experienced dreams that didn't come true. This is not "faith in chance" it is simple statistics.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by John Clinch , Tuesday, January 27, 2009, 15:54 (5561 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I so agree. - There's nowt to explain. All these "inexplicable" coincidences and apparent presentiments are more than adequately understood if one has regard to the very human qualities of wishful thinking, and confirmation and selection biases - the sort of standard pattern-making that we humans have evolved to do. This is really basic stuff. - That bloggers on this site are prepared to dismiss this with a wave of the hand points to one thing - PSEUDOSCIENCE. The surest indicator that we're in the territory of witless pseudoscience is the tendency to seek to bolster True Belief (in this case, that all sorts of groundless nonsense from clairvoyance to ESP might be true) by the cherry-picking of what is grandly described as "evidence". Here, it is instructive that even the dreams of a small boy has been prayed in aid of the case for the pre-scientific idea "dreams can predict the future"! This is woefully inadequate and doesn't even get us to first base. There is no case to answer: the little boy's dream and every single recounted tale cited as "evidence" for the paranormal, when you dig deep enough, can all be accounted for by a dispassionate examination of human nature and how the mind works. - Let's apply Ockham's razor. - On the one hand, we have the True Believers' hypothesis which, although ill-focussed and vague, appears to contain one or more of the following elements: that our minds are (oh, sorry, "might be") profoundly independent of our brains and maybe even survive brain-death; that we can predict a reality that has yet to happen; and that we can see without the aid of the body or machinery. This is, by any stretch, an extraordinary and radical hypothesis that runs directly contrary all of the neuroscientific evidence and observable data. - On the other, we have all the well-established evidence that homo sapiens has evolved to be (for good adaptive reasons) a pattern-seeking creature; that this pattern-seeking leads us to believe that utterly unrelated things are causally connected (i.e. magical thinking); that our memory is highly selective and seeks confirmation of what we, as intelligent social animals, would like to be the case, often because it's socially reinforcing; that we story-telling creatures use reminiscences and anecdotes to bolster our sense of security, purpose and comfort and to dispel our fear of separation and death; and, if any exist, that we latch onto any confirmatory study to support what, a priori, we would like to believe. - Now, take step back and ask yourself: which of these two scenarios, that can both explain the paranormal, is LIKELY to be the case? Enter, Ockham: it is the one that requires the positing of fewer logically necessary entities. To go with the second scenario, we don't need to posit a radical mind/brain duality, overturn all of existing neuroscience, biology and pyschology and establish a new law of nature. As Hume said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What evidence is there for the first? Pisspoor evidence, that's what - and certainly none presented as to how this extraordinary dualism might work in reality. I must be right in saying that the True Believers have yet to present a single plausible hypothesis that has been tested and found to be accurate - or even worthy of study. However, if we go with the second scenario, no extraordinary evidence is required. It accords with what we know and accounts for it all. - Applying our friend Ockham, pseudoscience loses. But then, it always does. - You pseudoscience fans can harp on all you like about various stories that you think support your case. You may even like posing as mavericks, locked out of the discourse by a self-interested "scientific establishment". I don't want to put words in your mouths, but you are plainly seeking to overturn a weighty body of contrary evidence. To establish a case to answer, you're going to have to do much better than third-hand hearsay about what a child said he dreamt. Really! - Yes, I know you claim to have a handful of (disputed) studies on your side but you must ask yourselves why, if there were any grounds at all to take your hypotheses further, scientists just aren't interested. There's gotta be a Nobel prize in it! And if, in response to this posting, there is even a sniff of your old friend "conspiracy", then it will be clear that pseudoscience has you it in relentless grip.
