For believers in the paranormal

[Heisenberg]

Oly, fallacy and falsehood are different things. Falsehood is something that is wrong, and that would be to the point of your question, I think. A fallacy is a misuse/miscarriage of logical procedure. it is a narrower thing.

My take on atheism is a bit different from Heis'. While logic-based skepticism can be one path to and a pillar of an atheistic belief, it is imo a surface manifestation of a deeper thing. That thing has to do with faith, which resides below/beyond strict logic ime. If your basic intuitive understanding of the world makes deep sense with a God in it, you are a theist. If otoh it makes that basic sense without an active god, you are (to hear Beefbisquit say it) an atheist. This perception of the basic sense of things ... faith imo ... is beyond the reach of rationality, and certainly beyond its control. Implacable reductionist rationalism is, to me, just as much a manifestation of personal faith as, say, sincere belief in the reality of souls. cn

It seems before you decided that these things are essentially an expression of faith, you redefined the word to mean something different than what I, or the bible talk about. I have never heard anyone describe faith as "perception of the basic sense of things", and indeed you say it's your opinion. Could you elaborate?

 

[cannabineer]

Redefined from what, Heis?
Imo it isn't so much a redefinition as an attempt to cast my understanding of the classic interpretations from a different perspective than the one that has become, to me, cliché.

The lexicographic definition of the semantic subcategory that interests us is, per Merriam-Webster online, "the firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Since I believe that I cannot even prove that I exist, (I am at heart a subjectivist) I consider faith to be not merely the foundation but the hermetic enclosure for my perceptive and cognitive acts. To me, Samuel Johnson's famous refutation of Berkeley's immaterialism ("I refute you thus!" and kicks a rock) is the quintessential act of faith: that is a rock; the rock is there, and I'll kick just hard enough to make my point because otherwise it will hurt like [likely 18th-century profanity].

On a slightly less ethereal plane ... take some of my basic insights into my reality, like the certainty that my being is my meat (no soul) or that Randomness is a basic engine of creation (unintelligent ondesign). These things I surely cannot prove ... but I can't tell myself to believe otherwise without internal intellectual dishonesty. As an Apergerite, I am quite bad at "doing" denial. I count these "duh, what/how else?" axioms of relating to reality ... as my Articles of Faith. They are utterly true to me.

Moving on to a more Biblical treatment, here's a rather good exegesis of the usual passage:
http://thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_11_The-biblical-definition-of-faith

Now while I don't hold with Scripture myself, the way I read this is that the two key elements of faith are "substance" (which I think corresponds very well with my idea of internally non-negotiable axioms of reality) and "conviction" (as an alternative to the usual and more fraught word "evidence").
It isn't about lip service or declarations of loyalty, which ime describe the common concept of faith the way an adherence to certain forms denote "patriotism" to a nlarge plurality. It's about the sort of stuff that you know in your gut, even though a study of philosophy convinces that you really can know nothing in your gut, including the gut.

This post is lightly behemped, speculative ... a bit undefended, really. If you have a good counterargument I'll listen with attention, but please consider I'm laying deep bits of myself bare for discourse. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

Remember you framed this in the context of atheism, and proposed that rationalism is as much an expression of faith as belief in souls. I could be said to believe in souls, but we are talking about a theistic soul which lives on independent of the body.

Even the act of believing you exist requires a measure of faith? I think you have watered down and stretched the term to the point where it is synonymous with belief. I understand that you can not absolutely prove you exist, but how could you be more sure than you are now? What knowledge could you posses beyond what you have that would bring more certainty to your existence? If you are setting the baseline for faith to apply to anything that isn't absolute, it then applies to everything, and no one is without faith. If this is the sort of faith we deal with when examining theistic ideas, then why does the bible even bother to tell us to have faith; everyone has it. It asks specifically for faith in a deity.

Religion invokes faith as a mechanism to form a belief in something that is not evidence or experience based. It becomes an excuse to accept ideas that would otherwise be labeled mad, or at least bad. They are using it as an answer when none exists, in fact in this sense, faith stops people from asking questions without providing any answers. Believing the truths of life may require a type of faith, but it is based in rationale. Personal axioms result from following arrows. These arrows are in fact the only method we have of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Rationalism simply means we do not pay attention to arrows that aren't there. Religion asks us to revere invisible, unjustifiable arrows, and calls it faith. It asks for conviction in ideas that do not have demonstrable substance. Can your existence be demonstrated to any degree? If so, then it is much more deserving of conviction than biblical faith, and that is the distinction rationalism makes. A rational atheist does not have a problem with the concept of faith in the context you describe it, but rather that theistic ideas require a faith that stands alone, without the substance, and is the only area to which we extend this courtesy.

It seems to me you are probably well aware of equivocation, so possibly you have thought this through to another level. I do not intend to come across as polemic.

 

[olylifter420]

Hey you two, awesome posts!

I think my IQ just went up 10 points!

Redefined from what, Heis?
Imo it isn't so much a redefinition as an attempt to cast my understanding of the classic interpretations from a different perspective than the one that has become, to me, cliché.

The lexicographic definition of the semantic subcategory that interests us is, per Merriam-Webster online, "the firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Since I believe that I cannot even prove that I exist, (I am at heart a subjectivist) I consider faith to be not merely the foundation but the hermetic enclosure for my perceptive and cognitive acts. To me, Samuel Johnson's famous refutation of Berkeley's immaterialism ("I refute you thus!" and kicks a rock) is the quintessential act of faith: that is a rock; the rock is there, and I'll kick just hard enough to make my point because otherwise it will hurt like [likely 18th-century profanity].

On a slightly less ethereal plane ... take some of my basic insights into my reality, like the certainty that my being is my meat (no soul) or that Randomness is a basic engine of creation (unintelligent ondesign). These things I surely cannot prove ... but I can't tell myself to believe otherwise without internal intellectual dishonesty. As an Apergerite, I am quite bad at "doing" denial. I count these "duh, what/how else?" axioms of relating to reality ... as my Articles of Faith. They are utterly true to me.

Moving on to a more Biblical treatment, here's a rather good exegesis of the usual passage:
http://thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_11_The-biblical-definition-of-faith

Now while I don't hold with Scripture myself, the way I read this is that the two key elements of faith are "substance" (which I think corresponds very well with my idea of internally non-negotiable axioms of reality) and "conviction" (as an alternative to the usual and more fraught word "evidence").
It isn't about lip service or declarations of loyalty, which ime describe the common concept of faith the way an adherence to certain forms denote "patriotism" to a nlarge plurality. It's about the sort of stuff that you know in your gut, even though a study of philosophy convinces that you really can know nothing in your gut, including the gut.

This post is lightly behemped, speculative ... a bit undefended, really. If you have a good counterargument I'll listen with attention, but please consider I'm laying deep bits of myself bare for discourse. cn

Remember you framed this in the context of atheism, and proposed that rationalism is as much an expression of faith as belief in souls. I could be said to believe in souls, but we are talking about a theistic soul which lives on independent of the body.

Even the act of believing you exist requires a measure of faith? I think you have watered down and stretched the term to the point where it is synonymous with belief. I understand that you can not absolutely prove you exist, but how could you be more sure than you are now? What knowledge could you posses beyond what you have that would bring more certainty to your existence? If you are setting the baseline for faith to apply to anything that isn't absolute, it then applies to everything, and no one is without faith. If this is the sort of faith we deal with when examining theistic ideas, then why does the bible even bother to tell us to have faith; everyone has it. It asks specifically for faith in a deity.

Religion invokes faith as a mechanism to form a belief in something that is not evidence or experience based. It becomes an excuse to accept ideas that would otherwise be labeled mad, or at least bad. They are using it as an answer when none exists, in fact in this sense, faith stops people from asking questions without providing any answers. Believing the truths of life may require a type of faith, but it is based in rationale. Personal axioms result from following arrows. These arrows are in fact the only method we have of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Rationalism simply means we do not pay attention to arrows that aren't there. Religion asks us to revere invisible, unjustifiable arrows, and calls it faith. It asks for conviction in ideas that do not have demonstrable substance. Can your existence be demonstrated to any degree? If so, then it is much more deserving of conviction than biblical faith, and that is the distinction rationalism makes. A rational atheist does not have a problem with the concept of faith in the context you describe it, but rather that theistic ideas require a faith that stands alone, without the substance, and is the only area to which we extend this courtesy.

It seems to me you are probably well aware of equivocation, so possibly you have thought this through to another level. I do not intend to come across as polemic.

 

[cannabineer]

It seems to me you are probably well aware of equivocation, so possibly you have thought this through to another level. I do not intend to come across as polemic.

I wish I could say so, Heis. However my thoughts/feelings/ideations on this topic probably do not conform to a good standard of philosophical rigor. I could very well be using belief/faith in a nonstandard way (a gentle way of saying "wrongly"?) , which could reduce my stance to a semantic muddle. I do find that I am a subjectivist and perhaps a solipsist at my philosophic core.

I guess I am reacting to the standard Judeo-Christian tenet that to build one's faith, one is advised to expose oneself to the written word and the company of fellow believers. To me, this is simply the old Nazi "Big Lie" technique: veracity through relentlessness. I reject that as faith ... that is mere belief. Perhaps this is my crotchet, but faith needs to be beyond such attitude manipulation. I believe that modern social democratic government is the path to doom ... but that isn't a statement of faith; I am insufficiently invested. However it is a (recursive) article of my faith that faith in its most rigorous definition must be held by the person in question as thoroughly, perhaps axiomatically true. Since I am unconvinced that my view of material reality is more solid than, say, that of a Zen Buudhist's, I cannot describe myself as having faith in reality. Belief yes, by the barrowload ... but not faith. It is a basic part of my faith that real deep faith is not internally negotiable. So for me "perception of fundamental truth" is a handy definition for that sort of faith, as distinct from the submeanings that have to do with loyalty, steadfastness and belief-by-choice.

I am not trying to champion, defend or otherwise advance my views on this. Mine is emphatically not a proselytizing worldview. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

I wish I could say so, Heis. However my thoughts/feelings/ideations on this topic probably do not conform to a good standard of philosophical rigor. I could very well be using belief/faith in a nonstandard way (a gentle way of saying "wrongly"?) , which could reduce my stance to a semantic muddle. I do find that I am a subjectivist and perhaps a solipsist at my philosophic core.

I guess I am reacting to the standard Judeo-Christian tenet that to build one's faith, one is advised to expose oneself to the written word and the company of fellow believers. To me, this is simply the old Nazi "Big Lie" technique: veracity through relentlessness. I reject that as faith ... that is mere belief. Perhaps this is my crotchet, but faith needs to be beyond such attitude manipulation. I believe that modern social democratic government is the path to doom ... but that isn't a statement of faith; I am insufficiently invested. However it is a (recursive) article of my faith that faith in its most rigorous definition must be held by the person in question as thoroughly, perhaps axiomatically true. Since I am unconvinced that my view of material reality is more solid than, say, that of a Zen Buudhist's, I cannot describe myself as having faith in reality. Belief yes, by the barrowload ... but not faith. It is a basic part of my faith that real deep faith is not internally negotiable. So for me "perception of fundamental truth" is a handy definition for that sort of faith, as distinct from the submeanings that have to do with loyalty, steadfastness and belief-by-choice.

I am not trying to champion, defend or otherwise advance my views on this. Mine is emphatically not a proselytizing worldview. cn

You are assigning far more integrity and humility to the concept of faith than religion ever has. If everyone thought as deeply about faith as you we would live in a better world.



“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
― Christopher Hitchens

 

[cannabineer]

Thank you, Heisenberg ... from you I recognize that as a supreme compliment. cn

 

[Weedasaurus]

I am uncertain, waited for better videographic evidence.

 

[eye exaggerate]

“[...] and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”

...great quote!

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

The assumption by pbhash, as I understand it, is that ghosts are part of our physical realm, and therefore subject to our understood laws of physics. What he fails to realize is that spirits belong to the spirit world, another dimension. We study quantum physics, string theory, chaos theory, etc and give them credibility, while the spirit world is much easier to access and there is much more proof of it every day.

We had a discussion on the subject in a thread I started before this one: https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/498991-anyone-else-paranormal-investigator.html

I have read through most of this thread and it seems that there is much philosophical discussion with zero actual application. It’s like you guys are trying to describe what goat testicles taste like without ever having taken a bite.

For those of us who have seen, and validated what we have seen, heard, and recorded spirits, there is no doubt. If you sat a flashlight down and asked a spirit to turn it on and off and it did, would you argue the flashlight is defective (even though it had never done this before or after)? If you saw an apparition then found a pic of that person later, would you deny it for what it is? How can you argue EVPs when you have never even tried to record one? You are so quick to deny their possibility when you do not even have the basic understanding of what they are, or how they are collected. It’s like people who talk about how bad they are going to kick your ass when they have never been in a fight, done any formal training, or even thrown a punch. All talk; with no actual experience.

 

[dtp5150]

A lot of philosophers think there is something magical, inherently trustworthy, and meaningful about the english language, or whatever language they happen to be using...in that to wander around in their current understanding of it, arguing about semantics, what other people think and the way they expressed themselves in the past with language, is their chosen path for enlightenment. Is this a branch of philosophy? It appears to be philosophers concerned with Epistemology or Esthetics.

There are people whos focus on dissecting someone elses statements or work of art is always the subject matter, because that is how they are searching for meaning.

Whereas, those who seek, and are at peace with, a less-tangible understanding seem to be more into metaphysics, ethics, politics.

Is a philosopher still a philosopher if he cannot communicate with the outside world and dissect OTHER peoples ideas or creations? Is it not true that most people have no idea what they are doing or talking about and should just be quiet?

 

[Heisenberg]

The assumption by pbhash, as I understand it, is that ghosts are part of our physical realm, and therefore subject to our understood laws of physics. What he fails to realize is that spirits belong to the spirit world, another dimension. We study quantum physics, string theory, chaos theory, etc and give them credibility, while the spirit world is much easier to access and there is much more proof of it every day.

So spirits are not subject to our understanding of laws, yet they leave proof everyday that we can understand? Is this proof grounded in the physical realm? What I see is decades and decades of investigation with no proof according to the standards we hold to all other evidence. Appeals to the spirit world being beyond our testing is blatant special pleading.

For those of us who have seen, and validated what we have seen, heard, and recorded spirits, there is no doubt

Investigators should always have doubt until results are thoroughly tested, recreated, and peer reviewed. Perhaps this is what you meant by 'validated', but it seems you simply mean that hearing, seeing and recording equals validation.

If you sat a flashlight down and asked a spirit to turn it on and off and it did, would you argue the flashlight is defective (even though it had never done this before or after)?

The flashlight being defective would seem to be the leading theory along with hoax, at least until ruled out. In any case, it is irresponsible to say "flashlight blinked on and off... therefore ghosts are real". I would say an incident such as this would warrant true investigation, including recreating the experiment with controls and documenting it. If it is a one time event, you really can't draw any conclusions. How about 10 flashlights, each numbered ,and the ghosts turns them off in specified sequences?

If you saw an apparition then found a pic of that person later, would you deny it for what it is?

How would you rule out pareidolia and suggestibility? Did we go looking for the pic based on history we heard? Did we chose the pic from a lineup? There seems to be too many random factors to draw conclusions.

How can you argue EVPs when you have never even tried to record one? You are so quick to deny their possibility when you do not even have the basic understanding of what they are, or how they are collected. It’s like people who talk about how bad they are going to kick your ass when they have never been in a fight, done any formal training, or even thrown a punch. All talk; with no actual experience.

I've spent much time listening to evp's from various net sites. I am a regular listener to several paranormal podcast and have heard them describe many times how EVP's are recorded. I have read about and heard interviews with people involved in spiritcon and who have used Frank's box. None of this does anything to rule out audio pareidolia, front loading, and anomaly hunting.

Although these are interesting topics, none of them qualify as evidence according to the scientific method. We are left with questions such as, why do ghosts images change over time and why do those changes coincide with technological advances? Old cameras captured opaque images and apparitions, new cameras capture orbs. Why do EVP's never say anything relevant or that would indicate desired communication? Why are psychics and mediums indistinguishable from mentalists and stage magicians? And why, if the spirit world is easy to access and more proof comes every day, has no one been awarded the JREF million dollar prize?

 

[EmilyRose]

Younger ghosts all have a USB port. The older ones are wind-up.

Nice!

xx emily

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

Hello Heisenberg,

Spirit crossover is complicated, not only for us, but them as well. Reproducing an event over and over in a lab setting is almost a ridiculous request. I am not discounting your intelligence, as your intellectual prowess is obvious. I do suggest that you have not done enough experimentation yourself to understand the statement. It is one thing to read websites and listen to podcasts, and quite another to actually do the work yourself. I am very skeptical of everyone else's work, but because of my own, I have to be open to it. There are scientific speech tools we use; spectral views of audio for one. Human voices are in a certain range while most EVPs are outside of the human capabilities. Also, you asked "Why do EVP's never say anything relevant or that would indicate desired communication?" They do. Many EVPs are answering direct questions or making statement about what the researcher is doing. Your comment tells me how little you actually know about it. (again, no disrespect)

You said "Investigators should always have doubt until results are thoroughly tested, recreated, and peer reviewed. Perhaps this is what you meant by 'validated', but it seems you simply mean that hearing, seeing and recording equals validation."

