Dear parapsychologists, I invite you to convince me that you are scientists.

[KGS]

@recessiveMeme

When most people can’t understand half of what you say, do you suppose- logically- there’s a chance that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense?

Everything I say makes perfect sense to me. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it means that (1) I’m typing the wrong words, or (2) you’re interpreting my words incorrectly. Or both. Communication is a two-way street.

How do you happen to characterize synchronicity as a “scientific principle”? I’d call it more of an assertion lacking evidentiary support-- and a particularly inane assertion, at that. It’s really pseudoscience at best.

Poor Carl Jung got lost in the shuffle of psychiatric science. I’ll bet Kinsey feels the same way.

For most people, “hearing” something in the idiomatic sense relates exclusively to “normal” channels of communication. Aunt Bessie, being a sentient, living, inhabitant of this plain of existence may employ any typical means of correspondence. Nobody will bat an eye at your declaration that you “heard from” her. However, once you reveal that Aunt Bessie is dead, those means of correspondence are no longer available to her and eyebrows will begin to raise.

I get what you’re saying. You’re talking about the commonality of experience.

If I tell you, “I lost my job today,” or “My girlfriend broke up with me,” you could instantly sympathize with my situation (unless you’re a sociopath) because you, or someone you know, has had the same event happen to them. But if I tell you, “I was lost near the inner circle of thought,” you wouldn’t even know how to respond. Does that make sense?

Have you ever felt any sort of strange, uncanny sensation that fell outside your typical, everyday experience? Something you couldn’t immediately write off as coincidence, or an unfulfilled emotional need? How do you typically react to an emotionally-charged event (mundane or paranormal) that you’ve never faced before?

When you say you “hear” ghosts conversing with regard to car crashes they’ve caused through an “empathetic connection”…

Ok, stop right there. You’re mixing up my words, and worse, you appear stuck on the concrete definition of “hear”, even after I explained that it’s an idiomatic phrase. Let’s back up and replace “hear” with a word that fits better…how about “sense”? Does that work?

Just for the sake of clarification, how does it work? Do you experience emotional content which, in your view, is consistent with with the emotional content experience by a ghost shortly after intentionally crashing a car and then assume that emotional content is not actually your own? How do you differentiate between your own feelings and the feelings of any ghosts that happen to be in your vicinity?

You’re asking a lot of questions here, and it’s difficult to answer because we’re still struggling to communicate basic principles. However, you bring up an interesting point with “emotional content”. Yes, there is a similarity between my own emotional state and that of the ghost(s). (Not that surprising, really…happy people tend to attract other happy people, angry people tend to attract other angry people, etc.) Maybe that’s why I don’t “sense” ghosts as often as I used to, because I’m not so much of an angry person anymore, and ghosts tend to be VERY angry.

What if a lot of ghosts got together in a concerted effort to crash a lot of cars at once?

I suppose it’s possible, but very unlikely. Ghosts don’t seem to be aware of other ghosts. They are stuck between worlds, after all.

Could a ghost cause a large-scale disaster like, say, distracting the captain of the Titanic long enough to make the ship hit an iceberg?

It’s possible, but…why would a ghost be sitting in the middle of the ocean? How could the Titanic be haunted, when it’s a brand new ship? Besides, we already know enough about the Titanic’s final hours to conclude that it was caused by several human mistakes that came together simultaneously – in other words, one big clusterfuck. (“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” – Hanlon’s Razor)

Has a ghost ever made you do something?

No.

What is this “energy field”? Are we talking about “The Force”? The Tao?

Interesting you mention “The Force” – Lucas based that fictional philosophy on actual Eastern philosophy, including the Tao, Brahma, Buddha, etc. And forgive me for saying this, but I get the feeling that modern, Western science tends to be prejudiced against (or at least suspicious of) Eastern philosophy, despite its usefulness and applicability over the last thousand years.

A long time ago, people saw a lot of weird stuff they didn’t understand and postulated some wild explanations which later turned out to be completely inaccurate. The neat about science is that, when the scientists finally get around to it, the real explanation isn’t only more interesting most of the time, it can explain other stuff too!

