Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Scientific explanation for Ghosts?
Options
Comments
-
Yeah, ghosts are more a question of psychology than science.People don't like the idea that death means the end - ideas such as spirits and ghosts tie in with the notion of an afterlife, in my opinion.
Your brain is extremely good at making stuff up to fill in a partial image / unexplained sound.0 -
Prove a negative? How do I go about doing that?
Prove to me that there isn't a giant invisible pink unicorn flying in the sky above the Liffey.
I dont understand this line of thinking.
If to you its proving a negative, then you obviously have a belief in the fact the paranormal is all totally explainable right now.
To me, its researching reasons why these things apparently happen ... no matter if it ends up being completely natural, something natural we werent aware about or whatever.
People dont report seeing invisible pink unicorns flying in the sky above the liffy ... but if enough people did (if they could detect invisible things that is) ... then Im sure someone would try and figure it out. I dont understand why you would ask someone prove such a thing to you though.
Still - Im sure science would be in a brilliant state if all its researchers decided they wouldnt research anything, since they already had all the answers.0 -
personally, i dont believe anyone should have to prove anything. you either believe them or you dont, full stop. people who believe they have experienced a ghost usually arent that interested in convincing someone who never has. its generally the other way around - the person who never had such an experience usually claims it cant happen (as it never happened to them) and therefore demand the other 'proves' their experience. pretty stupid and shortsighted if you ask me.
It is nothing to do with demanding the person proves to you that they saw a ghost. It is about motivating the person to think critically about their beliefs, why they think what they think. Saying you either believe or you don't is nonsense, people believe various things for various reasons, reasons that can be examined and analysed, if only by the person themselves.0 -
happyman81 wrote: »Why is being a 'ghost' almost the exclusive domain of former living humans? Why no ghost trees? Ghost dinosaurs? Has this something to do with the notion of a 'soul'?
It has to do with the human mental ability known as "theory of mind" that we evolved to help our survival.
This is not a scientific theory of how the mind works, it is the name given to the human ability to mentally conceptualize the mind of another person, allowing humans to think about people, what actions they might take, what they are thinking etc even without them being present. This allows us to plan future actions based on what we think others will do. It is a trait of humans (possibly other primates) that sets us apart from a lot of other animals who seem to not conceptualize when other animals are not around (ie they aren't thinking I wonder what Harry the Fox is doing right now even though I can't see him).
A by product of this ability is that we tend to think of the mind of a person (or just the 'person') as something individual from the physical body. Again this allows us to think about people we cannot actually see. The issue comes when that person dies. We continue to think of their mind as something distinct from their body, so when we see the body die we do not imagine as well that the mind has died. We continue to think of the mind as separate. We do this mostly with other humans, much rarer with animals and almost never with plants. The closer we associate an animal with human like behavior (ie your dog loves you) the more likely we are to do it with that animal. (doggy heaven, never ant heaven).
This leads to the development of notions such as an after life and ghosts, as the human mind has a hard time not thinking that a person still exists even if their body has died.0 -
motivating people to think critically about their beliefs? And the person doing the motivating has some kind of better knowledge of the subject of something? I really doubt that to be honest (going from the people Ive debated this subject with). Outside of that you're just reiterating the argument Im already putting forward - ie it doesnt matter who 'believes' what.
Heres a site to check out - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/ ... covers a good few of the arguments put forward by those who mistakenly call themselves 'skeptics (even Daves Invisible Pink Unicorn - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm).It is nothing to do with demanding the person proves to you that they saw a ghost. It is about motivating the person to think critically about their beliefs, why they think what they think. Saying you either believe or you don't is nonsense, people believe various things for various reasons, reasons that can be examined and analysed, if only by the person themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,719 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 88959
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »talk about the science / evidence and provide links
You are going to have to explain how you got that out of the post ?Outside of that you're just reiterating the argument Im already putting forward - ie it doesnt matter who 'believes' what.
This is a Science forum, evidence and refutable theories are good , links to peer reviewed articles in reputable journals are good, stuff you find on google scholar is possibly OKHeres a site to check out - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/ ... covers a good few of the arguments put forward by those who mistakenly call themselves 'skeptics (even Daves Invisible Pink Unicorn - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm).
