The Supernatural and Superstition

Gees · June 15, 2013

Hello Everyone;

The words "supernatural" and "superstition" seem to be unacceptable topics in most forums, and I was wondering why, so I thought that I would ask for some clarity. I study consciousness, not the medical definition of the conscious or unconscious rational mind, but rather the philosophical definition of conscious awareness and all of the mental aspects that come under the umbrella of conscious awareness. So I look at what science has discovered, what religion has interpreted, what philosophy thinks, and also the paranormal in my investigations. But if I mention the paranormal, people state that it is "supernatural", "superstition", and spit out denials like a terrified and unwilling virgin bride in a third-rate Dracula horror movie. Why is this?

I wanted to know, so I went to Wiki and found that the word 'supernatural' was first used in the early 1,500s. This makes sense if you remember that 2,000 years ago, a bunch of pagans got together with the idea of an invisible God, and declared all things invisible to be of that God. For a time, even our personal thoughts were supposed to be put in our minds by either God or the devil, so for 1,000 years all that was invisible was God's. The Dark Ages. Then philosophers and scientists started to prove that some things were natural laws, so they fought religion with debate and logic, sometimes winning and sometimes losing, until Aquinas finally threw open the doors to science and the Enlightenment. (This is a very simplified version of a tremendous struggle by many great scientists and philosophers.) By the 1,500s all of the intangibles were being divided, some were left in the care of religion, some were proven to belong to science, but what to do with the others? Well, whatever religion did not want and science could not prove became the supernatural. Simple

The word "superstition" came a few hundred years later and represents an ignorant belief, so "heaven and hell" are Christian superstitions, "reincarnation" is a superstition from Eastern religions/philosophies, there are Voodoo superstitions, Pagan superstitions, and probably even folklore superstitions. But all superstitions represent the same thing, a belief that is different, and therefore ignorant, that involves the supernatural. For a person like me, who has no religious beliefs, it appears that "God", who is arguably the President of the Paranormal Club, and beliefs that are "authorized" by religions, are allowed--but unauthorized beliefs are not. So it appears that when a person states that the paranormal/supernatural is not accepted because of science, they are not being honest--as it is religion and beliefs that dictate the acceptability of the supernatural/paranormal. This appears to be a false dichotomy.

When studying consciousness (God), I threw out the artificial divisions that were given to us by religion. My reasoning in this is that it is impossible to get an answer to a question, if the question is not asked, and artificial divisions prevent questions from being asked. For example: Religion states that each of us has a soul that is within us, and God is everywhere else. This means that we can have hunches, gut feelings, instincts, intuition, and the idea that something "rings true" because these things are all within us--like our soul. But we can not have knowledge that is outside of us without a physical cause, because that is where God rules, so obviously ESP can not be real. But it is. So the question becomes, how is this knowledge acquired?

Another example is that souls are deposited in our bodies by God; therefore, reincarnation can not be possible, as souls are supposed to stay where God puts them and not go flitting about. But Dr. Ian Stevenson's work seems to find that this may not be true.

So I have been working on more valid divisions of what is, what we can know, and how we know it, using what we now understand about the different aspects of mind as taught by Freud, rather than religious beliefs. It is working. When people state that the supernatural does not exist because science has not proven it, they are actually following the dictates of religion, because the supernatural is just something that has not yet been explained and understood.

The Ancients did not have to deal with this nonsense, so they could examine all parts of life and learn. But science did not know what it does today, and Freud had not yet broken down and defined the Ego, SuperEgo, and Id, so the Ancients did not understand how the different aspects of mind work together and independently. We have that advantage, if we have the sense to use it.

Is there some problem with my logic here? Something that I am missing?

G

EdEarl · June 15, 2013

You didn't mention superstitious conditioning of pigeons discovered by B. F. Skinner. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstitious_Pigeons

Gees · June 16, 2013

You didn't mention superstitious conditioning of pigeons discovered by B. F. Skinner. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstitious_Pigeons

What are you trying to say here, Ed? Are you saying that Skinner taught pigeons to become superstitious by conditioning them? Or are you saying that Skinner discovered that pigeons are superstitious? Wouldn't that require pigeons to have minds that believe something? Pigeons would have to have thoughts and emotions in order to create beliefs. Does science accept that pigeons have minds, thoughts, and emotions? Or are we talking behaviors? I am not sure that watching a pigeon's behavior objectively can automatically translate to a conclusion that pigeon's have a subjective superstious belief. If I am wrong, please explain this.

In the above noted article on Skinner, it stated that he was a behaviorist, who made objective studies of behavior in order to modify behavior, control behavior, and presumably to advance society with his understanding of behavior. The article also stated that he was an Athiest, a Determinist, and that he had some serious issues with religion and family, so it is my thought that he rejected the subjective supernatural in totality, so I can see where he could mistake the matter.

I am not a neurologist, but I have talked to a few and know that the brain is a very impressive organ--even bird brains. A great deal of behavior is activated by the brain without our ever thinking about it, or even acknowledging it, so I would be reluctant to state that the above mentioned behavior is caused by belief or any superstition. There are innate instinctive behaviors, learned instinctive and reactionary behaviors, and obsessive compulsive behaviors, just to name a few.

The supernatural is known subjectively, but superstition is an objective perspective of what may be belief in the supernatural, or may be caused by some other brain activity, or experience. So I don't think that Skinner's study is relevant to my studies.

I don't remember where I got my information on the word superstition, but I was wrong as it is much older than the word supernatural and dates back to before the Christian era. My apologies.

G

EdEarl · June 16, 2013

I did not mean to imply anything. I thought you might be interested if you had not heard of Skinner's research. I believe the pigeons develop a behavior because of a false memory. That Skinner called it superstitious conditioning seems reasonable to me, but it is a loaded term and not everyone will agree with it.

Gees · June 17, 2013

I did not mean to imply anything. I thought you might be interested if you had not heard of Skinner's research. I believe the pigeons develop a behavior because of a false memory. That Skinner called it superstitious conditioning seems reasonable to me, but it is a loaded term and not everyone will agree with it.

EdEarl;

Did you retire from politics? You did a great job of side-stepping any traps while maintaining your position, admitting nothing, and saying nothing. The idea that Skinner's conclusions seem "reasonable" has nothing to do with facts or truth, as many things can seem reasonable and be totally false. Skinner took a dubious word, superstition, and tacked it onto a behavior for the purpose of confusing the issue. In order to use the word superstition, Skinner would have had to prove that pigeons are capable of belief--he did not. So his conclusions in that regard are false. I do not find his experiments interesting at all.

There were a lot of studies in the 70's regarding the paranormal, and most of the paranormal was proven to be false in experiments much like Skinner's. I remember some of the experiments regarding auras, and it was proven in those experiments that people can not see auras. In those tests, the subjects were shadowed, behind thin veils, or behind glass--to prevent the aura readers from cheating. But recently I had the opportunity to talk to a person who sees auras and while questioning her, I learned some things. She can not see auras in pictures, through media, or through any kind of material, but especially, she can not see auras through glass or water. She mentioned that she will often put on a pair of sunglasses when in a crowd, to dispel the disorienting effect of seeing so many auras. So it appears that the testers, rather than the testees, were the ones who were cheating on the tests.

There were also a lot of studies regarding ESP, but it was not found that it could be controlled, so the studies lost funding. After all, the government would love to be able to learn things through ESP, whether for communication or for premonitions, advanced warning, but not unless it could be controlled. What most people do not consider about ESP is that although knowledge does transfer, the mechanism for the transfer is emotion. So I am sure that if two people were found that seemed to have a connection, and they were separated, and someone started to cut off the fingers of one party, the other party would be better able to receive information. This would seriously impact control and increase reliability, but it might be hard to find participants. (chuckle)

Learning that emotion was the mechanism for transfer of information, and knowing that emotion is relative to chemicals, the studies started to experiment with drugs. This kind of thinking follows in the foot steps of many religions and shamans, etc., but was not terribly successful.

There were studies that proved and verified premonitions in some people, but noted that in almost all instances, the person who had the premonition was pregnant. In one article the opinion stated was that pregnant women were reaching out to their unborn child, and that this reaching is what caused the ability to have the premonition. Hogwash. I suspect that the person making this statement had a serious Madonna complex, as it is insane to imply that a woman has this ability and need to protect her unborn child, but loses this ability and need when her child is born and no longer safe and under Mom's protection. It is much more likely that her ability is directed by hormones.

It is also interesting to note that monks, shamans, and many other religious persons use drugs, starvation, and sleep deprivation to reach a state where they can acquire information. All of these things affect the hormone levels in a person. Consider that the person mentioned above who reads auras stated that she has seen them since she was a little girl, but when I questioned her, she admitted that there are two circumstances that prevent her from seeing auras. When she was a teen, she experimented with mescalin (spelling?) and did not see auras for two years, and she never sees auras in her third trimester of pregnancy.

These abilities all seem to be related to chemistry, and it is my understanding that chemistry connects us to consciousness. But finding the right combination of chemicals under the right circumstance is difficult, almost like a child with a cell phone who is punching numbers trying to reach it's mother. If he does not know the number, he will get nothing but frustration.

G

EdEarl · June 17, 2013

I believe the pigeons developed a behavior because of a false memory.

My statement above was not political pablum, but my interpretation of a pigeon brain functioning.

Animals remember where food can be found, how to get to it, and when it is available. Squirrels have demonstrated remarkable skill at finding and remembering a path to food once they know were it is. It is not at all surprising that a pigeon who knows where food drops into their cage will try to find a way to get more food. If, during an attempt to get food, the pigeon is randomly rewarded it will remember and try again. If it is rewarded randomly several times during their attempts, they will continue because of the false memory that the attempt previously succeeded. I hope that makes sense.

I am not a religious person, nor do I believe in ESP nor any paranormal capabilities. Mostly, I choose not to argue against them; rather, believe in live and let live. I suppose that is acting like a politician. However, I do not have a gift of gab. Writing is hard work.

Gees · June 18, 2013

My statement above was not political pablum, but my interpretation of a pigeon brain functioning.

I think that you mistook my meaning, which is my fault, not yours. When I read your prior post, I smiled and wondered how the hell you managed to maintain your position without attacking my position, yet not really supporting your position either. Few people can manage this, and I find it to be an enviable quality that I have never been able to acquire. I have a daughter who possesses this quality, and we call her a natural-born politician, but I am entirely too passionate and forthright in my opinions, which does not always serve me well. No insult was intended.

Animals remember where food can be found, how to get to it, and when it is available. Squirrels have demonstrated remarkable skill at finding and remembering a path to food once they know were it is. It is not at all surprising that a pigeon who knows where food drops into their cage will try to find a way to get more food. If, during an attempt to get food, the pigeon is randomly rewarded it will remember and try again. If it is rewarded randomly several times during their attempts, they will continue because of the false memory that the attempt previously succeeded. I hope that makes sense.

It makes a great deal of sense, and I agree that it is most probably the answer.

I am not a religious person, nor do I believe in ESP nor any paranormal capabilities. Mostly, I choose not to argue against them; rather, believe in live and let live. I suppose that is acting like a politician. However, I do not have a gift of gab. Writing is hard work.

Well, I do have a "gift of gab", but I can blame it on the Blarney Stone. Do I really believe that kissing the Blarney Stone gave me the "gift of gab" (blarney)? No, but it is a fun story. (chuckle) So why did I kiss the Blarney Stone? Because I said I would. But that was before I learned that I would have to climb up seven stories of a decrepid ancient castle, where the floors inside had fallen away centuries ago, and where I had to lay down and stretch out to reach the Blarney Stone while looking at the tops of trees that looked like bushes because they were so far down--and all of this with an ancient Irishman there to hold my legs so that I would not fall. I did it because I apparently would rather look like a lunatic than look like a coward.

As for belief in the paranormal, it is not required. 'This is not like the movie, Peter Pan, where one has to clap their hands and say, "I believe" in order for Tinker Bell to come back to life. ESP, the paranormal, and supernatural events exist just like my kitchen chairs exist, whether anyone believes in them or not.

If writing is hard work, then just ask me questions. It would help me to understand what people are skeptical about, so that I could explain my reasoning.

G.

EdEarl · June 18, 2013

I think that you mistook my meaning, which is my fault, not yours. When I read your prior post, I smiled and wondered how the hell you managed to maintain your position without attacking my position, yet not really supporting your position either. Few people can manage this, and I find it to be an enviable quality that I have never been able to acquire. I have a daughter who possesses this quality, and we call her a natural-born politician, but I am entirely too passionate and forthright in my opinions, which does not always serve me well. No insult was intended.

LOL No insult inferred. It was astonishing someone thought me (usually called a computer nerd) to be a politician.

I have no questions about ESP, the paranormal, superstition, etc. It makes sense to me why people believe in them. But, there is no scientific evidence of them, and nothing in physics makes them possible or plausible. However, I cannot prove them impossible. Even if I could prove them impossible, many people would deny the proof.

Edited June 18, 2013 by EdEarl

Moontanman · June 18, 2013

I think that you mistook my meaning, which is my fault, not yours. When I read your prior post, I smiled and wondered how the hell you managed to maintain your position without attacking my position, yet not really supporting your position either. Few people can manage this, and I find it to be an enviable quality that I have never been able to acquire. I have a daughter who possesses this quality, and we call her a natural-born politician, but I am entirely too passionate and forthright in my opinions, which does not always serve me well. No insult was intended.

It makes a great deal of sense, and I agree that it is most probably the answer.

Well, I do have a "gift of gab", but I can blame it on the Blarney Stone. Do I really believe that kissing the Blarney Stone gave me the "gift of gab" (blarney)? No, but it is a fun story. (chuckle) So why did I kiss the Blarney Stone? Because I said I would. But that was before I learned that I would have to climb up seven stories of a decrepid ancient castle, where the floors inside had fallen away centuries ago, and where I had to lay down and stretch out to reach the Blarney Stone while looking at the tops of trees that looked like bushes because they were so far down--and all of this with an ancient Irishman there to hold my legs so that I would not fall. I did it because I apparently would rather look like a lunatic than look like a coward.

As for belief in the paranormal, it is not required. 'This is not like the movie, Peter Pan, where one has to clap their hands and say, "I believe" in order for Tinker Bell to come back to life. ESP, the paranormal, and supernatural events exist just like my kitchen chairs exist, whether anyone believes in them or not.

If writing is hard work, then just ask me questions. It would help me to understand what people are skeptical about, so that I could explain my reasoning.

G.

I am sceptical of anything that does not have positive empirical evidence, what someone says happened once but cannot be repeated is not evidence of anything. Personal experience is not evidence of anything but a personal experience. Belief has never caused any discernible effect on reality and is meaningless in any context with no positive evidence to back it up. Your OP is a logical fallacy, you have in fact presupposed that the supernatural has some discernible reality when in fact it does not and has never been shown to be evidently true. In the face of a lack of evidence of the supernatural the default position is that the supernatural does not exist... While this applies to religion as a subset of the supernatural religion is in no way needed to determine the reality of the supernatural or belief in such and cannot do so.

Gees · June 19, 2013

I have no questions about ESP, the paranormal, superstition, etc. It makes sense to me why people believe in them.

If it makes sense to you, why people believe in the paranormal, you must also agree that it exists, or you have decided that it does not, but is understandable. Interesting. You have already stated that you do not believe in the paranormal, and that science can not prove the paranormal, so I have to conclude that you have rationalized an understanding. This is a problem that I have noted before, but maybe it is time to expain why rationalization is a useless tool in this circumstance.

Rationalizing is a process. When we rationalize, what we do is place sequential cogent steps from one thing to another to establish an orderly proof of the relationship. For example, if I wanted to go to the store to purchase something, I would make sure that I am dressed, put on my shoes, get my wallet, make sure that I have money, grab my keys and get in the car. This is rational behavior, and each step is required to accomplish my task. But if I did all of these things in the proper order and then got into the shower, rather than my car, it would not be rational. It would in fact be irrational behavior because all of the steps led to the wrong end.

What this tells us about rationalization, is that it is an internal process that works between two knowns. If either the beginning point or the end point is unknown, then rationalization does not work. Rationalizing is goal oriented, it is a linear process, so if I use rationalization to build sequential cogent steps to an unknown, what am I actually doing? How will I know where to place the steps? I will place them to wherever I want to go. This has nothing to do with truth and encourages self supporting deceptions.

If you look through the logical and rational arguments that were made in our history, it becomes very clear that rationalization does not work with unknowns. While reviewing arguments made by Plantation owners with regard to their slaves, it became clear to me that these people really saw themselves as good people protecting the "negroes". They stated that they provided food, shelter, religion, and a good outlet for the "negroes" natural need to be kept busy--to keep them out of trouble. There was even a psychiatrist, don't remember his name, who realized that some of the slaves were mentally unstable and created a name and diagnosis for the slaves who ran away repeatedly. He explained that a slave who would leave his home, shelter, food, and productive work, so that he could run around in the forest, was obviously mad--like a mad dog--so he had to be punished, or put down. The insanity was in the thinking, not the strong-willed slave.

Whether it was slavery, witch burning, religious inquisitions, or hanging little boys for stealing apples, in each of these cases logical rational arguments were made to justify the action. And in each of these cases, the rational argument did not account for an unknown--the subjective mind.

Rationalization can not be used to learn about an unknown, which means that it can not be used to understand the subjective mind--which is always unknown except to the subject. Critical thinking must be employed, and critical thinking is exploratory. So unless you have actually explored the subject and learned as much as there is to know, you do not have an understanding. What you have is a self-supporting assumption, which may well be deception.

But, there is no scientific evidence of them, and nothing in physics makes them possible or plausible.

There is lots of evidence. Too much to be ignored. Every poll that I have seen puts belief in the paranormal at around 70%, and that does not include religious belief, which is clearly paranormal in nature. Every culture and society that we know of has had a belief system that dealt with the supernatural. So I would put belief in the supernatural at about 90%, and suggest that most people simply will not admit their belief unless they can connect it to a recognized religion. Are you trying to imply that all of this is coincidence?

One of the things that I admire most about science is that it grows and learns. If religion is the static representation of faith that is never changing, then science is the progressive representation of learning and growth. Any scientist can explain that what we know now can be changed at any time in the future as we learn.

However, I cannot prove them impossible. Even if I could prove them impossible, many people would deny the proof.

Agreed. And if one could prove them possible, many people would deny the proof.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as the supernatural. There is the natural and there is man made. To imply that there is something above the natural (physical) is to imply that life, mind, and consciousness are supernatural. I don't believe it, and see no reason to. What is called the supernatural is simply a part of the natural that we have not yet uncovered and learned about, so I think it is time.

Following is a link to the University of Virginia that regards the late Dr. Ian Stevenson's work. If I did it right, you will get the page of his publications. If not, just go to publications. Below each of the published works, that can be purchased, is a list of the articles that can be viewed on-line. Just select the (pdf) after the article that you are interested in.

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page

Before viewing his work, I did not believe in reincarnation and thought it to be a religious concept. But Dr. Stevenson has some very compelling evidence. Some of his cases could possibly be influence or argued to be invalid, as when a child states that he lived before, gives his name, place where he lived, and cause of his death. But when Dr. Stevenson's team investigates and reads the Medical Examiner's report that indicates the tearing of flesh that caused death, and that tearing seems to be duplicated on the child's stomach as a birth mark--one has to wonder. There is a lot of interesting reading there, and some evidence as well.

G

EdEarl · June 19, 2013

If it makes sense to you, why people believe in the paranormal, you must also agree that it exists, or you have decided that it does not, but is understandable. Interesting. You have already stated that you do not believe in the paranormal, and that science can not prove the paranormal, so I have to conclude that you have rationalized an understanding. This is a problem that I have noted before, but maybe it is time to expain why rationalization is a useless tool in this circumstance.

That is not rational, and I will not follow you down an irrational path.

Moontanman · June 19, 2013

If it makes sense to you, why people believe in the paranormal, you must also agree that it exists, or you have decided that it does not, but is understandable. Interesting. You have already stated that you do not believe in the paranormal, and that science can not prove the paranormal, so I have to conclude that you have rationalized an understanding. This is a problem that I have noted before, but maybe it is time to expain why rationalization is a useless tool in this circumstance.

Again you make an unwarranted assumption, if evidence of something considered to be paranormal is shown to be a part of perceptible reality then is ceases to be paranormal but it would be accepted as part of reality. Lightning is a good example, at one time it was thought to be supernatural, no other explanation was known but it was shown to be nothing more than static electricity by empirical evidence.

Meteorites are another example of something thought to be absurd and not part of perceptible reality but now we know rocks do indeed fall from the sky.

All it takes to change the paranormal into the normal is empirical evidence....

Rationalizing is a process. When we rationalize, what we do is place sequential cogent steps from one thing to another to establish an orderly proof of the relationship. For example, if I wanted to go to the store to purchase something, I would make sure that I am dressed, put on my shoes, get my wallet, make sure that I have money, grab my keys and get in the car. This is rational behavior, and each step is required to accomplish my task. But if I did all of these things in the proper order and then got into the shower, rather than my car, it would not be rational. It would in fact be irrational behavior because all of the steps led to the wrong end.

I do not follow how this is pertinent.

What this tells us about rationalization, is that it is an internal process that works between two knowns. If either the beginning point or the end point is unknown, then rationalization does not work. Rationalizing is goal oriented, it is a linear process, so if I use rationalization to build sequential cogent steps to an unknown, what am I actually doing? How will I know where to place the steps? I will place them to wherever I want to go. This has nothing to do with truth and encourages self supporting deceptions.

Deception would be the operative word here.

If you look through the logical and rational arguments that were made in our history, it becomes very clear that rationalization does not work with unknowns. While reviewing arguments made by Plantation owners with regard to their slaves, it became clear to me that these people really saw themselves as good people protecting the "negroes". They stated that they provided food, shelter, religion, and a good outlet for the "negroes" natural need to be kept busy--to keep them out of trouble. There was even a psychiatrist, don't remember his name, who realized that some of the slaves were mentally unstable and created a name and diagnosis for the slaves who ran away repeatedly. He explained that a slave who would leave his home, shelter, food, and productive work, so that he could run around in the forest, was obviously mad--like a mad dog--so he had to be punished, or put down. The insanity was in the thinking, not the strong-willed slave.

I still don't follow how this has to do with the validity of the supernatural.

Whether it was slavery, witch burning, religious inquisitions, or hanging little boys for stealing apples, in each of these cases logical rational arguments were made to justify the action. And in each of these cases, the rational argument did not account for an unknown--the subjective mind.

Rationalization can not be used to learn about an unknown, which means that it can not be used to understand the subjective mind--which is always unknown except to the subject. Critical thinking must be employed, and critical thinking is exploratory. So unless you have actually explored the subject and learned as much as there is to know, you do not have an understanding. What you have is a self-supporting assumption, which may well be deception.

I am still looking for a point...

There is lots of evidence. Too much to be ignored. Every poll that I have seen puts belief in the paranormal at around 70%, and that does not include religious belief, which is clearly paranormal in nature. Every culture and society that we know of has had a belief system that dealt with the supernatural. So I would put belief in the supernatural at about 90%, and suggest that most people simply will not admit their belief unless they can connect it to a recognized religion. Are you trying to imply that all of this is coincidence?

The number of people who believe something has no bearing on it's reality...

One of the things that I admire most about science is that it grows and learns. If religion is the static representation of faith that is never changing, then science is the progressive representation of learning and growth. Any scientist can explain that what we know now can be changed at any time in the future as we learn.

Agreed. And if one could prove them possible, many people would deny the proof.

This does not follow, in fact it is the antithesis of what science is.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as the supernatural. There is the natural and there is man made. To imply that there is something above the natural (physical) is to imply that life, mind, and consciousness are supernatural. I don't believe it, and see no reason to. What is called the supernatural is simply a part of the natural that we have not yet uncovered and learned about, so I think it is time.

This is possible and yet so far no such evidence has been brought forth, the world and James Randy are waiting...

Following is a link to the University of Virginia that regards the late Dr. Ian Stevenson's work. If I did it right, you will get the page of his publications. If not, just go to publications. Below each of the published works, that can be purchased, is a list of the articles that can be viewed on-line. Just select the (pdf) after the article that you are interested in.

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page

Before viewing his work, I did not believe in reincarnation and thought it to be a religious concept. But Dr. Stevenson has some very compelling evidence. Some of his cases could possibly be influence or argued to be invalid, as when a child states that he lived before, gives his name, place where he lived, and cause of his death. But when Dr. Stevenson's team investigates and reads the Medical Examiner's report that indicates the tearing of flesh that caused death, and that tearing seems to be duplicated on the child's stomach as a birth mark--one has to wonder. There is a lot of interesting reading there, and some evidence as well.

G

You seriously think this is evidence? Empirical or otherwise?

Edited June 19, 2013 by Moontanman

Gees · June 19, 2013

EdEarl and Moontanman;

Obviously I have made a hash out of explaining my position, so I will try one more time.

First let me make it clear that I use logic and rationalization regularly and believe them to be necessary and valuable tools, methodologies, in the studies of science and philosophy. But what I value the highest is truth, so when logic and rationalization fail to find truth, I have to examine these methods to find the problem.

While reviewing arguments regarding the Monism v Dualism issue, I noted that if a person believes in God, they can find logical rational arguments to suppot their belief; if they do not believe in God, they can also find logical rational arguments to support their belief. This debate has gone on for a thousand years. But what is the truth? This question led me to many hours of contemplating truth and methodologies.

If you go to a site that teaches formal logic, you will read in the introduction that formal logic has nothing to do with truth. Something that is true can be proven false, and something that is false can be proven true because formal logic is about the consistency of an argument, not about truth. It is an internal examination of the argument. Heidegger stated the same thing when he explained--I am paraphrasing here--that logic and rationalization are "school room" tools to check the consistency of theories and arguments. But I like logical and I like rational, so how and when can I use them and rely on them to find truth?

Consider the following: A man is going to get on a plane to . . . (a) go to China, or (b) to go to his closest neighbor's house for dinner. The obvious and rational answer is (a) because we do not get on a plane to see our neighbor--usually we walk. But if the man is a forest ranger who lives by a lake and owns a sea plane, and his closest neighbor lives on the other side of the lake, eight miles away, then the answer would be (b). Rationalizing does not work when the beginning and end points are not known. The best we can do is guess, using our best judgments, experience, opinions, and the facts at hand. But there is no guarantee of truth. Many philosophers have realized this, and if you go to Wiki and look up rationalizing, you will find all kinds of advice on how to avoid many of the pitfalls that can corrupt rationalization.

Consider the following: A forest ranger who owns a sea plane is going to . . . (a) fly, or (b) walk, to his closest neighbor's house on the other side of the lake, eight miles away, for dinner. The obvious and rational answer is (a). Rationalization works here because we know the beginning and end points.

The simple explanation here is that logic and rational thought both are methods that compare two or more things, so those things need to be known. Critical thinking examines one thing thoroughly, then examines another like looking at puzzle pieces. Once the things are known, then rational thought can compare them. Since the supernatural is an unknown, it can not be explained by logic or rational thought--critical thinking must be employed. Which means that people have to stop spitting out denials and actually consider it. I have been considering the supernatural for decades and would like to discuss it with any person who is not afraid to look at it and consider it honestly.

G

Moontanman · June 19, 2013

I am an empirical rationalist, I remain open to possibilities but evidence is required, simply because i don't know something is not reason enough to consider it to real. It must have reasonable evidence of it's existence. I cannot prove there are no centaurs but i can be reasonably sure there is no evidence of their existence and so cannot be considered part of objective reality.

I have considered the supernatural for very nearly 60 years and absolutely no sign if it has ever been brought to my attention other than baseless claims unsupported by anything of substance.

I am more than willing to discuss the supernatural but claiming it has substance with no evidence is not a honest discussion...

Gees · June 19, 2013

Again you make an unwarranted assumption, if evidence of something considered to be paranormal is shown to be a part of perceptible reality then is ceases to be paranormal but it would be accepted as part of reality. Lightning is a good example, at one time it was thought to be supernatural, no other explanation was known but it was shown to be nothing more than static electricity by empirical evidence.

Meteorites are another example of something thought to be absurd and not part of perceptible reality but now we know rocks do indeed fall from the sky.

All it takes to change the paranormal into the normal is empirical evidence....

Agreed. But empirical evidence is generally found after the theory, which is generally theorized after acknowledgement of the event. We have known for tens of thousands of years that gravity existed--I think my dog even knows. Then we developed a theory of how gravity worked, then we were able to cause anti-gravity. It took some time even though everyone acknowledged gravity because everyone could feel it and see the effects of it.

I suspect that much of the paranormal or supernatural is in reality a manifestation of consciousness. Now you can disagree, but it won't get you very far because whether you believe that the supernatural is illusion, imagination, God, lies, or if it is real, it is unquestionably known only to the subjective conscious mind--so it is an aspect of consciousness.

Lightening and meteorites are good examples of things that were thought to be supernatural and of the "gods", but are now known by science. But consciousness is a much more difficult subject because it is invisible, intangible, and subjective--so it is very difficult to comprehend.

Consider two philosophers that lived thousands of years ago, who are in a debate about the cause of the tides moving along the shore. The religious philosopher states that it is Posiden that draws the tides forth. The science philosopher says, no, it is the moon that draws the tides forth. Both would be wrong. It is the properties of water that make it draw forth in response to gravity.

So what are the properties of consciousness? There do not seem to be very many people asking this question, as most studies are introspective. I think that consciousness has properties, that like the water noted above, consciousness responds to different forces, energies, and matter. This means that consciousness is not one pure singular thing. I suspect that we see it as a singular thing because we are considering it like the singular God, but that is very unlikely. There are many different types of matter, types of chemical, types of forces, and types of energy, so it seems unlikely that there is only one type of mental consciousness that seems to be somewhat magical. It is much more likely that consciousness is a natural part of reality that interacts with other forces, energies, and materials to cause different manifestations of consciousness.

I do not follow how this is pertinent.

Deception would be the operative word here.

I still don't follow how this has to do with the validity of the supernatural.

I am still looking for a point...

The point is that logic and rational thought can not find the answer as explained in my prior post.

The number of people who believe something has no bearing on it's reality...

I disagree. If everyone on my block thinks that I live in a house, but you think that it is in reality a bon fire looking to be lit, I believe that you are likely to find yourself arrested. Generally speaking, reality is based on what everyone thinks that it is.

This does not follow, in fact it is the antithesis of what science is.

Get yourself a science book, then find one that is 50 years older on the same subject, then find one that is 200 years older on the same subject, and compare them. When science stops learning and growing, when it decides that all is known and nothing else must be learned, then it becomes faith based and destroys itself. I hope that never happens, as we have enough religion.

You seriously think this is evidence? Empirical or otherwise?

Yes, I do. I was very impressed with Dr. Stevenson's work, and I am not alone. Have you read the work? Dr. Stevenson was meticulous with his procedures and methods, so all of the people who have reviewed his work and tried to shoot down his findings have failed.

G

Moontanman · June 20, 2013

Agreed. But empirical evidence is generally found after the theory, which is generally theorized after acknowledgement of the event. We have known for tens of thousands of years that gravity existed--I think my dog even knows. Then we developed a theory of how gravity worked, then we were able to cause anti-gravity. It took some time even though everyone acknowledged gravity because everyone could feel it and see the effects of it.

No one has be able to generate antigravity and the theory of gravity has problems, the first one that come to mind it is doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics.

I suspect that much of the paranormal or supernatural is in reality a manifestation of consciousness. Now you can disagree, but it won't get you very far because whether you believe that the supernatural is illusion, imagination, God, lies, or if it is real, it is unquestionably known only to the subjective conscious mind--so it is an aspect of consciousness.

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to assert here.

Lightening and meteorites are good examples of things that were thought to be supernatural and of the "gods", but are now known by science. But consciousness is a much more difficult subject because it is invisible, intangible, and subjective--so it is very difficult to comprehend.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130619195137.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fstrange_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Strange+Science+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

The mysteries of the brain are falling to empirical science. I wouldn't bet the farm that consciousness will remain a mystery much longer...

Consider two philosophers that lived thousands of years ago, who are in a debate about the cause of the tides moving along the shore. The religious philosopher states that it is Posiden that draws the tides forth. The science philosopher says, no, it is the moon that draws the tides forth. Both would be wrong. It is the properties of water that make it draw forth in response to gravity.

A citation is needed for this, that assertion is not mainstream science.

Since the land surface of the Earth also experiences tides I think that is a big problem for your idea...

So what are the properties of consciousness? There do not seem to be very many people asking this question, as most studies are introspective. I think that consciousness has properties, that like the water noted above, consciousness responds to different forces, energies, and matter. This means that consciousness is not one pure singular thing. I suspect that we see it as a singular thing because we are considering it like the singular God, but that is very unlikely. There are many different types of matter, types of chemical, types of forces, and types of energy, so it seems unlikely that there is only one type of mental consciousness that seems to be somewhat magical. It is much more likely that consciousness is a natural part of reality that interacts with other forces, energies, and materials to cause different manifestations of consciousness.

Truly this is word salad, it makes no sense...

The point is that logic and rational thought can not find the answer as explained in my prior post.

A citation please.

I disagree. If everyone on my block thinks that I live in a house, but you think that it is in reality a bon fire looking to be lit, I believe that you are likely to find yourself arrested. Generally speaking, reality is based on what everyone thinks that it is.

Millions of people think aliens are abducting people from their bedrooms to give them an anal probe, does this make it part of reality?

Get yourself a science book, then find one that is 50 years older on the same subject, then find one that is 200 years older on the same subject, and compare them. When science stops learning and growing, when it decides that all is known and nothing else must be learned, then it becomes faith based and destroys itself. I hope that never happens, as we have enough religion.

Science knows it doesn't know everything... otherwise it would stop...

Yes, I do. I was very impressed with Dr. Stevenson's work, and I am not alone. Have you read the work? Dr. Stevenson was meticulous with his procedures and methods, so all of the people who have reviewed his work and tried to shoot down his findings have failed.

G

I am familiar with this subject, it has been many years but the evidence is entirely subjective and not empirical.

I would like you to consider that OCD could be the source of superstition, give it somr thought...

Gees · June 21, 2013

Moontanman;

Please consider my responses to your last post as follows.

No one has be able to generate antigravity and the theory of gravity has problems, the first one that come to mind it is doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics.

You are moving off point. The point is that the theory came before the testing, but there is no valid theory of consciousness. There is not even a theory that comes close to explaining consciousness. This is what I have been working on for decades, an understanding of consciousness.

Regarding gravity, I was thinking of the chambers that NASA developed to prepare astronauts for the lack of gravity in space

.

G stated: " I suspect that much of the paranormal or supernatural is in reality a manifestation of consciousness. Now you can disagree, but it won't get you very far because whether you believe that the supernatural is illusion, imagination, God, lies, or if it is real, it is unquestionably known only to the subjective conscious mind--so it is an aspect of consciousness."

Moontanman: I honestly don't understand what you are trying to assert here.

I apologize. I did not realize that English is not your first language. If you could review just the first sentence and tell me what you think it means, I will try to explain further.

The mysteries of the brain are falling to empirical science. I wouldn't bet the farm that consciousness will remain a mystery much longer...

You are confusing the issue. Consider the word "brain", and then consider the word "consciousness". You will notice that they are two different words, which is because they are two different things. I will grant that there is a connection between the brain and consciousness, and that connection is referred to as "mind". But of the three, brain, consciousness, and mind, mind is the least known and understood.

In the OP, I tried to make it clear that this thread was about the philosophical definition of consciousness, not the scientific definition. In philosophy, the word consciousness means that something is "conscious of" or "aware of" something. It is the ability to "perceive", so although it is closely connected to brain activity, conscious awareness is also part of all life, as all life is aware of the need to continue, as exhibited by eating, reproducing, etc., and the instinct to survive. Flowers do not have a brain, but are aware, so consciousness is not limited to the brain.

G stated: "Consider two philosophers that lived thousands of years ago, who are in a debate about the cause of the tides moving along the shore. The religious philosopher states that it is Posiden that draws the tides forth. The science philosopher says, no, it is the moon that draws the tides forth. Both would be wrong. It is the properties of water that make it draw forth in response to gravity."

Moontanman: A citation is needed for this, that assertion is not mainstream science.

Since the land surface of the Earth also experiences tides I think that is a big problem for your idea...

No citation is needed. This is a philosophy forum and thinking is allowed. But if I am wrong and a citation is needed, then please provide evidence that philosophers, who "lived thousands of years ago" knew about the "Earth" also experiencing "tides".

G stated: "So what are the properties of consciousness? There do not seem to be very many people asking this question, as most studies are introspective. I think that consciousness has properties, that like the water noted above, consciousness responds to different forces, energies, and matter. This means that consciousness is not one pure singular thing. I suspect that we see it as a singular thing because we are considering it like the singular God, but that is very unlikely. There are many different types of matter, types of chemical, types of forces, and types of energy, so it seems unlikely that there is only one type of mental consciousness that seems to be somewhat magical. It is much more likely that consciousness is a natural part of reality that interacts with other forces, energies, and materials to cause different manifestations of consciousness."