Hey, don’t get me wrong. I like science. Without modern science, we couldn’t be having this conversation. However, I disagree on one point – to me, the “real explanation” tends to be rather boring. It’s just my opinion, of course. I’d rather not exist in a mundane world where everything boils down to a bunch of atoms & molecules randomly bumping into each other. Perhaps everything I’ve said about paranormal phenomena is just a sign of my overactive imagination…so be it. What’s the harm in that, anyway?

[Blake]

@KGS

A teacher once told me that I have not only a highly logical mind, but also a highly creative mind. That’s rare, because most people only have one or the other.

Intelligence is correlated with creativity ad there is absolutelyno evidence that people who are logical are any less creative than anyone else

The practical effect, unfortunately, is that most people can only follow 50% of what I’m saying.

If people only understand half of what you are saying the most likely explanation is that half of what you say is nonsense.

You seem to be an extremely literal, black-and-white thinker – good for solving puzzles, but not so skilled at understanding metaphor & humor.

There is no evidence at all that “black and white thinkers” are any less capable than anyone else with metaphor and humour.

Once again, if a small grup of people misunderstand you it may be their fault. If everyone misunderstands 50% of what you say or write then the only common factor is what you say and write, not the audienbce.

So I promise, from now on, to try and be as literal as possible, in order to facilitate communication. You may not always understand my words on the first try, but trust that I am being honest, and sometimes I use flippancy and cite creative works because that is how I deal with the real world. Ok?

In addition to actually writing what you mean (what you call being literal) you could also try being a lot less condescending.

ok, first of all, when I said “hear them”, I was using those words as an idiomatic phrase. For example, if you say, “I heard from Aunt Bessie yesterday,” it doesn’t necessarily mean you literally heard her voice.

The trouble is you didn’t say you heard form the ghost, you said you heard them, those are totally different phrases. A perfect example of where what you wrote was wrong and would have mislead anyone reading, any misunderstanding stems form your poor use of English,not anyone else’s shortcomings. “Hearing from” and “hearing” do not even remotely have the same meaning.

…when it comes to communicating with ghosts, it’s more of an empathetic connection. Follow me?

We do now that you have actually said what it is rather than saying that you heard them.

since ghosts have no matter, they can’t affect real matter…but they do affect a “rhythm” in the energy field which, in turn, affects the physical object… Sometimes all it takes is a reflection in the rear-view mirror

This is not just psudoescientiifc babble, it also manages to be totally self-contradictory. It makes no sense at all.

What energy field?
What rhythm?
How is affecting a “Rhythm of an energy field” any different to electron the shell interactions that characterise ineraction between phsyical objects?
How is it possible to produce a reflection without affecting the physical matter the mirror is comprised of?
Either ghosts can affect physical matter or they can not. Saying they affect it through “Rhythm of an energy field” doesn’t alter the conditoon one bit: the ghost affected the physical object.

Do you even undertsand how your fingers affect a physical object? How is that any different to the way that a ghost affects a physical object?

[Blake]

@KGS

Everything I say makes perfect sense to me. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it means that (1) I’m typing the wrong words, or (2) you’re interpreting my words incorrectly

Or
3) You are typing nonsense. Just because somehing makes sense to you doesn’t mean it is actually sensible.

But if I tell you, “I was lost near the inner circle of thought,” you wouldn’t even know how to respond. Does that make sense?

I would know exactly how to reposnd: “I don’t understand you”.

Once again, the words you are producing have no meaing to anyine else: they are nonsense. This isn’t profound. It isn’t a sign of high intelligence. It simply signifies that you are producing nonsense, whether because the idea you are trying to express is nonsese or because you lack the communications skills that most adults take for granted. I could programa computer to produce nonsnse, that doesn’t mean the ideas it generates are profund or worthy of ocnsieration, it just means it lacks basic communication skills.

This is a common thread in woo woo circles, the idea that producing words that are unintelligible to anyine else is somehow a sign of the validity of the concept they are trying to get across or indicative of a higher intelligence. This is not the case. An inability to communicate an idea is only indicative that the author can not communicate. That is all.

