Supernatural experiences - an aspie thing?

Post Reply New Topic

^ This. Well said, EzraS!

Well-explained. I don't see anything supernatural about it, either.



This is exactly what I'd expect - that aspies would be more likely to reason scientifically about events than NTs and therefore less likely to interpret events as supernatural.

I've never had a supernatural experience myself. I I've had a few unlikely-seeming coincidences, but they only seem unlikely if you don't understand probability - which, of course, most people don't. As a quick start, just consider how unlikely it is for anyone to win the jackpot in a lottery. Now consider that it happens practically every week (somewhere).

^THIS






Glitch in the matrix.

Never had such an overwhelming response to a post.

Nothing remotely supernatural manifested in my life today although there was that odd sort of trembling of the earth and the sudden gust of wind today, but then again I live in New Zealand so such things are geologically and meteorologically normal.

I'm fascinated by the range of responses. There are of course a dominant number who clearly don't buy all this supernatural prattle and in fact someone suggested that it was a dangerous topic for aspies because they might take things literally. Well yes, I mean what I said quite literally but I also am very sure that aspies will have an independent view on the matter (as you all clearly have) and not be caught up in some fanatical craze. After all, aspies are not generally subject to 'herd mentality'.

Having read all the posts, I'm clear that a sense of or belief in the supernatural is not something aspies are uniquely predisposed to. Having said that, I'm not overly convinced by the various posts. For example, I was stationary at the time of the crash and therefore it is highly unlikely that I caused the crash, and no I wasn't stationary in the fast lane . Someone else suggested that 1 December coincided with that time of year when I would be hunting for new jobs. There is some sense in that argument because 1 December is an obvious day to start a new job or to resign. Trouble is, the date has cropped up 4 times in my career and 3 of those times involved moves within a company where I did not control timing. Furthermore, when I emigrated to New Zealand I landed at midnight on the 30 November. Of course, I could have planned that. I can assure you that I'm simply not that hell-bent on creating perceptions of supernatural 'coincidences'. I really don't care that much.

Some of you may have heard of the saying that "there is no such thing as a coincidence". Carl Jung spoke of 'synchronicity' where coincidences occur for no obvious reason but are a perfectly real phenomena. The only problem for most people is that they cannot be explained by normal rational scientific means. Of course, we can say they don't exist, don't happen, area figment of our imagination. Yes, we can and we do, but for me, these things happen far too much for me to take that view.

I haven't had any experiences but I've had family members(NT) that have. In the logical part of my brain I don't believe in that sort of stuff but there is a part of me that does on some level and can get spooked by that sort of thing.

That saying is absolutely wrong. Coincidences, even seemingly-incredible coincidence, occur all the time. They can be, and have been, explained by probability and statistics. There's a great book on this, which I keep meaning to read, call "Fooled by Randomness":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fooled_by_Randomness



By the way, this doesn't mean that nothing supernatural exists. It only means that coincidences are not evidence of it.

When it comes to "proving" the alleged existence of the "Supernatural":

Coincidence and correlation are not evidence.

Belief and faith are not evidence.

Quotations, maxims, and sayings are not evidence.

Hearsay and rumor are not evidence.

Suspicion is not evidence.

Myths and legends are not evidence.

Traditions are not evidence.

Speculation is not evidence.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Anonymous postings on random social websites are not evidence.

According to forums like these, everything's an Aspie thing.

People on these forums are just exploring and thats ok. Most of the discussions are fairly benign.

deleted message

too much anxiety to debate so I deleted

sorry, I may repost it another time

There is an old Jewish saying: "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous".

You have to wonder sometimes - or at least I do. Sometimes inexplicable things do happen. And I suspect the incidence is nowhere near as small as this thread would suggest. People don't disclose because of harsh or dismissive responses from people who have never had similar experiences.

well, if anyone can demonstrate a supernatural phenomenon or ability they can get an easy $1mil in their pocket from the james randi educational foundation.
good luck though, over 1000 have failed thus far and of course none have shown anything supernatural.

Thats what is called invention. Once invented and deployed, the invention moves from the supernatural to the known realm. It becomes the new normal and then all who don't buy the existence of the supernatural will then call the new invention a scientifically explained fact that never was supernatural. There are (for example) pictures of people in Papua New Guinea meeting Europeans for the first time and there wonder and bewilderment at such basic things as mirrors. For those people, mirrors were supernatural and if not, then certainly electricity is seen as supernatural. In South Africa, many Africans saw (and sometimes still see) the 'white man' as magicians. Of course, all of this can be viewed as simply the ignorance of primitive people. This would be somewhat arrogant (in my view) because it implies that we are at the pinnacle of all things and nothing is at a higher level or greater sophistication than us. In so being and doing, we have lose the sense of awe and wonder at the universe and we also blind ourselves to experiences beyond that which we currently know and understand.

If you have a closer look at the hunt for the essence of the physical universe in dark matter, quarks, Higg's bosun and so on, the nature of reality becomes extremely quirky and possibly if I may say ... supernatural. The probable existence of other dimensions or universes paralell to our own is no longer thought of as the intellectual realm of the mad. We have come a long way since Galileo was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

The supernatural to my mind is that which we can't explain. We may be explain the supernatural at some point in the future, and at that time it becomes natural rather than supernatural. The fact though is that no matter how far we go in explaining things, there is still more beyond and that which is beyond is the realm of the supernatural.

I have no clue what you're talking about.
Everything that isn't yet explained or isn't understood properly is not necessarily 'supernatural'.
Virtually everything so far that has been observed has been found to have a naturalistic explanation, and those things that you mentioned which are largely unresolved things in physics will most definitely have a naturalistic explanation.
If something that is seen as 'supernatural' is explained and 'becomes' natural then it is by definition not supernatural.
You seem to just be using supernatural as a synonym for 'not yet understood'.

Yes I am, but I would add anything that is unlikely to ever be understood.

Belief in the existence of the supernatural is (in my view) mostly a reflection of our personal levels of faith in science to explain things.

It is to some people, but not to all. I would say

inability to explain something + inability to accept lack of explanation = belief in supernatural explanation

Scientists are not able to explain everything, but they are generally able to accept the lack of explanation, hence most of them (and other people who think scientifically) have no need to believe in the supernatural.