ChatterBank3 mins ago
Can the dead talk to us?
157 Answers
Something a bit different to talk about. Last night's offering from 4thought TV.
The presenter mentions controlled experiments that suggest it is a reality – personally I don’t know of any experiments that are verified - but he also says he seems to have a faculty of mind that takes his awareness beyond his physical five senses to become aware of things that others simply cannot be aware of. Is that possible?
http://
The presenter mentions controlled experiments that suggest it is a reality – personally I don’t know of any experiments that are verified - but he also says he seems to have a faculty of mind that takes his awareness beyond his physical five senses to become aware of things that others simply cannot be aware of. Is that possible?
http://
Answers
I can recall, vividly, being aware of things that others missed Naomi.
Mind you it was the seventies, my experimental period.
Mind you it was the seventies, my experimental period.
07:59 Tue 30th Oct 2012
ummm #My mum went to see her and she said 'I'm not a twin anymore' before anything was said to her.#
That's interesting did she pick it up from her twin or did she get it from your mum's thoughts. Either way it's telepathic but it doesn't define the source. As a twin I would "guess" it was from the twin as that is normally the strongest source.
That's interesting did she pick it up from her twin or did she get it from your mum's thoughts. Either way it's telepathic but it doesn't define the source. As a twin I would "guess" it was from the twin as that is normally the strongest source.
Khandro, no, she isn't a Manchester United supporter - and I'm pleased you're enjoyng this. You're so much more pleasant when you're polite.
Whether or not your definition of Christian teaching agrees with hers is irrelevant - her church is officially recognised. My definition disagrees with most of them - but that doesn't stop them calling themselves Christians. I'm still waiting for someone to come back on another thread to tell me why he thinks Jesus was created before the other sons of God. He claims to be a good Christian, but the Anglicans don't believe that, neither do the Catholics, so where do we draw the line?
Whether or not your definition of Christian teaching agrees with hers is irrelevant - her church is officially recognised. My definition disagrees with most of them - but that doesn't stop them calling themselves Christians. I'm still waiting for someone to come back on another thread to tell me why he thinks Jesus was created before the other sons of God. He claims to be a good Christian, but the Anglicans don't believe that, neither do the Catholics, so where do we draw the line?
Lazygun You are right that telepathic tests always fail because I don't believe it works that way . So how can you devise a test ?
May I give an example : My mother was cooking the dinner at 6pm to be ready for 7pm when my father came home. Suddenly she stopped turned everything off and said " There has been an accident on the main road by the Royal Oak pub Dad will be late but he's not hurt but is helping. He will be late . " About an hour later my mother relit the gas and said " Dad wont be long now." Sure enough half an hour later he came home and started to explain but I said " It's all right Dad she knows ."
When he did explain he said it was a coach crash and he had been helping the injured and it was where she had said and at that time.
I can't explain it and you couldn't devise a test.
May I give an example : My mother was cooking the dinner at 6pm to be ready for 7pm when my father came home. Suddenly she stopped turned everything off and said " There has been an accident on the main road by the Royal Oak pub Dad will be late but he's not hurt but is helping. He will be late . " About an hour later my mother relit the gas and said " Dad wont be long now." Sure enough half an hour later he came home and started to explain but I said " It's all right Dad she knows ."
When he did explain he said it was a coach crash and he had been helping the injured and it was where she had said and at that time.
I can't explain it and you couldn't devise a test.
Lazygun #Given this lack of evidence, given the lack of a plausible mechanism, I cannot quite understand why people continue to exhibit faith that such powers exist. #
I think you know the answer : Thousands of people have had personal experiences . To them that is fact . It is as real as radio or television, so they don't need tests. It is not supernatural in a religious sense . It is just another sense that some organisms possess.
Unfortunately thousands of others with and without the ability use it to con the gullible.
I think you know the answer : Thousands of people have had personal experiences . To them that is fact . It is as real as radio or television, so they don't need tests. It is not supernatural in a religious sense . It is just another sense that some organisms possess.
Unfortunately thousands of others with and without the ability use it to con the gullible.
Echoing Rupert Sheldrake - mentioned by LG -, I don't think any further proof that communication can take place between sentient beings by other means than the known senses, than by observing the fabulous formation flying of a huge flock of starlings or the movements of large shoals of fish in the water.
Because we cannot explain it, doesn't prove the non-existence of observed phenomena. Though this has nothing to do we the 'talking dead' of course.
Because we cannot explain it, doesn't prove the non-existence of observed phenomena. Though this has nothing to do we the 'talking dead' of course.
//Because we cannot explain it, doesn't prove the non-existence of observed phenomena.//
Nor is lack of an explanation proof of the an arbitrary attribution given to an observed phenomena.
I have learned to neither be surprised nor taken in by those who offer as ‘fact’ that which is based solely on an unsubstantiated premise.
The need for an explanation is not justification for a conclusion. Until you know the means and understand the process you are not entitled to claim to have knowledge of and/or an explanation for the experience. Belief does not constitute knowledge which entails understanding, the basis upon which all knowledge is validated and any belief justified.
