Do you believe in paranormal things?

[Vorpal]

@Lithium - how about not being so prickly? When we’re talking about science, you should know that ‘semantics’ isn’t an adequate dismissal because words and terminology have very specific meanings when talking about concepts. We’re not playing word games. You say you’re talking about science, and then proceed to use non-specific definitions, only to bristle like a goddamned porcupine because people read what you say and reply accordingly.

On the topic of bioelectromagnetics, what is there to prove? Yes, the human body produces a very negligible amount of electricity. So meager, in fact, that it could conceivably charge an iPod- in seventy years. This electricity is a byproduct of chemical reactions and the cells and the body doing what they gotta do to survive as part of a very specific organism- the living body of a human.

When that human dies, the process as such stops. Those chemical reactions cease, to be replaced by other reactions. Decomposition starts. Putrefaction begins. Dust to dust, maggot food, etcetera. Where did that electricity go? Well, it’s not being produced in that form anymore because there’s no body unit to speak of. If there’s any being produced after death, it’s part of other processes. No energy was ‘destroyed’, all that has happened is a change of processes and a breaking down of one system. There is nothing supernatural about it, and the fact that the body produces a negligible level of bioelectricity doesn’t point towards the existence of a spirit or a soul. Austin Powers would probably say that it’s all physical, bay-bay, and admittedly I would never use Austin Powers to talk about stuff like this, except that today I saw a guy being run over by a car right in front of me and I’ve had three hours of sleep, so all bets are off, I'm pretty much in a "oh what the hell" kind of mind.

[Lotherio]

@Miss-Demeanor said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

So yeah, I'll say I believe in paranormal things. Because really, is it going to kill me to get a thrill from ghosts and psychics for a little longer, until science thoroughly debunks them and shows how it works? Nope! I want my mind to fuck with me, just a little. Because if all I ever saw, ever, were the things that are absolutely true and real and confirmed, etc. Life would be fucking boring.

Belated but also ...

Pascal's Wager ... any 'disbelief' versus 'belief'. It doesn't hurt to believe in something, in the chance you are right and get the rewards, and if its wrong, it doesn't really matter that you did believe now did it? Or, if it was wrong, no one would know otherwise in the lack of the afterlife, so no harm no foul.

[surreality]

It's worth mentioning that there are words that are generally useless in discussion that come up a lot. 'Magical' being prime among them.

Even supernatural simply means 'beyond our current scientific understanding'. It is not automatically 'pixies' and 'casting spells' and a lot of the other things that are ascribed to it -- usually, derisively -- as if to imply there's no mystery left to science, which is transparently bullshit. People simply don't use the term in those cases terribly often, because of those associations, and as a result, it's more or less useless.

The folks I know who leave the possibility open that 'weird' things exist that people generally put under those headings stick with unexplained, as calling something supernatural or paranormal presupposes a specific conclusion that they believe only might be the case.

(Unrelated to this thread, I send a virtual hug, @Vorpal. That's one hell of a day, damn. )

[Vorpal]

Pascal's wager, although one of the more respectable arguments assembled in favor of belief, has some serious flaws. Blaise was, of course, a Christian, so he framed his argument for it to accommodate to the Christian god. It assumes there is only one valid religion, God, or belief system to choose from, that of Christianity. Well that just isn’t so. If we can make the wager about the Christian god, then the same argument can be equally applied to the thousands or millions of deities out there from the beginning of time. Zeus, Brahma, Azhura Mazda, Allah, Cher (some say she is a goddess), etc. If you take Pascal's wager as a serious philosophical proposition then you have to apply it to its logical end- an end that, ironically, Blaise the monotheist didn't really anticipate.

That means you would end up believing in every deity, just to be safe... and if the beliefs are contradictory? You'll still have to believe all of them because you never know. In fact, you would have to end up believing in different versions of the same deity, in cases where pantheon origins are a little muddy, which adds a whole layer of trouble. Then, if we apply it to the supernatural and paranormal in general, you would basically have to believe every claim made- fairies, dragons, werewolves, otherkin, la llorona, the chupacabras, conspiracy theories, slenderman, etcetera.

At the end, you'll be an enormous self-contradictory mess, or the most gullible person on earth. Neither of which is an ideal state to be in.

