Posts made by Vorpal

@surreality Yeah, let's talk about the definition, shall we?
You definitely cherry-picked your entry, because under "Simple Definition" -which is the top of the page you linked, it states:

unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc

"Full Definition of 'Supernatural' , number one states " of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil" - and you went for the secondary definition, but literal a only, while ignoring its sub-entry. In fact, two of the three definitions are of this caliber, with the second (middle) definition referring only to things which appear to be a of a character that transcends the laws of nature- so the second definition, in fact, is a reference to the other full definition and to the simple definition, not the stand-alone definition you want it to be.

It's right there on the dictionary you linked. If we use it as an authority, I'm afraid your own example just undermined you.

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

@Vorpal Dude, you're the one demanding specificity of terms.

That means 'the supernatural' exists per the most basic definition, unless you want to insist that science has an answer for everything, and we know factually it does not.

The supernatural exists as a concept the same way that 'god' and 'Adam Sandler's talent' exist as concepts. But they do not, actually, exist. However, formulating a concept is not the same as proving its existence- the onus of the proof remains on the side claiming such a thing exists and, in thousands of years, no such conclusive proof has been found for claims of the paranormal and supernatural, only fables and stories.

Then we've got: "departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature" which essentially means 'fuck that definition above right in the ear, things that just seem to be weird count, too'.

No, it doesn't. Things that appear to be weird but which have an explanation in accordance with the laws of physics aren't supernatural.

Which is further demonstration why this word is useless, and how the conflations occur that render discussion around this term a hopeless morass of bullshit and semantics.

Would we be arguing if the word was 'unexplained'?

I don't think so. If there's one unifying universal point I'm reasonably sure everyone could agree on, it's: "Not everything is explained."

I think the definition of 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' are pretty clear- manifestations or events attributed to some force beyond scientific principle or the laws of nature. Hence the 'super' part of the word.

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

That's true but in an axiomatic way. What I mean is, take a perfectly intelligent, reasonable person from three centuries ago into today's world and we'll see how much of what we've achieved would cross right into their idea of paranormal and supernatural.

There comes a point where actually defining these words may be a necessity and not just pedantic MSB crap.

I do draw a difference between scientific knowledge and superstition/mysticism. A 'reasonable' person from three centuries ago who believed in fairies isn't too different from a 'reasonable' person today who believes in fairies. Reasonable, without quotations, applies to someone free of superstitious and/or mystical beliefs but who first requires proof of a substantially important claim before believing it. Three hundred years ago people were still getting serious shit for doubting some irrelevant religious mandates, much less for doubting there was a man in the sky at all- we can't exactly look for examples of abundant free-thinking and inquiry within the context of more repressive societies. For all we know, the number of questioning individuals could have been larger, but were not exactly inclined to come out because (to quote Eddie Izzard) "they would chase me with sticks."

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

stand out. Because most of those things have nothing to do with any of those other things. Ghosts can't exist because magic doesn't work? OK, how are those things related in the first place, beyond, "they're both things people think of in this broadest of all possible categories?" And then we skip right along to angels. It is groanworthy.

Because we exist in a universe where the paranormal doesn't exist and isn't possible. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.” It's a matter of epistemological coherence. While strange and unusual species that may have started legends of monsters are potentially possible, the monsters themselves are not. Likewise, the existence of the devil, and of ghosts, are as likely as the existence of Thor in this universe. Ghosts, spirits and gods are all part of magical belief- an irrational notion of the universe based on miracles and the altering of the universe by acts of will or whim (magic, prayer, divine intervention)- they do, in fact, have to do with each other.

@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.

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)

@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.

Just to clarify: Photographed by whom? Are we talking about Kirlian photography, or something else. Who has measured it, and where are the studies? I'd be interested in reading about them.

....... I am not making this shit up. The insurance coding team just had to shut down because they got hit by a virus infection. Seriously, what's next, Godzilla?

... and I took my ten minute break from work, went out for a walk, and a guy was run down as he was crossing the crosswalk right in front of me by this older lady.
I just spent thirty minutes talking to the police, trying to comfort this woman who was completely freaking out and crying and shrieking. The guy was DOA.
And a big 'Fuck You' too to you, Tuesday.

@Lithium said in [Do you believe in paranormal things?](/topic/1138/do-you-

Every living human has an energy field, this is known, it's been hard proven with science and technology both. Since energy cannot truly be destroyed, that energy has to go /somewhere/ and we have no idea where that energy goes yet.

Well, what do you think happens during the process of decomposition and breakdown?
There's a lot of misconceptions between what the layman considers an 'energy' and what scientists mean by 'energy.' The skeptoid put it best, honestly. " There is no such thing as an energy field; they are two unrelated concepts. Nor is there any evidence or sound hypothesis suggesting the body emanates some type of intangible cloud. If we really wanted to stretch definitions, we could say the human body has potential energy. Everything that has mass and is within a force field has potential energy, like a rock within the Earth's gravity."

The reality is far, far more mundane. No, there is no force that surrounds us all and which will keep us alive after we die. We are a byproduct of our high evolutionary history, everything we are comes from the proper functioning of our bodies, and when they die all systems break down- and we cease to exist. There's no supernatural 'me' left behind, because the 'mind' that makes who I am is a byproduct of the functioning of the physical brain in roughly ( simplified and not exactly, but sufficiently enough for this comparison) the same kind of relationship between hardware and software. The hardware dies, the software doesn't stay floating behind in the air, a ghost made up of zeroes and ones (even software that's out on the internet is using someone's hardware to exist, and when it powers down it goes poof- we can't hold seances for offline software). Unlike computers, however, our particular 'software' is intricately tied to our physical hardware, we are biological machines and can't transfer ourselves. Yet.

Now, if we want to talk about the possibility of transferring 'minds' in the future through some sort of scientific advance where we can digitize our brain data... ok, that could potentially count as 'immortality' of some sort- but not quite. A copy would still be a copy, the 'me' who is currently in this body will still die, it will know what it feels to die when that body dies, even if a copy of 'me' is uploaded somewhere. Which sucks for the 'me' me, if not for the copy, but I will still cease to be- my body won't suddenly die and I will awake in my new Robot Overlord body. There will be two of me, and then there'll just be one. (*)

Consciousness and 'self' as they currently exist (unless there is some amazing breakthrough with quantum or biological computing) are phenomena that is a byproduct of biological function unique (so far) to our bodies. When the organic hardware ceases to function, consciousness dies.

footnote (*): this is where the realm of speculative sci-fi could have a field day. Our 'software' - our consciousness and personality- depends so much on our chemistry that any transference would have to be to a machine that can replicate those conditions quite faithfully. As someone married to someone afflicted with bipolar disorder, I'm all too familiar with how subtle changes in brain chemistry can alter personality and traits- sometimes quite dramatically. It would be interesting to explore, in fiction at least, how much personalities can change after a transference or copy of a personality unto a faulty recipient. There's a story waiting to be written there. A variant of the 'evil twin' take, except the evil twin is, in some respects, you.

That thing when your husband knows he has asthma and allergies.

And he still gives the pet a bath without a face mask or any protective gear.

And then you're at the ER at 5 a.m. because he can barely breathe, you've had four hours of sleep, and have work in two hours.

Today is going to fucking rock.

I think you might be assuming a conclusion I haven't really championed, though.

Yes, ghosts and demons and such aren't real. They simply can't be, based on the rather sizable amount of what we know about our universe (magic doesn't work, outside of pelvic sorcery). That doesn't mean we never ask the question "Well, if they didn't see angels, then what made them 'see' angels?" The starting point isn't the supposition that the supernatural might be real, but rather that there is a real, observable, physical phenomenon that is explainable by matters other than the supernatural. That's how you find ergotism, but if you assume the impossible might be real, that's when you find yourself championing cardboard fairies like poor Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

It's more along the lines of "Ok, you claim these people are possessed by the devil and can't stop dancing? Ok, you go ahead and prove that to me. In the meantime I'm going to investigate and see what could possibly have induced these- wait a minute, what the fuck is that thing growing in the rye?

It's more of a Scooby Doo and the gang approach (ghosts aren't real so let's find out what really is happening) than a Discovery Channel ghost hunters (ghosts are real, let's catch them on film) sort of thing.

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

@Vorpal

Let me posit this statement, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is loaded. The existence of, say, telekinetic powers is extraordinary because of its lack of evidence despite repeated tests. "Claims require evidence." The important part is, I feel, later on with, "conclusive evidence that can stand up to scrutiny and, ideally, reproduced". This is just as true for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity as Theno's Theory of Ghosts Really Do Exist Dammit.

Even these days, there has been vocal arguments and pulling of beards as to how we should be going around Doing Science.

Well, there's a certain difference here. Unlike, say, ghosts and fairies, we are getting bits and pieces of data that do suggest a great deal towards the notion that Einstein may, in fact, have been right on a lot of things.

As opposed to the fact that, to this day, Madam Blavatski, the Fox sisters, and every claim that involves magic, voodoo, telekinesis, ghosts, spirits, gnomes and even gods themselves have accumulated less creditable evidence than the vaguest hints at, say, the existence of gravitational waves in the past (although that has changed recently, now, hasn't it?) In over millions of years of magical claims and spiritual dictums, we have zero evidence, none whatsoever, versus the evidence that has been accumulated over a few centuries of advanced scientific practice. Evidence which has, at times, confirmed certain hypotheses, denied others, and caused several million instances of revising, examining and re-structuring.

It's almost as if the universe had a certain objective reality which somehow did not include elves, gnomes, spirits, ghosts, gods and magic.

