I consider myself to be a rationalist, an atheist and a sceptic. However, I believe that I have had vey real "psychic" experiences, including precognition, and the use of psychometry, which proved to be successful. However, I am having some difficulty trying to marry my experiences with what I believe rationally.
So, I have been researching the possibility of science and the supernatural being reconciled, and have discovered the results of several scientific studies conducted by experts in their fields, which have concluded that the human brain does have precognitive abilities.
Would others agree, that it is possible to be a rationalist and to also believe in such things as ESP, telepathy etc?
Absolutely .... Anyone that have experienced Dajavu have touched upon a precognitive experience of sorts.
It has been quite come time, but I have had a number of precognitive dreams that were undoubtedly one of these experiences.
The telepathy thing? I am pretty sure I have, However, these are a bit more difficult to convince myself of. The other people might have been pushing my leg, if Ya know what I mean?
In the abscense of proof to the contrary, anything is possible...
I love the documentaries that feature cases where various Police departments have used psychics in order to solve murder cases (Psychic Detectives and Psychic Witness spring to mind). The detectives are happy to go on camera and admit to using psychics whilst telling the story and the information the psychic provided without any problem. When you hear the information the psychics give, (which later proved to be very very accurate), you can't help but believe there has to be something in this.
According to physics (and oddly most theologies) , the supernatural is simply the invisible, unseen or unobservable universe. The psyche of man has designed ideas in an attempt to define, understand and control that unobservable.
Using any form of human mechanic (cameras, speakers, EMI, ESP, etc) is simply a realization that man has forgotten his abilities and purpose. As a result, man has designed alternative methods to explain something he once understood fully and desires to understand yet again.
I feel the same way and I try to imagine myself back into those times when we had a firm grasp on our primitive selves. I think if people much smarter than I did meditation like this, we would be able to solve how the pyramids were built and things like that.
On the other hand, I think that sightings of paranormal events are psychological and physiological. I've had some strange things happen to me when my blood sugar drops, then later on when I remember it, I realize my senses were off.
(James!!!! How are ya? Believe it or not, I'm sick of this, but for some reason passed by to find out what's up...still same-o, same-o.)
Just a few words, guys the natural is just a definition of what we understand so far. If you think about it, a cell phone would be supernatural to an18th century priest.
I totally agree. Paranormal doesn't define the thing, it just means it's outside our scope of current explanation. Paranormal things can become scientifically proven with new technology.
Or, more precisely, outside of normal sensory channels, like telepathy, miracles and religious experiences. We don't call everything we don't understand paranormal.
Or, they usually remain in the dustbin as nonsensical claims based on magic.
Couple points. No pain. K.
Para: That which outside, parallel (par) or obscure to the "normal" or "behavior pattern" of an object, event or happening.
Normal: That which is "accepted" as a general occurrence of an object, event or happening.
Paranormal: That which is outside, parallel or obscure to the accepted general occurrence of of an object, event or happening.
That alone says interpretation is impossible, because what is considered a 'normality' is not.
"Paranormal things can become scientifically proven with new technology"
I call crow!
Technology is MECHANICAL not factual, orbital, normal or scientific -at its root.
In actuality, technology is paranormal to most natural things. Technology is out of sync with generally accepted behavior (ex: watching a video of a field of flowers as the sun sets versus sitting in a field of flowers, enjoying the sunset). Both science and religion have shown they can observe, document and appreciate without mechanics.
Long Time no Read !
am very off-hubpages most days.
came back for a bit, and yes, same sh-t. lol
hope all is well !
I don't know if you saw my other thread, but until science has a way to measure ESP energy, or any other paranormal type force, it remains something that can't be tested objectively... meaning it can't be proven(or disproven) by science.
Actually, it will remain a magical notion in your imagination.
By your definition, before the year 1895, x-rays were just a magical notion... By your definition, anything not yet discovered is a magical notion.
Still can't distinguish reality from fantasy, yet?
I find it interesting that you entertain the idea that "psychic" experiences might be genuine and that telepathy and ESP might be real and true, yet say you are an atheist.
If man is a material being subject to the laws of physics and nature, then just how can telepathy, ESP, precognition, etc, etc, actually work? Anyone can have a deja vu experience then think they are psychic. When what is much more likely is that they are experiencing something coincidental, or their subconcious imagination is giving them "a feeling". Logically if these experiences were real, they would be everyday experiences. Our five natural senses are in continual operation, so if ESP were real if should be in continual operation also. The fact that the wider scientific community does not take such things seriously should inform us that they have not stood up to the riggers of scientific enquiry. Hence both the CIA and the KGB abandoned serious study in the 60's.