(thank you for the hugs, @surreality - it's been a day like you wouldn't believe)

[Lotherio]

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Pascal's wager, although one of the more respectable arguments assembled in favor of belief, has some serious flaws. Blaise was, of course, a Christian, so he framed his argument for it to accommodate to the Christian god. It assumes there is only one valid religion, God, or belief system to choose from, that of Christianity. Well that just isn’t so. If we can make the wager about the Christian god, then the same argument can be equally applied to the thousands or millions of deities out there from the beginning of time. Zeus, Brahma, Azhura Mazda, Allah, Cher (some say she is a goddess), etc. If you take Pascal's wager as a serious philosophical proposition then you have to apply it to its logical end- an end that, ironically, Blaise the monotheist didn't really anticipate.

That means you would end up believing in every deity, just to be safe... and if the beliefs are contradictory? You'll still have to believe all of them because you never know. In fact, you would have to end up believing in different versions of the same deity, in cases where pantheon origins are a little muddy, which adds a whole layer of trouble. Then, if we apply it to the supernatural and paranormal in general, you would basically have to believe every claim made- fairies, dragons, werewolves, otherkin, la llorona, the chupacabras, conspiracy theories, slenderman, etcetera.

At the end, you'll be an enormous self-contradictory mess, or the most gullible person on earth. Neither of which is an ideal state to be in.

(thank you for the hugs, @surreality - it's been a day like you wouldn't believe)

That's a slippery slope. Let me apologize, I didn't mean it in his complete context, I didn't mean to go religious. Just that it's okay to believe in things that others do not, simply because, if in the end it doesn't exist, no one is hurt.

[Coin]

@Lotherio said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Pascal's wager, although one of the more respectable arguments assembled in favor of belief, has some serious flaws. Blaise was, of course, a Christian, so he framed his argument for it to accommodate to the Christian god. It assumes there is only one valid religion, God, or belief system to choose from, that of Christianity. Well that just isn’t so. If we can make the wager about the Christian god, then the same argument can be equally applied to the thousands or millions of deities out there from the beginning of time. Zeus, Brahma, Azhura Mazda, Allah, Cher (some say she is a goddess), etc. If you take Pascal's wager as a serious philosophical proposition then you have to apply it to its logical end- an end that, ironically, Blaise the monotheist didn't really anticipate.

That means you would end up believing in every deity, just to be safe... and if the beliefs are contradictory? You'll still have to believe all of them because you never know. In fact, you would have to end up believing in different versions of the same deity, in cases where pantheon origins are a little muddy, which adds a whole layer of trouble. Then, if we apply it to the supernatural and paranormal in general, you would basically have to believe every claim made- fairies, dragons, werewolves, otherkin, la llorona, the chupacabras, conspiracy theories, slenderman, etcetera.

At the end, you'll be an enormous self-contradictory mess, or the most gullible person on earth. Neither of which is an ideal state to be in.

(thank you for the hugs, @surreality - it's been a day like you wouldn't believe)

That's a slippery slope. Let me apologize, I didn't mean it in his complete context, I didn't mean to go religious. Just that it's okay to believe in things that others do not, simply because, if in the end it doesn't exist, no one is hurt.

Except lots of the things that you would argue for using this sort of logic also require you to act a certain way or do certain things, often things that affect other people, or at least encourage actions that affect other people adversely. So "no one is hurt" isn't really applicable.

Even outside of a religious context, conspiracy theorists and people who obsess over UFOs tend to let their lives and those of their loved ones crumble around them. Not everyone is an obsessive, of course, but it's worth keeping in mind. Also, believing in things science can't prove furthers anti-scientific thought, which hurts scientific progress (hel-lo, Climate Change deniers and Creationists)!

[Arkandel]

@Lithium said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Arkandel There's plenty of research in it. I'll get you started with the simplest of internet searches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetics

Okay, but maybe you're confusing me with someone else in the thread, I wasn't part of that discussion.

[Lotherio]

@Coin said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Lotherio said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Pascal's wager, although one of the more respectable arguments assembled in favor of belief, has some serious flaws. Blaise was, of course, a Christian, so he framed his argument for it to accommodate to the Christian god. It assumes there is only one valid religion, God, or belief system to choose from, that of Christianity. Well that just isn’t so. If we can make the wager about the Christian god, then the same argument can be equally applied to the thousands or millions of deities out there from the beginning of time. Zeus, Brahma, Azhura Mazda, Allah, Cher (some say she is a goddess), etc. If you take Pascal's wager as a serious philosophical proposition then you have to apply it to its logical end- an end that, ironically, Blaise the monotheist didn't really anticipate.

