Are there any paranormal phenomena AT ALL??

..And I'm not calling anyone a liar (though of course liars do exist, too, something worth keeping in mind). I've had "anecdotes" myself. But when I stand back from them, I realize that there are multiple ways in which I could, after all, still be mistaken about the "extraordinariness" of them, and that gap, I suspect, may well be sufficient space for the socio-belief to take root and propagate.
 
If anyone really wants to know what is paranormal, they can search for it in a variety of ways - things like meditation and lucid dreaming offer a chance to perform Psi, as do a variety of practices like ayahuasca church ceremonies.

Since everyone has a brain they can try to obtain veridical information via lucid dreams, or try to contact other people via dream-sharing. They can also use meditation to bolster their potentially latent abilities. Neither of these demand anything but mental discipline, and once achieved I don't see how either can be an undue burden on the seeker.

Seems to me that the paranormal will, for a long time to come, be a liminal phenomenon that only offers hints of itself in a very Trickster like fashion. Those for whom it has spiritual significance and see it as an instance of God's "small voice that sounds from afar", as Jung put it, will make the effort.

Those for whom the paranormal is more curiosity - a category I often find myself in - will not.
 
Chuck, I'm sorry, but I must stick by my position here. My position is that anecdote should rightly be considered prima facie evidence only. That is "evidence in waiting" for other forms of corroboration. If they are in fact never corroborated (and this appears to be the case) then the likelihood greatly increases, imo, that we are dealing with a socio-belief sort of event bed. That in itself is fascinating, but perhaps the real phenomena is our determination to believe in the paranormal rather than its actual existence. Unpopular, I know, but, there's just something wrong here. And it's not just a curiosity in the details.

Fair enough. Was really just wanting you to refine your thought a little. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
 
Threads like this are why I avoid this section of the board. They are narcissistic in nature and show not the slightest attempt at familiarising themselves with the evidence. That such attitudes are spreading back into the main part of the forum is most unfortunate. I would like to see moderators challenging such 'prove to me' type threads from the outset to save everyone a lot a wasted time and effort. Questions should be phrased in such a way as to make them answerable, and participants should be penalised for obfuscation and similar mischief. Jack in a box threads that pose the same questions repeatedly lead nowhere and reflect badly on the forum. This thread in an exemplar of mindless pseudoskepticism.
 
Threads like this are why I avoid this section of the board. They are narcissistic in nature and show not the slightest attempt at familiarising themselves with the evidence. That such attitudes are spreading back into the main part of the forum is most unfortunate. I would like to see moderators challenging such 'prove to me' type threads from the outset to save everyone a lot a wasted time and effort. Questions should be phrased in such a way as to make them answerable, and participants should be penalised for obfuscation and similar mischief. Jack in a box threads that pose the same questions repeatedly lead nowhere and reflect badly on the forum. This thread in an exemplar of mindless pseudoskepticism.

I think we have to accept the fact that folks are wired differently.
 
Gabriel, if you have nothing to offer in threads except thinly disguised invective against the people who raise them, perhaps it is better just not to contribute in such threads? I could tease apart your mis-statements line by line should I choose to do so, but in this instance there seems little point in doing so as you yourself have made no effort to actually engage with the problem, preferring instead to wallow in borderline ad hominem nonsense. This tactic, that you might be used to have working on others, I don't know, won't work on me. Please either treat of substance or stay out of the thread.
 
I think Gabriel may be a little harsh but the mods should make sure that, if nothing else, these threads are confined to the CD forum.

For the record I think Kai is a genuine seeker who has grown frustrated, and bear him no ill will. But this kind of thread is so broad it doesn't offer any real discussion.
 
I think we have to accept the fact that folks are wired differently.
It's more than that, Chuck. The original question is the worst kind of well poisoning, low hanging fruit plucking, denialist codswallop. Even indulging the questioner in his nonsense soils serious psi research. It's a playground game masquerading as intellectual inquiry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Sciborg, let's tackle that head on, if you don't mind. How would you like the thread 'narrowed' so that it offers 'real discussion'? And also, in what way are the issues I am raising not real issues for discussion? Thanks.
 
Spiritualism.
Psychic Kids
Remote Viewing
Out of Body Experiences
UFOs
Bermuda Triangle
spoonbending
alien abductions
Crop Circles

From the top : evidence for ?
1. Yes plenty
2. Yes some
3. Yes plenty
4. Piles of evidence
5. I don't know
6. I think not
7. Yes
8. No comment
9. Crop circles cant be explained by men tramping boards through the fields but are they caused by Aliens . No not for me
 
I think we have to accept the fact that folks are wired differently.
I think that's true up to a point, for example some people are naturally athletic, others may be naturally talented musicians and so on. But we also have certain fundamentals in common. I'd suggest the important issue is making the choice to investigate these topics for oneself, rather than laying the burden on someone else's doorstep.
 
What about the fact that we don't just have one person relating this kind of anecdote? There are at least tens of thousands of such anecdotes recorded. Likely many times that were never recorded.
The problem with this is, the truth is not determined by the number of anecdotes,no matter how large the number.
 
I don't doubt that people are wired differently. But how they are wired should not impact upon whether these phenomena have objective existence. Again, phenomena that can never be busted out of subjective domains...anecdote collections or only in statistical bodies, suggest to me that they are themselves subjective in nature. Either that or their influence if they exist at all is so ultraweak that their existence seems practically meaningless for human beings anyway.
 
The problem with this is, the truth is not determined by the number of anecdotes,no matter how large the number.
You always bring in the anecdote card. Do you not realise when enough persuasive anecdotes have been collected then it becomes the observance of a pattern and then the studies begin. You have already lost, you sceptics... I am surprised you don't seem to realise that. The aware study for one is not going your way.
 
You always bring in the anecdote card. Do you not realise when enough persuasive anecdotes have been collected then it becomes the observance of a pattern and then the studies begin. You have already lost, you sceptics... I am surprised you don't seem to realise that. The aware study for one is not going your way.
Indeed. Equating crop circles and bigfoot with NDEs and presentiment research is intentional mischief making, or trolling.
 
Sciborg, let's tackle that head on, if you don't mind. How would you like the thread 'narrowed' so that it offers 'real discussion'? And also, in what way are the issues I am raising not real issues for discussion? Thanks.

Okay - I was surprised the OP asserts things like "Why is no one using PK to crush blood vessels?". Last I checked Radin was measuring the movement of photons. Similarly, Krippner's dream telepathy experiments did not involve people pulling off Charles Xavier type tricks.

Really though you should pick a particular topic and discuss why you find the research to be wanting. If you just tell us all the research is bad we don't know what you've read.

More and more I don't think the paranormal is meant to be repeatable in a way that would lend itself to materialist pursuits like assassination or espionage. I think there's a reason the paranormal is associated with the Trickster.

If I were the Trickster - who is ultimately a teacher and protector for humanity - I wouldn't allow such abuse. Thus if the pararnomal exists -and I'm more than willing to say that's a BIG if - I believe it is a call for those who are willing to seek the Mystery for spiritual rather than material purposes.

Jung would say:

"This path to the primordial religious experience is the right one, but how many can recognize it? It is like a still small voice, and it sounds from afar. It is ambiguous, questionable, dark, presaging danger and hazardous adventure; a razor-edged path, to be trodden for God’s sake only, without assurance and without sanction."

Now I think the path may ultimately be a razor-edged path, but IMO one can begin within some safe boundaries like meditation and lucid dreaming. While I've yet to try any psychedelics, my understanding is good ayahuasca churches should have professionals on hand.
 
I don't doubt that people are wired differently. But how they are wired should not impact upon whether these phenomena have objective existence. Again, phenomena that can never be busted out of subjective domains...anecdote collections or only in statistical bodies, suggest to me that they are themselves subjective in nature. Either that or their influence if they exist at all is so ultraweak that their existence seems practically meaningless for human beings anyway.
And what of the insanely successful replications of Bem's presentment studies?

What of the still stable and successful Ganzfeld studies?

What of all the other successful parapsychology work?

Would you care to explain how any of that is invalid?
 
It's more than that, Chuck. The original question is the worst kind of well poisoning, low hanging fruit plucking, denialist codswallop. Even indulging the questioner in his nonsense soils serious psi research. It's a playground game masquerading as intellectual inquiry.

That's why I wanted Kai to respond directly to Max's anecdote. I'm glad he did. To me it shows that some people just think differently than I do. I think it is curious that they chose to spend their time on a forum dedicated to discussing psi, but we've been down that road a thousand times.

I personally don't know what to do with Max's anecdote and the multitudes just like it. I accept them as part of the larger mystery of existence. I personally don't feel that any of the current ideas, theories and myths surrounding psi are really getting close to the source of the mystery. Right now I just accept the fact that for me a mystery exists.
 
Indeed. Equating crop circles and bigfoot with NDEs and presentiment research is intentional mischief making, or trolling.

I think that shows a lack of understanding about both the crop circle and bigfoot phenomena, which are both sufficiently intriguing when looked at in depth.
 
To be taken seriously, a skeptic on this board should be familiar with the latest research, and willing to argue a case on evidence. Spouting crap like 'the plural of anecdote is not evidence' is only evidence of ideological bias. Kai has form for this kind of denialist thread starting. Moderators should pick him up on it and ensure it isn't mistaken for meaningful debate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top