I'll give you one example. I was at a couples home with my gf. We had dinner and played some games. I was in the kitchen helping our host do dishes when I looked into the living room at my sleeping gf and saw a young man's apparition standing over her, looking at her, then he turned to look at me. This went on for about five seconds. after he disappeared I looked at our host and asked if she knew there was a spirit in her home and she immediately becamse startled and asked if I saw "him". I told her to not say anything else and got some paper and pens and we both wrote down "his" description. Perfect mathc. She said she seems him standing over her sometimes while she is in bed. Her husband has never seen him and therefore does not believe his existence. There is no way I could have known about him, or her experience. I have done this many times.

If "scientific method" is what you require, then there is really not much to discuss. You can tell me there is no such thing because you have never had the experience and do not care to actually do any research that may change your mind, and I have zero doubt and will continue to do do actual research that may one day lead to enlightenment for all. You know, until recently man knew the planet was flat. Can you imagine that?!?

 

[dtp5150]

thats fuckin crazy! i would shit a brick

ive had little things and there, but nothing that stands in my mind except this one period....but I think it may have been caused by biological factors...altho not sure....since many similar experiences are found online....what is the separation anyway?
I lived near the beach in a town for a few yrs thats had lot of human activity, social revolutions etc. Lots of "traffic" lots of "soul searching" lots of radical maniacs, banks being burned, etc

about 8 years ago....there was a period of about a month, where randomly in the night I would be like stuck in-between consciousness....the strangest feeling....like being in ur body but its not ur body

, and there was a elongated dark figure entering from the door approaching the foot of the bed. He would like always get closer and closer but not touch, and I would literally be attempting to scream at the top of lungs cuz i was scared out of my mind, with no noise, and my body wouldnt move.....I'm fairly glad this was a temporary thing and stopped There are details im not gettin into, but ya. Shit is crazy It was like my eyes were open...looking at reality at this dream shit and my body was frozen. Was that because time was frozen? I would call for help. Nobody around ever said they heard me tell during the night.

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

I am sorry, I forgot to address the matter of "orbs". I do not believe (or did not) they are paranormal, but moisture, or dust reflecting back a flash. I did come accross this great article, however, that leaves me unsure. Please, I think you will find it interesting, let me know what you think.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Plasma-Life-Forms---Spheres,-Blobs,-Orbs-and-Subtle-Bodies&id=783224

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

thats fuckin crazy! i would shit a brick

ive had little things and there, but nothing that stands in my mind except this one period....but I think it may have been caused by biological factors...altho not sure....since many similar experiences are found online....what is the separation anyway?
I lived near the beach in a town for a few yrs thats had lot of human activity, social revolutions etc. Lots of "traffic" lots of "soul searching" lots of radical maniacs, banks being burned, etc

about 8 years ago....there was a period of about a month, where randomly in the night I would be like stuck in-between consciousness....the strangest feeling....like being in ur body but its not ur body

, and there was a elongated dark figure entering from the door approaching the foot of the bed. He would like always get closer and closer but not touch, and I would literally be attempting to scream at the top of lungs cuz i was scared out of my mind, with no noise, and my body wouldnt move.....I'm fairly glad this was a temporary thing and stopped There are details im not gettin into, but ya. Shit is crazy It was like my eyes were open...looking at reality at this dream shit and my body was frozen. Was that because time was frozen?

That is called sleep paralysis and it IS very scary. I've had it too. Not paranormal, look it up.

 

[Farfenugen]

Careful now, the greenies might want to slap a carbon tax on them ghosts

 

[cannabineer]

In re sleep paralysis ...
I have had some dreams in which a perfectly ordinary stimulus/event (I remember one with especial clarity - I was walking in a forest, and there were two bird calls, and the second one was utterly terrifying for no real reason. It did not begin as a nightmare but "turned" with split-second speed into one) becomes frightening beyond all reason or control. I would experience concurrent sleep paralysis ... i would do my damndest to scream, but would wake up aware that I was tossing and moaning. I would be quite adrenal for half an hour or so before I could drift back into sleep.

What is this called? I always though it was a Night Terror, but the Wikipedia entry is not a good match. Anyone have these andor know what it is? cn

 

[ClaytonBigsby]

Sleep Paralysis

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_Paralysis

WenMD: http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/sleep-paralysis

Stanford U: http://www.stanford.edu/~dement/paralysis.html

http://www.sleepdisordersguide.com/sleep-paralysis.html