Thank you
A number of non-supernatural, non-intelligent-alien, non-extradimensional hypotheses have been presented to you, repeatedly, in this thread, including:
- The human brain’s tendency to interpret unexpected sensory inputs into recognizable and familiar shapes and sounds
- The desire among many humans to believe that there is a higher supernatural explanation for mundane things in the world, despite those beliefs not standing up to scientific rigor
If you deeply want to believe that these things have a supernatural origin – and you clearly do, given your posts in this thread, and your repeated efforts to reframe the discussion, when presented with proof of mundane explanations for things – then go you.
But, insisting to the others in this thread that we (and scientists, in general) are just too closed-minded, uninterested in wonder and imagination, and need to open up our minds to what is, in essence, thinking and belief without proof, isn’t going to get you anywhere.
I see the pattern just fine. False positives occur under conditions where we expect to see false positives. As equipment gets better, and these conditions change, the false positives change also.
Seems a lot more likely than spooky things choosing to be seen in just these places.
If you hear “The supernatural is allergic to science” and your first instinct is to blame science, then you add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
I’m not sure if we’ve addressed this in one of the many math threads, but could one simply postulate that there’s some mathematical entity (you couldn’t really call it a number) defined as zero times entity equals 1? Would that produce any meaningful or logically consistent results?
On the other hand, don’t we have a few counter-examples of things that were dismissed as being mere psychology that did eventually turn out to be objectively true? A mild example would be ulcers supposedly being caused by stress turning out to actually be a bacterial infection. Or more infamously, “hysterical” women’s “fantasies” of rape and abuse by their father figures. In other words, should invoking delusion as an explanation be taken with caution?
Yes, to the point that there is a spin-off thread to this one, which discusses that, and in which the ulcer thing is mentioned repeatedly.
Those aren’t part of “the Phenomenon”, so they aren’t part of the pattern under discussion.
Also, that was men whose rape fantasies were real (if you are referring to Freud).
News to me.
“Hysterical women” wasn’t about rape fantasies, it was a bogus condition from the Victorian age to justify women feeling sexual.
Freud’s concept that was recently exposed was the Oedipal Complex, which is specifically about young men’s supposed desires to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers. That’s the one now shown to be Freud covering men who raped their sons.
None of which have anything to do with fuzzy sensor signals and potential aliens or extradimensional beings or whatever.
Carl Jung talked about the Electra complex and daughters