Your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think it could help but it gets so bogged down with the bucket of vacuous explanations that get thrown out as science. Like, spontaneous remission, coincidence, statistically bound to happen, hallucination, false accounts, false memory, confabulation.

That's because these explanations are known to occur (and many people are unaware of how often they do occur). That's why they're considered more likely than exotic explanations that are not known to occur.

Take memory, for example:
List of Memory Biases
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
False Autobiographical Memories
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor
How accurate are Memories of 9/11?

Science is just incapable of concluding a supernatural hypothesis.

And why do you think that is? could it be that there is no way to evaluate, test, or make fruitful predictions with it? i.e. that it's not a useful explanation. It's the same principle that Tim Minchin describes for alternative medicine in Storm:

"Alternative Medicine", I continue,
"Has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work.
Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work?
Medicine.​

If humanity were vigilant and free thinking this would be okay as people could weigh the supernatural against the natural but science has become dogmatic about it's uncertain conclusions and converted people into the church of metaphysical naturalism, which is the belief that only the natural world exists. Everyone seems to have forgotten that any natural explanation of science presupposes that only the natural world exists, and there is no logical reason to believe that presupposition.

As someone once said, "We should be open-minded but not so open-minded that our brains fall out". One can only measure and explain what can be measured and explained. Past experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena.

It's really a question of what makes a good explanation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The passage is an explanation of what happened, God opened the eyes of Elisha so that he could see angels. It's not a technical explanation, but it's far better than throwing 'hallucination' to every thing you don't believe. Especially since it carries your circular presupposition. If you said Elisha was on drugs that would be an explanation, an ad hoc one, but at least it would explain something.

You keep saying that God opening the eyes of Elisha is a 'better' explanation than Elisha having a brain glitch and seeing things that weren't there, but in what respect is it a better explanation?

People are known to have such brain glitches - why couldn't it happen to Elisha?

I believe people can see things that are not reality, all experience is partly that. That an experience does not match physical reality is only an indication that the experience is not physical not that it is not an experience of reality.

I don't have a problem with what you believe - that's entirely your own business.

But, as I asked in the previous post, can you explain why you seem to feel that hallucinations are not an explanation, but drugs or a stroke can be - you seem to treat them differently; do you not accept that people can see and hear things that are not externally (objectively) real? what is your reasoning on this?

 

[Bobber]

So if angels exist and have constraints then science can learn about them.

Perhaps...perhaps not. There probably is a myriad of ways that angels manifest themselves and do their work and angels can be doing things right in front of science but they wouldn't perceive it. There are different ways these messengers and helpers of God manifest. Here's one way that I never really hear people who discuss angelic visitations mention...or even consider...through a dream. When Joseph had doubts about what his involvement with Mary should be it says,

"...an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David..." Matt 1:20

And then the wise men were warned in a dream not to go back to Herod Matt 2:12

and then the very next verse an angel spoke to Joseph in a dream again and told him to flee to Egypt with Jesus and Mary Matt 2:13

Not sure how science could learn about angels in those ways for they were be manifested in a spiritual mental type of way and not physical . At times they do manifest in a physical type of way as seen many times in scripture perhaps in those ways you could but I hardly think they're going to stick around for scientists to do testings . (if that's what you mean by learn about them)

 

[Sanoy]

That's because these explanations are known to occur (and many people are unaware of how often they do occur). That's why they're considered more likely than exotic explanations that are not known to occur.

Take memory, for example:
List of Memory Biases
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
False Autobiographical Memories
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor
How accurate are Memories of 9/11?


And why do you think that is? could it be that there is no way to evaluate, test, or make fruitful predictions with it? i.e. that it's not a useful explanation. It's the same principle that Tim Minchin describes for alternative medicine in Storm:

"Alternative Medicine", I continue,
"Has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work.
Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work?
Medicine.​

As someone once said, "We should be open-minded but not so open-minded that our brains fall out". One can only measure and explain what can be measured and explained. Past experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena.

It's really a question of what makes a good explanation.

Angels are also known to occur to many, that is why these hand out explanations are meaningless. You just listed your bucket of explanations to start throwing at any event with no concern over anything other than it be a natural explanation. I know all about your bucket because I used to have it. It means nothing to start throwing things from your bucket, that is not what the skeptic did with Rendlesham, he looked for actual explanations that fit.

Science is incapable of concluding or including the supernatural ( I shouldn't say non physical really since the world is at base non physical) because it presupposes that only the natural world exist. It's not bottom up in this regard, it's top down. It assumes there will only be a natural explanation. That is how methodological naturalism, aka science, is defined. It's not that it ''doesn't find' the supernatural, it's that the supernatural is out-of-bounds per it's definition.

I haven't watched the video, but the statement is rhetoric, not logic.

"One can only measure and explain what can be measured and explained." - This tautology is false, love cannot be measured but it can be explained. There is a multitude of such examples. It's statements like this that is causing the upcoming generation to pull away from science. They are tired of hearing meaningless slogans like this.

"Past experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena." -There is no logical correlation between one thing being of a natural origin and another being of a super natural origin. This is just an expression of confidence in your world view.

 

[cloudyday2]

Perhaps...perhaps not. There probably is a myriad of ways that angels manifest themselves and do their work and angels can be doing things right in front of science but they wouldn't perceive it. There are different ways these messengers and helpers of God manifest. Here's one way that I never really hear people who discuss angelic visitations mention...or even consider...through a dream. When Joseph had doubts about what his involvement with Mary should be it says,

"...an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David..." Matt 1:20

And then the wise men were warned in a dream not to go back to Herod Matt 2:12

and then the very next verse an angel spoke to Joseph in a dream again and told him to flee to Egypt with Jesus and Mary Matt 2:13

Not sure how science could learn about angels in those ways for they were be manifested in a spiritual mental type of way and not physical . At times they do manifest in a physical type of way as seen many times in scripture perhaps in those ways you could but I hardly think they're going to stick around for scientists to do testings . (if that's what you mean by learn about them)

A dream in those stories is a form of communication. A dream might have told Joseph to go buy a lottery ticket because this was his lucky day and then Joseph might have won the lottery against all odds. If we could track every instance where a person acts on the guidance in a supposedly angelically inspired dream, and if we could compare their performance against uninspired acts, then we could give credibility to the belief in inspired dreams (theoretically - it would be hard of course to get people to cooperate and give all their failed inspirations along with their good inspirations). People tend to forget the boring failures and only remember the amazing successes of luck and inspiration - confirmation bias.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think there could be a higher authority to speak of heavenly things than a prophet. But I have spoken personally with a contactee whose situation very much resembles this situation I described. His accounts were written before divine council theology hit the mainstream.

I have never heard of that theology. Basically I'm saying that I don't believe in things written in a holy book. I might read the book, but I seek to verify the information. If a family member experiences an abduction, and the aliens vaporize when the name of Jesus is mentioned, AND there is some evidence that the abduction was not merely a dream, then I might believe that there is a connection of some kind between religion and aliens. But I won't believe based on a religious book.

 

[cloudyday2]

That sounds like what sports people call 'flow' or being 'in the zone'. I used to get periods like that when I played squash at club level - I would become calm and mentally relaxed, with the body moving smoothly and efficiently, and consciousness just providing a little strategic or tactical direction. You seem to become more an observer of what's going on than a participant. Peak performance.

It's thought to occur when an experienced athlete lets the subconscious 'get on with it' and conscious direction is reduced to an optimal minimum.

For me, it just happened now and then, like a lucid dream. I suspect it's the same state of conscious detachment that is an objective of Eastern martial arts training (Josh Waitzkin mentions it when discussing competitive Tai-Chi in 'The Art of Learning').

Yeah, OBSERVER is a good point, because that's how it feels. It's like I become aware that I'm in one of those moments, and I just watch it play-out with a giddy feeling. It could be entirely psychological of course. ... Giddy maybe isn't the right word though. It's more like being confident for no reason. In sports the feeling is definitely not giddiness - it is more like focus and confidence. IDK

EDIT: "focus" is the wrong word too LOL. "flow" is probably the best". "flow" and "observer". That's how you described it, and that is most accurate for sports. When I feel I know what is going to happen next or some small detail that I shouldn't know about, then I feel a little giddy. Whatever, ... too much rambling

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Angels are also known to occur by many, that is why theae hand out explanations are meaningless. You just listed your bucket of explanations to start throwing at an event with no concern over anything other than it be a natural explanation. I know all about your bucket because I used to have it. It means nothing to start throwing things from your bucket, that is not what the skeptic did with Rendlesham, he looked for actual explanations that fit.

And what makes your claim about angels immune from the 'bucket' criticism?

Seems to me I could equally accuse you of throwing angels and other supernatural phenomena from your bucket... what makes you think that this kind of accusation is a valid or useful criticism?

Science is incapable of concluding or including supernatural ( I shouldn't say non physical really) because it presupposes that only the natural world exist. It's not bottom up in this regard, it's top down. It assumes there will be a natural explanation. That is how methodological naturalism, aka science, is defined.

Science can only deal with what is observable and measurable; if supernatural phenomena have any influence on the world, science can, in principle, observe and measure that influence or its effects. If that is not possible, then in what sense is such claimed influence real?

When you can give a reasonable answer to that, or explain how to distinguish the supernatural from any other imaginary influences, e.g. fairies, magic, or invisible aliens from the planet Zog, I'll take it more seriously.

"One can only measure and explain what can be measured and explained." This tautology is false, love cannot be measured but it can be explained.

So love can't be measured and explained because although we can explain it, we can't measure it. Seems to me the tautology is true - as a tautology must be, by definition.

Having said that, although subjective experience is difficult to quantify - there is no common scale or units, we can measure the objective correlates of love, and we can measure the self-reported strength of love in its various aspects.

"Past experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena." There is no logical correlation between one thing being of a natural origin and another being of a super natural origin. This is just an expression of confidence in your world view.

I didn't say there was any logical correlation; I said that past experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena.

 

[Sanoy]

I have never heard of that theology. Basically I'm saying that I don't believe in things written in a holy book. I might read the book, but I seek to verify the information. If a family member experiences an abduction, and the aliens vaporize when the name of Jesus is mentioned, AND there is some evidence that the abduction was not merely a dream, then I might believe that there is a connection of some kind between religion and aliens. But I won't believe based on a religious book.

Afaik there is no evidence like that. Joe Jordan of CE4 research would be the one to look into to see if there was any physicality to the abduction that was stopped by the name of Jesus. There could be, I just don't know. He might respond to email, some of them do. I can personally attest that the person behind the name has power over demons, but I have no personal experience in abduction phenomenon.

I think we can come to a similar conclusion just from the modern experiences. Maybe not ''angels" but perhaps we can say they are not ETs, like Jacques vallee suggests.

Ostensibly they are highly technological, and yet their sophistication grows with each decade of appearances, from derigibles, to foo fighters, to the erroneous description of a flying saucer. The insides of the ships develop too, from having green graticle screens reminiscent of those old crt radar maps in Travis walton's experience to crystal, edgeless ipads. Despite their advancement they don't anesthetize their subjects and they go about their work in brutal ways that our own doctors have surpased. They claim to be moral but show no morality in their treatment of people. They can appear as dead relatives, they have complete neural dominance over us. They can walk through walls, travel light years of distance, though theoretically possible in Quantum Mechanics. They appear as balls of light or tiny distant clouds almost predominantly rather than material vehicles. They just don't act like physical creatures from another planet. From there I would say they are more like lesser 'gods' or occultic beings than a more progressed being in contrast to us.

 

[Bobber]

A dream in those stories is a form of communication. A dream might have told Joseph to go buy a lottery ticket because this was his lucky day and then Joseph might have won the lottery against all odds. If we could track every instance where a person acts on the guidance in a supposedly angelically inspired dream, and if we could compare their performance against uninspired acts, then we could give credibility to the belief in inspired dreams (theoretically - it would be hard of course to get people to cooperate and give all their failed inspirations along with their good inspirations). People tend to forget the boring failures and only remember the amazing successes of luck and inspiration - confirmation bias.

Well it seems you're putting much weight overly too much I think on the possibility of it just being mere coincidence that Joseph has a dream where an angel tells him to flee with Mary and Jesus for Herod is going to seek out the child to kill him....and a few hours later the slaughter of children in Bethlehem takes place.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well it seems you're putting much weight overly too much I think on the possibility of it just being mere coincidence that Joseph has a dream where an angel tells him to flee with Mary and Jesus for Herod is going to seek out the child to kill him....and a few hours later the slaughter of children in Bethlehem takes place.

I guess I'm one that believes the nativity stories are fiction, so there isn't any mystery for me to explain. ... There are cases all the time where people feel an urge to change their behavior in some way (such as a different driving route) and the change has huge consequences. That stuff is interesting to me.

 

[Sanoy]

And what makes your claim about angels immune from the 'bucket' criticism?

Seems to me I could equally accuse you of throwing angels and other supernatural phenomena from your bucket... what makes you think that this kind of accusation is a valid or useful criticism?

Science can only deal with what is observable and measurable; if supernatural phenomena have any influence on the world, science can, in principle, observe and measure that influence or its effects. If that is not possible, then in what sense is such claimed influence real?

When you can give a reasonable answer to that, or explain how to distinguish the supernatural from any other imaginary influences, e.g. fairies, magic, or invisible aliens from the planet Zog, I'll take it more seriously.

So love can't be measured and explained because although we can explain it, we can't measure it. Seems to me the tautology is true - as a tautology must be, by definition.

Having said that, although subjective experience is difficult to quantify - there is no common scale or units, we can measure the objective correlates of love, and we can measure the self-reported strength of love in its various aspects.

I didn't say there was any logical correlation; I said that past experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena.

It's not that my claim is immune to the bucket, it's that the bucket is effete as it's not an explanation. If it was an actual bucket of explanations that would be different. As long as they rely on that presupposition, they don't do anything to someone who lacks that presuppositions. It's a bucket of nothing so far.

Except it's not my bucket, it's the book of kings. I have no reason to doubt the account and you have no reason to give me to doubt it.

It is because science can only deal with what is observable and measurable that I don't look to science to tell me if angels exist. Science, per it's definition, cannot detect what it presupposes does not exist. If you are suggesting we can use science to detect the supernatural your understanding of what science is has become perverse.

A tautology can be analytically true but synthetically (actually) false, just like any argument. When it comes to aliens you claim personal testimony is unreliable, but when it comes to love you believe it is. You reach for your bucket when it suits you and put it away when it doesn't.

If your statement has no bearing in logic, as you admit, it has no bearing at all. It is just a statement of confidence in your beliefs. As that confidence, by your own admission, is not born in logic it is a faith. I'm sure you will wish to reject that association, but that is exactly what faith is, trust.

 

[cloudyday2]

It is because science can only deal with what is observable and measurable that I don't look to science to tell me if angels exist. Science, per it's definition, cannot detect what it presupposes does not exist. If you are suggesting we can use science to detect the supernatural your understanding of what science is has become perverse.

I don't get that. Angels are supposedly observable and measurable. You yourself said you observed and angel earlier in this thread. Science can even study things like delusional thoughts, because there are observable effects such as paranoid behavior that can be observed and measured in a person with delusional thoughts.

I think angels don't have a "get-out-of-jail-free card" with respect to science. If science investigates angels and finds the evidence insufficient, then we should disbelieve in angels. PERIOD. No squirming out of it and pretending that angels are exempt from science IMO. ... Of course science does need to investigate these things rather than sweeping them under the rug with glib explanations such as "swamp gas".

 

[Bobber]

I guess I'm one that believes the nativity stories are fiction, so there isn't any mystery for me to explain. ... There are cases all the time where people feel an urge to change their behavior in some way (such as a different driving route) and the change has huge consequences. That stuff is interesting to me.

Yeah I've heard of that a lot. The world calls that having intuition. I call that receiving a revelation that is in the spirit (the human spirit) from God. God many times is being merciful to people even many times showing mercy to those who don't serve him. He's trying to perhaps save their lives or save them from trouble IF they'll but listen or be moved by that input.

The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord,searching all his innermost parts. Proverbs 20:27

In Acts 27 :9,11 Paul the Apostle received a intuition/revelation that the ship they were going on would suffer hurt and much damage BUT the captain did his own thing and the ship was wrecked although their lives were spared. There are times God would spare us some things IF we'd but listen and take seriously those intuition/revelations he might impart. Here's the thing though for many secularists. If it's not physical or if it not material they just want to laugh these things off. Not always wise nor smart.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... it's not my bucket, it's the book of kings. I have no reason to doubt the account and you have no reason to give me to doubt it.

I'm not suggesting you doubt the account reported in the book, I'm saying there may be alternative explanations for the account reported in the book.

If you are suggesting we can use science to detect the supernatural your understanding of what science is has become perverse.

Again, if the supposed influence of something cannot, in principle, be detected, in what sense does it have any effect at all? in what sense is it real?

When it comes to aliens you claim personal testimony is unreliable, but when it comes to love you believe it is. You reach for your bucket when it suits you and put it away when it doesn't.

Ah, no. People can be mistaken (unreliable) in their perception and interpretation of external events, but it doesn't make sense that they can be mistaken about how they subjectively feel; they can be dishonest about their reports of it, but they feel what they feel.

If your statement has no bearing in logic, as you admit, it has no bearing at all. It is just a statement of confidence in your beliefs. As that confidence, by your own admission, is not born in logic it is a faith. I'm sure you will wish to reject that association, but that is exactly what faith is, trust.

I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that if we're guided by experience, then experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena.

If we were not guided by experience, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the world.