Perception is just that until such time as it is integrated into a cohesive non-contradictory whole by an entity with the means and capacity to engage in a process of reason, the application of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) to experience. The belief that one has no choice other than to believe what they do is confirmation of their refusal to reject an unsubstantiated bias.
Knowledge is king; and knowing what that is and how you know it is how one accedes to the throne and earns the privilege of wearing the crown. Dead people who possess neither the need for nor means of perception, thought or purposeful action need not apply for that which is reserved for those who still face the alternative of and hope of escaping, for one more day, the cold uncalculating clutches of death . . . the living.
Happy Halloween! :o)
Nor is lack of an explanation proof of the an arbitrary attribution given to an observed phenomena.
I have learned to neither be surprised nor taken in by those who offer as ‘fact’ that which is based solely on an unsubstantiated premise.
The need for an explanation is not justification for a conclusion. Until you know the means and understand the process you are not entitled to claim to have knowledge of and/or an explanation for the experience. Belief does not constitute knowledge which entails understanding, the basis upon which all knowledge is validated and any belief justified.
Perception is just that until such time as it is integrated into a cohesive non-contradictory whole by an entity with the means and capacity to engage in a process of reason, the application of logic (the art of non-contradictory identification) to experience. The belief that one has no choice other than to believe what they do is confirmation of their refusal to reject an unsubstantiated bias.
Knowledge is king; and knowing what that is and how you know it is how one accedes to the throne and earns the privilege of wearing the crown. Dead people who possess neither the need for nor means of perception, thought or purposeful action need not apply for that which is reserved for those who still face the alternative of and hope of escaping, for one more day, the cold uncalculating clutches of death . . . the living.
Happy Halloween! :o)
//The need for an explanation is not justification for a conclusion. //
I don’t see any conclusions here.
//Until you know the means and understand the process you are not entitled to claim to have knowledge of and/or an explanation for the experience. //
I don’t see any claims of knowledge or, indeed, any explanations here – but people are entitled to claim they have experience.
//Belief does not constitute knowledge which entails understanding, the basis upon which all knowledge is validated and any belief justified. //
Experience is not belief and neither is it knowledge. It’s simply experience.
Happy Halloween! :o)
I don’t see any conclusions here.
//Until you know the means and understand the process you are not entitled to claim to have knowledge of and/or an explanation for the experience. //
I don’t see any claims of knowledge or, indeed, any explanations here – but people are entitled to claim they have experience.
//Belief does not constitute knowledge which entails understanding, the basis upon which all knowledge is validated and any belief justified. //
Experience is not belief and neither is it knowledge. It’s simply experience.
Happy Halloween! :o)
@Modeller - thats a very accurate premonition that your mother appears to have had, and of course there would seem to be no way to explain that by conventional methods. Anecdote 1 - Systemic Evidence 0 :)
@Khandro - Not sure if you are suggesting that flocking/swarming/shoaling is an example of some kind of as yet unexplained paranormal phenomenon - but actually the mechanisms by which such animals that exhibit such behaviour is signalled and controlled are actually pretty well understood, and need no additional explanation. Perception, a highly developed nervous system and an innate sense of pack/flock/shoal density and the need to stay close to your surrounding compatriots are explanation enough.
You are right though that seeing such behaviour is one of natures marvels ;)
@Khandro - Not sure if you are suggesting that flocking/swarming/shoaling is an example of some kind of as yet unexplained paranormal phenomenon - but actually the mechanisms by which such animals that exhibit such behaviour is signalled and controlled are actually pretty well understood, and need no additional explanation. Perception, a highly developed nervous system and an innate sense of pack/flock/shoal density and the need to stay close to your surrounding compatriots are explanation enough.
You are right though that seeing such behaviour is one of natures marvels ;)
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
naomi24
Question Author
//The need for an explanation is not justification for a conclusion. //
I don’t see any conclusions here.
//Until you know the means and understand the process you are not entitled to claim to have knowledge of and/or an explanation for the experience. //
I don’t see any claims of knowledge or, indeed, any explanations here – but people are entitled to claim they have experience.
//Belief does not constitute knowledge which entails understanding, the basis upon which all knowledge is validated and any belief justified. //
Experience is not belief and neither is it knowledge. It’s simply experience.
Happy Halloween! :o)
17:48 Wed 31st Oct 2012
♪♫ Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush ♪♫ . . . ;o)
//I don’t see any conclusions here.//
. . . or there v v v either?
http://
When venturing into the 'Twilight Zone' leaving a trail of breadcrumbs back to the real world comes highly recommended.
//I don’t see any claims of knowledge or, indeed, any explanations here – but people are entitled to claim they have experience.//
The claim of dead people communicating intelligibly is certainly no 'explanation'.
Questioning claims about experiences can wait. What I'm questioning is how these unusual (to put it mildly) experiences are being interpreted as well as the (no less unusual) causes to which they are being attributed.
//Experience is not belief and neither is it knowledge. It’s simply experience.//
Precisely the point I thought I was making, Naomi . . . pardon my 'Greek' (and my 'English' too while you're at it). :o/
It is not my intention to enter into a mud slinging competition with others here nor would I care to be perceived as carrying around a glass slipper to see whose foot fits . . . but anyone interested is invited to try it on for size.
