Cracks in the Matrix
I imagine this might be an odd question but I guess I might as well ask it since it is unlikely to be craziest question make in an OP.
Years ago, James Randi often challenged various claims about psychic or similar "powers" where an individual would receive a certain amount of money if Randi couldn't prove that such powers where some kind of trick or if there was some way to show that it was indeed some kind of psychic phenomenon. Needless to say, there was never a time when someone took the challenge where they ever able to win Randi's challenge.
Although nobody was able to take Randi's challenge successfully, there are those that believe that either the right people never bothered with it, or perhaps the parameters of the test where not the best in doing such test.
In a nutshell, I'm wondering if anyone on the forum knows about instances of either psychic abilities and or paranormal where investigated which may have supported (or not supported) the claims that such things exists. While it is almost a given that the majority of such instance where merely tricks and/or something other than psychic abilities/paranormal, I believe it is at least plausible a very small fraction of them could be real.
Years ago, James Randi often challenged various claims about psychic or similar "powers" where an individual would receive a certain amount of money if Randi couldn't prove that such powers where some kind of trick or if there was some way to show that it was indeed some kind of psychic phenomenon. Needless to say, there was never a time when someone took the challenge where they ever able to win Randi's challenge.
Although nobody was able to take Randi's challenge successfully, there are those that believe that either the right people never bothered with it, or perhaps the parameters of the test where not the best in doing such test.
In a nutshell, I'm wondering if anyone on the forum knows about instances of either psychic abilities and or paranormal where investigated which may have supported (or not supported) the claims that such things exists. While it is almost a given that the majority of such instance where merely tricks and/or something other than psychic abilities/paranormal, I believe it is at least plausible a very small fraction of them could be real.
Comments (72)
I agree that it's plausible; we can't prove psychic/paranormal abilities are impossible. On the other hand, we've had centuries to uncover positive proof and what do we have so far? No much. So I'm skeptical.
I recommend a book by Martin Gardner - "Science, Good, Bad, and Bogus." It discusses many claims of scientific proof for psychic powers which have been shown to be false. Sometimes the problem was caused by bad science performed in good faith, but often it was a case of fraud. It's a good book. Gardner focuses on the types of errors investigators make in psychic experiments.
Insoafar as there is corroborable evidence, they are; lacking corroborable evidence, they are not (i.e. indistinguishible from fictions).
If such phenomena can be actively observed and recorded enough then a mechanism can be uncovered. Should we be concerned with hypothesising about how a cat paint a picture that is indistinguishable from a work of Salvador Dali? I donÂ’t think so Â… but you could argue that no cat has claimed they can.
This basically comes down to people believing the impossible. Humans are incredible in that we can sometimes pull of the seemingly impossible.
The late Randi's position
1. Psychic P's powers are inexplicable by science [math]\to[/math] P's a true psychic.
A psychic P's powers maybe explicable with a yet-to-be-discovered scientific theory. Mercury's orbit wasn't deemed a psychic phenomen when Newton's theory couldn't explain it.
The correct stance to adopt
2. P's a true pyschic [math]\to[/math] Pyschic P's powers are inexplicable by science.
Affirming the consequent/converse fallacy.
That is, we don't abandon science when we come across new data that challenges our prior theories, but we modify our theories to meet the new data.
So, if I can read others' minds, then we'll need to track down how that is. Given we have tremendous preexisting data on this topic, it is unlikely there is a way previously undiscovered.
I have heard of this case several times before, it is supposed to be quite extraordinary.
Presuming this is real, I wonder what is any standard of evidence would be required before it is accepted.
Some people will not even see what is happening to be able to understand it. In the video dclements posted, the people who contacted JREF were either rejected, couldn't deliver, or never showed up. Sometimes a person will have a static idea of what it's supposed to be. But unless they are seriously dedicated they may never see that specific demonstration and not recognize the more mundane but real manifestations of "psychic" abilities.
A question
A natural question given the above statistical/probabilistic framing of psychics and their powers is why nobody's concerned about success rates < 25%?. This is also, a mathematician might say, statistically significant. As per probability, guessing should get you to around 25% on an MCQ exam where each question has 4 options and 1 correct among them. However, some results (in MCQ exams) are much, much, lower than that. One who consistently gets less than 25% in MCQs with this format is (also) breaking the laws of chance, oui monsieur? What gives?
I could be wrong but there have been certain physical phenomenon that not well understood until either around 200 years ago or even a hundred years ago. Maybe psychic/paranormal is just another physical phenomenon that we just haven't been to figure out yet.
Thanks. :D
When I have a chance I will try to check it out. If you can can you give me a short summary of what the book is about?
I agree the corroborating evidence isn't enough to show that any hypothesis yet made is accurate enough to explain the physical phenomenon well enough or that any claims about it (such as people being able to talk to the dead, predicate the future, etc.) is hardly anything more than pure fiction.
However there still remains a problem that certain physical phenomenon happen that is observed that defy what we know. A similar problem exist with the "UFO phenomenon". For years people have claimed (and even have videoed) situations where they see something in the air that is unlike any other aircraft made on earth yet there has never been any concrete evidence of UFOs, except perhaps the videos create and made public recently by the US Air Force. Even at this time they are not saying that such phenomenon are "really" UFOs, all they can note is that such aerial craft move and operate in a way that no aerial craft made on earth (or any known craft made on earth) can do things that such craft do.
I don't know but maybe part of the problem with UFO's is that "IF" there happens to be other being that come to our planet to observe us it is plausible that they have enough technology available to them that it often makes it hard for us to know about there presence. Or even "IF" we did uncover such evidence it is also plausible that any government that has access to such evidence would want the general public to know about it.
While the UFO phenomenon and the psychic/paranormal phenomenon both seem to have problems where people observe "strange things happening", yet there never seems to be a way to show how such events are either based on known physical phenomenon or some kind of mental delusion that causes someone to think they are seeing something that isn't there.
One of the things I heard that were not allowed are the so called "Psi Wheel".
Psi wheel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_wheel
While it a given that it is feasible that one could try to cheat while moving such a wheel, I think a demonstration where someone is able to move a Psi wheel seems so trivial that Randi didn't want to bother with it and/or have to figure out how it is caused by known physical phenomenon. It is also possible that part of the problem may be that there seems to be a lot of people able to make a Psi wheel move but not all the time. Because of this, it could be just a headache for Randi and others to have to deal with such claims and/or have to deal with someone who could make it move one day but not others.
To me it seems like it is kind of a head scratcher that there is phenomenon that is fairly common that can't be explained by no known physical phenomenon, but is not really bothered with by the scientific community as a whole.
It's a book of examples of purported psychic phenomena which, on examination, were shown not to be authentic. Some of the examples were poorly designed and implemented, but sincere, scientific studies. Others were bogus claims and performances by so-called psychics. Here's what Amazon says:
In this lively collection, Gardner examines the rich and hilarious variety of pseudoscientific conjectures that dominate the media today. With a special emphasis on parapsychology and occultism, these witty pieces address the evidence put forth to support claims of ESP, psychokinesis, faith healing, and other pseudoscience.
I just remembered this. A possible scientific explanation for ESP and a worrisome sign for the future.
They arenÂ’t.
Yes, everything we know about the world could be mistaken. But I think itÂ’s obvious people want to believe in magic, and that delusion, trickery, and irrationality help fill that void.
That 33% of respondents said “yes” is embarrassing.
I'll have to try to read up on such technology. It kind of reminds me of how back around 2010 Popular Science wrote an article about "The Best 10 Jobs to the Future".
The Best 10 Jobs to the Future
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/10-best-jobs-future-0/
Most of them were just wild fantasies of what people might be doing in the future, however the technology to make such things possible are several hundred years from where we are now. However there was one job that although it is sounded almost as wild and craze as the others the technology was just around the corner. That job was the "Forecaster of Everything". In a way it wasn't something exactly new since statistics (and perhaps other things as well) have been used for a very long time in helping us see a little bit into the future. However a new technology called data science is being used to help us see into the future and/or glean information that might not be otherwise possible.
Can information gained through data science related technology be used by a person (or persons) in a way that makes it seem like they have powers similar to ESP? I don't really know, but I'm guessing it is unlikely that with what is available that it is possible. However in the next 20 to 50 years with some supercomputers coming closer and closer to having the same computational powers of the human mind, it is a given that new possibilities will open up and make it more easier to predict what will or will not happen in the future.
I don't know if you ever heard of a series called "Person of Interest", but I guess you could say it is about a billionaire programmer and an ex-US spy working together to try and stop various threats. On of the interesting aspects of the show is the programmer uses a computer (which is given the uncreative name of "the machine") that supposedly is constantly evaluating terra-bytes of seemly unimportant data about things going on around the world, and/or things that would have little meaning to the rest of us but when put through several algorithms it can locate terrorist and/or other issues before they even happen. Of course it is almost a given that such technology does not exist or at least nobody is claiming to have a system that can do anything like it.
Person of Interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)
Person of Interest- The Machine
https://personofinterest.fandom.com/wiki/The_Machine
A similar work of fiction is a movie called "Minority Report". The only major difference is that instead of using a machine to predict the future there are three individuals known as "Precogs" that are "sensitive" to certain events (such as crimes where someone murders someone else) and they have visions of it before it happens. With Minority Report that is the additional problem of a concept of "pre-crime" where the police uses some kind of system of predictive policing to charge people with crimes before they are able to commit them. Of course there are many potential moral dilemmas that come with individuals or institutions having access to information about future events that the rest of us don't have and what they actions they can take when they know it.
Minority Report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)
Precogs
https://minorityreport.fandom.com/wiki/Precogs
Precrime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report#Precrime
Predictive policing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_policing
Hopefully I haven't strayed too far from the original issue I posed in the OP.
Debunking is painful, both for the debunker and the debunked!
There is a difference between what is typically considered to be "magic" and something that is a physical phenomenon that we have yet to understand. I could be wrong but certain fields like hypnosis used to be consider merely pseudoscience until they were understood better. Even recently the government acknowledged that not all unknown/unexplained aerial phenomenon are caused by something along the lines of confused pilots, pranksters, or swamp gas as there have been too many documented evens by either Airforce or Navy pilots who have seen/videoed such craft to be able to merely dismiss them.
We remember that discussion differently then.
I think they can and should be dismissed as utter nonsense, if what's claimed is that because something is unidentified or unexplained, it must be a sign of alien life, supernatural forces, or magic.
The reason for not believing in these claims is the same for everything else: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan was right. So there's no sense wasting time about it simply because we'd like to believe in it.
Probably! I remained unconvinced, but it took decent effort for me to feel like I'd unravelled things. Worth engaging with I feel regardless. At the very worst, you engage with a sophisticated reasoner (@Sam26) who's thought a lot about why what they're saying is good evidence. It would be nice if other supernatural claims were that well fleshed out.
And David Hume.
That maxim is not by itself dispositive though. If an eyewitness account comes from someone you are inclined to consider trustworthy, unlikely to be mistaken, and with no reason to lie, that has to count for something. @fdrake could fill in the details much better than I, but the point can be made in Bayesian terms: the chances of Reliable Ron making such a claim, given that it's true, are higher than the chances of him making such a claim given that it's false. If you believe your boyfriend is visiting his parents, but a good friend tells you she saw him at a bar last night, you're going to take that seriously, and it's going to move your prior.
Agreed. And I just invoked your name in post about Sam's central focus, the evidentiary value of eyewitness accounts. Freaking kismet.
I don't think there's much lying involved. I'm sure people really believe in all kinds of supernatural, magical stuff. People believe in angels and demons and ghosts, for God's sakes. I'm sure it's all sincere.
That being said, I think the hypothetical trustworthy friend's account would mean exactly nothing to me -- if what's being claimed is that everything I or anyone else has ever known about the world is wrong and the laws of nature have been suspended. That person is simply delusional and wrong, whatever they thought they experienced. The principle still stands: an extraordinary claim (aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, angels, unicorns, Santa Claus, the teapot orbiting Mars) requires extraordinary evidence -- no matter who is claiming it.
I bet on reality every time over subjective experiences and supernatural claims.
Do you think you could play this rejection game on hard mode? Like if you discarded your priors about how nature worked, would you be able to conclude that supernatural claims are bogus methodologically rather than being inconsistent with well established theory? Not saying such a strategy is required, just wondering the style of your disagreement.
I also remain unconvinced. You gave it a good effort compared to the other responses, but the argument's conclusion follows with a high degree of objective certainty. It's probably one of the strongest inductive arguments you could construct based on testimonial evidence.
:up:
I'm none too solid on the statistics but I think in many cases the mistake people are making is really just exactly a statistical mistake.
Every piece of evidence should move the needle; the mistake people make is thinking a single piece of evidence moves the needle more than it does. (The classic example is doctors misjudging the chances of breast cancer given a positive test.)
I wasn't convinced either but it was a really interesting discussion. I'm grateful you brought us your arguments and gave us the opportunity to deal with some really interesting issues.
I think my conclusion would be the same. If I knew nothing about the laws of nature, an extraordinary claim would still need a lot of supporting evidence.
To bring it out of the clouds, I like to think of someone coming to me claiming they have a map to buried treasure. Nothing about this defies the laws of physics, but itÂ’s an extraordinary claim. I think the same principle applies here too.
Not sure if that answers your question.
Hume's The Problem of Induction means that the so-called laws of nature aren't immutable. They could change at any moment as doing so doesn't entail a contradiction i.e. they're contingent truths, not necessary ones.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
Inductive reasoning doesn't entail that X follows necessarily.
Try to feel other's emotions directly instead of inferring them from facial or vocal expressions.
I can feel out very distinct qualities in the vibes of people, and it feels as real as smelling distinct smells or any other of the senses.
I doubt its supernatural. How a radio or TV can receive and transmit information would seem supernatural if didn't know how antennae works. (Which I don't understand, but assume others do)
Our brains are incalculably more complex than radios and TVs, so it doesn't seem like a huge delusion to think brains might be able to transmit and receive waves.
How about just requiring just enough evidence for merely ordinary claims? Did Benjamin Franklin require to provide "extraordinary evidence" when he discovered electricity?
While you are claiming that those who believe there might be some truth to psychic abilities/paranormal are biased for believing in such things, it is plausible that some people like you are are biased when dismissing such thing when you say they require "extraordinary evidence". As far as I know in science when one merely postulates a possibility to any physical phenomenon one doesn't have require ANY proof if they are merely providing a potential possibility to be examined.
By expecting those who are trying to explained unknown phenomenon in ANY scientific field to provide an unreasonable amount of data you (or anyone else doing this) are in effect merely trying to maintain the current status quo in order to prevent people from being able to come forward with ideas to challenge that which is the accepted "truth".
Thankfully, it is unlikely that very few people like you are ever put in positions where you are in charge of reviewing anything to do with reviewing real scientific work on such subjects and/or if you are it is highly likely that there would be ways around your attempts to be a s-pipe for such research.
Could you provide an actual link to the comment you are talking about?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1
While it is a given that this would not be considered "extraordinary evidence" to you, what would you say about those of us who have ever seen something like a ghost, and/or been able to get am Ouija board or Psi wheel to move on it's own. While it is a given ANY event where someone has seen a ghost could be merely a trick of the light and/or mind (and Ouija board/Psi wheel movements could be caused normal physical phenomenon), those of us who have had brushes with that which seems not so easy to explain are perhaps on better footing to question the current status quo on what is or isn't possible and it is almost a given that we see the world differently than people like you.
Personally I can say I have seen ghosts or at least something like a ghost twice (on the first time I saw ghosts I asked the person next to me if they saw what I saw and he said "Yes"), been able to operate a Ouija board on several occasions, and been able to get a Psi wheel to move even when I was several feet away from it. I know me saying this to you probably doesn't mean anything to you, but for a moment try to imagine what such experience would mean to someone who has. Can you at least say that it is possible that me and you are like two of the blind men who are trying to "look" at a elephant for the first time and both experiencing a different part of it?
Ted_Owens/Pk-Man
https://www.amazon.com/PK-Man-True-Story-Matter/dp/1571741836
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Owens_(contactee)
While his story sounds similar to that of those who are typical con-men/attention seekers, his claims and the events that happened in his life are hard to spin as merely a set of "coincidences" and potentially show perhaps a darker side of psychic abilities. Such as the possibility of someone being able to down a plane merely on a whim.
Thanks. :D
So by this standard, we can invent any story we want. Maybe Santa Claus really exists in the north pole. Maybe Xarnex the galaxy god is responsible for all of your thoughts. Who knows?
Claims in science always require solid evidence and solid reasoning. It's never willy-nilly.
People who believe in psychics and astrology and all kinds of ridiculous stuff always make the same arguments. They either try to even the playing field by reducing everything -- including all science -- to mere speculation and opinion and "subjectivity" so that they can pretend that their views aren't ridiculous -- or else they persuade others into thinking their claims really are scientific in some fashion.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. - Hitchens
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -- Sagan
Two principles to abide by. Also, keep in my Russell's teapot.
Quoting dclements
Complete nonsense.
It's not an "unreasonable amount of data," it's evidence. Evidence that is comparable to the claim being made.
If something isn't well understood, we can speculate and hypothesize about it -- but always with sound reasoning and at least some evidence as support. If the claim is something like "aliens did it," or that magic has occurred, then that will require a lot of evidence indeed.
So yes, suspending the known laws of the universe and everything we currently understand about the world is quite a claim. Claims such as these require more than just blurry photographs, anecdotes, and other flimsy "data."
It's no wonder there's never a shred of evidence for these claims. The simple reason is because they're not true. James Randi made an entire career out of demonstrating this -- offering people $1 million if they could prove their abilities. Not once was it realized. There's some hilarious videos on YouTube showing it, as well. Worthwhile taking a look at those and imagining all of their duped followers and how much money these charlatans made over the years. Remember, too, that many convinced themselves that they really had these abilities.
Quoting dclements
I'd say that it's far more likely you've had an auditory or visual hallucination. I hear the voice of my dead grandmother sometimes, in passing. I'm not lead to believe that therefore she's in the next room, or is haunting me from the grave.
True, perhaps the laws of physics suspended for you momentarily -- but I wouldn't take that possibility very seriously. If I said to you that I had a friend who claimed he could fly, would you take this seriously?
Ouija boards don't move on their own. I stopped believing in fairytales and magic when I was a child. I recommend you do as well.
I think there can be, even if very rare, occasions and events that seem to be as some paranormal event happened or someone had psychic abilities. With people really believing it and not being some charlatans. Religious people would talk about miracles. These events have extremely low probability of happening, yet they happen. Somebody feeling that a loved one is in danger and does something to help the person and the person actually has been peril and the actions help that person. Or something like that. Totally possible.
The simple example that we can understand is winning in the lottery. Getting a multi-million win in a lottery is extremely improbable, yet enough play these games that someone wins it. Hence when we understand probability theory there's nothing astonishing in that one or two players get the big bucks as so many play. It would be for us something out of the normal if we would have only 5 people playing a lottery (like here getting 7 numbers right out of the numbers between 1 and 40, which has a probability of 1 to 15 million or something close to that) and one or two of them got the full jackpot. The probability would be so low that any Rand experiment, if happened to be conducted, would have serious problems to counter it.
So what's the error?
I think the simple fact is that we don't notice just how large the sample size is. If our story is some "Middle aged woman in Utah in 1932 had a psychic experience..." we can be sure that there have been a huge number of middle aged women and not only in Utah every year when the astonishing consequence of events hasn't happened. Yet people do dream of being in contact with others, alive or the dead, and then things turn out to be so. It's basically just like people who see omens of what the future will bring then look for those things they are waiting to see.
Or to put it another way: how many times your mother or grandmother has been worried that something has happened to you, when nothing has happened to you? Has that every happened to you?
This is very close to what I was saying. People fail to consider the baseline, overestimate how much a single observation should move their prior, all that.
But if the laws of nature are in fact statistical, then being an outlier is not the same as "violating the laws of the nature"; it's just being several standard deviations away from the norm. Maybe it happened, maybe not, but statistical regularity marches on either way.
It is true that a theorized mechanism intended to explain the statistical regularity may be unable to account for a peculiar observation, but we don't throw out observations because they don't match the theory; it's the other way around. That we don't drop a theory when a single observation is surprising is because we expect there to be confounding variables, and -- possibly -- because all we're really doing is statistics.
I just don't see much justification for reaching for this "physics says that's impossible" line.
Gravity isn’t “statistical.” That things don’t move through walls, or move “on their own” through the power of the mind, shouldn’t be controversial.
People don’t fly like Superman, either. It’s not that it’s “statistically unlikely” — it’s that it’s impossible.
I see plenty of justification in this line.
Magical thinking is dangerous.
Above my paygrade, but statistical mechanics is a thing. I think I learned about it from a book I never got very far into -- but will someday! -- called (in English) Laws of the Game by Manfred Eigen.
Probabilities are central to That Branch of Physics That Shall Not Be Named. Evolution is almost entirely a matter of statistics (and game theory).
And it's not like what we mean by "the laws of nature" is a simple matter, devoid of interest and controversy alike.
I'm not advocating giving magical thinking a seat at the table, just a little nuance in how and why we reject it.
Torches and pitchforks are for witches, and since we found that there don't seem to be any of those, they've been rusting in the barn. You seem to want to haul them back out for people who say there are witches; I'm not down for that, anymore than I am for some believers in witches hauling theirs out for an anti-witch crusade. (I have been present when an evangelical dad reminded his son that witches are an article of faith, mentioned in the Bible. His son had forgotten for a moment that they're not just superstition. And so it goes.)
