The word paranormal is useful (unlike 'supernatural') because it covers a range of subjects (such as telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, ghosts) that are commonly studied together.
Most cases of paranormal events are shown to be xenonormal when investigated. The remaining cases remain unexplained, though it is entirely possible that they would turn out to be xenonormal if all the facts were known. Xeno- means foreign, as in unfamiliar. Most paranormal cases turn out to be someone witnessing something they don't recognise.
There is also the small possibility that something like telepathy might actually work. If that can be demonstrated then, obviously, it would become part of mainstream science and would have to be explained.
In the meantime, the word paranormal remains useful for those things that apparently beyond current science.
Gee I would have thought personal experience would be a surefire way to "conversion". If a ghost appeared in front of you - you'd be inclined to believe it....not run off to the Psychiatrist complaining of having hallucinations.Originally Posted by Mulder
Your whole premise is that it is impossible for true skeptics to change their thinking about the paranormal/supernatural. In other words, skeptics, to be true skeptics, must remain closed minded - no matter what happens.
Don't tase me, Bro!
Hello again SIP.
Hallucinations are an understood phenomenon. Ghosts are unproven.
Why choose the unlikely option?
Strawman argument, that's not what Mulder is saying at all.Your whole premise is that it is impossible for true skeptics to change their thinking about the paranormal/supernatural. In other words, skeptics, to be true skeptics, must remain closed minded - no matter what happens.
You have not changed one bit.
Worst signature ever.
Oh! And I've missed you too Zero!Hello again SIP.
Hallucinations are an understood phenomenon. Ghosts are unproven.
Why choose the unlikely option?....
You have not changed one bit.
Regardless of whether ghosts are proven/unproven they are still a phenomenon that people experience...we just don't understand such phenomena yet. I have seen a ghost and fortunately I was with someone who saw it too. Such a case is difficult to blame on an individual's hallucinations.
Don't tase me, Bro!
No it is not.......how much do you know about the processes and mechanisms of hallucination and delusion? Could you explain which of these mechanisms you find insufficient?
Why is cheese?
Crikey.... I am talking about two people seeing the same ghost at the same time. Neither the mechanisms of hallucination or delusion apply because they are inadequate explanations in this case.
Don't tase me, Bro!
You were replying to an expert in such matters. So I shall defer to his words here. He asked you in what respect you find the mechanism insufficient, not to simply repeat your opinion that they were inadequte.
Can two people be affected by the same delusions? Yes they can. Is there such a things as a shared hallucination? Yes there is.
Perhaps you know a little something about these phenomena, enough about their general characteristics to know that they absolutely don't apply in this specific instance. However if all, you've got is that there were two of you then that shouldn't be good enough.
Perhaps it would help if you could tell us a little bit more about your experience.
Last edited by Matt; 26th March 2009 at 09:26 AM.
Yes that is correct - hallucination or delusion don't apply in this instance. My real point originally was that people experience the phenomenon of Ghosts and rather than saying Ghosts don't exist we should be saying we do not understand the phenomenon of Ghosts.
Don't tase me, Bro!
The problem is that, to most people, "ghosts" means the spirits of dead people. Just as "UFOs" has come to mean "alien space ships" in popular use. So when you talk about "ghosts" you need to qualify precisely what you mean.
Anthony G Williams
Home page
Would you be good enough to answer Matts question i.e. tell us more about your experience. As much detail as possible would be useful e.g. location, time, and the conditions. Also, it would be useful to have a little biographical detail about you and your fellow witness.
You must understand the basic principle that anecdotal evidence is extremely unreliable, hence why no one here is likely to take what you say at face value. This is not meant as a personal slight. It is simply that we have so much factual evidence of misapprehension, as well as tall tales, and none whatsoever to independently support the existence of an afterlife and 'ghosts'.
You will only get and deserve a circular argument, and probably much deserved ridicule if you simply rely on stating over and over again 'I have seen a ghost and therefore they exist.'
You cannae kid a kidder kiddo!
No - they are not - could you ask me why you think theories in this area (specific ones) dont work?
My hunch is you have no knowledge of this area - which would explain your premature rejection of it as an explanation.
Why is cheese?
Why is that, what are the characteristics of your experience that renders it impossible that it was either a delusion or hallucination?
We already know that there were two of you. We already know that it is typical for delusions to affect all people present and that in less common circumstances a multiple people may experience the same hallucination.
Ghost is the term used to describe an apparition of animated life though the matter it is composed of is not actually that of animated life.
Don't tase me, Bro!
And how do you know you saw one if those? Could you describe the incident please, it sounds interesting?
That definition assumes that the experience is external to yourself, an explanation for which you will not find much support on this forum.
There are cases in which external stimuli have prompted ghostly hallucinations, and these could affect everyone present.
Anthony G Williams
Home page
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks