Poll: Do you believe in the paranormal? If not, have you ever wanted to?

[lacktheknack]

As the local religious nut, yes. Yes I do.

I don't believe in ghosts and the lizardmen of space, but I DO believe in classic divinities (God, angels, demons, etc). And yes, I want to believe. If I was ever convinced that paranormal things were not real, my terrifyingly nihilist side would be all I had left, and I'd have committed suicide within the hour.

 

[rgrekejin]

As J.B.S. Haldane once said:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

At the risk of going off on a tangent here, I'd suggest that that J.B.S Haldane quote makes it sound like he's espousing Cartesian dualism which was rather an outdated philosophy even during Haldane's lifetime. We know that a brain is composed of entirely ordinary matter made from entirely ordinary atoms, and it makes more sense to think of mind as being a process of the brain, much like life is a process of the body:Any emergent process can be orders of magnitude more complex than the physical matter that spawned that emergent process. Invoking something mystical and immaterial to account for this, like for example a soul, is just bad science.

I don't know in what context Haldane's quote is from, but he's a respected enough scientist that I'd be surprised if that inference was where he was going with his line of reasoning.

Some form of dualism, as a philosophy of the mind, is still around today, and is a position held by a lot of serious thinkers in the field (disclaimer: I am a hylomorphist, not a Cartesian dualist). I'm not sure what specifically you mean when you're talking about the mind as a process of the brain, but I think that Rosenberg, in the book I refer to above, makes a good case that any consistent materialism *must* take an eliminative position a la Dan Dennett towards the mind, rather than a reductionist position (some thinkers, notably the Churchlands, dispute this, but I think they're wrong for reasons I won't go it to here). And either position is nonsense anyway - John Searle is the man to read for a demolition of eliminatism and reductionism and a muscular defense of the irreducibility of the mind. If materialism entails eliminatism, and eliminatism fails as an explanation, then materialism is false. Curiously, Searle claims that he himself is not a dualist, but, upon examining his actual position, it seems to me that he's just a dualist who doesn't want to be called a dualist.

As for the fact that the brain is solely composed of atoms - yes, it certainly is, but saying so misses the point. The point is not that the brain is not composed of atoms, but that the mind is not identical to the brain. There is obviously a relation between them, but they are not ontologically identical. Haldane, frankly, could have phrased that better at the end, something like "I therefore have no reason for supposing my mind to be composed of atoms." And his basic point stands - if thoughts are determined solely by chemical functions in our skull, how can we possibly know them to be true or false, logically valid or not? The fact that truth exists, that the laws of logic work, and that intentionality is real, cannot have a purely material explanation, at least not as matter is presently understood. Haldane knew this - he may have been a well respected scientist, but he had a very firm grip on the limits of what science was capable of telling us, certainly better than the philisophical philistines running around today (we're looking at you, Lawrence Krauss). Evidence of this is seen in a number of his famous quotes:

"Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public."

"My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose."

That's a long way of proclaiming that you're a Dualist. That's fine, most people are in theory (if they're religious), but it's not supported by a scrap of evidence. You're entitled to your beliefs, but not to act like they're a viable current theory, and not your religious convictions.

Provide for me a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, and then condescend all you like. In the meantime, I'll just be over here with David Chalmers, Saul Kripke, Donald Hoffman, Thomas Nagel, Colin McGinn, Alonzo Church, John Searle, John Eccles, Bertrand Russel, Hilary Putnam, Peter Geach, and a mountain of other major thinkers in philosophy of the mind (many of whom, incidentally, are not religious) who find your position untenable. I mean, it's not like materialism has a scrap of evidence for it either - it is a metaphysical position, not a scientific one, and you cheapen science when you try to palm it off as one.

 

[happyninja42]

As the local religious nut, yes. Yes I do.

I don't believe in ghosts and the lizardmen of space, but I DO believe in classic divinities (God, angels, demons, etc). And yes, I want to believe. If I was ever convinced that paranormal things were not real, my terrifyingly nihilist side would be all I had left, and I'd have committed suicide within the hour.

Interesting that you say this, since everyone who was ever religious/believed in the supernatural, and then stopped, has had a fairly easy transition. Ok well, I won't say everyone, there's probably a percentage that find the lack of belief traumatizing. But I've seen discussions with a large number of atheists, and they all talk about how they assumed life without belief would be terrible, and then when they actually experience it, they find it's just fine, and they find it strange that they thought it would be a terrible thing. Life still holds as much value to them, just without the belief in something supernatural. Not believing in the supernatural isn't the same thing as nihilism. You can find plenty of things of worth and value in life, and not believe in the supernatural.

 

[lacktheknack]

As the local religious nut, yes. Yes I do.

I don't believe in ghosts and the lizardmen of space, but I DO believe in classic divinities (God, angels, demons, etc). And yes, I want to believe. If I was ever convinced that paranormal things were not real, my terrifyingly nihilist side would be all I had left, and I'd have committed suicide within the hour.

Interesting that you say this, since everyone who was ever religious/believed in the supernatural, and then stopped, has had a fairly easy transition. Ok well, I won't say everyone, there's probably a percentage that find the lack of belief traumatizing. But I've seen discussions with a large number of atheists, and they all talk about how they assumed life without belief would be terrible, and then when they actually experience it, they find it's just fine, and they find it strange that they thought it would be a terrible thing. Life still holds as much value to them, just without the belief in something supernatural. Not believing in the supernatural isn't the same thing as nihilism. You can find plenty of things of worth and value in life, and not believe in the supernatural.

It's not that I find the lack of belief in religious things "traumatizing" or "difficult" as much as I just have failed to find anything worth living for if there isn't anything beyond this mortal plane. "Who cares" is a deadly question if the answer is "In a hundred years, no one".

Glad you found something to live for down here. I haven't. It's not that I think that nihilism is a lack of belief, it's that I am ridiculously nihilistic. And my religious beliefs are the only things countering it.

 

[happyninja42]

As the local religious nut, yes. Yes I do.

I don't believe in ghosts and the lizardmen of space, but I DO believe in classic divinities (God, angels, demons, etc). And yes, I want to believe. If I was ever convinced that paranormal things were not real, my terrifyingly nihilist side would be all I had left, and I'd have committed suicide within the hour.

Interesting that you say this, since everyone who was ever religious/believed in the supernatural, and then stopped, has had a fairly easy transition. Ok well, I won't say everyone, there's probably a percentage that find the lack of belief traumatizing. But I've seen discussions with a large number of atheists, and they all talk about how they assumed life without belief would be terrible, and then when they actually experience it, they find it's just fine, and they find it strange that they thought it would be a terrible thing. Life still holds as much value to them, just without the belief in something supernatural. Not believing in the supernatural isn't the same thing as nihilism. You can find plenty of things of worth and value in life, and not believe in the supernatural.

It's not that I find the lack of belief in religious things "traumatizing" or "difficult" as much as I just have failed to find anything worth living for if there isn't anything beyond this mortal plane. "Who cares" is a deadly question if the answer is "In a hundred years, no one".

Glad you found something to live for down here. I haven't. It's not that I think that nihilism is a lack of belief, it's that I am ridiculously nihilistic. And my religious beliefs are the only things countering it.

That's the most depressing thing I've read in years. Though it does puzzle me. So, the only reason you find interest in the things you enjoy (games, movies, books, etc), is because of a possible afterlife? They don't please you on their own?

 

[lacktheknack]

As the local religious nut, yes. Yes I do.

I don't believe in ghosts and the lizardmen of space, but I DO believe in classic divinities (God, angels, demons, etc). And yes, I want to believe. If I was ever convinced that paranormal things were not real, my terrifyingly nihilist side would be all I had left, and I'd have committed suicide within the hour.

Interesting that you say this, since everyone who was ever religious/believed in the supernatural, and then stopped, has had a fairly easy transition. Ok well, I won't say everyone, there's probably a percentage that find the lack of belief traumatizing. But I've seen discussions with a large number of atheists, and they all talk about how they assumed life without belief would be terrible, and then when they actually experience it, they find it's just fine, and they find it strange that they thought it would be a terrible thing. Life still holds as much value to them, just without the belief in something supernatural. Not believing in the supernatural isn't the same thing as nihilism. You can find plenty of things of worth and value in life, and not believe in the supernatural.

It's not that I find the lack of belief in religious things "traumatizing" or "difficult" as much as I just have failed to find anything worth living for if there isn't anything beyond this mortal plane. "Who cares" is a deadly question if the answer is "In a hundred years, no one".

Glad you found something to live for down here. I haven't. It's not that I think that nihilism is a lack of belief, it's that I am ridiculously nihilistic. And my religious beliefs are the only things countering it.

That's the most depressing thing I've read in years. Though it does puzzle me. So, the only reason you find interest in the things you enjoy (games, movies, books, etc), is because of a possible afterlife? They don't please you on their own?

They do to a degree, but not enough to justify my continued existence.

Really, the only reason I do "traditionally fun things" is because I'm human, and my brain gets bored. But even now, as I get more into missionary work and religion-related things, my play-time has been going down. I haven't voluntarily watched a movie in months, most books I read are non-fiction, and I play games for less than an hour a week now.

I'm walking a very thin line between purpose and meltdown, yes. But hey, I've still got hope and a reason to live, even if it's not the same reason as most other people in this corner of the internet.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's the most depressing thing I've read in years.

There's this concept album I love called "Exit Elvis." I think the music and lyrics are fairly phenomenal, but the message it gives is roughly the same: there is no purpose to life if God isn't real. And I find it strange, because I've always held the opposite opinion.

I don't want to go too deep down that rabbit hole, since this isn't a thread specifically about religious beliefs, but still.

 

[happyninja42]

That's the most depressing thing I've read in years.

There's this concept album I love called "Exit Elvis." I think the music and lyrics are fairly phenomenal, but the message it gives is roughly the same: there is no purpose to life if God isn't real. And I find it strange, because I've always held the opposite opinion.

I don't want to go too deep down that rabbit hole, since this isn't a thread specifically about religious beliefs, but still.

I'm even more depressed to hear about an album professing such a morbid and depressed outlook on life, linked to Elvis in any way. I love Elvis. Ok well, not really, I actually don't find his music good at all, but I am fascinated by the Cult of Elvis, and find the fact that people can make a living being impersonators of him to be amazing. He makes me giggle any time he is referenced in pop culture. Like that episode of The Chronicle where there were Vampire Elvis Impersonators, at an Elvis Impersonator convention, eating Elvis Impersonators, while an Elvis Impersonator Vampire Hunter (who specializes in hunting Vampire Elvis Impersonators), hunted them. It was...divinely cheesy and glorious. *sighs*...sorry, what were we talking about?

 

[KaraFang]

Nope.

considering how many people die each and every day, despite the massive increased probability of SOMEONE finding/proving the existence of the paranormal, there is simply the sheer amount of space you would need. (even if we consider that ghosts exist on other plains of existance, the earth must be choka block with them.

So... no... sorry, ghosts no.

Your brain glitching out (as its an organic computer) is far more believable... especially if you consider external affects as well such as solar flares, magnetic surges, illnesses etc.

 

[omega 616]

Do I believe dead folk "spirits" hang out where they died/spent a lot of their time? No 'cos I think a spirit is just like a charge on a battery, sorry for the matrix reference.

BUT and it's a full bodied, round but....

I think there COULD (as in the possibility exists) be a different ... realm, different plane of existence or whatever you want to call it where beings exist. We both inhabit the same planet but not in the same whatever you want to call it.

It's like light, if I was to say to a child do you think we can see everything, the kid would say yes but we all know we can only see but we know better ... we have ultraviolet, infra red etc that we can't see and the same goes for this weird idea I have ... though I very highly doubt I am the first to suggest such a thing.

For me, there is just way to much shit we don't know to exclude it ... same as god, for all we know a god could have caused the big bang and now is just sitting watching a Michael bay'plosion! Imagine every time an explosion happens time slows (time relativity or some crap) and an entire universe is started an ended, none of us can answer any of the prayers of anything living inside ...

I'm going off an tangent so I will shut up now ...

 

[happyninja42]

Do I believe dead folk "spirits" hang out where they died/spent a lot of their time? No 'cos I think a spirit is just like a charge on a battery, sorry for the matrix reference.

BUT and it's a full bodied, round but....

I think there COULD (as in the possibility exists) be a different ... realm, different plane of existence or whatever you want to call it where beings exist. We both inhabit the same planet but not in the same whatever you want to call it.

It's like light, if I was to say to a child do you think we can see everything, the kid would say yes but we all know we can only see but we know better ... we have ultraviolet, infra red etc that we can't see and the same goes for this weird idea I have ... though I very highly doubt I am the first to suggest such a thing.

For me, there is just way to much shit we don't know to exclude it ... same as god, for all we know a god could have caused the big bang and now is just sitting watching a Michael bay'plosion! Imagine every time an explosion happens time slows (time relativity or some crap) and an entire universe is started an ended, none of us can answer any of the prayers of anything living inside ...

I'm going off an tangent so I will shut up now ...

No, you're not the first to propose that, but all of the "they could be acting on different wavelengths" kind of theories never pan out when actually tested. Or, if the statement is something like "They exist in a way we can't perceive, in a type of dimension/reality/universe that is beyond our ability to perceive in any way", then effectively they don't exist. If you can't record them, document them, observe them at all then functionally, it's the same thing as them not existing at all.

To give a very bastardized, abridged example I heard from the wonderful Traci Harris on the Atheist Experience. "If I've got 2 cups here, and one of them doesn't have any dice in them at all, and the other has invisible, undetectable dice that you can't observe in any way, how do you know which is the real one and which is simply not there? And how do you attribute any qualities to how these invisible, undetectable dice actually are if you can't observe them in any way?"

 

[omega 616]

Do I believe dead folk "spirits" hang out where they died/spent a lot of their time? No 'cos I think a spirit is just like a charge on a battery, sorry for the matrix reference.

BUT and it's a full bodied, round but....

I think there COULD (as in the possibility exists) be a different ... realm, different plane of existence or whatever you want to call it where beings exist. We both inhabit the same planet but not in the same whatever you want to call it.

It's like light, if I was to say to a child do you think we can see everything, the kid would say yes but we all know we can only see but we know better ... we have ultraviolet, infra red etc that we can't see and the same goes for this weird idea I have ... though I very highly doubt I am the first to suggest such a thing.

For me, there is just way to much shit we don't know to exclude it ... same as god, for all we know a god could have caused the big bang and now is just sitting watching a Michael bay'plosion! Imagine every time an explosion happens time slows (time relativity or some crap) and an entire universe is started an ended, none of us can answer any of the prayers of anything living inside ...

I'm going off an tangent so I will shut up now ...

No, you're not the first to propose that, but all of the "they could be acting on different wavelengths" kind of theories never pan out when actually tested. Or, if the statement is something like "They exist in a way we can't perceive, in a type of dimension/reality/universe that is beyond our ability to perceive in any way", then effectively they don't exist. If you can't record them, document them, observe them at all then functionally, it's the same thing as them not existing at all.

To give a very bastardized, abridged example I heard from the wonderful Traci Harris on the Atheist Experience. "If I've got 2 cups here, and one of them doesn't have any dice in them at all, and the other has invisible, undetectable dice that you can't observe in any way, how do you know which is the real one and which is simply not there? And how do you attribute any qualities to how these invisible, undetectable dice actually are if you can't observe them in any way?"

Isn't that a bit short sighted?

"We have discovered every animal in the world!"
"have we seen this one before?"
"Okay, NOW we have discovered every animal in the world!"
"what about this one?"
"... now we discovered every animal in the world?"

Every year we discover new species of animals, so how can we discover these animals and then say "If you can't record them, document them, observe them at all then functionally, it's the same thing as them not existing at all." You don't exist until we say you do?

It's seems a bit arrogant to me, does this mean aliens don't exist? Using this "If you can't record them, document them, observe them at all then functionally, it's the same thing as them not existing at all." then they don't exist, right?

 

[happyninja42]

snip

snip

Isn't that a bit short sighted?

"We have discovered every animal in the world!"
"have we seen this one before?"
"Okay, NOW we have discovered every animal in the world!"
"what about this one?"
"... now we discovered every animal in the world?"

Every year we discover new species of animals, so how can we discover these animals and then say "If you can't record them, document them, observe them at all then functionally, it's the same thing as them not existing at all." You don't exist until we say you do?

It's seems a bit arrogant to me, does this mean aliens don't exist? Using this "If you can't record them, document them, observe them at all then functionally, it's the same thing as them not existing at all." then they don't exist, right?

Except people don't say that. People who are skeptical and/or in the scientific community don't say "We have learned everything there is to know." Scientists are more than happy to learn new things. That's why they are studying stuff, to see what else is out there. What they aren't going to do is say "Well, since someone says they saw bigfoot, we'll operate under the assumption that it does exist, despite the total lack of any credible evidence to support such a claim." They, and people who claim to be skeptics, operate under the "until you show evidence that something exists, I'm going to assume it doesn't, just like every other thing that people claim exist without any supporting evidence." That's not narrow minded, that's the opposite. "I'm open to believe something exists when you show me proof that it does." If you just believe everything that someone even vaguely suggests to you as being real, then you are being gullible.

Since you brought up aliens, I think most skeptical people would say that the likelihood that aliens exist somewhere in the universe is pretty high, simply given the astronomical numbers we're looking at. But that's not what most people are skeptical of when the subject of aliens comes up. It's usually the "aliens are here on earth." debate. And that, they will ask for evidence. Tangible, verifiable evidence, not anecdotal.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or to put it another way, claims that are made without any supporting evidence, can be disregarded without any evidence. You've made a baseless claim, and can't back it up, why should I believe you?

By your logic, you should believe that I have an invisible purple dragon that lives in my house, and talks to me via water bubbles in my tub, simply because I've told you that it exists. Because hey, to do otherwise is short sighted and narrow minded right?

Scientists are generally THRILLED when they find something new, or something that they can't explain, but that doesn't mean you should believe every fucked up theory that someone presents to you. That road lies insanity. You can say something is real until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't actually make it real.

 

[Rack]

Would I like to believe in the paranormal. Sure but unfortunately there's...
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/23/smbc_scienceruiningeverything.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
(from SMBC)

 

[omega 616]

snip

Sorry that just doesn't make sense to me, there are levels of absurdity ... you're dragon for example, dragons do exist (komodo for example) invisible and purple? communicates through water bubbles? Living in a tub is just inconvenient. So it's likelihood is almost none but dismissing an idea, maybe even theory 'cos there is no proof! Is just silly to me.

What about if 5 or 6 years ago I said to you, "you know I bet there is a spider that cartwheels around" ... I bet my bottom dollar you'd have laughed at me but lo and behold!


Science and the universe is a crazy mo' fucker and I'm ok being wrong.

 

[happyninja42]

Sorry that just doesn't make sense to me, there are levels of absurdity ... you're dragon for example, dragons do exist (komodo for example) invisible and purple? communicates through water bubbles? Living in a tub is just inconvenient. So it's likelihood is almost none but dismissing an idea, maybe even theory 'cos there is no proof! Is just silly to me.

So...you're saying that you're going to disregard my declaration of an invisible dragon, because the premise itself is silly and unlikely (thus an extraordinary claim), and yet you say that my stance of asking for proof of something before I will accept that it's real is silly?

What about if 5 or 6 years ago I said to you, "you know I bet there is a spider that cartwheels around" ... I bet my bottom dollar you'd have laughed at me but lo and behold!

Actually no you would lose that bet hard. Because I wouldn't laugh at you. And here's why. What you claimed isn't that extra ordinary. We know spiders exist, we have evidence of this. And I know (personally) of 2 different species (at least) on this planet that are capable of doing cartwheels, humans and starfish. So both of your claims, individually are valid, all you are doing is theorizing that a spider might evolve to use cartwheeling as locomotion. I wouldn't find that claim all that wild at all, and would say something along the lines of "Yeah, maybe, spiders do all kinds of amazing and weird things to travel. It wouldn't surprise me to find a species that can cartwheel" But if you asked me to declare with absolute certainty that they exist, without any proof to back it up, I wouldn't do it. But here's the thing, there is a big difference in acknowledging the possibility of something existing, and declaring it to exist.

Science and the universe is a crazy mo' fucker and I'm ok being wrong.

So are scientists, as they are usually quite thrilled to be proven wrong about something, because this means they get to learn something new about how the universe works! If you think it's silly to withhold belief that something actually exists until you can prove it exists, then I just don't really know what else to say to you, other than I think you are aiming the silly stick in the wrong direction.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I don't really believe in the paranormal, and if you asked me a a year ago I would have had a way harsher stance on it, but...

so, do you believe science has currently defined everything there is to define?

There is some truth in this.

Just to lay some groundwork, I believe there's a lot of things going on that we haven't explained, and a lot more than we acknowledge. I don't believe in almost any interpretation of it going around though. I've seen how flimsy the grasp of how science works is in the pseudo-science community, and as such I don't put any credence in astrology, homeopathy, ghosts, demons, faeries, psychics or aliens having visited the earth.

That being said, there is stuff we know that we are remarkably uneducated about, and a big one of those is the nature of consciousness. The notion for a particle or system of particles to generate meanings, thoughts, feelings or interpretations of the world is something that we haven't been able to explain.

The very nature of it is incredibly difficult to study too. The only one who has any access to our thoughts or feelings is the person having them. Why do I think that other people have feelings and consciousness? The only reason I have is that other people look and act a lot like me, and I know I have feelings and consciousness. Why do I think a rock doesn't? Because a rock doesn't look and act like me, and I know I have feelings and consciousness.

How do you even study something like this? It's obvious that there's something big going on that we don't know about, and possibly even can't know about. To suggest otherwise seems very naive.

 

[omega 616]

snip

We are going to have to agree to disagree 'cos what you're saying to me seems as daft as what I am saying to you. I see nothing wrong in just letting an idea hang, without anything to support it or any reason to even suggest an idea like it.

You seem to need a reason to have an idea or theory, I just don't.

 

[FFHAuthor]

What do you define as being paranormal?

That's the crux of the matter, what is it? Is it something unproven? Something misunderstood? Something that we cannot comprehend? If it's merely something we don't know about, then evolution, a heliocentric solar system, electricity and powered flight could all fall into that category. But that's a bit of a harsh critique of saying that anything which science does not know now is something that is simply paranormal and beneath it's notice...but then that is what a lot of things which we widely accept as being 'paranormal' are.

So I suppose we need to break it into four categories for a more accurate...explanation.

Non-physical Presence: Ghosts, angels, demons, poltergiests, etc.
Non-linear perception: Psychic powers, remote viewing, voices of god, etc.
Non-human Entities: Aliens, Elves, Monsters, Fairies, Werewolves, Vampires, etc.
Unknown Cryptids: Bigfoot, Nessie, The Grey Beast, Chupacabras, Lizard Men.

It's a mixed bag, but all of it falls into one BIG category. The only people who are examining it are the people who believe in it. I'm up in the air about some of it, I'm adamant some of it is false, I'm adamant that some of it is real, and I can give reasonable rational explanations for each one. I've had a 'ghost' experience, I've seen a 'UFO', and I can give rational, reasonable and detailed explanations as to why my experiences fall completely and firmly into the unknown category.

But I don't know what they were.

I don't believe in Alien visitation, and that's an issue I've gone back and forth on for decades.

I believe in Unknown Cryptids simply due to the diversity of life on Earth (but not in all of them), I don't think that there are real werewolves or actual vampires, but I do think that there are Ghosts, and I'm very certain there are events that occur which we would call 'poltergeists'.

But I think that for the moment Psychic powers are little more than the con games of charlatans who prey on the hopes of those who have experienced great pain...but I refuse to rule out the possibilities of the human mind, especially when we don't even fully understand it.

I think that in a world where we can't explain what gravity is or explain what light is, or definitively prove evolution, or explain the origins of life...it's pretty damn nutty to simply go out and say 'well, we don't know what a whole bunch of things we base our fundamental concepts of our place in the universe on, but these things we are POSITIVE are completely insane!'