In order for it to have meaning from a scientific standpoint it has to contain some kind of defined explanatory power for what’s going on – that it is, it has to explain mechanistically what is going on. Calling it “telepathy” is just giving the phenomenon a label. It doesn’t explain it (not that any such phenomenon has ever actually been scientifically documented).
Mine is not spooky or supernatural; it simply doesn’t make sense.
For a few years, I had a 1956 Buick Special. It was only six years younger than I was. I drove it to work most days. When I drove only about 8 or 10 minutes, from cold to shutting it off to go into a store, it wouldn’t start again. Hours later, it started fine. Greybearded mechanics told me it was vapor lock*. An old-car hobbyist told me to fasten wooden clothespins (the springy kind) on the metal fuel line between the fuel pump and the carb. I did that, and I never again had vapor lock. Now, they were wooden, so they were insulators, not heat absorbers. I’m not a fizzy cyst, but I can’t come up with any reason why this should have worked.
I posted it on this board before. Somebody theorized they acted as heat sinks, but how can a wooden insulator act as a heat sink?
*For those who don’t remember carburetors and vapor lock, it’s a phenomenon where the fuel boils in the line and/or carb from engine heat when the engine is shut off, and there’s no fresh, cool fuel flowing through to prevent boiling.
I see more clearly what you mean now, thanks.
-Kris
If “insulator” means basically “poor conductor of heat” (does it?) then the pins could act as heat sinks if things get hot enough.
If that doesn’t work as an explanation, my next theory would be that somehow the pressure from the clothespins changed something about the way the fuel flowed in the hose, making it less able to boil where it had been boiling, or something.
-FrL-
But this only means that science cannot comment on the idea of the supernatural. It comments on things that follow patterns and are repeatable. It has no framework for things that do not.
The way the above comment is phrased reveals a naturalistic view that many scientists have, which I think is flawed. The fact that something might fall outside the purvue of science does not mean it automatically doesn’t exist.
What things do not?
If it falls outside the purview of science then it can’t be obseverd or known about anyway so it might as well not exist.
This also misses the point that there has never been a single demonstrated phenomenon of any sort which cannot be explained in “naturalistic” terms. And it’s ridicuolus to say there’s anything “flawed” about assuming that natural explanations are preferable to magical ones or assuming that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise.
I saw a bright light that was moving slowly… Extremely slowly… Then dramatically shot upwards (or toward me, from my vantage point it would be impossible for me to know). It faded out as it went upwards. I can only imagine the speed it was going, imagine a shooting star going in super slow motion (up… btw)… Then it shoots away 10X faster than any shooting star you’ve ever seen.
I don’t know if it could be explained by science… But I remember it vividly and don’t think that it was like anything from this planet.
What you’re saying here makes me think you think it’s conceptually impossible for an event to be unrepeatable. Is that right?
Take the following sentences “There exists a basketball which replaced a certain volume of air in my office five minutes ago, and was itself replaced by a volume of air one minute after its appearance. This has never happened before, and there is no means by which a similar event can ever be brought about under any circumstances ever again.”
The sentences are false. But do I understand correctly that you think, further, that the sentences taken together somehow are actually contradictory?
I believe the sentences taken together give us no material with which we might determine a way to interact with the world. Because of that, I think the assertion of these sentences is useless. But I don’t think the sentences are necessarily false. (I just think they’re actually false.) I think it is possible for the sentences to be true–they could have been true even though they are not. Do you think otherwise, though?
-FrL-
No, you misunderstand me. I’m not saying anything is conceptually impossible, I’m saying that so-called “paranormal” events are physically impossible, by definition (in that they necessarily violate physical laws) and that we have no documented example for any event ever having occurred for which no natural explanation is possible. Therefore there is no practical reason to hypothesize that natural law has been violated for a given event as long as natural explanations have not been exhausted and there has been no clear demonstration that any physical law has been violated.
From a scientific standpoint, it is not only perfectly fair and pragmatic but actually necessary to assume that natural law cannot be violated (i.e. “assume the impossible is impossible”) until proven otherwise. It’s really just an application of Occam’s Razor. If it isn’t necessary to hypothesize the supernatural, then it’s counterproductive to do so. That doesn’t mean that “magic” isn’t conceptually possible, it only means that you have to eliminate natural explanations first and you can provisionally assume that non-natural explanations are at least unlikely enough so as to be practically regarded as impossible.