It doesn't make it a non-physical event. I am of the opinion that if something cannot be explained by physics, it's likely that our understand isn't yet correct or we simple are asking wrong questions.
But especially in what we consider a "paranormal event", let's say for example a near death experience where somebody has been (obviously wrongfully) declared dead and then wakes up and tells about the experience, it's hard to refute the feelings of that person. The discussion is basically sidetracked. Or if you are seriously ill and the doctors don't give you much chance to live, and then you are visited by a "healer" (why not, if modern medicine doesn't do the trick) and then, what do you know, you get better. If the "healers" bizarre medicine worked on you (and hasn't worked on many others), why wouldn't you think it still works sometime?
Perhaps we the topic isn't so loaded if we would think about issues that are called to be miracles.
No, IÂ’m saying those who say there are witches are deluded.
I’m not too interested in “nuance” when the claims are simply ridiculous. Witches, ghosts, demons, goblins, zombies, unicorns. Do we really need to be nuanced about these things?
Not about what those people believe -- that's their problem. But we can afford to be nuanced about what we believe, and why we find what they believe (insofar as we understand it) incompatible with that. It is okay, for instance, for a paleontologist to describe the truly mind-boggling degree to which evolution by natural selection is supported by the fossil record while shying away from the word "proven."
Quoting Xtrix
Heavy word. Not saying it's never appropriate, but why that word instead of "wrong" or "mistaken" or "misinformed"?
Anyhow, I've said my piece. Carry on.
I agree. I think there are similar issues with other phenomenon, such as the "Wow Signal".
It has long been regarded as an interesting signal captured (while searching for potential signals indicating intelligent life) but because it has never been found again (along with other issues) it has been dismissed as many something that may indicate intelligent life out there.
I think that with certain phenomenon, either the resources/time we spend trying to understand them isn't enough for get a good idea of what we are dealing with and/or our testing methods are not good enough for the job.
I could be wrong but there often seems to be either some kind of bias for people that are trying to prove something or bias by those who wish to prove something that isn't true. I think the problem is described as "cherry picking" were someone decides to either include or exclude certain data they have collected which allows them to sometimes fudge the final numbers to be more what they want them to be.
I remember when I took an introductory course in statistics, one of my final projects was to show whether there was some kind of relationship between two things. The one I choose to do was whether there was relationship between how well the stock market would do one year with how well it would do the next. Basically it the idea was if the stock market did really good one year whether or not it was likely to do not so good the next. When I first plugged the numbers into the software program I had it came out that there was no relation, however when I changed the data sets I worked with (such as excluding the years after 1990 when people just kept on putting money into the market), the program said that there was a statistical relationship between the two. In my final report to the teacher I explained to the teacher that while I couldn't show a statistical relationship if I feed in all the data sets, I could get a statistical relationship if I was selective with which years I included.
I'm guessing that there was a relationship most of the time, but because some years are so chaotic in the stock market that sometimes such relationship may not work if people are to "enthusiastic" with trying to invest in the market.
In my first encounter with ghost I would have wrote it off as a hallucination/trick of the light if the person next to me didn't see it as well. To be honest all that happened was for a brief second or two I could see a dozen or so white or dark shapes that looked like people that where surrounding one person that was hanging our in a cemetery when I used a flashlight on them. After that they were gone. The other person that was there that saw it was in no mood to stay there any longer, and he really didn't want to talk about it much.
As with Ouija boards, how do you know whether they move on their own or not if you haven't even used them or seen other people try to use them? If you have ever tried to use them it is likely that you would realize there is a big difference in how it feels when someone is deliberately moving it themselves and when the plank is moving on it's own. To me I'm guessing it is plausible that even if one isn't deliberately moving one, it could be done through a subconscious act.
And even at that there is also the issue of psi-wheels which can be moved without someone touching them and/or even putting their hands near them. It is one thing for something to move when your hands are either on or near something but it is something else for it to move on its own just by someone trying to make it move.
While I agree one shouldn't believe in fairly tales and/or "magic", I think it is best for one to be opened minded enough to realize that not all the things that associated with "magic" are really magic at all but perhaps are caused by some kind of physical phenomenon we have yet been able to identify and understand.
There are no ghosts. There are no zombies. There are no goblins.
Quoting dclements
I have used them and watched others use them. ItÂ’s long been a claim that they have magic powers.
They donÂ’t.
Quoting dclements
No, it canÂ’t. ItÂ’s not plausible, itÂ’s not possible, itÂ’s not worth wasting time on.
Magic isnÂ’t real. Sorry.
Quoting dclements
Yeah, and maybe Santa really does exist after all. Maybe there really is that teapot orbiting Mars. Maybe I can fly like Superman.
ThereÂ’s equal evidence for all of it. Which is to say: none.
Whenever things are consistently weird, they get renormalised. Inconsistent weirdness is dismissed.
One thing that I find odd though, is the lack of robust physicalists on the 'simulation' thread. Because if we are living in a simulation, all bets are off. The programmers can stop the program, change something and restart it. They can insert superman, or an intermittent fault to prevent the bomb exploding, or add a world teacher here and there. They can program the blindness of simulated observers to certain phenomena, or absolutely anything at all. Only those of us who have operators in the programmer's world could possibly know about such things. Funny how the old stories become believable when couched in familiar cultural language.
Ok, ok, just chill. It is a given when I say "I and other people say a ghost" it is a given that we saw something that "looked" like a ghost, just like in certain photographs there can be some kind of strange or phantom like images that other people say looks like ghosts to them. You don't need to have such a knee jerk reaction just at the mention of someone saying that see or hear something weird and liken it to something else that other people have reported to experiencing in the past.
It isn't heresy for someone to merely comment on the things they have seen in heard in their lifetime.
As I mentioned before there are many cases of people seeing something in the sky and saying that it look like a UFO and just like it shouldn't be taboo for someone to say they saw something like a UFO it shouldn't be taboo for someone to say they saw something like a ghost. Especially now that the government has actually admitted that they see UFOs so often that it is something they might need to address as an issue.
Quoting Xtrix
Since I have already stated that Ouija boards don't use magic, to try and counter my position by stating they are not magical is nothing more than a straw man argument.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read/post to this thread. If you are unhappy about it I'm sure there are other things you can do with your time.
Quoting Xtrix
On the other hand, maybe trying to be a little more open-minded about certain things may not be something that a person such as yourself is ready for and/or might help you in your life.
As the old saying goes, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink.
Stop with the victim act. I never said I considered it heresy — in fact I’ve said I think many people who make such claims are sincere.
And yet: there are no zombies. There are no ghosts. There are no goblins.
Quoting dclements
So they can move “on their own”, but that’s not magic?
Again: ouija boards donÂ’t move on their own. ThereÂ’s no evidence for this, and it contradicts everything we know about the world and physics.
Quoting dclements
True, IÂ’m not very open minded when it comes to childish nonsense.
But you have every right to go on believing in fairytales. ThatÂ’s your business.
Your right! Thanks for bringing it up! :D
I don't know if the "placebo effect" shows some kind of physical phenomena that can not be explained by current science. I always thought that it merely showed a tendency for the body to "react" toward a underlining issue in a similar way a drug would do if a person took it. However the one thing I can not recall while reading about the placebo effect is how doctors/scientist think it actually works.
I could be wrong but with the brain in a vat problem we can never know whether we are in a simulation or not. The only thing we can do perhaps is notice/perceive where our waking reality is more stable/consistent than in our dreams. To be honest when I hear things about quantum physics it kind of makes me nervous since there are times I would like to understand if there are cracks in out reality but other times it is unsettling how ..different the quantum world is from what we expect from things that physically exist.
And yet you are not willing to consider me to be sincere when I have made such claims. The funny thing is you are so busy attacking straw men (with your arguments arguing against goblins and zombies which I have said nothing about) that you don't even know what I'm saying. All I said was I was at a cemetery on night (the actual cemetery happened to be Union in CT which has a history of things happening), one of the people I was with decided to walk further in than the rest of us, and when I shined a flashlight on him for a brief second I could see what appeared to be a combination of white and black shadows surrounding him and then they where gone. To me it would have been nothing more than a "trick of the light" (other than perhaps the sensation that there was a crowd surrounding the guy in the cemetery), except the person that brought us there said "Yes" when I asked him if he saw what I saw and he was visibly shaken from the experience.
If you are bothered by me saying that I saw "something that looked like a ghost" then perhaps if all I say is that I saw something that looked like shadows near my friend in Union cemetery maybe you can be at piece with that. It is something that transpired in hardly more than a second.
Quoting Xtrix
Do you know how many physical phenomena there are where something is able to move do to physical forces we can not see? For instances there is magnetism that allow objects to be either drawn together or apart by "invisible forces that can not be seen by the naked eye".
Just because we don't know how a physical phenomena works doesn't mean that it is caused by "magic".
Quoting Xtrix
I see nothing in my statements to believe I am proposing childish claims, and the only reason I think you feel this way is because you have something against what I'm trying to say.
All I have been trying to say is that I (as perhaps well as others) have from time to time seen/experienced various physical phenomena that have yet to be explained by our current understating of science and the world around us. I see nothing to be quite outlandish in such claims as you say there to be.
On the contrary, I think you're very sincere. I'm sure you think you've seen ghosts and ouija boards move, etc.
Quoting dclements
I know you haven't mentioned them. There's as much evidence for goblins and zombies as there is for ghosts.
Quoting dclements
And you conclude from this what exactly?
Quoting dclements
Sure. Gravity is a force -- pulls objects towards the earth all the time. I can't "see" gravity itself. True enough.
And it's also true that ouija boards don't move on their own.
Its like if a deep sea fish claimed there is no such thing as animals that can fly or no such thing as animals that can live outside of water, or no such thing as technologically advanced talking apes who built technology with which they can fly.
The knee jerk sceptics have been holding back scientific and technological advancements, thinking they are protecting it
I think this is appeal to ridicule?
I basically conclude that I saw something that was unlike things that I have seen before. Obviously seeing something (as well as others seeing it) for just a second or two isn't enough to draw any conclusion. To be honest I would like to know of a real scientific explanation for such things.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, of course they don't just move on their own but the question is what makes them move. I know that it is a given that people who have never used a Ouija boards (or more specifically never used it where it seems like it is moving on it's own) think that people are deliberately moving the plank, but those that have used it and the plank seems to move on it's own I'm sure would like to know what is causing it to do so. I could speculate that perhaps people that use it in the way were it moves on it's own are somehow subconsciously making it move but I'm pretty sure even that would be pretty hard to explain how that happens.
I more or less agree. Although we have come a long way over the last few hundreds of years. I agree that we are far from knowing about everything about the world around us.
Thanks. I don't agree that "we" have advanced a long way, on average, over the last few hundreds of years. But could be that we are measuring society by different metrics. I would say that technology has advanced. Not people. I am open to the possibility I am wrong.
Person A: I think phenomenon A is real.
Person B: phenomenon A can't be real because it doesn't (seem to) fit with current scientific models.
Person B may think they are being scientific, but they are not. And there are instances where people quite correctly said that certain phenomena were real that did not fit with then current scientific models...and they were correct. So, this kind of dismissing is speculative.
The issue is evidence, not sophomoric ideas about what “science” is.
Maybe we’re wrong about the teapot orbiting Mars, or about goblins. I suppose “dismissing” these things is also being “unscientific.” Give me a break.
More silly justifications for belief in magic and general nonsense. I hear it from creationists, astrologers, psychics, and flat earthers all the time. Same arguments.
I suggest growing up. A good antidote to childish beliefs.
I think that's a bit limited but we're getting there.
There's also Person C: phenomenon A is intriguing but cannot be definitively described until there is sufficient reason/evidence to make a specific interpretation. 'I don't know' is not the same thing as 'it's a ghost' or 'it's not a ghost'.
I generally side with science and empiricism, but hopefully not to the point of fundamentalism. My version of science does not 'uncover facts' about the universe, it provides us with tentative theories or narratives that work, until they don't. Or something like that.
Lovely. Me too. And hey, I have some fringe beliefs - though often with some scientist backers out there - but I would say I have a similar relationship to models/theories/narratives. I do think experience plays a huge role in what we believe and that sometimes living as if X is true, even if it cannot now be demonstrated to be true to create a scientific consensus, can be rational, and I can point to historical instances. It is not easy having a tentative, sometimes as if, reevaluating set of beliefs. This means I have a lot of responsibility. I wish I could simply do what a lot of people do, pick my authorities and give it all to them. But fortunately and unfortunately I had some experiences while a child that showed me early on that experts in a field, a consensus, could have some serious paradigmatic problems and/or self-interest skewing their views. The school of hard knocks. This does not mean I assume experts are wrong. Hardly. I rely on experts all the time. It does mean I am more open to things that either are not confirmed by expert consensus or are denied by expert consensus. Especially if I can see a paradigmatic bias or powerful interests with influence involved. And of course I tend to turn to experts to help me understand and to critique.
Frankly I envy people who feel comfortable passing all responsibility on to expert consensus all the time. And then I also don't envy them.