# Grand Unified Theory of the paranormal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2005, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710 "2005-10-11T04:10:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/81 "2005-10-14T17:48:46Z")
> [@](#): > > I will quit trying to debate on these things, I wish I coiuld believe that you will hold to your promise, here. > [@](#): > > you are not interested in finding solutions only in belittling others and calling them names, I am interested in examining all the possibilities without having the thread interrupted by someone who claims that the quotes are true when he posts them but lies when the identical quotes when posted by someone else. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/82 "2005-10-14T18:11:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I wish I coiuld believe that you will hold to your promise, here.I am interested in examining all the possibilities without having the thread interrupted by someone who claims that the quotes are true when he posts them but lies when the identical quotes when posted by someone else. I think now would be a good time to clarify that. I’m reasonably sure you mean ‘claims that the quotes are true when he posts them but _that the quotes are lies_ when posted by somebody else.’ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/83 "2005-10-14T18:12:04Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > you are not interested in finding solutions only in belittling others and calling them names, I suppose you mean like the author of these statements (taken from this thread, alone)? > [@](#): > > Well, you got one thing right: “science doesn’t know everything,” and it looks like they are not willing to learn. > . . . > As for Fenwick the skeptic, he takes the information, as all skeptics do, that prove his opinions and ignore all that don’t. > . . . > Why skeptics won’t read so they will know what’s going on is not understandable to me. After all, most skeptics have been convinced by some science teacher to hold the beliefs they cherish, and not done any real research in either direction. It’s just a peer thing. > . . . > These accounts are either deliberate lies or written by people who never studied the case. If you think I am wrong read the real account. > . . . > The skeptics never seem to be able to find, read, or understand any of it. I think it is just a denial strategy. > . . . > Skeptics will grab any straw available and make up the rest. > . . . > But I am sure you will think up more reasons, and more reasons, all of them as lame as the ones you offered. Oh, wait! Those were posted by _you_. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/84 "2005-10-14T18:13:34Z")
**Doc** , yes, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/85 "2005-10-14T23:34:19Z")
Can’t we all just get along? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/86 "2005-10-15T00:31:24Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Can’t we all just get along? ☹ If “getting along” means one must silently endure the adverse influences of societally-reenforced mass delusions (as good a GUTotP as one can find), the andwer from myself is no, we most certainly can not. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/87 "2005-10-15T01:15:16Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > If “getting along” means one must silently endure the adverse influences of societally-reenforced mass delusions (as good a GUTotP as one can find), the andwer from myself is no, we most certainly can not. Sheesh, I was only kiddin around and have no idea what you’re talking about. What makes you think your delusion is preferable anyone elses? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/88 "2005-10-15T01:20:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Sheesh, I was only kiddin around and have no idea what you’re talking about. What makes you think your delusion is preferable anyone elses? I figured the sadsmiley indicated some sort of sincerity. As recognize that error, and acknowledge it, I like to think that’s the important difference between being deluded and mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/89 "2005-10-15T02:37:27Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I figured the sadsmiley indicated some sort of sincerity. As recognize that error, and acknowledge it, I like to think that’s the important difference between being deluded and mistaken. That may be. You refered to mass delusions, and effectively called a large group delusional. That’s a fairly presumptive call, which is why I made my comment. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/90 "2005-10-15T02:41:49Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I appreciated your post. I’m not sure what you mean by a set of beliefs completely unfullfilled, or fullfilled on their own terms. Can you elaborate? Surely. I used to believe in Christianity; I can’t buy into a myth that people insist be taken literally. But that doesn’t stop me from recognizing that the belief system is incredibly empowering and fulfills many of its promises. Christ tells you to love your enemies; have no fear because the Father is guarding you. If you follow these principles, you end up having fewer enemies and troubles, and less fear leads to greater boldness and purpose in life. In other words, Christians say that Christ will change you, and He will. That’s why the relgion has such staying power, that’s why it’s spreading like wildfire in around the world even as it dies off in poor jaded Europe (did you know that 1/5 of sub-Saharan Africans are now evangelical Christian?!). Skeptics like to sneer at ol’ Xianity: It’s a bullshit myth, man! It ain’t “true”; ergo, it can only do you harm. Of course, they’re partially right: There are plenty of bad memes (sexual repression, etc.) built into the faith, and dropping one’s fear of the Father (who seems both loving and sinister to me) can be empowering as well. But if one is in pursuit of Truth, one will recognize the truth in the divers religions out there. That’s an example of a thought-set that fulfills a good chunk of its promises. In contrast, let’s look at Marxism. However many good insights and observations Marx may have had, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (I don’t know if Marx said that, but it certainly was a big meme within Marism) is a belief in direct conflict with human nature; it ain’t never gonna work, and it will almost always cause a big mess. In the case of NDEs, we have people come out of the experience changed, empowered, and utterly confident that eternity awaits them after death. Skeptics say, “They ain’t no eternity, man–BOOLshit!” But the NDEers have _seen and experienced_ eternity, and now live without fear of the thing man is most afraid of but can do the very least about. If that isn’t empowerment, I don’t know what is. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/91 "2005-10-15T02:58:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > At this point, there is no evidence that NDEs can be _produced_. I think a materialist or physicalist would say that there has to be probablistically meaningful method of producing them; they are, after all, physical phenomena like any other. That probablity might be 100% with a certain method, or not. But if we look at the Lancet study, it seems that we can produce (or induce) NDEs at an 18% rate in a population by performing such and such a procedure (induced ventricular fibrillation in a pacemaker check, or something like that I think it was). That counts as “production” to me, FWIW. > [@](#): > > There is no method by which a condition can be created in which the outcome _will_ be an NDE. That’s innacurate. > [@](#): > > The study in _The Lancet_ had to go out and poll numerous hospitals to seek out large numbers of people who underwent (externally identical) physical events and were only able to find reports of NDEs among 18% of the respondents. The skeptics see “only” and my side sees “as much as.” Glass half full/empty. > [@](#): > > That is not _producing_ NDEs and _that_ limits the ability of researchers to identify the actual phenomenon. > I am not claiming that there is no way to examine NDEs. (I liked the computer monitor facing the ceiling idea mentioned a couple of weeks ago.) I am simply pointing out that part of scientific inquiry includes replication and we do not (yet?) have a way to reliably replicate the phenomenon. I think what you are saying here is “folk scientific method” and not the real thing. Your concept of “produce” seems ad hoc, if not just hoc. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/92 "2005-10-15T03:17:48Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > If their experience involved observations which were proven false, they were fooled. Yes, to that extent. BTW, where did the expectation come about that NDEers be omnicient or at leat infallible? People in this “real,” physical world make mistakes of observation all the time. > [@](#): > > If they are convinced their experience could only be produced by actual spiritual OBE, but their experience can be reproduced through drugs or other means, they were fooled. That’s right, they have no reason to believe that there is only one path to the general category to which their experience belongs. But that is not being “fooled,” that is simply coming to a mistaken conclusion. There is a big semantic difference. > [@](#): > > (Any particular reason you picked schizophrenia?)Not all the time, you sometimes find people who seem normal and rational until they confide that they are the last hope of the Jedi. Schizophrenics provide an example of people who can have beliefs that are both false and extreme. The lack of subtlety (in many cases) makes for a good, clear example of delusion. > [@](#): > > Not all schizophrenics are aware that they are mentally ill. No doubt, but I think people who do not understand the illness or have not met and dealt with such people extensively tend to think of schizophrenics as “out of their gourd” loonies with no concept of truth and falsity. Whereas in fact most know very well that they have problems. Just this morning I sat down in a coffee shot in Lebanon, and sitting there was a classic schizo guy. One of the first things he said to me was, “I have mental problems, I need to take medicine.” [quote] Whether a schizophrenic is empowered by their delusion or not depennds on the delusion. People who believe that they are the reborn Christ certainly feel empowered. [quote] Feeling empowered is different that actually being empowered. I will not deny your