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 00:38 (5561 days ago) @ John Clinch
> On the one hand, we have the True Believers' hypothesis which, although ill-focussed and vague, appears to contain one or more of the following elements: that our minds are (oh, sorry, "might be") profoundly independent of our brains and maybe even survive brain-death; that we can predict a reality that has yet to happen; and that we can see without the aid of the body or machinery. This is, by any stretch, an extraordinary and radical hypothesis that runs directly contrary all of the neuroscientific evidence and observable data. > Yes, I know you claim to have a handful of (disputed) studies on your side but you must ask yourselves why, if there were any grounds at all to take your hypotheses further, scientists just aren't interested. There's gotta be a Nobel prize in it! And if, in response to this posting, there is even a sniff of your old friend "conspiracy", then it will be clear that pseudoscience has you it in relentless grip. - May I suggest that you don't read enough. I haven't had one myself but in my practice I have had 12 patients tell me about their near-to-death or out-of-body experiences. That is what make me read. May I suggest 'Mindsight", by Ring and Cooper, both Ph.D. in psychology; studies of blind who had episodes when they saw. "Light and Death" by Michael Sabom, M.D., accounts of NDE's. Raymond Moody's 'Life After Life". He's an MD psychiatrist. Dr. van Lommel's article in Lancet, fully discussed here. This is a small sample of a large literature by scientifically trained authors. Please tell me about your declarative sentence that these have been adequately disputed. Where and by whom with the same or better training?
The Paranormal
George and John have replied to my post on the paranormal. - I find very little to disagree with in George's post, and in particular I agree completely with his account of the causes of most dreams. There is one paragraph of false premises, however: - "The idea that there has to be a reason for having a dream, or that all dreams predict subsequent events or match reality in some way is a bias of those who favour the reality of paranormal occurrences." So far as I know, nobody on this site has mentioned any such idea. The little boy's dream was originally cited as one of four examples mentioned on this thread of unknowable information being imparted. It was not cited because it was a dream, or was representative of all dreams, or because the child was representative of all dreamers. - "Confirmational bias" is of course at the root of most prejudices, and is a neat way of summarizing most of John's argument against the paranormal. No-one can possibly doubt that it exists, or that it informs many (erroneous) judgements. This, however, is where both George and, particularly, John are indulging in a bit of mind-reading (we had this trouble before, John). The rest of my post is addressed to John, because with his polemic he produces a veritable welter of false assumptions, though they do admittedly make for lively discussion! - Firstly, you use the word "pseudoscience" so frequently that it clearly must mean something to you in this context, though I can't think what. I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you that I have never at any time attempted to offer a scientific, let alone a pseudoscientific confirmation, justification or explanation of a phenomenon I find puzzling. But I will return to this theme. - Expressions like "True Believer", with the irony of the capital letters, also miss the point, as does the irony of "our minds are (oh, sorry, "might be") profoundly independent of our brains". You go on to present the True Believer scenario, which contains phrases like "would like to be the case", "socially reinforcing", "bolster our sense of security", "our fear of separation and death", "we latch onto any confirmatory study to support what, a priori, we would like to believe." This is certainly an accurate account of many beliefs, and in my view applies to a great deal of religious thinking. However, it has no place whatsoever in the current discussion. - Again I can only speak for myself. There is no question of my wanting to believe in the paranormal, I do not find it in any way a bolster to my sense of security, I see no social reinforcement in it, and I have ambivalent feelings about an afterlife (fear of separation and death). You have, as usual, adopted the black and white approach to the subject, on the assumption that nobody can possibly disagree with you unless they are plain stupid or determined to delude themselves because they have already reached the conclusion they want to reach. Let me invite you, as you invited me, to take a step back. (To be continued in Part Two)
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, January 29, 2009, 11:50 (5559 days ago) @ dhw
DHW writes: I find very little to disagree with in George's post, and in particular I agree completely with his account of the causes of most dreams. There is one paragraph of false premises, however: - "The idea that there has to be a reason for having a dream, or that all dreams predict subsequent events or match reality in some way is a bias of those who favour the reality of paranormal occurrences." So far as I know, nobody on this site has mentioned any such idea. - But it was DHW himself who wrote: That seems a strange reason for having a dream.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Thursday, February 05, 2009, 14:18 (5552 days ago) @ John Clinch
I so agree. > > There's nowt to explain. All these "inexplicable" coincidences and apparent presentiments are more than adequately understood if one has regard to the very human qualities of wishful thinking, and confirmation and selection biases - the sort of standard pattern-making that we humans have evolved to do. This is really basic stuff. > > On the other, we have all the well-established evidence that homo sapiens has evolved to be (for good adaptive reasons) a pattern-seeking creature; that this pattern-seeking leads us to believe that utterly unrelated things are causally connected (i.e. magical thinking); that our memory is highly selective and seeks confirmation of what we, as intelligent social animals, would like to be the case, often because it's socially reinforcing; that we story-telling creatures use reminiscences and anecdotes to bolster our sense of security, purpose and comfort and to dispel our fear of separation and death; and, if any exist, that we latch onto any confirmatory study to support what, a priori, we would like to believe. An excellent article on the scientific debate behind Clinch's point of view: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html?page=1
