The unexplainable and the explainers (conspiracy)

[Dd714]

The problem is not in the beleif in the paranormal, but in the failure the beleive that their are normal explanations for most (maybe 99.999% of what is claimed as paranormal or supernatural activities). When people take a picture of a dust speck picked up by light and proscribe a supernatural origin to it, you know that people have problems.

In those cases one is wise to study up on "Occam's Razor", particularly those who study unexplained phenomena:

When I hear hoofbeats, I think of horses, not unicorns.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by serenic

Much has been posted lately accusing individuals claiming paranormal powers or experiences as being frauds.

The vast overwhelming majority are frauds. What of it?

Originally Posted by serenic

The finger has especially been pointed at John Edward and other spiritualists whom derive a living from their practice in front of audiences as well as private readings. While I'm convinced that fraudulent manipulation may be common amongst these practitioners, I cannot say with certainty that spirits don't exist, because I have not experienced their presence.

John Edward is a fraud. You can tell him I said that.

Dead people are dead....they no longer exist...anywhere....not in this universe nor other universes.

I can say with certainty that spirits don't exist.

Originally Posted by serenic

I question the motives of those individuals who so blatantly and assuredly denounce the validity of all paranormal happenings solely because they have not had experiences of that sort.

I don't know of anyone who denounces them using that line of reasoning.

All spiritualists like John Edwards are frauds. The only thing they're communicating with is their bank accounts.

Ghost are not spirits. When the end is known, you'll discover that ghosts are some manifestation of electromagnetic energy.

There's no such thing as "Remote Viewing."

Perhaps 1 out of 1 Million persons who claim to be psychic truly do have some gift of clairvoyance or psychic ability, but even so, it's severely limited in its scope.

Tarot Cards and Ouija Boards are great entertainment and a means of separating transferring money from the hands of the gullible to your bank account, but that's about it.

Astrology...if you wanna do the Liz Greene thing then you'd be better off reading tea leaves....or looking at burnt toast. If you reject the modern stupidity and follow Valens, Ptolemy, Masha'allah, Ibn Ezra, Abu'ali, Abu'mashar, Sahl bin Bishr (Zael), Manilus, Alchabitius, Placido and Bonatti, then what you're doing is predicated on mathematical formulas, which is hardly paranormal.

Heck, even Schoener, Gadbury and Lily would put you in the ball-park.

The shadows and other silliness, well, some people are just wrapped way too tight for this world and the light and space kind of puts the zap on their heads.

Originally Posted by serenic

Because I have never been to Tahiti, does that give me license to state "Tahiti doesn't exist?"

Only if you could possibly misrepresent the position more than you already have.

Originally Posted by serenic

James Randi, perhaps the leading "debunker" of the paranormal, makes untold TV appearances amassing a fortune as he accuses "charlatans" of becoming rich by fleecing the public.

Good for him.

Originally Posted by serenic

As to the "debunkers" appearing on this board sneering at the "believers" with harsh accusations stemming from their own disbelief, I question what their motive may be...

How about Truth? Are you willing to accept Truth even if it contradicts your beliefs?

Originally Posted by serenic

I must confess that I was skeptical of the paranormal most of my adult life, until I experienced a precognitive event and state of consciousness explained in my post,"Before my last breath."

Ah, that explains everything.

Originally Posted by Velvet Jones

Read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Pay close attention to the chapter titled "The invisible dragon in the garage".

Why would I ever want to read something by a scumbag like Carl Sagan?

Paranormally...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Chango

My strong opinion is that REAL paranormal activity is not something that can be reproduced on cue.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Chango

The effects might be random or caused by "lucky" environmental circumstances....

That is most likely the case for "ghosts." Perhaps something that allows electromagnetic energy from the mind to be imprinted on it.

Originally Posted by Dd714

The problem is not in the beleif in the paranormal, but in the failure the beleive that their are normal explanations for most (maybe 99.999% of what is claimed as paranormal or supernatural activities).

There are many things about the mind/brain and our own Earth and Universe that we do not understand, but ultimately, everything is rooted in science.

Originally Posted by Dd714

When people take a picture of a dust speck picked up by light and proscribe a supernatural origin to it, you know that people have problems.

Some people just have an overwhelming urge to believe.....in something, anything...doesn't really matter what it is, so long as it validates their own belief system.

Environmentally...

Mircea

[Gone-2-Beach]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Dead people are dead....they no longer exist...anywhere....not in this universe nor other universes. I can say with certainty that spirits don't exist.

I love it when people come to a forum, speak in absolutes on a topic like this ... "with certainty" no less.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time, but I'll ask you this one question. Do you leave ANY room at all for the remote possibility that maybe spirits do in fact exist, or are you saying as a statement of pure fact that spirits do not exist?

[Soup Sandwich]

Originally Posted by Charley

I love it when people come to a forum, speak in absolutes on a topic like this ... "with certainty" no less.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time, but I'll ask you this one question. Do you leave ANY room at all for the remote possibility that maybe spirits do in fact exist, or are you saying as a statement of pure fact that spirits do not exist?

Sorry for butting in, but...
Possibility =/= absolute certainty, which is a major difference between a skeptic and a believer.
Me personally, I'll say that anything is possible. Is anything and everything likely? Of course not. That's why we come to a conclusion of probability based on verifiable evidence. It's far more reliable than individual personal experience.

[Soup Sandwich]

Originally Posted by ocpaul20

It seems incredibly arrogant to suppose that we are the only conscious beings in the Universe, but I am sure you cannot mean that and I must have misunderstood it.

Evidence? well, it depends how you define evidence and what evidence is 'good enough' to be 'valid'. Is there a test for validity where evidence of the origin of consciousness is concerned or is it just an opinion of scientific peers?