point, however, that a percentage of mentally ill people are empowered by their dysfunctions, but almost always they will have goals that are disharmonious with their environments or with society (pschopaths are empowered to wreak havoc, for example). > [@](#): > > Paranoid delusions are also empowering. But contrast them with NDEers who attain greater harmony with themselves and with their environments. > [@](#): > > The first explanation I look for is material. I will not accept a non-material explanation until all other possibilities have been ruled out. Then you need a course in philosophy. The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 doesn’t have an explanation. In fact, it doesn’t have an explanation at all. > [@](#): > > However, I’m no atheist. If I am an atheist, I’d like to know why I didn’t eat or drink today, and why I spent all that time praying in Hebrew. Yom Kippur. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/93 "2005-10-15T04:05:13Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > That may be. You refered to mass delusions, and effectively called a large group delusional. That’s a fairly presumptive call, which is why I made my comment. I presume nothing. It’s a simple observation. UFO’s, Bigfoot, Nessie, plus some more mainstream falsehoods; all symptoms of a common lack of ability or desire to recognize the disproven as such, for reasons not entirely clear. Despite the lack of easily-discernable motive for all such delusional thinking, that belief in the falsified is pervasive, and widely encouraged in one manner or another, is, as I said, little more than an observation. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/94 "2005-10-15T04:52:23Z")
> [@](#): > > That counts as “production” to me, FWIW. I’m afraid that I don’t see it. “Production” implies a specific act that results in a specific result. The study found 18% of its respondents reporting an apparent phenomenon. If the study were repeated, would they find 18%? 28% 8% 98% None? If the next study focused on drowning victims instead of MI victims, would the numbers change? If a later study focused on patients with DNR orders that were ignored for a multitude of traumas or conditions, would the numbers change? With no deliberate act intended to _produce_ a specific result, I do not see where we can make a claim that phenomenon has been “produced.” The researchers did not induce myocardial infarction in the subjects, so I find it difficult to see how the word “produce” can be used in this context. I suppose we will just have to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/95 "2005-10-15T05:39:37Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What does the stomach, or the eye, or the skin? Evolution, of course. No disagreement. > [@](#): > > And on a scale of “total happiness”, we’re uncertain how happy we are, and in “total uncertainty” we’re uncertain how uncertain we are. I suggest that “total knowledge” is a category error. I am merely verbally pointing toward something. We’ve continued to discover and model stuff, really new stuff (radio waves, quantum mechanics, neutrinos, quarks), and I have no reason to believe that we even close to being as knowledgeable, say, as we will be 10,000 years from now. > [@](#): > > I can’t remember that argument, but I would have argued that general relativity and high energy physics provide far better answers than “philosophy”. The Scientific Method that you (and I, for that matter) value is nothing **but** philosophy. 100% pure. It is a framework for aligning thought with Reality, which is what (according to my definition) philosophy or not. But my definition or no, it is philsophy by any standard; I am stating the obvious here, not making a controversial point. The Method comprises a concept of truth and outlines the means by which to approach that truth. It comprises the concept of continuous refinement, which may be intuited but not demonstrated in an experiment (since the truth value of such an experiment must needs be judged by the very standard it sets out to prove). Empiricism sits on the foundation of philosophy. Indeed, before we had “Science,” we had “Natural Philosophy.” > [@](#): > > But those predictions are _accurate_, against all the _a priori_ odds. I don’t know what you mean by “odds against.” The extrapolations from mathematical models may or not be expected and/or ultra-obvious. If we model the acceleration of an object falling toward the earth in a vacuum, there are no “odds against” the calculations working at any given height. > [@](#): > > If that were the case, the predictions would not be so accurate. I worked in applied science, experience that gives me useful insights in this type of argument. I worked for a company that makes the dicing saws that cut silicon and gallium arsenide wafers into the chips that sit in your computer right now (among other related machines). The amout of theory behind how diamond grit cuts hard materials or silicon could literally fit in a small pamphlet, but the numbers of experiments that have been run to see whether a certain blade would cut or mangle a Pentium, etc., run into the hundreds of thousands. The theory makes sense as far as it goes, but it is really a child’s understanding of the matter. Smaller diamond grit means less chipping. Bigger grit means faster processing and a lessened chance of blade breakage. Etc. I worked in the lab and ran these experiments. The generalizations were useful, invaluable even, but you still had to run an experiment for each device. Theory alone could never tell you which grit size to use–you had to try them. And, controvening theory, sometimes a bigger grit size _decreased_ chipping. One other thing I learned–this is a big but hard-to-gain insight–is that really small things aren’t mind-bogglingly small. You can only see objects with an optical microscope as small as 2 microns, and a sheet of paper is about 80 microns. Brain cells are big–on average 8 microns ([cite](http://www.seps.org/oracle/oracle.archive/Life_Science.Anatomy/2000.10/000969493594.29742.html)), and of the brain isn’t even nerve cells, which makes the reality of consciousness even more incredible. A few orders of magnitude and you are at the size of molecules. But I digress. The way skeptics talk about SCIENCE sometimes makes me wonder whether they know anything about it at all. In some disciplines theory is very important and advanced, but in many others the theory is quite thin, it tells a reaonable story, but there is a lot of brute-force, trial-and-error data that supports highly advanced technologies but not an understanding of the underlying phenomena. Indeed, skeptics quite a lot strike me as having a non-skeptical, highly dogmatic “folk understanding” of science, which hardly does their cause credit. For example, there is no Constitution of the Scientific Method writtern anywhere, and even this very post of mine implies a solid consensus on the Method that does not exist. It is a general set of principles held by a large number of people who may or may not agree as to either the details of the principles or their application in any given case. > [@](#): > > No - I was addressing behaviourism and Newtonian gravitation, which were radically impugned by _eg._ neonatal subitising ability, slow atomic clocks, bent starlight _etc._ OK, now address Freudian Psychology. It’s an interesting thing, is it not? How it infiltrated the pure Mind of Science. > [@](#): > > What? Matter [was](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_nucleosynthesis) there for those 14 billion years. And there were points in the Big Bang in which time and matter came into being. > [@](#): > > And the Big Bang is not a myth - yet again, the [evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB) falsifies the alternatives. I’m no Creationist, but the Big Bang most definitely qualifies as a myth. By “myth” I do not pejoratively mean “bullshit” but _facts_ that are synthesized and presented with an appreciable story-telling component and by means of imagery that is not necessarily congruent with, and in some cases actually contradicts, the facts themselves. For example, the Bohr model of the atom (perhaps out of date, but it will serve as an example) has round blue electrons rotating about an accretion of red protons and white neutrons. Although the colors are explicitly arbitrary and meant to appeal to our sense of sight (but this is still a mythic trait), the image of distinct subatomic particles is not supported by any facts. And so on. Skeptics like to deride the Judeo-Christian creation myth, yet there is much in the way of good facts conveyed by it. “Let There Be Light” is a pretty good summary of the “Big Bang,” and it is definitely true that light (starts) came before animals. A more incorrect myth would have animals floating in the void before planets arrived, or have planets arrive before the light. But the biggest reason that the Big Bang is a myth is that we simply cannot be certain about its truth in the same way that we are certain about a golf ball rolling in the grass. We can’t observe it. We can’t record the event. We can only string the facts together and apply our imagination so as to understand it. > [@](#): > > Can you offer a test which could prove that hypothesis false? It sounds pseudoscientific to me. It’s not a hypothesis, but rather an observation. I can replicate a lead ball falling in a lab over and over, but I cannot easily (at all?) replicate the phenomenon of recurring dreams in a lab. The system of planets around the sun is very stable an observable. The system of ink molecules dispersing in water is very unstable and hard to observe. > [@](#): > > Dreams are not yet completely explained by cognitive science. Very[sup]N[/sup] powerful dreams aren’t either. But we don’t seek non-neuropsychological explanations for _normal_ dreams or, heck, [memories](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/528617.stm). Again, that’s just a long word for “the brain does it.” An organ that we barely understand. > [@](#): > > I disagree. Natch. But let’s dig deeper. My take on NDEs is _not_ that someone, when s/he nearly dies, is taken into a world of pure stability and total veridicity, as it were. Because NDEers are now in a construction that we would term “mental.” People communicate by telepathy. If you think if an object, it appears. And if that sounds like the dreamworld, then you’re right: it’s very much like it but with some important differences: 1. External intelligences you meet in dreams are self-created (usually but not always). Those you meet in the Afterlife are not self-created (usually not not always). And there can be matters of degree in this, too. That’s why I have no problem with certain levels of chaos in an NDE: some part of it is the NDEers projection and some part of it is not. My guess is that most of the projecting occurs pre-OBE and during the OBE portion (but before the tunnel). 2. The Afterlife world is far more stable than the dream world. You could pick up a book and read it, impossible in a dream. (This is a _very_ important test of whether NDEs and OBEs are more than dreams, because it is known fact that you cannot read extensively and stably in a dream or in hypnosis. If you ask a person under hypnosis to pick up a book and read, they will give it a shot but soon give up [maybe some will wing it but not convince the audience]). 3. Time does not work as it does in a dream. > [@](#): > > Yes, as Ramachandran says in _Phantoms in the Brain_ - they _really really think_ someone else is talking to them. Cross-purposes! I’m saying, yes, they really believe it, but nevertheless the sounds seem to be in their heads (i.e., not echoing down the hall, not four feet away, etc.) I recognize that there may be exceptions. > [@](#): > > No, I meant that _non-veridical_ NDE’s are not “paranormal” unless _all_ dreams or memories were “paranormal”. Of course, if you don’t think there is any such thing as the paranormal, then we either agree entirely or we’re on yet another semantic carousel. Right, there is no such thing. Because, according to your system of thought, all “paranormal” items belong to the Empty Set (or, stated correctly, they are voided and one is _referred_ to the Empty Set as to their status, as there can be ipso facto no “Set of Things That Don’t Exist”). Ergo “paranormal” is just connotation-dressing for voided items, a pejorative, as it were: “It doesn’t exist but sucks all the same.” Do you see the philisohical problems behind a voided category with characteristics? Non-existent and red; non-existent, pan-fried, and buttery; non-existent and characterized by “woo-woo-ness”–? Ultimately, as we New Agers keenly feel, the term “paranormal” serves as a highly illegal but beguilingly simple mental shortcut for those of the skeptical persuasion: If it seems like the kind of we don’t believe in, then it’s _a priori_ false. > [@](#): > > This is crucial. **WHY DON’T YOU THINK IT’S TRUE?** It _might_ be true that your pattern literally travelled to Alaska in your dream (just as it literally hovers near the ceiling in a veridical NDE), but for some reason you _assume_ that you didn’t. Why do you consider that _less likely_ than the proposition that it was _just_ a dream? It may be crucial, but, sadly, I don’t think I’m quite following the argument. Let me see. Someone says they go to Alaska on an OBE and says they saw me living there. But that runs counter to Reality. I would say that they had an experience that conveyed false information. I don’t know if it was half-OBE and half-dream. All OBE but nevertheless containing a false image. Or something else altogether. BTW, in my view “OBE” and “NDE” or even “hallucination” are not pointers at “things” in the same way that “dog” and “piano concerto” or “52” are. They are not things or completely defined entities but experiences, and using the same word for two different experiences doesn’t guarantee that we are are talking about the same thing. Maybe once we understand the experiences clearer and consciousness at a higher level we can be more clear and definite in our terminology. > [@](#): > > What?? Schizophrenics are literally _hearing fragments of other people’s utterances or thoughts_? I hear the sound of an oncoming train in the distance. The train is just an hallucination. 😉 What I said is a lot more complicated than the summary you provided here. [quote] You at least have a “basis of probabilities”, since you consider the identical twin case “extremely unlikely”. [quote] I don’t know if such a basis is equivalent to any kind of overarching philosophy. Even the most unreflective, unphilosophical people would, by their gut, say the twins thing is unlikely. > [@](#): > > Very well, shall we discuss the 19th Century proposition that biological science hadn’t explained the _life_ of living things, the _elan vital_, but only the _behaviour_ of living things? I don’t agree with vitalism, as we have discussed. > [@](#): > > Then how do you explain the _absence_ of the African, or the _difference_ in the bedsheets, or the _inconsistencies_ in supposedly veridical NDE testimonies when you really get down to them? I think you have it backwards. NDEs are termed “veridical” not because the person says what they saw was real, but because they provide information that they could not have obtained without being conscious and observant when their brains weren’t functioning. If they obtain such information–an impossibility under the atheist-materialist worldview–then it really doesn’t matter how much false information is mixed in with it. If there are 10 10-digit numbers on a paper in the operating room and the NDEer gets one of them completely right while providing sheer garbage for the rest, we know that his/her chances of guessing even the one number right are 1/1,000,000,000–or, in other words, pretty much impossible. That is why I say that if, in our experiment of looking at numbers, the NDEers get a preponderance of the numbers wrong it will be a “big minus,” and do not say that the concept of an Afterlife will be proven bogus. To wit: 1. If they get them all wrong it would indicate that, at best, there is very little connection between what is going on their mind’s eye and what is going on the operating room. The images they remember are probably almost completely arbitrary. If, however, they are all able to maintain the discipline of looking for the numbers while their brains are going through hell, that fact would still be of great scientific interest. 2. If they get, as per the example above, a small but very statistically significant number correct, that would still be bad news. It would prove beyond a doubt that some type of Psi is real, but I would still have to conclude that the “Afterlife” in such a case is a chaos of genuine information transmission and false images–hardly something to be desired and perhaps not even stable for the long term (i.e., it could even imply a dissolution of the pattern, however “spiritual” it may be). 3. If they get a statistically significant but goodly percent correct, say 30 - 50% or so, that would be pretty good news. We could imagine that some people are good at seeing such things clearly, others are not, and perhaps there is a mixture of true seeing and imagining. 4. If they get a preponderance of the numbers correct, that is victory. > [@](#): > > Or, like Pam Reynolds, they can’t even get the shape of the equipment right. The article talked about other’s opinions of that correctness/falsity, but did not provide examples that we could judge for ourselves. > [@](#): > > I **am** talking about them, as far as I’m concerned. I read about your experiences. They were cool. I agree with your conclusion that the the Love, etc., is in your mind. That no “God” is necessary. Because your mind is part of That Which Is. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/96 "2005-10-15T05:45:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I’m afraid that I don’t see it. “Production” implies a specific act that results in a specific result. The study found 18% of its respondents reporting an apparent phenomenon. If the study were repeated, would they find 18%? 28% 8% 98% None? If the next study focused on drowning victims instead of MI victims, would the numbers change? If a later study focused on patients with DNR orders that were ignored for a multitude of traumas or conditions, would the numbers change? Those sound like very interesting experiments. > [@](#): > > With no deliberate act intended to _produce_ a specific result, I do not see where we can make a claim that phenomenon has been “produced.” I don’t know why you are hung up on that word, but you were trying to use at a lever in an argument, so I object: You can’t “produce” it, therefore it’s not… I reject the reasoning there. You can’t “produce” a definite result in a psych experiment, but still they run them. You can “produce” definite result in a quantum mechanics experiment, but the results come as probabilities that are definitely worth something as information. > [@](#): > > The researchers did not induce myocardial infarction in the subjects, so I find it difficult to see how the word “produce” can be used in this context. The person controlling the condition of “production,” or lack thereof, is of little importance. We don’t “produce” volcanoes and earthquakes but we can still study them when Nature does “produce” them. > [@](#): > > I suppose we will just have to disagree. What is “producing” the disagreement? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/97 "2005-10-15T06:09:33Z")
> [@](#): > > The person controlling the condition of “production,” or lack thereof, is of little importance. We don’t “produce” volcanoes and earthquakes but we can still study them when Nature does “produce” them. I did not say that production was necessary for scientific study. However, you claimed that NDEs could be produced (implying a specific variety of scientific study such as that founds in labs). I deny that NDEs can (yet) be produced, so any examination of them is, at the moment, little more than interesting anecdote. If we could actually _produce_ NDEs, we could control when they would and would not appear. With that sort of control, we could actually be able to examine them. Without that level of control, they remain outside the boundaries of serious examination. We can interview people to our hearts’ content, but without the ability to control when they will or will not occur, we are at the mercy of people (with their own agendas) claiming or denying NDE events with no way to determine who has spoken truly and who has invented (or denied) “experiences” that only they could know. This puts any examiner at the disadvantage of never really knowing whether an interviewee is relating a true experience or simply having a good time spinning a tale (or who may be denying reality for fear of being labelled a kook). ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/98 "2005-10-15T12:20:14Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I presume nothing. It’s a simple observation. UFO’s, Bigfoot, Nessie, plus some more mainstream falsehoods; all symptoms of a common lack of ability or desire to recognize the disproven as such, for reasons not entirely clear. Despite the lack of easily-discernable motive for all such delusional thinking, that belief in the falsified is pervasive, and widely encouraged in one manner or another, is, as I said, little more than an observation. I doubt those were the delusions you had in mind since you specificaly said > [@](#): > > adverse influences of societally-reenforced mass delusions I doubt belief in Aliens, UFOs etc. have adverse influnces on society. I was commenting on a conversation about NDEs and thought you were too. Perhaps not. I agree with you that there are beliefs that there is plenty of evidence against and do have a negative influence on society. Pulling a couple of verses out if a 2000 year old book, calling it the will of God, and useing it to discriminate against a group of people comes to mind. IMHO there are beliefs that are still in question. No conclusive evidence either way. In that regard I think people should be able to choose what they tend to believe without being called delusional. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/99 "2005-10-15T13:05:14Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Surely. > > I used to believe in Christianity; I can’t buy into a myth that people insist be taken literally. But that doesn’t stop me from recognizing that the belief system is incredibly empowering and fulfills many of its promises. > > Christ tells you to love your enemies; have no fear because the Father is guarding you. If you follow these principles, you end up having fewer enemies and troubles, and less fear leads to greater boldness and purpose in life. > > In other words, Christians say that Christ will change you, and He will. That’s why the relgion has such staying power, that’s why it’s spreading like wildfire in around the world even as it dies off in poor jaded Europe (did you know that 1/5 of sub-Saharan Africans are now evangelical Christian?!). > > Skeptics like to sneer at ol’ Xianity: It’s a bullshit myth, man! It ain’t “true”; ergo, it can only do you harm. Of course, they’re partially right: There are plenty of bad memes (sexual repression, etc.) built into the faith, and dropping one’s fear of the Father (who seems both loving and sinister to me) can be empowering as well. But if one is in pursuit of Truth, one will recognize the truth in the divers religions out there. > > That’s an example of a thought-set that fulfills a good chunk of its promises. In contrast, let’s look at Marxism. However many good insights and observations Marx may have had, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (I don’t know if Marx said that, but it certainly was a big meme within Marism) is a belief in direct conflict with human nature; it ain’t never gonna work, and it will almost always cause a big mess. > > In the case of NDEs, we have people come out of the experience changed, empowered, and utterly confident that eternity awaits them after death. Skeptics say, “They ain’t no eternity, man–BOOLshit!” But the NDEers have _seen and experienced_ eternity, and now live without fear of the thing man is most afraid of but can do the very least about. If that isn’t empowerment, I don’t know what is. Many thanks. I think I understand. Having come through Christianity to a much more independent place I see your point. There are many paths and I try to repsect them. I know people from many faiths and some from none who are simply trying to figure things out in their own way. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only thing that matters about beliefs are the choices and actions that spring from them and how those choices affect “we the people” There seems to be a thing among Christians to overlook the flaws and spitefullness of anyone who professes to be Christian and to be a little more critical of anyone who is not a “believer” It’s disappointing. I suppose that’s a side effect of seeing it as “us” and “them” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710/100 "2005-10-15T13:38:30Z")
\*\* SentientMeat\*\* I followed the link and did some reading in the other thread that contained your testimony. Very interesting. My own journey has been along a variety of paths. As I left Christianity for a more independent approach I noticed among Christians the desire to keep the view of God as something out there apart from themselves. The Heavenly Father out there somewhere, with both heaven and father being apart from us. It’s through all the language they use and in the moments they become alarmed when someone uses language they’re not comfortable with. I use the term God in discussions pretty freely but it’s almost beginning to seem like a metaphor to me. A term that refers to the love and truth I haven’t gotten to yet. In the spiritual experiences I’ve had it hasn’t felt like some outside force has entered me but rather I have accessed something that was always and is always there for me. A realization of potential and possibilities, so why wouldn’t we want to live there more and more rather than the occasional uplifting visit. It’s a feeling that’s it’s really up to me, and us, not some external being. So…thanks for shareing. I appreciated it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grand-unified-theory-of-the-paranormal/325710.md?page=6)