The Paranormal
David has drawn our attention to Michael Brooks' article in New Scientist: "Born believers: how your brain creates God". David links it to John Clinch's comment that "man has evolved to be (for good adaptive reasons) a pattern-seeking creature." - The two arguments seem to revolve around Gestalt psychology, which originated as an analysis of how we form patterns in perception, but was then applied to most other human activities, including science and philosophy. (I first came across it in relation to literary theory and the reading process.) The mechanism of linking perceptions together is not confined to human beings ... animals can't survive without it either ... but because of our capacity for abstract thinking, we have evolved a vast range of such patterns. - However, John's point was made in the context of believing or not believing in the paranormal, and this seems to me to illustrate the two edges of his weapon. He thinks that those who believe in the paranormal have constructed a pattern that incorporates what they want it to incorporate ... namely, an unknown level of existence or communication. The converse, though, is equally true: his pattern is that of materialism, and so he excludes whatever appears to run counter to it. Every experience is dismissed as either never having happened, or as having a simple, material explanation. All religions, beliefs, disbeliefs and modes of behaviour entail a Gestalt, because that is the only way we can deal with reality. I think Michael Brooks' argument about some kind of inborn belief is right, but only in so far as every human, just like every animal, has an inborn need to understand (i.e. create a consistent pattern relating to) his environment. In the case of humans this expands from ourselves, our family, our home and our general surroundings, to our past, our future, our country, the Earth, and ultimately the cosmos. There has to be a pattern to explain it all, and since establishing links is integral to our survival, it is integral to a child's nature. The form of the pattern, though, will be largely determined by the environment. - Brooks is careful to emphasize that his observation tells us nothing about whether there is such a thing as a God. I think many of the people who have commented on his article have missed a crucial point: "All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods; as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it." - If I may link this thread to the one on The Attenborough Mystery, the statements made by Attenborough (as quoted by George) and by David in his response to George, for me sum up the essence of agnosticism. I will repeat David's aphorism, as I would like to expand on it very slightly: "No new science must be viewed by a preconceived prism of past views, finding excuses to ignore a discovery that is disturbing to them." I would prefer not to be tied to science, because I'm not convinced that science holds all the answers. May I suggest some small amendments? "New discoveries must not be viewed through a preconceived prism of past views that find excuses to ignore whatever is disturbing to them." It's a principle with which I'm sure many people will agree, but which very few will follow.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Sunday, February 08, 2009, 20:05 (5549 days ago) @ dhw
DHW wrote: If I may link this thread to the one on The Attenborough Mystery, the statements made by Attenborough (as quoted by George) and by David in his response to George, for me sum up the essence of agnosticism. I will repeat David's aphorism, as I would like to expand on it very slightly: "No new science must be viewed by a preconceived prism of past views, finding excuses to ignore a discovery that is disturbing to them." I would prefer not to be tied to science, because I'm not convinced that science holds all the answers. May I suggest some small amendments? "New discoveries must not be viewed through a preconceived prism of past views that find excuses to ignore whatever is disturbing to them." It's a principle with which I'm sure many people will agree, but which very few will follow. - I offer two counter-proposals to this approach. I do prefer to be tied to science, in the sense of scientific method, because I'm convinced that that is the only way we have of finding out reliable answers. What are the alternatives? Divine revelation? - Likewise I propose that: New discoveries must be viewed through the prism of past views. This is because scientific knowledge is cumulative. We can't go back to first principles all the time. It is important to fit new discoveries within the existing framework. This, for instance, is what has happened with plate tectonics, which is now able to explain continental drift in terms of Newtonian mechanics. - Of course, a good scientist does not ignore facts that don't fit into the established theories. He seeks an explanation of them, preferably within the existing paradigm. It is only after much contrary evidence has come to light that the paradigm can be replaced by an improved version.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Monday, February 09, 2009, 01:52 (5549 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I offer two counter-proposals to this approach. I do prefer to be tied to science, in the sense of scientific method, because I'm convinced that that is the only way we have of finding out reliable answers. What are the alternatives? Divine revelation? > Likewise I propose that: New discoveries must be viewed through the prism of past views. This is because scientific knowledge is cumulative. We can't go back to first principles all the time. It is important to fit new discoveries within the existing framework. This, for instance, is what has happened with plate tectonics, which is now able to explain continental drift in terms of Newtonian mechanics. - Since I started this whole issue of 'preconceived prism' let me reply and clarify. The other portion of my statement was quite clear (to me) that I was referring to a rigid prism, not allowing change. I am in absolute agreement with your two above statements. Am I controversal? Absolutely, when I see a majority opinion that to me is obviously wrong, being swallowed and fawned over. I still follow Thomas Kuhn, because I saw his point of view in front of my nose in medical practice.
The Paranormal
George prefers "to be tied to science, in the sense of scientific method, because I'm convinced that that is the only way we have of finding out reliable answers. What are the alternatives? Divine revelation?" - "Science, in the sense of scientific method" leaves a lot of leeway. Some might say that qualified medical practitioners such as David Turell and Pim van Lommel have applied scientific methods to their study of NDEs and OBEs, but you have already rejected such claims. Your interpretation of science and scientific method is no more (and no less) valid than theirs. Perhaps, though, if you could forget God for now ("divine revelation"), we might look at this from another angle. What constitutes reality? Are you sure that science is capable of covering all realities? I don't see, for instance, how science can give us "reliable answers" about the nature of love, the impact of music, the origin of ideas, and yet I don't think you would deny the reality of love, musical appreciation, or original ideas. You may be "convinced" that one day science will come up with a material explanation, and you may be right, but your conviction has no scientific foundation. It's a belief. I would put NDEs and OBEs and various other apparently "paranormal" experiences in a similar category. I don't understand them, but I can't be sure they are not real, and so I must face the possibility that there may be levels of existence, communication, experience which cannot be accounted for in terms of the material world as we know it. The problem with materialism is that it refuses to countenance that possibility, which brings us to the second point in your post of 8 February. - "New discoveries must be viewed through the prism of past views. This is because scientific knowledge is cumulative etc." You are absolutely right: we have to build on what has already been discovered. But in my amendment to David Turell's "aphorism", I went out of my way to remove precisely the meaning you have attributed to it by adding the crucial defining relative, which you quoted but then omitted: "(past views) that find excuses to ignore whatever is disturbing to them". Neither David nor I was talking about past views en bloc. My own point here is that anyone who is convinced that his beliefs are right and others are wrong, whether theist or atheist, has already ignored whatever is disturbing to those beliefs. That is the nature of conviction. "Convinced" is your own word, and it is the nub of the whole argument. In most of the contexts discussed and disputed on this website, what you call "the existing paradigm" in fact does not have a paradigmatic existence outside your convictions (though of course these are shared by many others, as is the theist paradigm). You ask for the alternatives to what you call the scientific method. In my view, it is not a matter of alternatives. Science is central to the quest, but we should not ignore all those areas of human experience that have not yet been explained, and possibly may never be explained, in materialistic terms.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 11:17 (5547 days ago) @ dhw
Here is a reply to DHW point by point. I've had to split in tnto two parts, since it exceeds the limit of 5000 words. - DHW: "Science, in the sense of scientific method" leaves a lot of leeway. Some might say that qualified medical practitioners such as David Turell and Pim van Lommel have applied scientific methods to their study of NDEs and OBEs, but you have already rejected such claims. Your interpretation of science and scientific method is no more (and no less) valid than theirs. - GPJ: I have rejected such claims because they are not based on scientific method. They are based on anecdote. What constitutes scientific method is widely agreed, it is not just a personal opinion of my own. - DHW: Perhaps, though, if you could forget God for now ("divine revelation"), we might look at this from another angle. What constitutes reality? Are you sure that science is capable of covering all realities? - GPJ: If you are claiming that there are phenomena that are not susceptible to study by scientific method, and thus constitute another kind of reality, what methods do you propose whereby these immaterialist phenomena can be studied? - DHW: I don't see, for instance, how science can give us "reliable answers" about the nature of love, the impact of music, the origin of ideas, and yet I don't think you would deny the reality of love, musical appreciation, or original ideas. You may be "convinced" that one day science will come up with a material explanation, and you may be right, but your conviction has no scientific foundation. It's a belief. - GPJ: Science already has reliable answers about such subjects as love, musical appreciation, and creative thought. The sciences that study these subjects, such as physiology and neurology and psychology are not as well developed as older subjects like chemistry and physics, but are able to provide answers, even if only provisional. - DHW: I would put NDEs and OBEs and various other apparently "paranormal" experiences in a similar category. I don't understand them, but I can't be sure they are not real, and so I must face the possibility that there may be levels of existence, communication, experience which cannot be accounted for in terms of the material world as we know it. The problem with materialism is that it refuses to countenance that possibility, - GPJ: NDEs and OBEs are experiences that happen and have natural explanations adequately explained by existing science. It is only where they are associated with a few paranormal claims that they are questionable. For instance the patient who claimed to see a shoe on the outside ledge of the hospital building while having an "Out of Body experience" (as reported in chapter 6 of David Turell's book). A proper scientific examination of this case would establish where the shoe came from, how and when it got there, whose it was, whether the patient was ever in a position to have seen it before, or knew the owner of the shoe, whether she was aware of the investigator's interest in paranormal occurrences and therefore likely to make up a story to please him, and so on.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 11:21 (5547 days ago) @ George Jelliss
This is Part 2 of my reply to DHW. - DHW: ... which brings us to the second point in your post of 8 February. "New discoveries must be viewed through the prism of past views. This is because scientific knowledge is cumulative etc." You are absolutely right: we have to build on what has already been discovered. - GPJ: I'm glad we agree on something! - DHW: But in my amendment to David Turell's "aphorism", I went out of my way to remove precisely the meaning you have attributed to it by adding the crucial defining relative, which you quoted but then omitted: "(past views) that find excuses to ignore whatever is disturbing to them". Neither David nor I was talking about past views en bloc. - GPJ: No good scientist ignores facts that don't fit into the scheme. I thought I had made that point. It is all part of the scientific method. Darwin incidentally was exemplary in this regard: he had a whole chapter in the "Origins" about the problems with his theory at the time (such as the lack of an adequate understanding of genetics). - DHW: My own point here is that anyone who is convinced that his beliefs are right and others are wrong, whether theist or atheist, has already ignored whatever is disturbing to those beliefs. That is the nature of conviction. "Convinced" is your own word, and it is the nub of the whole argument. - GPJ: I have ignored nothing. If I am convinced, it is by the weight of evidence. My beliefs are based on evidence. If you can come up with adequate evidence to support your wish for there to be a paranormal reality out there, I will readily go along with you. However the poor anecdotal evidence presented so far is quite inadequate. - DHW: In most of the contexts discussed and disputed on this website, what you call "the existing paradigm" in fact does not have a paradigmatic existence outside your convictions (though of course these are shared by many others, as is the theist paradigm). - GPJ: A scientific paradigm very certainly does exist. Do you deny, say, the atomic theory of chemical structure? - DHW: You ask for the alternatives to what you call the scientific method. In my view, it is not a matter of alternatives. Science is central to the quest, but we should not ignore all those areas of human experience that have not yet been explained, and possibly may never be explained, in materialistic terms. - GPJ: I have already responded to this point above. I am not ignoring any areas of human experience. Your use of the term "materialistic" also indicates, I am inclined to think, an outdated attitude. Would you accuse me of being "energistic" if I tried to explain the universe, as I do, in terms of energy rather than matter?
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
George has kindly written a point by point reply to my post of 10 February. - I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in elucidating your position, and will try to respond with equal thoroughness. First, let me clear up an important misunderstanding. - You have explained why you do not believe in the paranormal ("the poor anecdotal evidence presented so far is quite inadequate"). I am not asking you to believe in the paranormal. I do not believe in it myself. Nor do I have what you call a "wish for there to be a paranormal reality". I am interested above all in cases in which unknowable information has been imparted ... e.g. those reported by David Turell, Pim van Lommel, BBella and my wife, whom I do not regard as fools, self-deceivers or frauds. Until someone comes up with a convincing explanation for the communication of this unknowable information (there are many such cases, and not just "a few" as you claim), I will remain mystified and therefore open-minded. My argument is not for belief, it is against disbelief. You might call it a form of agnosticism. - 1) GPJ: What methods do you propose whereby these immaterialist phenomena can be studied? DHW: You have included psychology in your list of sciences. Most of the findings of psychologists are based on case histories, and once you dispense with the loaded term "anecdote", you open up a different perspective. The method has to be continual reporting, monitoring, reading about case histories. David's response to your post suggests that there are many of these with factors in common, and with reliable witnesses offering corroboration. The 25-hospital study of NDEs and OBEs sounds like a promising approach. - 2) GPJ: Science already has reliable answers about such subjects as love, musical appreciation, and creative thought. The sciences that study these subjects, such as physiology and neurology and psychology [...] are able to provide answers, even if only provisional. DHW: Reliable answers that are only provisional don't sound too reliable to me. However, if you can point me in a direction where I might find what you consider to be a reliable scientific explanation of the nature of love, the impact of music or the origin of ideas, I will be most grateful. - 3) GPJ: A scientific paradigm very certainly does exist. Do you deny, say, the atomic theory of chemical structure? DHW: You quoted my statement, but then ignored it. I wrote: "In most of the contexts discussed and disputed on this website, what you call 'the existing paradigm' in fact does not have a paradigmatic existence outside your convictions." We have not been discussing the atomic theory of chemical structure. We have been discussing the existence of God, the paranormal, ethics, aesthetics, religion, evolution etc. You claim that in these contexts your beliefs are based on scientific evidence. David makes the same claim, and yet your beliefs are different. What is the scientific paradigm? - 4) GPJ: Your use of the term "materialistic" also indicates [...] an outdated attitude. Would you accuse me of being "energistic" if I tried to explain the universe, as I do, in terms of energy? DHW: Materialism (adjective: materialistic) = the theory that physical matter is the only reality, and the mind, emotions etc. are merely functions of it. I was certainly not "accusing" you of anything, and I apologize if you found the term offensive. I thought this was the theory that you adhered to, and I do not regard that as something shameful! However, if you believe that human realities are sourced by energy independently of matter...well, that would really take us onto another level.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 22:11 (5546 days ago) @ dhw
Some quick responses to DHW's replies. - DHW: I am interested above all in cases in which unknowable information has been imparted ... /// (there are many such cases, and not just "a few" as you claim). - GPJ: I still maintain that there are only a very few that apparently involve genuinely unknowable information. These require further investigation. Most others are easily explained in known terms. DHW: Most of the findings of psychologists are based on case histories. - GPJ: I think you mean psychiatry. Modern psychology is far more systematic. - DHW: ... if you can point me in a direction where I might find what you consider to be a reliable scientific explanation of the nature of love, the impact of music or the origin of ideas, I will be most grateful. - GPJ: See the separate thread I have opened on this subject. - DHW: We have not been discussing the atomic theory of chemical structure. We have been discussing the existence of God, the paranormal, ethics, aesthetics, religion, evolution etc. - GPJ: All these subjects depend on a knowledge of chemistry because life and the functioning of brains depends on chemistry. - DHW: However, if you believe that human realities are sourced by energy independently of matter...well, that would really take us onto another level. - GPJ: Matter is a special form of energy. E = m.c^2. Energy is the more basic concept. Of course I am referring here to the measurable energy defined by physicists, not the imaginary "energy" or "chi" referred to by new ageists.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by BBella , Thursday, February 12, 2009, 00:20 (5546 days ago) @ George Jelliss
GPJ: Matter is a special form of energy. E = m.c^2. Energy is the more basic concept. Of course I am referring here to the measurable energy defined by physicists, not the imaginary "energy" or "chi" referred to by new ageists. - Ch'i has been around for much longer than new age thinking. It is one of the older units of measurements of energy recorded in Chinese writing. New ageists are not the only ones to use the term ch'i, just as Christians are not the only ones to use the term spirit, or physicists the only ones to use the term energy. But far from being imaginary, ch'i represents wind or breath, which can be measured by physicists. I'm sure you know this but just thought I would mention it.
The Paranormal
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, February 12, 2009, 15:11 (5545 days ago) @ BBella
BBella wrote: But far from being imaginary, ch'i represents wind or breath, which can be measured by physicists. - I looked up some sites on chi energy. This one agrees with you about breath: - http://www.siamese-dream.com/page/siam1/CTGY/article-breathing-chi - But it says: It is difficult to define Chi concretely. It cannot be seen or measured, it cannot be touched or captured. It is everywhere, yet we have no way to touch it, make it tangible, or even prove its existence. Therefore Chi is a difficult concept to accept. - These qualities, which are remarkably similar to those of phlogiston, show not that it is a difficult concept, but that it does not exist.
--
GPJ
The Paranormal
by John Clinch , Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 12:56 (5532 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Oh, you can go further, surely. - BB seems to be saying, though her post is fairly incoherent: chi is real because (a) the concept is ancient and (b) because it represents something - wind - that can be measured. - On that basis, something is more likely to be true because people believed in it long ago. Anyone had their four humours tested recently? - And, BB, you are equating the representation of something with the thing itself. You seem to be saying chi is real because wind is. It's a total non-sequitur.
The Paranormal
Some quick responses to George's quick responses to my responses. - 1) You still maintain that there are "only a very few" cases involving genuinely unknowable information. I admire your diligence in reading all the books and interviewing all those who make such claims. - 2) You say it is psychiatry not psychology that deals with case histories. Thank you. I wanted to use the term "case histories" in place of your prejudicial "anecdotes" as a basis for study. I still think this is a valid answer to your question about how to proceed. - 3) The nature of love, the impact of music, the origin of ideas. See the new thread. - 4) You say that subjects such as the existence of God, the paranormal, ethics, aesthetics, religion, evolution etc. all depend on a knowledge of chemistry because life and the functioning of brains depends on chemistry. I had pointed out that there was no scientific paradigm for any of these subjects. The fact that chemistry is a factor ("depend on a knowledge of..." seems to me to be going a bit too far) does not mean that there is a scientific paradigm. - 5) Matter is a special form of energy (by which you mean the measurable energy defined by physicists, and not the imaginary "chi"). In view of your reply to BBella, perhaps I could repeat a quote from Wikipedia: "It has been noted that the names 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' serve mainly as an expression of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with 'terra incognita'."
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Friday, February 13, 2009, 13:40 (5544 days ago) @ dhw
2) You say it is psychiatry not psychology that deals with case histories. Thank you. I wanted to use the term "case histories" in place of your prejudicial "anecdotes" as a basis for study. I still think this is a valid answer to your question about how to proceed. - In this country both psychiatrists and psychologists have private practices and treat cases and can do case histories and case studies and publish in respected journals. The only difference is the former went to medical school. Both have the same understanding of patient's mental problems. - - > 5) Matter is a special form of energy (by which you mean the measurable energy defined by physicists, and not the imaginary "chi"). In view of your reply to BBella, perhaps I could repeat a quote from Wikipedia: "It has been noted that the names 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' serve mainly as an expression of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with 'terra incognita'." - Physical sciences can measure any form of matter or energy ( except dark energy and dark matter at this point considering their theoretical existence) but psychological studies involve the input of the subjects which can be shaded by the underlying psychology of each individual. It is almost like quantum theory: one gets averages of the people (particles).
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 14:45 (5547 days ago) @ George Jelliss
GPJ: NDEs and OBEs are experiences that happen and have natural explanations adequately explained by existing science. It is only where they are associated with a few paranormal claims that they are questionable. For instance the patient who claimed to see a shoe on the outside ledge of the hospital building while having an "Out of Body experience" (as reported in chapter 6 of David Turell's book). A proper scientific examination of this case would establish where the shoe came from, how and when it got there, whose it was, whether the patient was ever in a position to have seen it before, or knew the owner of the shoe, whether she was aware of the investigator's interest in paranormal occurrences and therefore likely to make up a story to please him, and so on. - George: It is impossible to do a double-blind study (or its equivalent) in this area of scientific interest. The story is reported by Kimberly Clark Sharp (now married), a hospital social worker at the time the event happened. Dr. Bruce Greyson, a psychiatrist, knows Sharp and trusts her tale about Maria, the patient, who came to the hospital with a heart attack. Maria could know nothing about the hospital with her personal background. Most of what you object to cannot be corroborated, and obviously you should know that. This excerpt is from Greyson's review of Sharp's book: "After the Light". - > Significantly, Sharp starts her book not with her own NDE, but with that of Maria and her now-famous tennis shoe on the ledge. Maria was a migrant worker admitted to Harborview Medical Center's cardiac care unit (CCU), where Sharp was working as a social worker. While her body was undergoing a cardiac arrest, Maria floated out of the hospital and saw, on a third-story window ledge on the side of the hospital farthest from the CCU, "a man's dark blue tennis shoe, well-worn, scuffed on the left side where the little toe would go. The shoelace was caught under the heel" (p. 11). Despite Sharp's having had an NDE herself, her professional training led her to doubt Maria's story until she finally located the shoe by going from room to room, pressing her face against the windows--although the scuffed toe could only be seen from a perspective outside and above the window. Sharp first published this account in my 1984 NDE anthology (Clark, 1984), and it has been repeated several times, most recently by Susan Blackmore (1995); but the detailed account here is the definitive "Maria's tennis shoe" story. - Many of these 'stories' are anecdotal. Van Lommel's patient was part of a prospective study. The Lancet article is very impressive, especially the significantly different rate of mortality in those patients with the 'deepest' NDE. - I agree this is a 'where's there is smoke there must be a fire' approach to science. Do these 'stories' exist becasue people want them to exist? Of course. Death frightens people. But when doctors at the bedside in hospices learn from patients events the patients could not have known about, that is corroboration of 'something'. I'd love to be able to order a definitve EEG after an NDE and 'scientifically' prove the point. In human psychology one cannot. Most psychological papers are inferences, with no scientific machine or lab support. As I noted in my book, why do so many people have the same NDE's in pattern? Why do they always communicate with the dead? And why should we ignore third-party corroboration because it is anecdotal and not part of a planned study, which actually now has been started because of all the anecdotes?
The Paranormal
by David Turell , Saturday, January 10, 2009, 01:10 (5579 days ago) @ John Clinch
> None of BBella's "amazing experiences", or those of her family require, any supernatural entity or alien visitation to explain them. > > The fact that these and similar experiences are felt by people today and throughout history is evidence of nothing except how some minds work, - The point of this thread is nothing like your complaints. BBella has never mentioned 'supernatural entity' and the second quote, as far as I have taken it, is quite true, until you extended it in what I consider rather nasty comments, as were other parts of your post. - I had previously brought up NDE's and OOB events, which are well documented. We have been trying to understand them in the realization that some people have, let's say, extra mental powers, beyond what the average mind can accomplish. As a result we have explored some unusual areas. There is no harm in that. We are trying to poke into any and all areas that one of us brings up.George has clearly pointed out that a mind can be too open. We all understand and appreciate that. I don't think any of the threads have been too far out or frankly nutty. - Is the concept of "God" a valid extension of our minds, is it pure superstition, or are our minds an extension of God's mind? Whatever part of that sentence a person accepts makes that person an atheist, an agnostic or a deist/theist. Isn't that the purpose of this website thanks to dhw?
The Paranormal; group estimates
by David Turell , Friday, September 16, 2011, 04:43 (4600 days ago) @ David Turell
Another study on group estimates; surprisingly accurate:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-true-wisdom-crowd-successful-individuals.html