Erm, that wouldn't be pumpkin pie with fresh whipped topping you're aiming . . . would it?
Question Author
//The need for an explanation is not justification for a conclusion. //
I don’t see any conclusions here.
//Until you know the means and understand the process you are not entitled to claim to have knowledge of and/or an explanation for the experience. //
I don’t see any claims of knowledge or, indeed, any explanations here – but people are entitled to claim they have experience.
//Belief does not constitute knowledge which entails understanding, the basis upon which all knowledge is validated and any belief justified. //
Experience is not belief and neither is it knowledge. It’s simply experience.
Happy Halloween! :o)
17:48 Wed 31st Oct 2012
♪♫ Here we go 'round the Mulberry bush ♪♫ . . . ;o)
//I don’t see any conclusions here.//
. . . or there v v v either?
http://
When venturing into the 'Twilight Zone' leaving a trail of breadcrumbs back to the real world comes highly recommended.
//I don’t see any claims of knowledge or, indeed, any explanations here – but people are entitled to claim they have experience.//
The claim of dead people communicating intelligibly is certainly no 'explanation'.
Questioning claims about experiences can wait. What I'm questioning is how these unusual (to put it mildly) experiences are being interpreted as well as the (no less unusual) causes to which they are being attributed.
//Experience is not belief and neither is it knowledge. It’s simply experience.//
Precisely the point I thought I was making, Naomi . . . pardon my 'Greek' (and my 'English' too while you're at it). :o/
It is not my intention to enter into a mud slinging competition with others here nor would I care to be perceived as carrying around a glass slipper to see whose foot fits . . . but anyone interested is invited to try it on for size.
Erm, that wouldn't be pumpkin pie with fresh whipped topping you're aiming . . . would it?
Birdie, //You've said before that you don't believe in the supernatural but that you do believe in ghosts. Unfortunately, you can't square that circle.//
It’s not unfortunate at all. I’m not trying to square that circle. I don’t believe the supernatural exists. I’ve made that clear.
//According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'supernatural' is defined as “adj. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.”//
I don’t see your point. I do attribute these things to some force beyond scientific understanding.
//The fact is that the experiences you have had are currently beyond scientific understanding and operate outside the known laws of nature. //
Yes, you’re right. It is a fact – my experiences are currently beyond scientific understanding and do appear to operate outside the known laws of nature - that’s precisely what I’ve been saying. (Having said that, since I can’t prove it, I hesitated to use your poor choice of the word ‘fact’ there).
//It doesn't matter that you personally consider them to be from natural causes; what matters is the definition of the term. //
And I agree with the definition of the term.
//Just because you don't like the implications of a word does not mean that you can arbitrarily redefine it according to your own beliefs.//
I haven’t redefined it – but you have. You’ve given me the dictionary definition of the word, but you don’t accept that definition because you reject the possibility that things happen in this world that are currently beyond scientific understanding and operate outside the known laws of nature.
Birdie to Modeller, //Many studies have shown that human beings are highly susceptible to being mistaken, mislead and sometimes just plain liars. //
All of that is true, but my experiences were not delusional, I was not mistaken, and I am not a liar. Do you really think someone like me, who values truth, who rejects all forms of superstition, and who welcomes rational examination of all claims would expose themselves to criticism and ridicule for no good reason? Why would I?
//Just because someone claims to have had an 'experience' doesn't mean that the 'experience' they've had was manifestly real in the conventional sense. //
It doesn’t mean it wasn’t either.
It’s not unfortunate at all. I’m not trying to square that circle. I don’t believe the supernatural exists. I’ve made that clear.
//According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'supernatural' is defined as “adj. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.”//
I don’t see your point. I do attribute these things to some force beyond scientific understanding.
//The fact is that the experiences you have had are currently beyond scientific understanding and operate outside the known laws of nature. //
Yes, you’re right. It is a fact – my experiences are currently beyond scientific understanding and do appear to operate outside the known laws of nature - that’s precisely what I’ve been saying. (Having said that, since I can’t prove it, I hesitated to use your poor choice of the word ‘fact’ there).
//It doesn't matter that you personally consider them to be from natural causes; what matters is the definition of the term. //
And I agree with the definition of the term.
//Just because you don't like the implications of a word does not mean that you can arbitrarily redefine it according to your own beliefs.//
I haven’t redefined it – but you have. You’ve given me the dictionary definition of the word, but you don’t accept that definition because you reject the possibility that things happen in this world that are currently beyond scientific understanding and operate outside the known laws of nature.
Birdie to Modeller, //Many studies have shown that human beings are highly susceptible to being mistaken, mislead and sometimes just plain liars. //
All of that is true, but my experiences were not delusional, I was not mistaken, and I am not a liar. Do you really think someone like me, who values truth, who rejects all forms of superstition, and who welcomes rational examination of all claims would expose themselves to criticism and ridicule for no good reason? Why would I?
//Just because someone claims to have had an 'experience' doesn't mean that the 'experience' they've had was manifestly real in the conventional sense. //
It doesn’t mean it wasn’t either.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago