Psychic Feelings

[vernonk]

Do you believe that - maybe even have examples of - some people can somehow sense what you're thinking or feeling even if they're a long distance away and haven't seen in you in a long while?

[chrisgel]

Isn't it a recognised phenomena that humans seek for patterns in all things?
It's called Pareidolia

[Tone]

How you think about psychic experiences probably depends on whether or not you have ever had one. My own experiences were very powerful involving physical effects to my body and constitution even though I was 150+ miles away from the events. The onset of both was sudden with no warning.

The first time involving my father's death, I recovered in a day or so but the second occasion caused me to go to the doctor (directed there by my wife and daughter) and I was immediately booked-up for every hospital test you could imagine, including ECG ,MRI scan and many others, involving all sorts of interesting equipment, that I can't remember. Before I could have the tests my friend (an ex-work colleague) died and my symptoms ceased. I went ahead with the tests, however, and all of them showed that I was perfectly normal.

What can I say about these phenomena? I have no "scientific" explanation but I know, only too well, that they occurred.

[daisya]

""Again, I reiterate that the evidence is purely anecdotal, and as we have seen time and again, many of these weird stories turn out to be hoaxes or fabrications or more usually just people misinterpreting what they see or hear. The human capacity to find patterns where there are none, for example. ""

Jim..."many"....not all then? What are the rest that are left that aren't in your opinion hoaxes or fabrications? As I'very said before on here, those who have experienced them know they are real to them and those who haven't won't accept it. However...some have an open mind to question things and not categorically state such things cannot nor will not exist because they haven't been scientifically proved.

I am not bothered either way because I know what happens to me and I don't have to prove it. Btw I don't think anyone came up with an explanation of my wedding ring story some way back on this thread...any ideas why it happened anyone? It wasn't a hoax nor imagined or fabricated that's for sure and I have never come up with a rational explanation either...IF there is one of course.

[jim360]

I don't think the onus is on me to explain every single account of apparent psychic abilities. Granted, this is an extrapolation, but if many such accounts turn out to be, for one reason or another, not genuine cases of the paranormal then it's not too unreasonable, I don't think, to assume that the rest will be as well. It is an unprovable assumption, but not an unreasonable one, because it fits with what we have seen so far.

I have no idea how your wedding ring could have happened -- certainly not one I can prove -- but I don't need to provide an explanation really. My position on this is that such incidents might be expected to occur by pure coincidence. There are after all a lot of people around, and have been for a long time, and so even the most extraordinary coincidences could easily just occur at some time by chance.

It's difficult to see how it's possible to distinguish such stories from just the natural product of chance, coupled with the human tendency to misinterpret what they see, hear and feel. As far as I am concerned, until someone can demonstrate or prove otherwise, I don't need to worry about taking the time to explain every such story. I already have done, in a way -- although it's technically true that I haven't proven that my explanation is the correct one. It does seem more likely, all things considered.

[Khandro]

chrisgel; //Isn't it a recognised phenomena that humans seek for patterns in all things?
It's called Pareidolia//
No, not really, among those that do this it's often called 'Paranoia'.

[Tone]

Lots of comments about "how to explain" psychic phenomena. By that I take it to mean "explain scientifically". The problem is that science is only a "model" for reality (and hence explanations) but science evolves as more knowledge becomes available. Contrast Greek philosopher-scientists with 21st century theoretical physicists. Some things are yet to be discovered. If scientists (at any moment) can't explain something they say it is untrue/does not exist. It has always been like this.

A nice example to ponder on is (water) divining. I and many others have used divining rods to locate hidden water pipes/leaks and other buried items but scientists have no explanation and so deny the whole thing.

One day, many more things will be revealed - especially about the human brain, that is for sure. In the meantime, keep an open mind about everything.

[jim360]

The thing is, Tone, that I did have an open mind about these things. Then I examined the evidence for them, and concluded that based on that evidence there was nothing in it. This is how we should always work. Keep an open mind about anything, yes -- until you've examined the evidence for it, and then decide which way to go. After all -- do you keep an open mind about the possibility that water divining maybe nothing more than random chance -- as all experiments to test it have consistently shown since 1948?

[Epona]

I'm coming late into this debate but would like to make a point on water diving. My OH could not be less into 'Psychic Phenomena' yet can find a water pipe using divining rods or even two twigs and it works EVERY time. He often has to dig holes with heavy machinery for his job and they check for water pipes using this method. I would welcome a Scientific explanation but none is available as yet. 'As Yet' being the fundamental illustration, as so very well explained by (username) Tone. I have seen and felt things in the past that are unexplained, I just accept them for what they are, don't seek explanations, the world is full of enigmas we have yet to unlock.

[Khandro]

jim; If it (dowsing) works isn't that the 'proof'; because you do not have an explanation for a phenomena does not negate it's validity, and scientists don't always "examine the evidence, and then decide which way to go." 'The fact is that one cannot actually prove anything to be true, one consequence of karl Popper's work with 'falsifiability' is the understanding that you never really prove a theory to be 'true'. What scientists do is instead come up with implications of the theory, make hypotheses based on those implications, and then try to prove that specific hypothesis true or false through either experiment or careful observation. If the experiment or observation matches the prediction of the hypothesis, the scientist has gained support for the hypothesis (and therefore the underlying theory), but has not proven it. It's always possible that there's another explanation for the result.'

[naomi24]

Jim, //I did have an open mind about these things. Then I examined the evidence for them, and concluded that based on that evidence there was nothing in it.//

You couldn’t have examined the evidence - there is no evidence to examine – apart from the anecdotal – which, scientifically speaking is not considered to be evidence. However, if you look at it logically, even applying the much-lauded principle of Occam’s Razor (which personally I dislike intensely – but which science seems to put great store by), it stands to reason that not every one of the millions of people who experience these things is lying or deluded. Therefore, instead of debunking the subject for lack of hard evidence, I really wish science would have the sense, for once, to ask ‘What are we missing here?’

[jim360]

Khandro, I flatter myself but I understand how Science works, thanks.

There have been experiments conducted into dowsing, into ESP, into parapsychology of all sorts for a century or so. That is the evidence I am talking about. It's freely available; and it indicates that there is apparently nothing more than random chance going on. Scientists have looked at this, and found nothing. Nothing so far, you might say. But still nothing. Until something turns up in an experimental setting I'm happy with my position.

[naomi24]

//I'm happy with my position. //

No surprise there.

[jim360]

Well of course not, otherwise it wouldn't be my position. Just as you are happy with yours, no doubt.

[naomi24]

Yes, I am happy with my position - but mine encompasses rather more curiosity than yours - and where would science have been now without curiosity?

[jim360]

Who's to say I wasn't curious about this in the past? You're seeing only the end point of my thoughts on this. I've read around it, although granted not as deeply as you might think better, and thought about it, and tried to take some of your ideas seriously, and addressed them, and read into studies and experiments on this, and so on...

If we have to disagree about this, at least let us respect that we both arrived at our positions after some careful thought. I'm not going to pretend that I've shown you full respect but at times you did talk down to me or was patronising -- and I'm getting bored of being accused of having a "closed mind".

Anyway, have a good night.

[naomi24]

Jim, I don't think I've said you have a 'closed mind'. You're putting words into my mouth - again.

[jim360]

Others have done -- I don't think you have specifically. Sorry for any ambiguity.

[society]

Jim360, if you think Naomi is seeing the end point of your thoughts, then I think you are showing signs of you beginning to believe Naomi is psychic. :)

[naomi24]

Jim, Thank you, but you do seem to be rather prone, on a regular basis, to reading stuff that isn't there. Spooky!

Society, ;o)

[jim360]

I knew you were going to say that. :)

Good night for real this time.