To me the existence of a supreme God is much easier to believe than any "psychic" powers being real.
I base the fact that I am considering the possibility of psychic experiences being a reality on personal experience. Yes, this experience is entirely subjective, and I know how fallible the mind can be. And yes, these experiences may be entirely coincidental. However, they are nevertheless real experiences, no matter what their cause. As for God, I have never had any experience of such a being. Not even a coincidental experience. I have never perceived God with my senses in any way.
Also, whilst most scientists will never entertain the idea of the supernatural, there are some who have made a study of it. The article I have linked, details different studies and experiments which have in recent years taken place. And, I find it interesting that more than one scientist, some of them Nobel Prize winners have concluded that such abilities do exist. Now the methodology and the findings of these scientists can be called into question, because it is not unknown for science to make mistakes. Old scientific certainties have been replaced when new evidence is discovered. However, the fact that some scientists are now prepared to make such studies, should not be ignored, whatever one's personal view of them.
And should it ever be discovered that psychic abilites exist, then this would not necessarily indicate that the supernatural exists. There may be biological reasons why they exist, which have yet to be discovered. However it is possible to test for these abilites and to reach conclusions, but it is not possible to test for the existence of God. Belief in one can only ever be a matter of faith.
I'll tell you about a psychic experience I had. One night, my wife and I had a discussion on certain psychic subjects, and for fun, we thought we would try communicating with each other. We would take turns, write down a color on a piece of paper, then we would sit together, and the person whose turn it was would try and project that color to the other.
The first color my wife projected to me, I sat with my eyes closed and tried to just listen. After about 2 minutes, the blackness of having my eyes closed flashed bright purple. I said purple and sure enough, it was what she had written.
The first I projected to her, she got right on the first try as well.
I'll admit, after a few tries, we got kind of silly about it and weren't taking it very seriously, but for about 6 or 7 tries, we guessed the correct color on either the first or second try.
Years ago, I used to have the ability to put my hand on a picture book, with my eyes closed or wearing a blindfold, and describe the picture. They were usually children's books, and I got very detailed images of the things in the picture, which were correct. However, I then decided to read a lot about scientific testing of such abilities, and how time and again, they were shown not to exist. After reading this, I lost the ability, and now am totally unable to do anything like this. I know that these experiences happened, but the fact that I am now unable to do this, has put a lot of doubt in my mind, and I have become a sceptic. It is the recent discovery, that more recent scientific testing has concluded that such abilities may exist, that has created a new interest in it. I would need permission from the world of science to believe in such things again.
That's very interesting...
I wonder, when you tried it after reading about how these things don't seem to exist, did you feel like you were blocking yourself, or did you have thoughts of those scientific reports in your mind?
I was focused on the fact that scientists, who are experts in their fields concluded after testing pschics, that ESP, telepathy and other psychic experiences did not exist. I reasoned that if such higly educated professionals, using the scientific process had reached this conclusion, that they must be right, and that I must have been either fooling myself, or that every time I had been correct was the rsult of coincidence. Strangely, after reading of the more recent results, which seem to suggest that such abilites may indeed exist has not returned the ability.
I have discovered a site called 'psychics.co.uk' There is a psychic test there, in which there are six pictures of women, which the viewer is supposed to stare at, and decide what their jobs are and whether they are single or in a relationship. I tried it, and to my surprise got five out of the six correct. It is an interesting test ot take.
Among psychics, I'm not suggesting that there is any truth in this one way or another. It is beleived that many of us are born with psychic abilities, however, as we develop we begin to rationalise and our intuitive ability deminishes whilst our ability to rationalise increases. Perhaps, this explains to some extent, as much as it can be explained, your loss of certain abilities.
That's isn't psychic, that's guess work between a man and his wife, two people who should know some things about each other.
Ah, but how much time would a man and his wife have to spend together to understand each other so well?
To understand and know what colors they prefer? Usually before they marry.
I totally agree.
Measurement is the device that turns supernatural things into science.
Everything not readily visible was considered supernatural until they were able to be measured.
The psychics and the cops thing is dramatic, but not very reliable, otherwise we wouldn't need detectives.