I can't help notice you're not answering the interesting questions - for example, as I asked in previous posts, can you explain why you seem to feel that hallucinations are not an explanation, but drugs or a stroke can be - you seem to treat them differently; do you not accept that people can see and hear things that are not externally (objectively) real? what is your reasoning on this?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Of course science does need to investigate these things rather than sweeping them under the rug with glib explanations such as "swamp gas".

Of course, it depends whether swamp gas is a plausible explanation in the particular circumstances, e.g. eerie lights seen in a marshy area. It is at least possible to test such an explanation by examining the location for... swamp gas.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't get that. Angels are supposedly observable and measurable. You yourself said you observed and angel earlier in this thread. Science can even study things like delusional thoughts, because there are observable effects such as paranoid behavior that can be observed and measured in a person with delusional thoughts.

I think angels don't have a "get-out-of-jail-free card" with respect to science. If science investigates angels and finds the evidence insufficient, then we should disbelieve in angels. PERIOD. No squirming out of it and pretending that angels are exempt from science IMO. ... Of course science does need to investigate these things rather than sweeping them under the rug with glib explanations such as "swamp gas".

Angels are not physical beings. They were unobservable to Elisha until God 'opened his eyes' to see them. They are not measurable either because they are spirit. They can appear as human, but that is not what they are.

I didn't observe an angel with my eyes. The material world is observed through the material senses and displayed to our consciousness, the supernatural world is presented to the consciousness through the same display but not derived from the material senses as those things are not material.

We are minds that sit before a screen of reconstructed reality, and that is our only point of experience. We do not experience our eyes, we always and only ever experience this screen of reconstructed reality.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not suggesting you doubt the account reported in the book, I'm saying there may be alternative explanations for the account reported in the book.

Again, if the supposed influence of something cannot, in principle, be detected, in what sense does it have any effect at all? in what sense is it real?

Ah, no. People can be mistaken (unreliable) in their perception and interpretation of external events, but it doesn't make sense that they can be mistaken about how they subjectively feel; they can be dishonest about their reports of it, but they feel what they feel.


I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that if we're guided by experience, then experience tells us that whenever we have been able to measure and explain what were thought to be supernatural phenomena, they turned out either to be known natural phenomena or novel natural phenomena.

If we were not guided by experience, we wouldn't be able to make sense of the world.

I can't help notice you're not answering the interesting questions - for example, as I asked in previous posts, can you explain why you seem to feel that hallucinations are not an explanation, but drugs or a stroke can be - you seem to treat them differently; do you not accept that people can see and hear things that are not externally (objectively) real? what is your reasoning on this?

We agree, there are a multitude of alternative explanations to the book of Kings, as there is with most things.

The supernatural can be detected, just not by science. The supernatural cannot be detected by natural sensors, by definition. I experience you through no other place than my consciousness, and that is the only place one will ever experience another being.

A subjective experience is wrong where in it contradicts an objective fact. I am not an extra-terrestrial no matter what my subjective experience may be. It is only a fact that one is having a subjective experience, not that the experience is true.

That is not being guided by experience, that is being guided by your own presuppositions. Being guided by experience is being a mechanic, being guided by presumption is being a mechanic and offering to perform open heart surgery. That just ends in death.

 

[cloudyday2]

Of course, it depends whether swamp gas is a plausible explanation in the particular circumstances, e.g. eerie lights seen in a marshy area. It is at least possible to test such an explanation by examining the location for... swamp gas.

True. Hynek's infamous "swamp gas" explanation probably wasn't that unreasonable as an off-the-cuff comment - which it was if I remember correctly - but he got roasted for it.

The UFO field is particularly tricky, because the US government seems to distort the data. I don't know if the US government actually is interested in "real" UFOs, but they are definitely interested in UFO cases and UFO researchers due to the black projects that sometimes look like UFOs. IDK

 

[cloudyday2]

Angels are not physical beings. They were unobservable to Elisha until God 'opened his eyes' to see them. They are not measurable either because they are spirit. They can appear as human, but that is not what they are.

I didn't observe an angel with my eyes. The material world is observed through the material senses and displayed to our consciousness, the supernatural world is presented to the consciousness through the same display but not derived from the material senses as those things are not material.

We are minds that sit before a screen of reconstructed reality, and that is our only point of experience. We do not experience our eyes, we always and only ever experience this screen of reconstructed reality.

If angels help us and give messages to us, then they are affecting the physical world and science can investigate them.

Let's say that insulting Zeus increases the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Science can investigate that belief. Angels are no different IMO