…you appear stuck on the concrete definition of “hear”, even after I explained that it’s an idiomatic phrase.

“Hear noun” is never an idiomatic phrase. “hear from noun” may be, but that is not the phrase you used. Sopleasestop blaming others for your misuse of common English.

Let’s back up and replace “hear” with a word that fits better…how about “sense”? Does that work?

No, it doesn’t because it is is vague as to be meaningless. What sense?

… we’re still struggling to communicate basic principles.

You are struggling. We seem to be communicting very effectively

happy people tend to attract other happy people, angry people tend to attract other angry people, etc.

No they don’t.

…Western science tends to be prejudiced against (or at least suspicious of) Eastern philosophy…

No, it doesn’t. Western science as atipathic towards concepts that can’t be tested, but that is not in any way restricted to eastern concepts.

I’d rather not exist in a mundane world where everything boils down to a bunch of atoms & molecules randomly bumping into each other. Perhaps everything I’ve said about paranormal phenomena is just a sign of my overactive imagination…so be it. What’s the harm in that, anyway?

People have already explained the harm in it: con men, religious intolerance and so forth. When you have an inablity to separate wishful thinking from reality you are prime for both self delusion and manipulation by others and lacking any objective basis for your beliefs you can justify anything.

That is the harm.

[KGS]

@Blake

“Hear noun” is never an idiomatic phrase. “hear from noun” may be, but that is not the phrase you used.

As a professional writer, I reserve my right to abuse the English language any way I see fit. You should know better than to assume the rules of grammar are written in stone. They are not.

People have already explained the harm in it: con men, religious intolerance and so forth. When you have an inablity to separate wishful thinking from reality you are prime for both self delusion and manipulation by others and lacking any objective basis for your beliefs you can justify anything.

That is the harm.

Fair enough. Suffice to say, I myself have never been duped by a priest, con man, or any other predatory person who took advantage of my belief in the paranormal. Never. (Well, Scientology was a close call.) Maybe other people have, but I can’t be held responsible for their gullibility. I hope that’s not what you’re implying. :rolleyes:

[Czarcasm]

@KGS

Fair enough. Suffice to say, I myself have never been duped by a priest, con man, or any other predatory person who took advantage of my belief in the paranormal. Never. (Well, Scientology was a close call.) Maybe other people have, but I can’t be held responsible for their gullibility. I hope that’s not what you’re implying. :rolleyes:

Tell me, how could you possibly know whether or not you’ve been taken advantage of, fooled, or duped?

[KGS]

@Czarcasm

Tell me, how could you possibly know whether or not you’ve been taken advantage of, fooled, or duped?

Oh, I’ve been taken advantage of, all right. (Haven’t we all?) Just never by anyone claiming psychic powers.

[Czarcasm]

@KGS

Oh, I’ve been taken advantage of, all right. (Haven’t we all?) Just never by anyone claiming psychic powers.

Again, how would you know?

[KGS]

@Czarcasm

Again, how would you know?

I don’t understand the question. How would I know…what?

[Czarcasm]

@KGS

I don’t understand the question. How would I know…what?

How would you know that you have never been fooled by

@KGS

a priest, con man, or any other predatory person who took advantage of my belief in the paranormal.

[Blake]

@KGS

As a professional writer, I reserve my right to abuse the English language any way I see fit.

As a citizen of a free country you are free to mangle the English language as you see fit. But fer chrissakes stop condescendingly blaming everyone else for not understanding the gibberish you produce as a result.

Be honest and admit the truth: we aren’t misunderstanding you because we are unimaginative, or because we don’t get humour, or because your ideas are deep. We are misunderstanding you because you are mangling the English language into something that nobody else could possibly understand.

Being a professional writer has nothing to do with it, I suspect most posters here are professional writers of some sort. We don’t feel the need to mangle English to explain complex concepts.

Suffice to say, I myself have never been duped by a priest, con man, or any other predatory person who took advantage of my belief in the paranormal.

I echo Czarcasm’s response: How could you tell?
I also note that you ducked all my actual questions. I dont think I would have enjoyed the reponses anyway so I won’t push the issue, but I think the fact that you are reticent to respond to simple questions says a lot.

[KGS]

@Czarcasm

How would you know that you have never been fooled by

@KGS

a priest, con man, or any other predatory person who took advantage of my belief in the paranormal.

Because I’d remember if it happened.

Are you suggesting that I may have been taken advantage of, without my knowledge?? Unlikely.

[Blake]

@KGS

Because I’d remember if it happened.

You have admitted an inability to distinguish reality from wishful thinking. How can you therefore know that none of your actions were the result of manipulation that you wish were not?

Are you suggesting that I may have been taken advantage of, without my knowledge?? Unlikely.

What makes you different to most other people?

Or do you think that most people who attend churches walk out thinking they have just been taken advantage of? Or do they walk out thinking they have just done the work of some nebulous spirit creature?

Have you ever given money to a church or othe spiritual organistaion? Have you ever paid any sort of astrologer, medium or psychic? Have you ever purchased a book or rented a movie pertaining to spirituality or life after death? Have you ever made any decisions <i>of any kind</i> based on your beliefs

If you answered yes to any of those quetsions then how can you cliam with certainty that you have never been taken advantage of?

[KGS]

@Blake

Have you ever given money to a church or othe spiritual organistaion?

Yes, but Christianity doesn’t count. That was pure brainwashing from childhood onward.

Have you ever paid any sort of astrologer, medium or psychic?

Sure. But not as often as you’d think. What the heck, I’ll even specify:
'86 - Got a palm reading on Venice Beach during “Hands Across America”. Paid five bucks. She asked me to watch for a specific pair of initials. Her prophecy came true. It might’ve been coincidence, so what. Getting a palm reading on Venice Beach is like buying a hot dog at Coney Island…you just gotta do it.
'98 - Took a meditation class. Cost about $130, but the bill was paid by someone else. This shouldn’t count anyway, since meditation is an extremely valuable relaxation method, nothing paranormal about it. We also did aura healings & astral projection and stuff. Good clean fun.
'03 - Attended a psychic seminar for $40. Yes, there was a lot of cold reading going on. But it was worth the entertainment. My favorite part was the past lives reader who said I was a psychic caveman. No, really. A psychic caveman!

That’s it.

Have you ever purchased a book or rented a movie pertaining to spirituality or life after death?

Hundreds. In fact, I’m watching the 2nd season of “Dead Like Me” right now. Great show. I might even buy a hard copy after returning the DVDs to Netflix.

If you answered yes to any of those quetsions then how can you cliam with certainty that you have never been taken advantage of?

I don’t understand. Are you claiming that every business transaction I’ve made with anyone or anything pertaining to the supernatural is, by definition, evidence that I’ve been taken advantage of? I’d love to hear your reasoning.

[alterego]

@KGS

your original question was not about proving paranormal events exist, but for parapsychologists to convince you that we are scientists. How’m I doin’?

Yours is the best exposition of pseudoscience I have ever seen. Bravo. I would expect no less from a competent parapsychologist.

[KGS]

@alterego

Yours is the best exposition of pseudoscience I have ever seen. Bravo. I would expect no less from a competent parapsychologist.

Thank you for the compliment.

I probably could become a very good professional psychic. Used to be I couldn’t read people at all, but it turns out I can read them pretty well.

Think I’ll stick with being a writer, though. Pays better (potentially) and at least it’s honest work.

[Testy]

@lekatt

I do none of what you say. The scientific method doesn’t cover everything possible in this world, and in that it is false. Reality is all of reality not just the part science doctrine covers.

Lekatt

Well, I suppose you might be too advanced for science to really be adequate for your concepts. Kinda like the Time Cube guy, science doesn’t understand him either. You should get his video.

Regards

Testy

[lekatt]

@Testy

Lekatt

Well, I suppose you might be too advanced for science to really be adequate for your concepts. Kinda like the Time Cube guy, science doesn’t understand him either. You should get his video.

Regards

Testy

I wouldn’t say advanced, but I would say aware.

[recessiveMeme]

@KGS

Everything I say makes perfect sense to me. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it means that (1) I’m typing the wrong words, or (2) you’re interpreting my words incorrectly. Or both. Communication is a two-way street.

To be blunt, your ability to internally parse your own thoughts doesn’t enter into “communication.” The act of communicating demands that you express those thoughts in a manner that is semantically (and, hopefully, logically) coherent to a listener. When you enter into communication, it is taken for granted that you understand your own thoughts.

I think the reality of the situation actually lies in two possibilities: Either (1) the words you are presenting are semantically and logically coherent, or (2) they are not. Now, let’s assume that I don’t understand a word your saying. In the first case, my failure to understand is evidence of some deficiency on my part. In the second case, my failure to understand is a direct result of a nonsensical statement on your part. With a sample size of one (me), it could go either way-- maybe you’re statement is incoherent or maybe I have a learning disability. However, when you yourself reveal that a significant majority of people fail to understand half of what you say, we’re led to a logical conclusion: Either most of the people you’ve spoken to are deficient in some way and, therefore, can’t understand your semantically and logically valid statements… or a significant majority of the things you say not semantically and logically coherent. This is is what people call “not making sense.”

@KGS

Poor Carl Jung got lost in the shuffle of psychiatric science. I’ll bet Kinsey feels the same way.

Both Jung and Kinsey have had far-reaching impact in their fields. I don’t think either one of them “got lost in the shuffle.” We’re not talking about Jung, we’re talking about one of his ideas. If Kinsey had postulated something so flakey as synchronicity, it probably would have been disregarded while the meaningful aspects of his work were carried forward. Look at Newton. There’s a guy who had some really awesome ideas and some really crazy ones, too. We kept the good stuff and threw out the crap. Incidentally, how do you feel about my characterization of synchronicity as unfounded psuedoscientific junk?

@KGS

But if I tell you, “I was lost near the inner circle of thought,” you wouldn’t even know how to respond.

Au contraire, I’d know exactly how to respond. I’d ask a series of probing questions (starting with “What do you mean?”) in an effort to make sense of what strikes me as an incoherent statement. Eventually, if you proved consistently unwilling or unable to clarify your meaning, I’d probably write the whole thing off as a failed attempt at communication.

@KGS

How do you typically react to an emotionally-charged event (mundane or paranormal) that you’ve never faced before?

I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but, what do you mean? This question is terribly vague. Are we talking about a guy in Spiderman costume jumping out from under my desk and shouting “Silicone corn basket!!!” at me as I enter my office next Monday morning? I would think my reaction to such an event would be surprise followed incredulity or annoyance.

@KGS

Ok, stop right there. You’re mixing up my words, and worse, you appear stuck on the concrete definition of “hear”, even after I explained that it’s an idiomatic phrase. Let’s back up and replace “hear” with a word that fits better…how about “sense”? Does that work?

Actually, I put the word “hear” in quotes if only to allow you to apply whatever metaphysical significance to the word you desired in the interest of asking a question. “Sense” is a valid substitution where the act of receiving information from a ghost through an “empathetic connection” is concerned. I apologize for overwhelming you with questions. Here’s the one I was really curious about:
How do you differentiate between your own feelings and the feelings of any ghosts that happen to be in your vicinity?

@KGS

I suppose it’s possible, but very unlikely. Ghosts don’t seem to be aware of other ghosts. They are stuck between worlds, after all.

Fascinating stuff. You’d think that it would be harder for a ghost to communicate “across the void” to the living than it would be for them to simply converse with another ghost. It’s like saying, “I can run a marathon but five kilometers is too far!”

@KGS

It’s possible, but…why would a ghost be sitting in the middle of the ocean? How could the Titanic be haunted, when it’s a brand new ship?

I hadn’t considered that ghosts were constrained to a particular physical location. Were he properly motivated, would it even be possible for a ghost in Arizona to hover off to Maui? If not, what would prevent it?

@KGS

Interesting you mention “The Force” – Lucas based that fictional philosophy on actual Eastern philosophy, including the Tao, Brahma, Buddha, etc.

Yes, I’m familiar with Taoism-- that’s why I mentioned it. “The Force” is a pretty transparent borrowing of Eastern philosophy.

@KGS

I’d rather not exist in a mundane world where everything boils down to a bunch of atoms & molecules randomly bumping into each other. Perhaps everything I’ve said about paranormal phenomena is just a sign of my overactive imagination…so be it. What’s the harm in that, anyway?

There’s that imagination of yours again. Don’t feel bad though, you aren’t alone. There’s nothing wrong with wishing for cool supernatural phenomena. I doubt I’m the only person who, after seeing Star Wars for the first time, casually attempted to move something with The Force. It’s a neat idea. I guess the only harm comes from eschewing reality because it’s “boring.” And even then, provided you’re careful about it and continue to function within the mores of society, the harm will probably be slight.

[begbert2]

@KGS

Yes, but Christianity doesn’t count. That was pure brainwashing from childhood onward.

You don’t think being brainwashed counts as being taken advantage of? “I don’t think that word means what you think it does”.

Either that or you’re willing to torture every word and phrase possible to avoid being shown to be wrong -and not even notice you’re doing it. This is a trait I find to be common among fervent religious believers in my personal viscinity. (Not so much among the mild, laid back religious believers, though.)

(And I think you’ve been duped for about $175 bucks so far (some of it not even yours to burn!!!). You’re duped if you’ve been fooled, and you can be fooled even if you enjoyed the experience.)

[KGS]

@recessiveMeme

Incidentally, how do you feel about my characterization of synchronicity as unfounded psuedoscientific junk?

Disappointed, actually. It sounds like you’re saying, synchronicity is just coincidence. “It’s just coincidence” is the fallback position for people with a deterministic mindset. Not to be confrontational or anything, but to me that’s almost like a Christian who says, “God works in mysterious ways.” Frustrating, and very hard to argue against.

(And if synchronicity doesn’t connect with you, I can only imagine what you think of apophenia…)

Here’s the one I was really curious about:
How do you differentiate between your own feelings and the feelings of any ghosts that happen to be in your vicinity?

I think I’m self-aware enough to know my own emotions, if that’s what you’re asking. Unless you’re talking about empathy?

I hadn’t considered that ghosts were constrained to a particular physical location. Were he properly motivated, would it even be possible for a ghost in Arizona to hover off to Maui? If not, what would prevent it?

Well, most hauntings do take place in a specific location, like you’ve seen on TV. By the way, I’ve noticed a commonality linking all ghost sightings, both fictional and non; ALL of them apparently suffered unexpected, violent deaths. Suicide, drowning, murder, etc. (I’ve never seen, heard, or read about a haunting caused by the ghost of a 93-year-old man who died peacefully in his sleep.) My attenuation is towards ghosts who died in car accidents, so unlike traditional hauntings, they tend to wander all over the road network. There are boundaries, though – almost like they’re territorial. Weird, huh? I haven’t figured that part out yet.

So, if I apply that logic to your question…ghosts probably can’t travel from Arizona to Maui. (Until they build a bridge.) I’ve never been to Hawaii, though, so I haven’t had a chance to test this empirically.

I doubt I’m the only person who, after seeing Star Wars for the first time, casually attempted to move something with The Force. It’s a neat idea.

Funny you mention Star Wars. After seeing that movie, I was playing H-O-R-S-E with another kid, and had to make a very difficult shot from the centerline. I closed my eyes, took several deep breaths, and blocked out everything from my mind except the ball and the basket. I opened my eyes and made the shot – nothing but net. It felt effortless. When my friend asked how I did that, I joked to him, “I used The Force!” (Later he used “The Force” to make his own difficult shot. Ah, to be young and stupid again…)

That’s not telekinesis, though. That’s the power of meditation. I’ve tried to move things telekinetically, never could do it. Telekinesis probably does not exist.

I guess the only harm comes from eschewing reality because it’s “boring.” And even then, provided you’re careful about it and continue to function within the mores of society, the harm will probably be slight.

I agree.