I do believe there is a (for lack of a better word) 'spiritual' realm that connects everything, and I think everyone has had some kind of supernatural episode at one time or other, but I'm afraid many people are overwhelmed by this spiritual feeling and invent gods.
My wife and I (married 30 years) very often anticipate each others thoughts. Whether it is a psychic connection, or just the ability to understand each other's body english after 30 years, I'm not sure. But sometimes we actually tell each other that something we just did was spooky.
Only if there was evidence in favour of these things. I personally have never seen conclusive evidence in favour of these things.
Precognitive ability is more often then not, coincidence.
For example, I once dreamed about a plane crash just before I woke up. When I got up there was a plane crash on the news.
Some would say it was a premonition, I just say it was coincidence. I have dreamed about plane crashes on a few occasions and plane crashes are fairly common.
It is expected for my dream and the actual event to coincide at some point.
As long as you say it like you did. You believe in it. You can believe anything you want. There is no evidence, that I'm aware of, that any has been proven by reputable science.
I am a great believer in the scientific process, even though I recognise that it isn't perfect. The great thing about science though is that it seeks answers objectively, by using experimentation to discover empirical evidence. Few scientists will therefore say that there are scientific "truths" because they recognise that as new evidence is discovered, their theories may change.
It was for this reason that I have made a search online to discover the possibility that science has been testing such "psychic" claims. I wanted science to back up the experiences I have had, because to me, this could give me the permission I need to recognise them.
I believe it is. Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the belief in telepathy and ESP. I've had experiences of my own, but I have to be honest and accept the possibility that I misread the incidents. Without being able to replicate the phenomena they are relegated to the label of unexplainable. I don't think it would be honest to claim they were anything else.
I can not prove it to Science and science can not prove it.
I know that I had a dream about a particular person dieing in a car wreck, and a few days later he did.
I can think of many (almost constantly) instances where I just felt like I knew what was going to happen next, and the B.S. story that I was going to hear about it when it did happen.
I definately can not prove any of it... I have no reason to not believe it.
Are there any normal means to prove the paranormal?
Certainly. It is not difficult as long as the actions are repeatable on demand and can be performed for an audience or camera.
Unfortunately, this has never been the case. Many have tried, but all have been show to be fraudulent.
This is what always makes me doubt my own experiences, because those who make the "psychic" their profession are often fakes. And the experiences I have had are not repeatable, because they are spontaneous and unexpected.
It is a problem and a real one. I would think that a true psychic (which you might be) could train themselves to do it at their whim if they really tried to.
That it has apparently never happened throws a shadow of doubt, and a large one, but does not completely shut out the possibility.
I would think that if you had enough consistently correct predictions, or psychic experiences, that that would be the evidence you are looking for to base your beliefs/skepticism.
Certainly. It is not difficult as long as the actions are repeatable on demand and can be performed for an audience or camera.
== -- == --==========
To have a psycic experience upon demand in public and on film?
I couldn't have sex under those conditions. I would be called imputent.
But behind closed doors is a different story.
Why? You can raise your arm in public, you can walk in public, you can play a virtuoso piano recital in public - why would seeing around corners or reading someone's mind be any different?
Why wouldn't it be different? My daughter has experienced precognition and when I've asked her to explain it, she simply says it's a "feeling" she gets. She can't control it because it's like a hickup or a sneeze. One may be able to lift an arm in public or walk in public, but sneezing and hickups don't happen on demand. Neither do so called "psychic" experiences. Believe me, I am the last person to believe anything I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste with my own senses, but given the years of experiences I have had with my daughter and my mother for that matter, I can't help but wonder.
I guess, if you could figure your dreams out and predict publicly, that would be proof. I think Edgar Cayce proved his ability as a psychic, but not as a prophet.
Does Science recognize Edgar Cayce as a true psychic, what ever that would mean.
I thought that the scientific community thought of him as some sort of charilitan?
If his abilities are recognized as real; that should be all the proof that anyone needs? I don't know?
How many people such as Mr. Cayce would it take to convince the world?
The power of doubt never subsides..
No. I doubt scientists would recognize him as a psychic. But they could never disprove it. His ability was too well documented.
It's funny. You said the power of doubt never subsides. That's the problem. We probably could move mountains, if we had no collective doubt that it would happen.
It is the following article, which started me thinking about the possibility of there being something to explain my experiences.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti … -future.do
Yes, you can be a rational person, yet still believe that there are things here on Earth that cannot be explained just yet. The way I look at it is this: Once upon a time, we believed the world was flat, no one would stand on the Moon and ingesting roots, flowers and herbs for medicinal reasons was Witchcraft. Now we all know different. The "paranormal" is simply something that can't be explained by science, so it's discounted. There is energy all around us. Residual energy lasts a long time and is powerful enough to be stirred up now and then. We've come a long way from burning Witches to the many paranormal studies being conducted today.
I consider myself a normal, rational person. When I watch some of the so-called "ghost" shows on television I often respond skeptically. In my opinion, many of these shows are full of baloney, and are only out to get ratings. But, there is real evidence that proves the paranormal exists. I have had several first-hand experiences and I'm certain these were paranormal experiences. I think everyone has this ability, but some of us stifle the ability because we don't believe, we're scared of it, or are afraid of what others might think.
This was a long response. Thanks for giving me the chance to put in my two cents
Sorry, but a rational person would not believe in that nonsense. Yes, there are things that may not be explained, but a rational person never jumps to paranormal or supernatural conclusions for their answers.
No, there is not real evidence, none whatsoever. Reconsider your position no being rational.
No one said "jumps to paranormal conclusions". A lot of research and findings have been conducted and documented. There are some expert sitings and evidence to back up claims. No one questions when people pray for themselves or loved ones. Isn't that a belief in something you can't see with your own eyes? Yet, people pray all the time. It's got nothing to do with being rational.
No, there isn't, not a speck of evidence to back up any paranormal claims.
There are ample threads here on the uselessness, the contradiction and the hypocrisy of prayer.
Wow. I think it's more than a bit superior to think you have all the answers, but, I think I understand why you're troubled. Have a wonderful, trouble-free day sir. I wish you well.
Why are you making up stories about me? Where did I say I had all the answers?
Clearly, you have no interest in anything that will jeopardize your belief in ghosts and goblins. You claimed there is plenty of scientific documented research. Where is it?
The paranormal is only paranormal because we haven't yet figured out how it works.
Maybe people have real paranormal experiences, and I'm not talking about those who are looking for demons hiding under beds or monsters inside of closets and who are just trying to exploit certain beliefs for their own gain. But why can't there be certain brains that are wired just a little bit differently to see and hear things that might be considered "paranormal" like synistesia for example. Also, it's been proven that certain dogs can smell cancer, so why then can't there be certain humans who can be more sensitive to what we call "paranormal" stimuli, which is only "paranormal" because not everybody has the ability, to see auras and illness in others.
Who knows, maybe ghosts and angels are just visitors from another time or dimention. After all, don't some scientists believe in parallel universes? And maybe time travel will become possible in some future time. Like air, just because we can't always see it, doesn't mean it's not there.
Or, it's just plain nonsense, which seems to be what we have found out about it so far.
Some people want to be special, so they fantasize that they are special and are "wired differently" - it's just so much attention grabbing and little else more.
Dogs can identify chemical traces in the range of parts per million. No big deal and this has nothing to do with paranormal.
Sure, we can conjure all kinds of fantastic ideas from our imaginations, doesn't mean their true.
Still sticking to the stance that something that science can't explain is false?
Paranormal - of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation.
There have been many things in history that were considered paranormal until we found out what they were... what's to say we're not done making discoveries?
And, the consideration that they were paranormal was entirely wrong, just like you're considering now.
No, the consideration that they were paranormal was entirely justified. Anything that isn't able to be tested by science is paranormal, by definition. Once technology figures out a way to test something it couldn't before, then it is no longer paranormal.
Through history, many things were beyond the scope of science until technology advanced. To say nothing that is now paranormal is possible is to say technology will never discover new things to detect and measure.
Let's try it another way.
Ghosts, goblins, et, parapsychology and all the other claims of nonsense that people claimed existed did not exist. They were wrong.
Does that help?
Your logic is, because some things that are paranormal are not true, then all things that are paranormal are not true?
Logically, some A's are B's, so all A's are B's.
First, that is a base rate fallacy. ' making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.' You say that all paranormal things are probably fake, even though things that were previously paranormal have been proven.
Secondly, that is a fallacy of composition. 'assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole'. You say because some paranormal things don't exist, all paranormal things don't exist.
Thirdly, you use mind-projection fallacy. 'when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.'. In other words, defining what isn't based on what you think isn't.
Fourthly, the psychologist's fallacy. 'an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event'. Based on your own, subjective experiences, you believe you can objectively disprove the existence of spirity.
Do you want me to continue? Or do you want to address those fallacies?
Or, will you come back with something like , or 'you're twisting my words', or some other argument that dodges the point?
Here's what I actually said as opposed to what you think I said:
"Ghosts, goblins, et, parapsychology and all the other claims of nonsense that people claimed existed did not exist. They were wrong."
Does that help? Can you understand those words?
You are just repeating yourself and you did not read my post, so obviously you did not understand the words.
I did read your post. Your stance is that all paranormal stuff is crap. As evidence, you point to certain examples of paranormal crap.
The difference between you and me, is I address your points individually. You just make sweeping claims with no backup. I can present you with a 20 point argument, and you would probably respond with 'those are fallacies'.
Because, they probably are fallacies bases on your post history so far.
Your post history concerning me is stating 'that's a fallacy' many times, without ever backing up your claim. Until you start backing up your claims, your claim of fallacy is hollow.
I think that we can all remember when we knew everything! At least this old folks can.
If anyone wants to see Paranormal with their own eyes? Buy a hundred and something year old two story house, Remodel it; tearing out the original brick chimney that went from basement and out the upstairs roof.
AND LIVE in it. Better yet ...
Open up the old hand dug water well, located in the basement ( In places like Michigan).
And see what you get!
Call it insanity if you wish, cause it will seem like it!
I did that which I mentioned above (1970); and it was ? whatever it was?
The next two occupants also thought so. After that I lost track of the story.
I don't know what it was? I do know that I didn't like it!
I like your way of thinking! If we all had closed minds life would be pretty darn boring and dull. And, we wouldn't have all the great inventions we have today!
So, in order not to be boring or dull, according to you, people should "open" their minds to any old fantasy someone conjures up so we can all appear exciting and interesting.
Hilarious, considering that reality has so much to offer that is exciting and interesting without the need to inject paranormal nonsense into it, but that would be closed minded, boring and dull of me to tell you something like that.
And of course, it's just so much easier to cling to exciting and interesting fantasies for answers rather than learn something of our boring and dull reality.
How come you don't have any Hubs? Why don't you write some of your ideas down and invite comments there? Just a thought...
Since you aren't interested in anything I have to write here, why would you be interested in anything I had to write over there?
But hey, thanks for your comments of my ideas...
"I think it's more than a bit superior to think you have all the answers, but, I think I understand why you're troubled. Have a wonderful, trouble-free day sir. I wish you well."
I have always believed in science. However the version of science I have believed in is the old Newtonian one. This seemed to make sense of the physical universe. It is useful for building bridges or charting the movement of the planets. It was rational and measurable. However, having read a lot about quantum physics, it would seem that physicists now consider Newton to have been incorrect. And the language of quantum physics, seems to me to be the language of magic.
Listening to Professor Brian Cox, trying to explain that electrons exist simultaneously everywhere in the universe. So, this subatomic particle, not only exists in the atom it is a part of, but exists everywhere at the same time. I have tried to get my head around that one, but have failed miserably.
60 years ago, science made logical sense, now it uses the language of the magician and expects us ordinary mortals to understand it and to accept what they say based on the authority of their profession. If the language being used by quantum physicists were used by people claiming to be psychic, my reaction would be to say "pull the other one, it's got bells on." But, because I believe in science and the authority of scientists, I have to come-to-terms with the new language of magic and mysticism employed to explain the quantum universe.
by Nicole Canfield12 months ago
Many people for centuries have believed in faeries, fairies, or what some call the "wee folk". Have you had any experiences with fairies or have you possibly seen fairies? I've heard stories of little girls...
by Baileybear6 years ago
but not all those that have NDE become christians?
by Sa Toya3 years ago
A friend and I had a conversation/discussion on this and she believes such occurrences are proof that God is real.She went on to say:If evil spirits are out there, there must be good spirits...like angels God is...
by eagle776 years ago
why do people find it so hard to believe there is a God? or that there is a supernatural realm? yet we here about demons and supernatural activity and feel a kind of natural drawing towards these things and I guess we...
by Mark Johann2 years ago
Faith is something to believe in not based on experiment but on experiences that cannot be explained in science. Science is the intrinsic, concrete, literal and obvious observation proven in various ways of...
by PhenomWriter5 years ago
Buddhism does not have a God. It's principles are very similar to the most modern discoveries of psychology. It never killed anyone to prove itself. It is not supernatural to be honest. Is it any near to being...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.