That means you would end up believing in every deity, just to be safe... and if the beliefs are contradictory? You'll still have to believe all of them because you never know. In fact, you would have to end up believing in different versions of the same deity, in cases where pantheon origins are a little muddy, which adds a whole layer of trouble. Then, if we apply it to the supernatural and paranormal in general, you would basically have to believe every claim made- fairies, dragons, werewolves, otherkin, la llorona, the chupacabras, conspiracy theories, slenderman, etcetera.

At the end, you'll be an enormous self-contradictory mess, or the most gullible person on earth. Neither of which is an ideal state to be in.

(thank you for the hugs, @surreality - it's been a day like you wouldn't believe)

That's a slippery slope. Let me apologize, I didn't mean it in his complete context, I didn't mean to go religious. Just that it's okay to believe in things that others do not, simply because, if in the end it doesn't exist, no one is hurt.

Except lots of the things that you would argue for using this sort of logic also require you to act a certain way or do certain things, often things that affect other people, or at least encourage actions that affect other people adversely. So "no one is hurt" isn't really applicable.

Even outside of a religious context, conspiracy theorists and people who obsess over UFOs tend to let their lives and those of their loved ones crumble around them. Not everyone is an obsessive, of course, but it's worth keeping in mind. Also, believing in things science can't prove furthers anti-scientific thought, which hurts scientific progress (hel-lo, Climate Change deniers and Creationists)!

This part I agree on, the belief is one thing, there is a stretch too far certainly to some insistence on beliefs and going over the top. I tend to find that the belief is one thing, the 'requirements' to act certain ways are usually more a personal take on something that was never really part of the doctrine; or the ignored part with the advent of science, ie isolate moldy clothes for seven days, if the mold doesn't spread, then wash it, rinse, repeat and if after seven more days it doesn't spread, its washed again and considered clean to wear again.

I'd argue that anti-scientific thought doesn't truly hurt scientific progress. Creationism isn't stopping the scientific evidence of evolutionism, its just letting some people stay in a happy place that denies that science, or the empirical evidence. Take the Amish, them using a horse and buggy did not stop the automobile or its wide spread use today. Are they hurting themselves, some modernists might think they are fundamentally at ends with leading comfortable lives, but some would say they lead productive and even happy lives. Their belief hasn't hurt me any and I certainly don't agree with them.

[Coin]

@Lotherio said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

I'd argue that anti-scientific thought doesn't truly hurt scientific progress. Creationism isn't stopping the scientific evidence of evolutionism, its just letting some people stay in a happy place that denies that science, or the empirical evidence. Take the Amish, them using a horse and buggy did not stop the automobile or its wide spread use today. Are they hurting themselves, some modernists might think they are fundamentally at ends with leading comfortable lives, but some would say they lead productive and even happy lives. Their belief hasn't hurt me any and I certainly don't agree with them.

It is sure as fuck slowing us down, man. Especially when those people end up in power.

[Vorpal]

@Lotherio said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

That's a slippery slope. Let me apologize, I didn't mean it in his complete context, I didn't mean to go religious. Just that it's okay to believe in things that others do not, simply because, if in the end it doesn't exist, no one is hurt.

I'm not entirely sure this argument is solid, Lotherio. After all, Christian Scientist child mortality is a thing. There are a large number of beliefs funded on the supernatural that are harmful to life and limb in many ways. There is also the argument that, if we do not live in a supernatural universe (and the evidence suggests we don't), entertaining supernatural beliefs is ultimately harmful to the person from an epistemic point of view. The more irrational and self-contradictory beliefs someone holds, the less clearly they will eventually think.

Of course, there's a difference- I think that people should believe whatever they want to, as consenting adults. When it comes to children, though, and beliefs that would put them in harm's way- no. Once they are adults they can make the informed or uninformed choice of whether they want to believe in the supernatural or not, but cases such as the above Christian Science cases should not be tolerated when it comes to non-adults who depend on their parents for their primary care, if you catch my drift.

[surreality]

I think it depends on the thing, though, that someone's lending credence to, because the number of things that can fall under this heading is tremendously broad.

Religion... is a sticky wicket. I am not going to touch that one with a bargepole personally, but that's partly because I have a very dim view of religion on the whole.

Compare that to someone who believes it is possible for unknown animals to exist, for instance. (Yes, I keep going back to that example -- but it's an example with a lot fewer intangibles at work.) Outside of a few sensationalist or urban legend examples (The Beast of Bray Road, The Jersey Devil, etc.) these tend to be things people eventually find (and like the old bestiaries of yore, their weird and/or mysterious elements generally are some unusual natural feature if they had such elements in the accounts of their existence), they're identified as a previously locally unknown invasive species (which is important for people to be aware of as this can be damaging to an ecosystem, see apple snails and snakeheads for examples) or something 'else'. And by something 'else', I mean anything from 'a new species' to 'a hoax' to 'a sloth with mange', not 'a beast with anatomically impossible qualities or magical powers'. While we (general entire human race we) don't find large new animals more than about once a decade these days, we do find small ones, especially in the ocean and areas like the Amazon basin, pretty regularly, from insects to birds to small mammals.

Is a Nessie realistic? Probably not. The general field of study, however, when even a minimal level of common sense is applied, is actually a real thing, and it's one that's providing useful and productive data.

[Coin]

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

I think it depends on the thing, though, that someone's lending credence to, because the number of things that can fall under this heading is tremendously broad.

Religion... is a sticky wicket. I am not going to touch that one with a bargepole personally, but that's partly because I have a very dim view of religion on the whole.

Compare that to someone who believes it is possible for unknown animals to exist, for instance. (Yes, I keep going back to that example -- but it's an example with a lot fewer intangibles at work.) Outside of a few sensationalist or urban legend examples (The Beast of Bray Road, The Jersey Devil, etc.) these tend to be things people eventually find (and like the old bestiaries of yore, their weird and/or mysterious elements generally are some unusual natural feature if they had such elements in the accounts of their existence), they're identified as a previously locally unknown invasive species (which is important for people to be aware of as this can be damaging to an ecosystem, see apple snails and snakeheads for examples) or something 'else'. And by something 'else', I mean anything from 'a new species' to 'a hoax' to 'a sloth with mange', not 'a beast with anatomically impossible qualities or magical powers'. While we (general entire human race we) don't find large new animals more than about once a decade these days, we do find small ones, especially in the ocean and areas like the Amazon basin, pretty regularly, from insects to birds to small mammals.

Is a Nessie realistic? Probably not. The general field of study, however, when even a minimal level of common sense is applied, is actually a real thing, and it's one that's providing useful and productive data.

Right. But there is a key thing here and it is: these things are not believed in so much as they are suspected by scientists who go out and either prove or disprove them, but they don't believe them without proof. Those that do are typically labeled quacks for good reason.

[surreality]

@Coin We're getting into semantics again, but I was pretty specific there: I'm saying they believe it is possible.

A lot of this conversation has focused on starting from a point of believing something is impossible until it's proven to exist.

That difference, it's pretty big.

That's not believing something is absolutely there and must be disproved, or absolutely isn't until it is proved. It's believing it's possible for it to be there, and we don't know if it is or not until we go look and try to find out.

[Coin]

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Coin We're getting into semantics again, but I was pretty specific there: I'm saying they believe it is possible.

A lot of this conversation has focused on starting from a point of believing something is impossible until it's proven to exist.

That difference, it's pretty big.

That's not believing something is absolutely there and must be disproved, or absolutely isn't until it is proved. It's believing it's possible for it to be there, and we don't know if it is or not until we go look and try to find out.

Well, it's also because science has proven that it is possible, in some way or another. can a creature like Nessie--let's say a pleisiosaur--exist today? Sure. It probably can't exist in Loch Ness, because we've done indepth sonar investigations and dives and haven't found jack or shit. But could a pleisiosaur exist today? Well, the coelacanth survived, and sharks are millions of years old as a species, so sure, it's possible, from a scientific point of view, even if we haven't found it.

Can people move things with their mind? Do ghosts exist? Nothing science has proven leads to even a remote possibility. There's the difference.

[Arkandel]

I don't know if that's a valid comparison though @surreality. A new, previously unknown kind of canine or bear invading an ecosystem might spawn rumors and even under certain conditions produce legends but it's still ultimately something relatable; even truly mythical creatures like Bigfoot or Nessie would, after all, creatures. Different, unique, sure... but ultimately nothing that's actually new under the sun.

... And yes I suppose it depends on the definition of what's 'supernatural' for the purposes of whether they'd be included under that umbrella or not but that's probably a different discussion.

But something like ghosts, spirits, or even true double-blind test verified precognition would be things utterly different. They're like nothing we already accept exists and would constitute true departures from the sphere of what's 'natural'.

An underwater creature might be weird as fuck but it's still natural within its own environment. There are all sorts of weird shit at the bottom of the ocean as it is.

[Coin]

@Arkandel said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

I don't know if that's a valid comparison though @surreality. A new, previously unknown kind of canine or bear invading an ecosystem might spawn rumors and even under certain conditions produce legends but it's still ultimately something relatable; even truly mythical creatures like Bigfoot or Nessie would, after all, creatures. Different, unique, sure... but ultimately nothing that's actually new under the sun.

... And yes I suppose it depends on the definition of what's 'supernatural' for the purposes of whether they'd be included under that umbrella or not but that's probably a different discussion.

But something like ghosts, spirits, or even true double-blind test verified precognition would be things utterly different. They're like nothing we already accept exists and would constitute true departures from the sphere of what's 'natural'.

An underwater creature might be weird as fuck but it's still natural within its own environment. There are all sorts of weird shit at the bottom of the ocean as it is.

Stop copying me.

[surreality]

@Coin Which is why I'm mentioning cryptozoology at all. It's something we have a 'hard science reference' for already.

It's why making generalizations about why it's inherently bad for people to be open to believing in the possibility of something, when people lump so much together under this general topic heading that have minimal relationships to one another (ex: religious practices), is faulty reasoning.

[Pyrephox]

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Coin Which is why I'm mentioning cryptozoology at all. It's something we have a 'hard science reference' for already.

It's why making generalizations about why it's inherently bad for people to be open to believing in the possibility of something, when people lump so much together under this general topic heading that have minimal relationships to one another (ex: religious practices), is faulty reasoning.

Inherently bad? No. USUALLY bad? Yes. Why? Because people who want you to "believe in" things without being willing to offer any proof or evidence for the efficacy of them usually are trying to screw you. By and large, they want your money. Sometimes they want your money even when it means encouraging you to turn away from things that work, and that can save your life, or your loved one's life, in order to get your money. Faith healers, psychics who claim to put you in touch with your dead grandmother, reiki and chiropractic practitioners who claim they can cure cancer or autism, fucking homeopaths and their water memories, etc. and so on, and so forth.

It would be a lot easier to "believe in the possibilities" if so many people urging you to do so weren't predatory frauds who do, in fact, hurt people.

[surreality]

@Pyrephox I'm not arguing that.

@Lotherio referenced a quote, suggesting 'believing in a thing harms no one'.

Well, that's not accurate. It absolutely can.

However. When you say, "that is untrue, believing in a thing is inherently bad, because of <this example>," you're just as factually inaccurate, because that example is not the only thing it can apply to.

It is something you simply cannot reasonably generalize about; there are far too many exceptions running contrary to either end of the spectrum of possibilities, and even more in the middle ground, because people lump so many things under this heading, from actual science they don't understand to mediums to world religions to ancient myths to medicine to casting spells.

Constantly in this thread, we've seen people talk about one thing, only to have completely irrelevant concepts to the specific thing they're discussing -- like 'magic' or 'pixies' or 'faith healers' or mercy-knows-what-else -- thrown in to claim the other unrelated thing is surely crap, so either there's some seriously intellectually disingenuous sleight of hand going on there, or people really do lump all of these subjects together. I'm not going to make a call on which is going on even if I lean toward the latter, but as far as observable phenomena go? Well, read the thread; it's all over the place.

And if we're being anal retentive about the specific definition and terminology of 'energy' and 'energy fields' and similar? Yeah, maybe we need to be specific in the same way across the board -- but that's consistently not happening here. (And it is pretty much bullshit.)

[Arkandel]

@Pyrephox said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Inherently bad? No. USUALLY bad? Yes. Why? Because people who want you to "believe in" things without being willing to offer any proof or evidence for the efficacy of them usually are trying to screw you. By and large, they want your money.

I wouldn't go that far. I mean of course you're right, there are those who'll do their best to take your money in exchange for fake hope or whatever, that's one of the oldest scams in the book...but they aren't the majority.

I think most of those who want you to believe in the supernatural are just...people. They're your aunt who lost her husband to cancer and wants to find evidence of an afterlife, that ultra-religious guy down the road who comes to your door with the fervent desire to convert you into their cult, countless folks who follow zodiac this-or-that, etc. That's without even looking at some who have had unique experiences and are trying to find answers but don't really have selfish reasons for doing so per se other than satisfying their own need to know.