It’s true that a “paramormal” event could conceptually occur, not be repeatable and still be real, but until such an event can be scientifically proven to have occurred, the default assumption is that all such claims or experiences have natural explanations (especially since so many similar events have had demonstrably natural explanations). You don’t have to successfully debunk every stage magician in the world to be safe in assuming that the one you’re watching now is not really doing magic.
God, for one.
That’s not what was said. It was pointed out that science deals with repeatable and quantifiable things. That doesn’t mean they can’t be observed or known about. Personal experience and all spirituality are not scientific, by definition. Science simply has no direct comment on these things. It doesn’t say they’re not true.
I would not admit that’s true.
I didn’t say anything about preferring one explanation over another. I also don’t just take your word for what’s impossible entirely just because you say it.
What this boils down to is the old argument about whether spirituality is really even possible, and I’m not going through that again. I’ve been through it with too many people, too many people here, and IIRC, with you. You can’t demand that the inherently unscientific thing prove its existence by being repeatable and quantifiable. I know that many people have been raised so that if something isn’t available to science it must not exist, but that’s called materialism (the only real things in the world are material). I understand the idea, but I don’t agree. I also understand that a lot of people believe a lot of weird things, but I get annoyed when the entire idea of religion is put into that category. I’ve seen people on this board call anyone who believes in God “psychotic”.
I’m really not getting dragged into all this again further. Personal experience isn’t the kind of thing I can make logical arguements for, and saying that it can’t be repeated for you to observe isn’t any kind of proof that it didn’t happen.
The fact that something is physically impossible is sufficient reason to assume that it didn’t happen. That is the only rational, default assumption for any such claim unless and until proven otherwise.
What about, say, gravity? We can certainly observe it and discuss it scientifically even if we don’t understand how it works. And it wasn’t meaningless to discuss gravity back before Newton’s laws made it a lot more predictable.
And MaxTheVool turns on the Stars Spangled Banner with the waving flag closeup.
I don’t believe it’s paranormal or anything, but this facet of human perception is definitely odd and currently unexplained and unexplored: People can often feel when someone is watching them.
I’ve experienced it and observed it in other people too. I’ve very rarely had a false alarm when I’ve had that weird tingling sensation. I can remember only a couple of times when I didn’t catch someone watching me on those occasions.
When I noticed this, I played with it for a while. It doesn’t happen all the time, but, more often than you’d expect, if you stare at someone in a crowd they’ll turn and look at you. Obviously, it happens more if you’re someone in their field of vision, even if you’re above the normal line of sight, though normally people rarely look up. When I was at university I once stood on a raised bridge for about five minutes. No one looked up when I just scanned the crowd casually, but more than half of the people I looked at specifically, who I followed with my eyes, did eventually look up and make eye contact with me.
That’s easily explained by peripheral vision and unconscious awareness of your surroundings, but it also happens when they can’t see you, like when you’re behind them and there aren’t even reflective surfaces to give you away. Casually following behind someone doesn’t trigger it, usually, but looking at someone while following will.
BTW, I stopped experimenting when I realized that I probably looked like a stalker to anyone who was observing me. I’m glad this was before the current social weirdness about stranger danger started to really get up to speed.
I’d love to see someone do some studies of some sort to see what it is that the person is picking up on. I really doubt it’s any kind of telepathy or Spider Sense, but it is very weird. I don’t think it can be satisfactorily explained away as observer bias.
Something common to many martial arts is supposed to be a heightened awareness of this . . . feeling, perception, whatever. In my first dojo, you didn’t pass your go-dan (fifth degree black belt) unless you could tap into it well enough to get out of the way of imminent danger. I’ve seen a few tests performed and it is damn eerie to watch. I have not taken the test myself.
The test is performed only by the big guy, head of the whole organization, since passing it is the equivalent of demonstrating fitness to instruct. The student sits in seiza on the mat in front of him with his eyes closed. Sensei stands behind him (or in rare cases, her) with a wooden training sword raised above his head in jôdan, a ready position, also with his eyes closed. He doesn’t move at all until at some point he brings the sword straight down at the student’s head. Judging from what I saw, he’s not quite going full speed and full force, and he’ll try to pull the blow if the student doesn’t move, but you’d still get a nasty thunk in the noggin or shoulder if he hit you.