If you want to play devil's advocate for them, that can be fun, but there is a definite difference, and there is a definite difference in the claims made and the nature of the universe reflected in those claims. One of them fits what we have come to know of our universe, the other one seems to be a vestigial remnant of the age of fables.

Well, it really comes down to this: Emotional arguments aren't worth the hankerchief they're sobbed into. "This is so because I feel it must be" isn't an argument, nor is it proof. When we're talking about science, or proving anything at all, how you feel about something isn't important unless the topic at hand is your feelings, your emotional health, etc (see: cases of emotional abuse, someone experiencing traumatic emotions because of a medication re-adjustment, etc). Emotions really have no place in science when they pertain the data itself. How you feel about the hard work you’ve put into the thing is entirely different, but if you’re letting your feels for your research project get in the way of noticing there are bigger holes in your hypothesis than a pair of fishnet stockings worn by Cher in the Turn Back Time video, you've made a big booboo.

On the supernatural front, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are not called on to prove a negative. “Prove to me that ghosts don’t exist” is a nonsensical demand- it is the person who makes the extraordinary claim (Ghosts/Kundalini/The Afterlife/Patrick Stewart’s Old Age) who must present the extraordinary evidence- which includes conclusive evidence that can stand up to scrutiny and, ideally, reproduced. And to this day, no-one has.

And I was tempted to downvote, but I will never have children. So what happens then?

@Kanye-Qwest
... cancer....
for....
down-voting him.

Ok. Fuck it. I'm just giving up attempts at diplomacy because the level of stupid just got too damned high, and so I say:

Maybe Mr. Thing over there should keep his nose buried in his Kundalini if he can't resist the urge to make like some crazed Baba Yaga stereotype by flinging deranged curses at people for downvoting him. What's next? Hoping a mountain lion eats someone because they scoffed at his socks-and-sandals combo? May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits for not validating his parking? Stop it. You're making opera singers seem balanced by comparison for fuck's sake.

Jesus H. Herbert Hoover Christ.

If we're quoting Douglas Addams, I would say that the singularly most appropriate quote of his to be applied to this topic is "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

To weigh in, for all it's worth- the person who is advocating all sorts of spiritual enlightenment and awareness is the one wishing a terminal disease on the skeptic's children. Said skeptic, to my understanding, has not wished anything remotely similar upon the spiritual person. Not even a bunion.

To call such level of sheer and utter malevolent ill-disposition a 'minor disagreement' is a rather unbelievable understatement.

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

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

It is very paranoid to think that we're watched all the time by spirits of the dead/floaty beings/whatever. I think people have guilty consciences about what they do, and they manifest those thoughts as belief in angels, demons, ghosts, and whatnot. Like I said, I've seen some weird shit, but in hindsight, it was probably all of the drugs and booze.

“People * * * like to invent monsters and monstrosities. Then they seem less monstrous themselves. When they get blind-drunk, cheat, steal, beat their wives, starve an old woman, when they kill a trapped fox with an axe or riddle the last existing unicorn with arrows, they like to think that the Bane entering cottages at daybreak is more monstrous than they are. They feel better then. They find it easier to live.”

God, I love Andrzej Sapkowski.

As Terry Pratchett once pointed out, we're really pans narrans, the storytelling ape. We evolved in such a way that our brains create narratives so that we can make better sense of things in general- the strongest force in human history is the force of narrative itself, and our desperate need to find narratives everywhere. They comfort us and they were our early attempts to understand the universe before we developed better tools... so for millennia that terrifying flash of light and rumbling sound that happened in the sky was easily explained- it was a big guy, reaaaally big, not like us, who wielded this incredibly large hammer. What happened to people who died? They are still around, we just can't see them. And surely they must have gone to a better place. What kind of place is that? Well, it's a place that was made just for us when we die by this really powerful, nice guy/gal/dog-headed monstrosity/etc...

I consider religion a vestigial, though persistent, trace of our beginnings as a race of storytellers. And although I am an atheist, I have to recognize that mythology is always a source of very juicy stories. If anything, they exhibit the same traits as Telenovelas: there's always someone sleeping with someone's daughter/sister/mother/father, someone gets the shit killed out of them, and the characters have moments when they act like total adult babies, flip their shit and throw the mother of all tantrums with one hell of a fallout. Looking at those elements, that's like ninety percent of holy scripture, except with a bit of dictating of rules in between the hair-pulling.

@Arkandel That's a crime against nature, right there.

No, I mean, the Russian Rap.

I jest, but as an opera singer I have an aversion to the language. So. much. back. tongue. tension. I can't even imagine how tight your larynx has to get to rattle off Russian in a rap-like fashion.

One year from Tanith Lee's death, and her publisher continues to ignore her and refuses to publish a new edition of Biting The Sun. Or even a Kindle edition.