External consciousness has to be defined because you are assuming that consciousness is contained within the 3D brain and then what of the "collective consciousness" which many great minds have postulated.

I never made the claim that we're the only conscious beings in the universe. I simply asked how someone could came to the conclusion that there is consciousness outside of our realm (external to our typical experience of known consciousness and its function).

Sometimes asking a question is simply just asking a question, not making a statement.

As for the "collective consciousness" thing, there's a difference between observing similar perspectives working together as a whole, and assuming that there's some greater consciousness external to our experience. You can observe one, however you cannot observe the other. Apples and oranges.

[ocpaul20]

When I hear hoofbeats, I think of horses, not unicorns.

and when you see a white horse-like animal with a long pointed horn emerging from the middle of its forehead, I guess you make up some medical reason for seeing things. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a ...duck.

What you said Soup Sandwich was....

I'm just wondering how people end up at the assumption that consciousness is some external thing to begin with. When was there evidence of this that was compelling enough for this to be a valid option? I certainly hope that people out there aren't just making options up because there isn't conclusive proof of an alternative. That's not productive at all. However, I do see the appeal.

and

I never made the claim that we're the only conscious beings in the universe. I simply asked how someone could came to the conclusion that there is consciousness outside of our realm (external to our typical experience of known consciousness and its function).

Tricky Dicky eh? Playing with words. Wondering about something you dont understand and not being able to see compelling evidence for it to be a valid option means to me that you do not believe it is true.

Sometimes asking a question is simply just asking a question, not making a statement.

More trickiness.

So I will ask you a question which I think it will be difficult for you to give me your opinion as a definitive straight answer (yes or no). Currently, over the last 20 years, do you believe that there are intelligent beings not from Earth visiting our Solar System?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by ocpaul20

and when you see a white horse-like animal with a long pointed horn emerging from the middle of its forehead, I guess you make up some medical reason for seeing things. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a ...duck.

You are missing the point of Occam's Razor. Yes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck, not a unicorn. Obviously I hope we both agree that unicorns do not exist, I forgive you for the bad example. Not that it's relevant anyways. But let's go back to the dust/ligh orb theory. That speck of dust when catching the light in a photograph - just maybe it's, ummm....DUST. Yet that consumed a 20 page thread were people swear they saw angels or other supernatural entities. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. And time and again this has been recreated in labratories as the interaction of dust and light and photography. But some people here don't care, they are gullible, they want to beleive.

I will define Occam's Razor, since you obviously didn't get the reference - the principle is that the simplest explanation is usually THE explanation. You do not have to throw in assumptions into the decision model, because it just messes up your decision and makes it subjective, ambigous, and plain wrong. Now this is a logic and problem solving principle used in science, primarily in medical diagnoses. But you can extend it to the examination of the paranormal. And the point is this - people too easily jump to a complex supernatural explanation for something that can be easily explained. The dust particle for instance. People will see a speck of light on film and SWEAR it's an angel. Why? Because they are throwing in other assumptions, usually personal beliefs or whatever. Their decision process is flawed.

Now, perhaps one can come up with an unexplained origin, but that is ONLY after dismissing the simpilist explanation using only known assumptions (not personal beliefs, not conspiracy theories, not hearsey). People here tend to skip that process entirely.

[hoooka]

I have an open mind. I can't prove that there is nothing paranormal in the world. But there is no proof that there is either. One has to believe because they want to not because they have seen. I really don't believe that those who say they have seen something have actually seen something paranormal. I think some lie to get attention and some think they have seen something that has an explanation outside of paranormal, and then those who are deluded.

[Gone-2-Beach]

Those who seek only the simplest of solutions always seem to lean on Occam's Razor as the be-all and end-all of their arguments. Fortunately, there are others who seek more than just the simplest solution. Had Alexander Fleming employed Occam's Razor and said "Hey, someone dropped some kind of crap on my bread" and thrown it out, we would not have penicillin.

Here's a simple message to those who choose not to believe. That's fine. But your arguments are meaningless to those of us who have various reasons to believe. Quite frankly, I know some things that you don't. I don't know how I know it. I don't know why I know it. I don't understand it at all, can't apply any reason or logic to explain it, and can't prove it to a soul. But I know what I know. All the Occam's Razor's, and "If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck" and "Where did I park my unicorn?" and the rest of it is just meaningless noise to me.

I'm here in the "Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal" forum and in a variety of other places, reading what I can and trying to figure out what happened that made me suddenly know things that I could not possibly know. The meaningless noise does nothing to detract or assist me, and I would imagine that those who really do understand have no use for it either.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Mircea

I can say with certainty that spirits don't exist.

And this is where I stopped reading you post. There was no point wasting any further time. You see, when someone goes all declarative and says they know something they can't possibly know, it tarnishes their credibility. And it shows the world that their perceived knowledge is based on their ego rather than fact.

I can look at my hand right now and tell you that I have short fingers. I can prove it by showing you the measurements. I can tell you that Sylow's First Theorem is true, and I can prove it mathematically. That's how science works. It states fact from verifiable and repeatable proof. The way you can tell a true, legitimate scientist from a fraud is that when a true scientist can't find conclusive proof of a given hypothesis one way or the other, he reserves judgment and makes no claim. Statistics 101. Charlatans make claims based on their ego.

You're a blind man telling other blind men that color doesn't exist. And there is no way any of us blind folk are ever going to prove one way or the other that color exists.

I'm not going to tell you that souls exist or that they don't. I have my OPINION, but then my opinion added with yours and two dimes might get us into a pay toilet. But I'd doubt it.