Given the short distance involved, the only way to successfully get out of the way is to move virtually simultaneously with his strike. Your reaction time is not enough to respond; you have to anticipate it. The first time I witnessed this test being performed, I saw three tests: two successful, one not. In both the successful tests, they were jumpy for the first few seconds, managed to calm down and stop flinching, and then sometime after that—boom—if you blinked, you missed it. The guy who didn’t pass never stopped flinching. He wasn’t quite ready for it, I think.
One guy passed very cleanly, leaning off to one side to let the strike at his head slide by and rolling out of the way, the other didn’t move quite far enough and the blade clipped his gi sleeve. He still passed, because he did feel it and anticipate the strike, and he didn’t actually get hit. The guy who didn’t pass only moved his head because he didn’t move until he actually heard the strike coming. He had a nice bruise on his shoulder from it. The second test I attended, both passed well.
Supposedly, what’s happening is that Sensei is projecting the intent to kill the student, while not actually taking action that would necessarily end in his death. He definitely gets a very disturbing expression on his face in that split second before he strikes. The student’s role is to feel that and move before the blow would land. All of those who passed described their experience in similar ways, “I felt like I needed to move, right now.” They might have questioned themselves when they were squirming around earlier, but there was no doubt when the actual moment came. One said that he felt like he was going to throw up in the instant before he moved. Another said that he felt prickly all over, like he had a sudden chill. One said he had no idea what happened, either couldn’t recall or didn’t want to talk about it. The final guy said, “I don’t know what I felt, but it was not pleasant. At all.”
I can’t really explain it, but I don’t think it’s unexplainable. My wild assed guess is that the martial arts training and its ways of thinking about things, along with the circumstances of the test, combine to heighten perceptions, making subliminal stimuli available to a higher level of consciousness than normal. Something you wouldn’t normally be able to hear or feel might alert you that he is going to move, even though he doesn’t telegraph his movements in any overt way and in fact has years of training in learning not to telegraph. That probably gives you just enough time to move and if you were really in tune with what was going on, you’d know when he was really going to do it and when he’s just standing there contemplating it.
In all, I’d say it’s less mysterious than being able to pick up on when you’re being followed in a crowd, even if it is a more dramatic demonstration of a similar thing.
It has been explored. Studies have shown there is no such phenomenon (that can be repeated and studied, if we want to be cute about it…)
As to the rest of your post, what you describe doesn’t sound like someone knowing when someone is looking at them or thinking about them or rather, but instead, it sounds like a combination of a skill at anticipating people’s timing combined with maybe picking up on sounds (or maybe even floor movements) that indicate preparation for a strike.
Just saying is all…
-FrL-
I was specifically talking in terms of explanations for observed phenomena (e.g. whether “telepathy” would be an explanation for one person seeming to know what another was thinking). I guess I wasn’t too clear. What I meant was that terms like “psychic” or “paranormal” do not have any scientifically significant meaning in terms of trying to explain observed events.
Politely, I must say I fail to see the difference. In the olden days, what we do today in chemistry might have been lumped in as alchemy or witchcraft. So what? Heck, organic chemistry breaks all the rules, right? For example, I once found an organic chemistry book entitled “non-stoichoimetric chemistry” which should defy conservation of mass, by definition. But, until we learn organic chemistry, we cannot understand what this means and how to apply it.
Some things we call paranormal might be explained one day, but for now we NEED a word to classify such events. So, if you did experience such an event, what would you say? “Oh, I experienced something science has yet to explain?” And, likewise, 4 is just one name of infinite combinations that sum up to that value. We agree to call it 4.
So, paranormal experiences simply parallel the normal, everyday, explained world - by definition. What would you choose to do if you did experience it? Ignore it and wait around until science can classify it and try to explain it?
In short, I fail to understand the difference between your position and using the term “paranormal”. IMHO, Jinx
I have experienced events that cannot be explained. What is more puzzling is how people can accept the THEORY of quantum physics where particles sometimes have mass and other times do not (IIRC); yet, they are not open-minded enough to accept that events happen that cannot be explained. We have yet to concretely prove or disprove either one.
If you’ve got a reference, I’d be interested in reading those studies.
I enjoyed reading this post. But this last line led my brain in a different direction entirely.
Here is something unexplained by science that every man experiences daily.
post-micturition convulsion syndrome
unexplainable?