Moontanman: Truly this is word salad, it makes no sense...

I tend to think of consciousness more as a soup, but salad works also. When the average person considers the word, consciousness, what they consider is thought. Thought is a product of thinking, and thinking is done in the logical, rational part of the mind. When the average person thinks of emotion, they will often consider it to be thought that is rather unruly and difficult to control, but this is a mistake. Thought and emotion are alike in two ways; they are both mental aspects, and we are aware of both of them; that is where the similarity ends.

Although I can not possibly give a full accounting of the known differences between the mental aspects, because that would take two or three threads, I will give you a brief outline. Generally speaking, there are two main divisions, knowledge, memory, and thought would be the first, and awareness, feeling, and emotion would be the second. The first division regarding thought is private and internal. Our thoughts are not known by another unless we consciously share them. The second division regarding emotion is shared and external. Our emotions are noted by others unless we consciously hide them.

Conscious thought is directed by us, is known in the rational mind (Ego), is logical and rational, is neither honest nor dishonest and is limited only by imagination and intelligence. It is processed in the brain with a lot of neurons and things that I don't understand. When stored in the brain, it is static and unchanging (unless emotion is attached to it) and is stored only as long as it is needed. Thought is known.

Conscious emotion is not directed, it is realized through the unconscious mind (SuperEgo), is reactionary and always has a source, is inherently honest and incapable of lies. It processes through chemicals, which I don't understand either. When stored in memory, it is capable of changing memory by enhancing it, blotting it out entirely, or even changing the thoughts that it is attached to. Emotional memory can last a lifetime. Emotion is experienced and can only be known by connecting it to thought.

Things like dreams, intuition, and creativity seem to be a combination of information from the conscious and unconscious parts of mind. Which brings us to instincts. Freud called the Id, drives, but we now know enough about hormones to understand that the Id is about instincts. Instincts are behaviors, but the behaviors are caused by knowledge and feeling/emotion, so instincts are also part of consciousness, and are reactionary, rather than directed, so they are part of the unconscious. Instinct is an aspect of consciousness that relates both to the external world and to the internal.

Thanks to science, we now know that thought relates to grey matter, emotion relates to chemistry, and instincts relate to hormones. There is a different combination of these aspects of consciousness in each and every species. Some, like humans, seem to have all of the aspects; some, like grass, seem to have few, so consciousness can not be one pure singular thing.

I do not share the panpsychist view that the universe is alive, but it is clear to me that the raw material that causes awareness is part of our universe.

Millions of people think aliens are abducting people from their bedrooms to give them an anal probe, does this make it part of reality?

I have no idea, never having had that experience, so I can give you a definite--maybe. (chuckle)

I would like you to consider that OCD could be the source of superstition, give it somr thought...

I will grant that OCD could be the source of some superstition, but what is considered superstition is too varied to be explained so simply. Psychology tries to interpret all of the various paranormal, supernatural, and superstitious phenomenon, but as much as I like psychology, it is making the same mistake that religions make when they interpret everything as a manifestation of gods. Psychology is doing the same thing, explaining these things as a manifestation of human thoughts.

Consciousness is not nearly so simple.

G

arc · June 22, 2013

This thread reminded me of the long lost days of childhood. I remember the first time I walked home alone after dark from a friends house. I bet some will remember running most of it. By the time you arrived home your heart was racing and you were out of breath. You had been trying to outrun your fear. Your young impressionable mind was imagining a constant stream of terrifying suggestions to motivate your progress.

This is the gift your ancestors gave you. It served them well and you are the living proof of that. Over time you eventually assumed it was safe and became calmer, maybe even enjoying it as more of an adrenaline rush. I remember having to experience the fear again walking home on a stormy night, the many horror movies I had consumed were regurgitated by my mind to drive my legs to speeds never before seen.

This fear that we experienced as children was irrational in almost all cases if you grew up in a reasonably safe environment. Do you remember at what age you overcame the fear your mind imposed on you. You knew you were safe despite being alone after dark with a long walk ahead. That is when you became an adult or merely gained the capacity to maintain the rational control of your mind.

These supernatural experiences that people talk of seem very much similar to those irrational feelings I had as a child. Alone and fearful, hearing and even seeing dangerous things on that dark and windy night. arc

Gees · June 22, 2013

Arc;

Thank you for that honest and sincere response. You have exactly captured the feelings that people have when the words paranormal, supernatural, and superstition are brought up. Between some of the terrifying things that religions teach, the superstitious folklore, our natural fear of the unknown, and the works that Hollywood has produced, the supernatural has become quite terrifying. But I do not study vampires, werewolves, and things that go bump in the night--I study consciousness.

Do you remember the first time you were required to look at cheese under a microscope in school? I do and did not eat cheese for years--all those wiggly bacteria could not be good for anyone. Then I caught a documentary on TV that showed some little creature that looked like a very ugly rhino, and this documentary explained that these creatures are all over the body all of the time, and showering does not get rid of them. Ugh! Then I learned that my body is loaded with bacteria all of the time, and that without the bacteria I would die. Disturbing as this seems when we think about it, eventually we put these thoughts to the back of our minds, because it really does not matter. This is how life works.

We don't know how consciousness works. If I decide to stand up, then my body does what I want it to do, that is mind over matter. We can trace the thought through the brain to the nerves to the muscles that make me stand up, but we do not know what connects the conscious desire to the action. If you put a flowering plant next to a window, with the flowers facing the room, the next day you will find that most of the flowers have turned to face the sun. Mind over matter? Every species that we know of will do everything within it's power to continue living, and to continue it's line through reproduction. This is the magic of consciousness awareness, because this is the magic of life. It is not something to fear.

More than 40 years ago, I found that I had a connection to some people. When in their presence, I could read their emotions very well, but even when they were not with me, I could sometimes discern strong emotion coming from them. Why? It has been stated that some people seem to have a chemistry, but that is more often about hormones, pheromones, and attraction. I assure you that I had no unnatural attachment to my step-mother. I always knew to call her when she needed me, and I cried for days when she was dying. She was 3,000 miles away, on the floor of her home, and I did not know what to do. I considered calling her, but knew she could not reach the phone. I considered calling the police, but knew that even if they believed me, they would only take her to a hospital and prolong her agony. She did not want that. Her health had been bad for years, and my Father had died the year before, so i knew she was ready even though her death was unexpected. So I prayed for her and cried. Three days later I got the call that she was found on the floor of her bedroom.

I never had any connection to my Father, and none with my Mother. I remember that my Mother, who was 80 years old, had hung up her phone improperly so I got a constant busy signal. After a few days I began to worry and worked myself into a panic. I went to her house, and she was fine. And when she was in a bad car accident and ended up in the hospital, I did not have a clue. I have one child that I always know how he is feeling. I just sit quietly for a few minutes, clear my mind then search him out. I am always right. I have another child that I sometimes know when she is in trouble. I have another child that could be being tortured three feet away from me behind a wall, and as long as I did not hear anything, I would not have any idea that she was in trouble. That child worried me to death, because I knew that I would not know.

So I know that ESP does exist, but I won't be calling "Dial-a-Psychic" anytime soon because I do not believe that this connection is strong enough to discern between all people. So a lot of "psychics" are playing games with people's minds. There are probably some that have real abilities, but I would not trust anyone who is using those abilities to make a living.

Over a period of 50 years, I have connected to maybe seven people--not many--but the connection does exist, so how does it exist? We are told that our minds are within us. If we are religious, then we are told that our souls are within us. But if this is so, then how does one mind connect to another? These are the questions that caused me to study the paranormal 40 years ago. Like it or not, the paranormal is part of consciousness, and the reason that I study it, is because it is the only part of consciousness that can be studied in an objective third-party manner.

G

arc · June 23, 2013

Arc;

Thank you for that honest and sincere response. You have exactly captured the feelings that people have when the words paranormal, supernatural, and superstition are brought up. Between some of the terrifying things that religions teach, the superstitious folklore, our natural fear of the unknown, and the works that Hollywood has produced, the supernatural has become quite terrifying. But I do not study vampires, werewolves, and things that go bump in the night--I study consciousness.

Do you remember the first time you were required to look at cheese under a microscope in school? I do and did not eat cheese for years--all those wiggly bacteria could not be good for anyone. Then I caught a documentary on TV that showed some little creature that looked like a very ugly rhino, and this documentary explained that these creatures are all over the body all of the time, and showering does not get rid of them. Ugh! Then I learned that my body is loaded with bacteria all of the time, and that without the bacteria I would die. Disturbing as this seems when we think about it, eventually we put these thoughts to the back of our minds, because it really does not matter. This is how life works.

We don't know how consciousness works. If I decide to stand up, then my body does what I want it to do, that is mind over matter. We can trace the thought through the brain to the nerves to the muscles that make me stand up, but we do not know what connects the conscious desire to the action. If you put a flowering plant next to a window, with the flowers facing the room, the next day you will find that most of the flowers have turned to face the sun. Mind over matter? Every species that we know of will do everything within it's power to continue living, and to continue it's line through reproduction. This is the magic of consciousness awareness, because this is the magic of life. It is not something to fear.

More than 40 years ago, I found that I had a connection to some people. When in their presence, I could read their emotions very well, but even when they were not with me, I could sometimes discern strong emotion coming from them. Why? It has been stated that some people seem to have a chemistry, but that is more often about hormones, pheromones, and attraction. I assure you that I had no unnatural attachment to my step-mother. I always knew to call her when she needed me, and I cried for days when she was dying. She was 3,000 miles away, on the floor of her home, and I did not know what to do. I considered calling her, but knew she could not reach the phone. I considered calling the police, but knew that even if they believed me, they would only take her to a hospital and prolong her agony. She did not want that. Her health had been bad for years, and my Father had died the year before, so i knew she was ready even though her death was unexpected. So I prayed for her and cried. Three days later I got the call that she was found on the floor of her bedroom.

I never had any connection to my Father, and none with my Mother. I remember that my Mother, who was 80 years old, had hung up her phone improperly so I got a constant busy signal. After a few days I began to worry and worked myself into a panic. I went to her house, and she was fine. And when she was in a bad car accident and ended up in the hospital, I did not have a clue. I have one child that I always know how he is feeling. I just sit quietly for a few minutes, clear my mind then search him out. I am always right. I have another child that I sometimes know when she is in trouble. I have another child that could be being tortured three feet away from me behind a wall, and as long as I did not hear anything, I would not have any idea that she was in trouble. That child worried me to death, because I knew that I would not know.

So I know that ESP does exist, but I won't be calling "Dial-a-Psychic" anytime soon because I do not believe that this connection is strong enough to discern between all people. So a lot of "psychics" are playing games with people's minds. There are probably some that have real abilities, but I would not trust anyone who is using those abilities to make a living.

Over a period of 50 years, I have connected to maybe seven people--not many--but the connection does exist, so how does it exist? We are told that our minds are within us. If we are religious, then we are told that our souls are within us. But if this is so, then how does one mind connect to another? These are the questions that caused me to study the paranormal 40 years ago. Like it or not, the paranormal is part of consciousness, and the reason that I study it, is because it is the only part of consciousness that can be studied in an objective third-party manner.

G

The problem you have is this is a science site, and extraordinary claims require evidence. All you have done here so far is what I have done, tell stories. You either have to show irrefutably evidence that you can do these things or they are just your delusions and/or stories. We could have story time all day long, I or anybody else could make any extraordinary claim and so what where is the proof. This is not to insult you, but it is just common courtesy to everyone who comes to this site, they expect a high degree of integrity by this organisation. They demand a high degree of proof to standout from the pseudoscience sites. You will probably have difficulty maintaining anyone's interest unless you can deliver the proof of your claims. arc

Gees · June 24, 2013

The problem you have is this is a science site, and extraordinary claims require evidence.

Arc;

Yes, this is a Science site, but we are in the Philosophy section and forum of the Science site. When I go to the Science section, I go to ask questions and learn. Science is fascinating, it is awesome, but I can't do it, so I joined the Science forums to seek answers to questions. Science is good at answers, but I am a philosopher, so I excel at questions.

What "extraordinary claims"? That bacteria in cheese is revolting to look at? That bacteria is on the skin and in the body, and that we would die if we disposed of all bacteria in us? Or maybe you think that the existence of consciousness, life, and mind are extraordinary? Well, you have a point there, but this is usually not disputed.

I suspect that you think that the "connection" between people is "extraordinary". We call this "connection" ESP, chemistry, or bonds between people, and it is not extraordinary at all. In fact it is common and commonly known to exist. What you must consider here is that I am not in the business of proving the supernatural, I just use it to study consciousness. As to the supernatural/paranormal being commonly known, consider the following:

According to Wiki, under the heading of Paranormal, the following polls have belief in some form of paranormal at around 70%--this excluded religious beliefs.

2005 Gallup Organizations 73%

Australia's Monash University 70%

2006 Oklahoma City University 70%

There were other polls if this is not enough.

As far as religion goes, which is arguably belief in the supernatural, Wiki has it at around 59%. But that is only a measure of people, who actually practice their religion. Although there will be some overlap, many religions deny their parishoners the right to believe in paranormal activity that is not proscribed by the religion. So I think that between religion and paranormal beliefs, we can call this a common belief in the paranormal/supernatural.

Now you can argue that I can not use something that is unproven (supernatural) to understand how something that is unproven (mind) works within something that is unproven (consciousness), but that would get a little silly. It is the responsibility of philosophy to determine what is real, so we can not cherry pick our unprovens.

I have no ambition to form grand theories and would like to find small truths that I can be relatively sure of, then expose those truths to intelligent people so that someone can show me if I am wrong in my logic or where I am cherry picking. What I have learned is that emotions connect people; and that sometimes the emotions transfer information, and sometimes this connection does not seem to be relevant to family or a discernable bond, but it seems to be necessary to life. Consider the following that can be found in Wiki:

"Pair Bonding"--biology: Many species bond for long periods or for life. Although it can be argued that this is instinctive behavior, that does not change the fact that it is relevant to consciousness.

"Human Bonding": There is a lot of information on human bonding, too much to reproduce here. Suffice it to say that human bonding seems to be necessary.

If you look up "Orphanages" and "Deinstitutionalisation" you will discover that it is very important for little ones to bond. Babies under the age of two can actually die for want of a bond, and older children can become physically and mentally sick and underdeveloped. The Bucharest Early Intervention information was interesting and is found under "Deinstitutionalisation".

"Solitary Confinement" is also interesting. It has been called "psychological torture" and some prisoners actually stated that they would prefer to be lashed than go into solidary confinement because there is no permanent damage or madness associated with the lash.

We have juveniles on, I believe it was Riker Island, in New York, who are put into solitary confinement, and it is estimated that 48% of them have mental issues caused from confinement. In the US, we regularly put prisoners in solitary confinement and wonder why they are nuts when they get released. The World Health Organization is not happy with us in this regard.

If you check out Ergonomics, you will find that office workers, who are isolated are less productive, so they came up with the little booths that give privacy, but don't cut the person off from everyone else. I found that being marooned is not good, but it also does not guarantee madness, so being cut off from people is bad, but I suspect that being cut off from life is what makes people lose their minds. Why? For a long time, we believed that it was being cut off from light that made people go mad, but I am beginning to suspect that this is not the whole truth. What is cut off? Is there a connection between life forms? Are we saying that the "connection" can not go through walls?

Everyone knows that the "laying on of hands" is nonsense, but apparently, it can be the difference between life and death for a newborn. And if an institutionalised infant bonds with a worker, then that worker changes jobs, it can mean the death of that newborn. Why?

There are probably ten more ways to prove this that I have not considered, but it seems clear that conscious life requires other conscious life, and there has to be a reason. What is it that we get when we are around life that is necessary to life--the connection? Consciousness? I think so.

All you have done here so far is what I have done, tell stories. You either have to show irrefutably evidence that you can do these things or they are just your delusions and/or stories.

Maybe you should read my post again. What I showed evidence of is that I can NOT do these things. That I have absolutely no control over it. Do you imagine that I would want a connection to one child and deny the connection to another? I love all of my children, so I would want to be connected to each of them in any way that I can. Do you imagine that I would want a closer connection to a step-mother that I have never lived with, only knew for about 15 years, and mostly talked to on the phone, over a connection to my own Mother and Father? Where is your logic?

I told about those events because I wanted people to understand that I, myself, find that this connection is valid--it exists. But it works through feelings and emotion, which means that it works through the unconscious part of mind, so it is not very controllable or very reproducable. Demanding that I be able to control and reproduce it, would be like demanding that I control and reproduce my dreams in order to prove that they exist. I can't, but we know that if people do not dream, they die. There is reason to suspect that if we did not have this connection to others, we would die.

It is interesting to note that subjective unprovable dreams are accepted, but subjective unprovable knowledge from outside the body is not, because some people suspect that our dreams do not come solely from within.

This is not to insult you, but it is just common courtesy to everyone who comes to this site, they expect a high degree of integrity by this organisation. They demand a high degree of proof to standout from the pseudoscience sites.

OK. I don't want you to take this as an insult either, but to answer your demand would be pseudophilosophy. Apparently, you would like me to take something that is not even proven to exist, the mind, and show a "high degree of proof" as to how it works. The demand is illogical. The proof unattainable until mind and consciousness are understood, so to prove this prior to a theory would be pseudophllosophy. I am still working on the theory. Just looking for little truths.

Most people will accept that each of us have a mind, except maybe the solipsists (Can there be more than one solipsist? chuckle), but we know almost nothing about mind. Do we know where it is? No. Do we know what it is made up of? No. Do we know how it works? A little, because of Freud and Jung.

Almost everything that we know about consciousness and mind came either from the Ancients, or from Freud and Jung. What I find interesting is that the Ancients accepted the paranormal, and that Freud and Jung studied the paranormal. Coincidence? I don't think so. The only other source of information is religion, and religion states that the soul (self) is within us, which translates to the mind (self) is within us. Science knows nothing about mind, and I will not let religion dictate to philosophy. The unknown falls under the venue of philosophy.

You will probably have difficulty maintaining anyone's interest unless you can deliver the proof of your claims. arc

So far, what I have claimed is that study of the paranormal is necessary to understanding consciousness. If you disagree, please explain why.

G

Moontanman · June 24, 2013

gees, you do realize that the number of people who believe something to be true has no bearing on it's veracity don't you? the other things you mention are not proof of anything but you or others belief in what they mean. This might indeed be the philosophy section but positive assertions need to be backed up by positive evidence...

Gees · June 25, 2013

gees, you do realize that the number of people who believe something to be true has no bearing on it's veracity don't you? the other things you mention are not proof of anything but you or others belief in what they mean.

Moontanman;

Of course I know that the number of people who believe something does not equate with truth. A lot of people used to think the world was flat. On the other hand, if six people come running down the street and say that the house at the end of the block is on fire, would you believe it if you saw no smoke? Maybe, maybe not, but would you walk into your house and assume that there was no fire? No. You would go and take a look. That is all that I am asking, for people to stop hiding in their unwarrented beliefs and take a look.

You have told me that there is no proof of the supernatural, so by default, it does not exist. You are wrong. There is evidence of belief in the supernatural in every culture, every society, and every country from the beginning of recorded history and beyond. It is older than science, it is older than philosophy, and it is probably older than religion. So by default, the supernatural does exist.

If you would like to prove that it does not exist, then you must explain what it is that is thought to be supernatural. Denying it proves nothing. And cherry picking the denials--consciousness is ok, mind is ok, soul is acceptable, intuition is ok, whatever is within us is ok, but things outside of us are not ok--looks like bias, because none of these things are proven.

Regarding the supernatural, I see three possibilities, either it is "God", or it is magic, or it is real. I chose real. You choose denial. Can you deal with the possibility that it could be real?

This might indeed be the philosophy section but positive assertions need to be backed up by positive evidence...

There is a whole page of things that I stated, so what "assertions" did you take issue with? I tried to use reason and logic to make my points and to corroborate any new ideas with other evidence. Are you talking about my personal experiences with ESP? I can retract that if you think it necessary. I hate putting my personal experiences on-line for the world to view, and only stated it because I wanted people to understand how I first learned that emotion can actually move and control knowledge and thought outside of the body.

G

Gees · June 25, 2013

This thread is becoming frustrating. I feel like a director auditioning actresses for the part of the virgin in a Dracula movie, and have heard enough, "No! No! No!", to last a lifetime. Except for denials, I have gotten no real information from anyone. That is not true. EdEarl did provide some information early on, but consciousness is not his subject, so although he at least tried, he does not really understand consciousness. He is more of an AI person, who studies intelligence and brains and computers. Is there anyone here who studies consciousness and knows anything at all about it?

Let's start with simple basics. What is consciousness? The easiest way to describe it is that it is a communication. It is information that is communicated from one place to another, and awareness of that communication is what we call consciousness. The transmitters and receivers of that communication are called life, as life is aware of the communication, hence life is conscious. A rock is not conscious, because a rock is not aware of any communication.

This is the reason that Panpsychism does not work. Although it can be argued that all matter has a sort of knowledge of itself, as in atoms seem to know how they fit into molecules, etc., the knowledge is static, it does not move, so there is no awareness, no communication, no consciousness.

Like the rock, there is also information within us, but it is not static. Our cells can actually learn and remember. Our immune system can learn about one disease, remember that information, and use it to combat another disease that is similar. Our brains are a wealth of constant movement and processing of information. This is true of all life, whether it be the most simple or the most complex, it can move information and is aware of the movement of information, so it is conscious.

So does this mean that moving information equates to consciousness? No. My cell phone, TV, radio, and computer all move information, but they are not conscious, because they are not aware of the movement. How do I know that they are not aware of the movement? Because they do not try to influence it. They do not try to stop it or start it or speed it up or slow it down, they are indifferent to the information. Life is not indifferent to the information and will actively pursue any course that will ensure the survival of the life form. This is consciousness.

But what does this have to do with feeling and emotion? Good question. I am not sure that anybody knows. I am tired now, so review the above, that I believe conforms with mainstream philosophy and science, and post any comments or questions that you may have regarding the above.

Tomorrow I will post what I think that I know about feeling and emotion.

G

iNow · June 26, 2013

Your questions IMO become significantly simpler when viewed through the lens of neuroscience instead of through the lens of philosophy.

Sign In

The Supernatural and Superstition

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

arc

Gees

imatfaal

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information