[Masteroid]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

Because you could smell something burning?

I didn't smell anything burning until I went downstairs and opened the living-room door. If I'd woken up to the smell of burning then I would have understood why I woke up as soon as I had awoken.

I think that the electromagnetic radiation generated by the arcing contacts of the switch registered as an anomaly in my subconcious. I had slept in that same position in the same bed many many times before this and perhaps my brain had become used to a certain level of background noise, if you will, and the EMR probably raised the level of that noise to an unsettling level. And then instinct kicked in.

Don't get me wrong, if it turned out that sleep causes hypersensitive smell then I would concede that maybe I did smell something while asleep that I couldn't detect when awake.

But as I understand it, EMR can have an effect on the temporal lobe and can cause feelings of 'spookedness' that are easy to put down to supernatural phenomena.

[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by Masteroid

I didn't smell anything burning until I went downstairs and opened the living-room door.
...
I think that the electromagnetic radiation generated by the arcing contacts of the switch registered as an anomaly in my subconcious.

I'm highly sceptical that such a small electrical discharge could influence a person in such a manner. On the other hand, burning electrical circuitry produces a very potent smell and seems like the most probably cause of your waking.

Or, even more probable, it was all just a coincidence.

[John mac]

If there were ghosts why are we not swamped with ghosts of dinosaurs, cows sheep and other anmials?

now there's a question for Wayne.

[IRWolfie-]

Originally Posted by Masteroid

I think that the electromagnetic radiation generated by the arcing contacts of the switch registered as an anomaly in my subconcious. I had slept in that same position in the same bed many many times before this and perhaps my brain had become used to a certain level of background noise, if you will, and the EMR probably raised the level of that noise to an unsettling level. And then instinct kicked in.

You think that's a lot more likely than you having faintly smelled it, or it being a coincidence (i.e confirmation bias, sleep paralysis is not uncommon, and most of those people don't have a house burning down so they don't attribute it to being a miracle).

The simple explanations are more reasonable. Your explanation relies on a rather tenuous and very hypothetical idea that you have no real reason to believe is true. The electromagnetic radiation from a toaster is going to be near minimal, it reaching your room is also rather minimal and will fall off with an inverse square law. Now contrast that with the wireless in your house, and the phone network, these are going to be operating at a much higher intensity and will wash out any possible effect. Then you need to look at neuroscience or similar, and see if humans can even possibly detect the particular emitted frequencies and be awoken (which is highly doubtful).

(I see djpbarry has already made this point)

[spankmaster2000]

I have no intention whatsoever of being sexist or mysogonist or disrepectful or whatever, but any time the conversation about ghosts, etc comes up; it's more often than not, a swing in favour of belief by the girls in the group. (not necessarily the same girls each time!)

I suppose I'm also thinking that a lot of psychics, etc are female, and many "mind, body, spirit" magazines / books etc, appear to be focused on females.

Again, I don't mean this in any way as a direct stereotyping or anything, but, in my experience, on average, more women tend to believe in ghosts than men.
Has anyone else noticed this? Maybe there are some figures out there which completely prove me wrong! (And if so, why??)

[spankmaster2000]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html

Women are more likely to say they believe in ghosts than are men: 56 percent of women believe, while 38 percent of men do. More than half of younger Americans aged 18 to 45 believe in ghosts; those over 45 are less likely.

So, not just girls, but mostly younger girls?

I'm not trying to make a point or anything, but I'm just wondering why this is. What do you think?

[mcmoustache]

Originally Posted by spankmaster2000

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html



So, not just girls, but mostly younger girls?

I'm not trying to make a point or anything, but I'm just wondering why this is. What do you think?

While surveys confirm that females are more likely to believe in woo, I have no idea why this is the case. It might be because of the media that they are exposed to (ie conditioning) or it might be related to the lack of interest in maths/physics/programing (conditioning can't be ruled out there either).

I honestly can't say.

This is one of those questions that makes me want Wibbs to pop by and offer some theories.

[Masteroid]

Originally Posted by spankmaster2000

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html



So, not just girls, but mostly younger girls?

I'm not trying to make a point or anything, but I'm just wondering why this is. What do you think?

If we accept that the male and female brains are wired differently then we should expect a difference in distribution of experiences of supernatural phenomena due to gender one way or the other.

Another difference in the wiring is responsible for women being more instinctive or more affected by their sub-conscious than men are in general. In general women are more affected by their emotions. I think that women would tend to be more superstitious too as a throwback to one of Jung's archetypes. Being able to sense trouble through intuition has protected many women from all sorts of perils. This makes sense since the fact that they live in a world occupied by men who desire to possess them means that women have to understand the world in a fundamentally different way to how men do.

I mean think about it, men need to be kept happy by their women whereas men only have to make their women happy occasionally.

Also, women who are afraid of ghosts attract men that would protect them. This could be a naturally selected trait that ensures some level of security which is important for most women.

Finally, and again probably archetypal, it is more likely that a woman would be stalked and attacked by a man than vice versa. Therefore the ability to be able to sense the presence of a human male such as might cause a woman to feel as if she is being watched might serve as protection and the tendency to be able to actually perceive a presence in that way could again be naturally selected.

[Ziphius]

Originally Posted by Masteroid

If we accept that the male and female brains are wired differently then we should expect a difference in distribution of experiences of supernatural phenomena due to gender one way or the other.

But why would we expect this? Women certainly seem to have a higher interested and belief in supernatural phenomena such as astrology, psychics, and ghosts than men. I'm interested to know why this is but I reckon it's more likely due to targeted marketing of women via news papers or magazines and/or socialisation than a difference between male and female brain organisation.

[spankmaster2000]

Originally Posted by Ziphius

I reckon it's more likely due to targeted marketing of women via news papers or magazines and/or socialisation than a difference between male and female brain organisation.

Yeah, but I'd say that's a "chicken and egg" situation. I think the marketing is targeted towards the female demographic, purely because they respond better to this topic / subject anyway.
Socialisation is the more likely of the two.

Maybe to flip the question on it's head - it's not that women are "encouraged" to believe more; but maybe rather that men are "discouraged" from believing?

[Masteroid]

Originally Posted by Ziphius

But why would we expect this? Women certainly seem to have a higher interested and belief in supernatural phenomena such as astrology, psychics, and ghosts than men. I'm interested to know why this is but I reckon it's more likely due to targeted marketing of women via news papers or magazines and/or socialisation than a difference between male and female brain organisation.

Well, astrology and psychics, etc., are not supernatural phenomena, they are scams carried out by fraudsters who prey on people, male and female, who are 'lost', feel that they have no control over their lives and are looking for answers to questions that they don't really ask. They tap into human insecurities for profit.

I think it has been shown that supernatural phenomena can have an external cause and I would suggest that it may be possible to define supernatural phenomena in terms of an interaction between the aura of the person having the experience and any other similar type of energy field including other auras of other people and, perhaps, of any sentient being.

If we regard what is measured by an EEG as being part of a field from which the aura is constructed and accept that a dynamic electrostatic field exists around every brain then it is easy to see how external electromagnetic/electrostatic fields might induce changes in an aura that could possibly be 'felt' at a neural level.

It may simply be the case that women have more sensitive sensing apparatus than men. And again this would make some sense in an evolutionary context. It is in a woman's interest to avoid trouble whereas men pick up swords and look for trouble. Women benefit more from early warning systems than men and natural selection might favour those who respond to supernatural phenomena.

[Ziphius]

Originally Posted by spankmaster2000

Yeah, but I'd say that's a "chicken and egg" situation. I think the marketing is targeted towards the female demographic, purely because they respond better to this topic / subject anyway.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by Masteroid

Well, astrology and psychics, etc., are not supernatural phenomena,

I'd group belief in psychics, ghosts, alien abduction and so on together. Do you think 'paranormal phenomena' would be a fairer collective term?

Originally Posted by Masteroid

I think it has been shown that supernatural phenomena can have an external cause and I would suggest that it may be possible to define supernatural phenomena in terms of an interaction between the aura of the person having the experience and any other similar type of energy field including other auras of other people and, perhaps, of any sentient being.

I don't understand what you mean by a person's 'aura'. And I disagree that any supernatural phenomena have been proven to exist.

Originally Posted by Masteroid

If we regard what is measured by an EEG as being part of a field from which the aura is constructed and accept that a dynamic electrostatic field exists around every brain then it is easy to see how external electromagnetic/electrostatic fields might induce changes in an aura that could possibly be 'felt' at a neural level.

To clarify. You are saying that 'ghost' (or sentient aware agents) can communicate with people via electromagnetic fields (or something similar)?

Originally Posted by Masteroid

Women benefit more from early warning systems than men and natural selection might favour those who respond to supernatural phenomena.

Is this really true though? While women, generally, seem to have more acute senses than men, for example women tend to be better at differentiating colours, I would be wary of attributing this to differential selection pressure between the sexes. I think a more likely explanation would be the fact that women posses two copies of the X chromosome per cell whereas men only have one. Women can use the second X chromosome to compensate for any poor genes on the first. Whereas men cannot. This is why colour blindness is more prevalent in heterozygous XY men.

[Masteroid]

Originally Posted by Ziphius

I'd group belief in psychics, ghosts, alien abduction and so on together. Do you think 'paranormal phenomena' would be a fairer collective term?

Mystic Meg may say she is in contact with the spirit world but she's not really. Astrologers, clairvoyants, tarot readers make unfalsifiable claims that appeal to the weak of mind. This is neither supernatural nor paranormal, it's simply fraud. Belief in psychics and astrology is no different in nature to faith in doctors or science. Or religion for that matter.

People who get a spooky feeling of being watched by eyes that can't be seen are experiencing an actual effect that is qualitatively different from that which is experienced by someone phoning a tarot-card reader for advice on life.

Originally Posted by Ziphius

I don't understand what you mean by a person's 'aura'. And I disagree that any supernatural phenomena have been proven to exist.

The brain produces a field which can be sensed to some extent by an EEG machine. I am suggesting that that entire electrostatic field generated by the brain could be considered to be an 'aura'. It would be dynamic in nature because the movement of ions in the brain is a dynamic process. It could be that the electrostatic field can be effected by other electrostatic fields that can effect the brain at a neural level thus acting as a sensory input that can be utilised by mechanisms of the brain.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I think that all supernatural phenomena have their roots in the physical realm and are in fact 'natural' phenomena. What I'm saying is that some people experience things that defy explanation. Things like having the feeling that you're being watched or being warned of impending disaster by a long-dead loved-one and everything in between. These things actually occur in reality, the causes of these kinds of experiences are what I refer to as 'supernatural phenomena' which are real effects with real causes.

Originally Posted by Ziphius

To clarify. You are saying that 'ghost' (or sentient aware agents) can communicate with people via electromagnetic fields (or something similar)?

No more than a river can communicate with people due to their proximity to it. If you are looking for water and you are close enough, the river will tell you that it is there.

I am saying that in the same way that a river provides information to the ears, 'auras' constitute a data source for the brain. My thinking is that electromagnetic energy can cause the aura to become distorted, lines of force being stretched and compressed in sympathy with an external field. I can envision how currents could be induced in the brain that interferes with ion movement and that the brain may be able to detect those changes and initiate a response that removes you from dangers posed by earthquakes or electrical storms etc. A little fine tuning by natural selection and to a certain extent, we read minds.

Originally Posted by Ziphius

Is this really true though? While women, generally, seem to have more acute senses than men, for example women tend to be better at differentiating colours, I would be wary of attributing this to differential selection pressure between the sexes. I think a more likely explanation would be the fact that women posses two copies of the X chromosome per cell whereas men only have one. Women can use the second X chromosome to compensate for any poor genes on the first. Whereas men cannot. This is why colour blindness is more prevalent in heterozygous XY men.

I don't know if it's really true but I do know that women necessarily have a different world-view to men. Men only have to contend with each other whereas women have to contend with each other but in addition they have to contend with men too. For reasons of survival, women had to learn about men, they had to cross a mental bridge that men don't have. It would seem natural to me that the ability to empathise is the result of selection pressures between the sexes.

Of course, intuitiion is a tool that benefits a man too but I think he gets it from his mother.

[Ziphius]

Originally Posted by Masteroid

People who get a spooky feeling of being watched by eyes that can't be seen are experiencing an actual effect that is qualitatively different from that which is experienced by someone phoning a tarot-card reader for advice on life.

Of course. However feeling like your being watched is ostensibly an evolved trait that improves our survival chances. I don't think it's the actual perceptions of some yet un-described sensory organ.

Whether there is a difference between frequency of such "spooky feelings" I don't know but I doubt that it is significant if it at all.

[Masteroid]

Originally Posted by Ziphius

Of course. However feeling like your being watched is ostensibly an evolved trait that improves our survival chances. I don't think it's the actual perceptions of some yet un-described sensory organ.

Whether there is a difference between frequency of such "spooky feelings" I don't know but I doubt that it is significant if it at all.

I'm not really aware of any statistical analysis in relation to gender differences effecting supernatural perceptions but I was trying to imagine what might be the cause of such a difference if there is one.

As far as supernatural experiences are concerned though, I am suggesting that those 'evolved trait(s)' you mentioned are the same mechanisms that give rise to supernatural feelings. And further, that the ability to sense disturbances that are not interacting with the five basic senses gives one a survival 'edge'. I think that talented 'cold-readers' can tap into this ability and pass themselves of as 'psychics' which, in a way, they are if we tightly define 'psychic'.

I'm more of a cynic myself and I have also tapped into this 'power' in the sense that I can 'read the signs' of a disturbance that is detrimental to me or mine.

So, not a new, hitherto unknown human sensory organ but one that is very poorly understood.