Links to sites that prominently feature 9/11 conspiracy theories are not so good
A comment on the scientific method
"If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »You are going to have to explain how you got that out of the post ?
My sincere apologies ... I had assume that when I opened the original post with "personally, i dont believe anyone should have to prove anything .." that you could make the link between not having to prove anything, because it doesnt matter what anyone 'believes' in. Hope that explains it for you.This is a Science forum, evidence and refutable theories are good , links to peer reviewed articles in reputable journals are good, stuff you find on google scholar is possibly OK
Links to sites that prominently feature 9/11 conspiracy theories are not so good
A comment on the scientific method
"If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein
I completely accept that. I dont care though, if they link to conspiracies ... their points on flying pink whatevers and the general outlook of those who dont know the difference between skeptical and cynical still have value.
Still .. its a bit dodgy to be covering this at all in this forum if your reply is to be more scientific. Paranormal research is no kind of science.0 -
Outside of that you're just reiterating the argument Im already putting forward - ie it doesnt matter who 'believes' what.
The argument isn't to do with what you believe, rather why you believe it.Heres a site to check out - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/ ... covers a good few of the arguments put forward by those who mistakenly call themselves 'skeptics (even Daves Invisible Pink Unicorn - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm).
I only read "Page4", but those are not good arguments. The central one on the page about the Pink Unicorn seems to be that the skeptics know the unicorn is a fiction made up by them yet believers in ghosts or UFO's don't, they believe they are real. Not only does that demonstrate that the person doesn't understand the point of the Unicorn analogy, but they also don't understand that it doesn't make any difference, the argument is about what you can demonstrate not what you believe is real. In fact it is purposely not about what you believe is real, that is the point.
A very poor argument, I really hope the rest of the website is a bit better.0 -
im continuing this on the paranormal forum .... a science forum is no place for such a debate.
I will say though ... stop focusing on the other things that site says, and instead give me your views on their views of pseudo-skeptics. Personally, I believe they are spot on.0 -
im continuing this on the paranormal forum .... a science forum is no place for such a debate.
I will say though ... stop focusing on the other things that site says, and instead give me your views on their views of pseudo-skeptics. Personally, I believe they are spot on.
A science forum isn't the place to discuss reported phenomena in the natural world? That is news to me. Falsifiable claims are the domain of Science, even if the reasoning behind the claim isn't scientific.
The largest issue with ghost sittings, alien abductions etc is the unreliability of eye witnesses. Sure they will be convinced of what they saw, but studies have shown that eyewitnesses are highly unreliable about what they think they have seen and are easily misled. There are specific explanations for many "paranormal" events, but the reasons are particular to each case, for example sleep paralysis as leading to beliefs around the incubus.
See some of the work by, for example, the anomalistic psychologist Chris French about the (Psychological) causes of many of these paranormal claims and his tests etc.
Paranormal claims have never been demonstrable in any case ever, even though there are some extremely good offers of money if it can be demonstrated (i.e the $1 million dollar James Randi challenge). Note that people have tried the challenge many times and always failed.
Also, your use of the word "proved" earlier indicates a lack of basic scientific understanding. Science does not deal with proofs, that is the realm of mathematics, we deal with evidence.
You say that your version of Paranormal research is not scientific but some paranormal groups claim to be scientific. Which is it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Many years ago I awoke in my bed and was horrified to have the sensation that a great weight was upon me, pinning me, on my back, to the bed. I then proceeded to have a dream sequence in which I was evacuating my wife and two children from the house due to some spooky entity.
Throughout this sequence, I believed myself to be awake but after a 'shock' that occurred in the dream at a point where I thought we were safe, I found myself back in bed and experiencing that sensation of being pinned down again.
An identical sequence to the first then occurred right up to the point where someone spoke to me. He said, "I didn't expect to see you again" which was different to what he'd said in the first sequence and I took it as a reference to what happend at the end of that.
But at the same time, I realised that I was still dreaming and I woke up with all my hairs standing on end and totally freaked but this time, I did not have that sensation of being pinned down and this time, when I urged my wife to turn on the lamp, it came on.
I felt instinctively compelled to go and check the security of the house so I went downstairs, all the time feeling 'spooked', as if I was covered in static electricity, and when I entered the living room, I noticed that the red light that illuminated the fake coal in our electric fire was flickering, I could smell burning plastic and I could hear electricity arcing within the faulty switch that provided power to the light.
I unplugged the appliance, the partially melted plastic housing of the switch hardened and I went back to bed. And I felt confused about what had just happened.
Now, I am convinced that my dream and my response to that dream could possibly have saved the lives of my entire family but even in those days, I was a skeptic and I found myself lying there in bed wondering, 'Had a ghost just saved my life?'
I know that there is a connection between my dream and the arcing faulty switch but I don't believe in ghosts even though at that point, a ghost seemed like the most reasonable explanation. Why did I wake up?
So I was laid there contemplating events and I realised that the appliance was situated directly below our head-board and moreover, the back of my head was almost directly above the location of the failing switch. I started to wonder if electromagnetic energy emanating from the site of the arc could have effected my temporal lobe, creating a disturbance that would be indicative of danger at a subconscious level. This caused me to have a dream about a ghost that caused me, in the dream, to evacuate the house as if there was a fire. My subconscious even identified where the danger was at. Wierd huh? But amazing.
I think that ghosts demonstrate the power of the mind and therefore have scientific validity but that does not mean that ghosts have to exist in order to be studied.
Supernatural experiences usually illicit extreme reactions. They make most people run. Sure there are those who feel comforted while communing with a long-dead loved-one but this can be thought of as an extreme mental response that cannot be shared by others and nor can such entities be detected by any equipment other than the bereaved observer's mind.
I would say that the human ability to have supernatural experiences is simply an artifact of the brain mechanisms which allow us to detect low-frequency energy and electromagnetic energy in order to alert us to processes that are occurring in the natural world that are dangerous to humans.
Funny thing is though, if I did perchance encounter a ghost then I would rationalise that I was having a hallucination of some kind. I have experienced such hallucinations through sleep deprivation but I knew that that big dog wasn't really pouncing on me, it wasn't even there.
But as far as people who see ghosts are concerned, in order to actually 'see' a ghost then actual photons have to bounce of an actual object in order to be detected by the human eye. And if ghosts are opaque to photons then they can been detected by cameras.
Anything that appears in the field of view not as a result of reflected or emitted photons is the product of an individual imagination due to a somewhat afflicted mind.
Finally, I think that people who hold and purport opinions that tend to mislead or remove power from others should be challenged at every opportunity. We should examine our beliefs and challenge them and each others'. Opinions that are based on faulty premises are usually faulty. If we are to improve ourselves then we have to realise that it is not okay to hold certain opinions where such an opinion can denegrade the development of any other human.0 -
Many years ago I awoke in my bed and was horrified to have the sensation that a great weight was upon me, pinning me, on my back, to the bed. I then proceeded to have a dream sequence in which I was evacuating my wife and two children from the house due to some spooky entity.
It's called sleep paralysis. It's a real condition which can include hallucinations. Check it up. The rest is just coincidence0 -
-
-
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.0 -
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.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.
Or, even more probable, it was all just a coincidence.0 -
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.0 -
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)0 -
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??)0 -
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.htmlWomen 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?0 -
Advertisement
-
spankmaster2000 wrote: »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.0 -
spankmaster2000 wrote: »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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
spankmaster2000 wrote: »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.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?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.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)?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.0 -
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.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.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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
.
The only sensible position to take about subjects like astrology, ghosts, homoeopathy, mystics, and the huge amount of other psychic claims is to be sceptical. While it's possible that such things exist, it is notable that no one has yet been able to demonstrate they have the powers they claim, under properly observed conditions.
What we know is that that particular world is filled with many charlatans, and while it might be possible to demonstrate that there are ghosts, or psychics who can talk to the dead and so on, it's noticeable that not one has yet done so, under proper observing conditions.
The real question is why so many of us want want to believe in things without proper evidence.0
Advertisement