Supernatural experiences - an aspie thing?

Page 4 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Protogenoi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 817

07 Nov 2014, 12:13 pm

FMX wrote:
Protogenoi wrote:
Let me ask a question... Can a cow jump 8 or 9 feet straight up from a standing position?

If the answer is no, I think I experienced something supernatural.


I think this is a "black swan" type of problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). Assuming you really did see this then it is possible and not supernatural on its own. If there is some scientific reason why it is impossible (and "no-one has ever seen it before" doesn't count as such) and it was observed then it would be supernatural.

A bus swerved onto our side of the road, we swerved out off the road. There was a cow just standing there. We watch it go over our truck. We slam the brakes, got out to check. The cow was fine, standing there. If we hit it, it would have destroyed our truck. I watched it land back on it's hooves. We were traveling at 45 miles per hour.
So either a cow is capable of jumping like that or it isn't. I don't know.
That is the only thing I can think of that I have personally experienced that is weird enough for me to consider potentially being supernatural. Even if it possible, it doesn't seem like something cows would regularly do.
I just wonder if anyone knows anything about cows jumping.



olympiadis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,849
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois

07 Nov 2014, 2:04 pm

FMX wrote:
No, not really. You're insisting on a non-standard definition of the word "supernatural" as a synonym for "unexplained" and I think my point got lost as a result. I meant "supernatural" in the usual sense of "that which is not subject to the laws of physics".


I think this is where the problem in understanding lies, - bolded part.
This is an error in the standard definition.

Change the wording to "not subject to the known laws of physics"
and the meaning changes profoundly, and the understanding will be corrected.

We do not determine the laws of physics. We discover them bits at a time.

I think that limiting ones thinking to the bounds of currently known models is by far the most significant impediment to scientific progress.

Our current state of affairs is the result of a lazy and un-insightful teaching establishment.



B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

07 Nov 2014, 7:15 pm

Olympiadis I could not agree more.



RubyWings91
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 420
Location: USA

07 Nov 2014, 11:37 pm

I'm a believer in the unexplainable. I've had dreams about events before they, some of them actually happen to other people rather than me. I remember how I scared someone out after they told me something that happened to them. I told them what room they were in, the location they were in within that room, how they reacted exactly, down to the speed and the look on her face. I'd told her I had such dreams before but that was the first time she believed me.

I try to keep an open mind because of this but still can be skeptical about what other people tell me though. I acknowledge that while something may be possible, there is also a good chance that it didn't happen.

Still, there are may things that are common knowledge to us today that probably would have been considered impossible over a hundred years ago. Who knows what will or will not be considered impossible in the future.



olympiadis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,849
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois

08 Nov 2014, 12:35 am

RubyWings91 wrote:
I'm a believer in the unexplainable. I've had dreams about events before they, some of them actually happen to other people rather than me. I remember how I scared someone out after they told me something that happened to them. I told them what room they were in, the location they were in within that room, how they reacted exactly, down to the speed and the look on her face. I'd told her I had such dreams before but that was the first time she believed me.



You are not alone. This same sort of thing has happened throughout our history and also in every primitive culture as well. Cases like this are numerously and documented by Freud, Jung, and others. These events are categorized as pseudo-science because they cannot be consistently reproduced during tests. That doesn't mean that precognition doesn't exist or happen. We just do not know enough yet to define, describe, or test it properly to fit into science.



Jabberwokky
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 477

08 Nov 2014, 4:53 am

FMX wrote:
No, not really. You're insisting on a non-standard definition of the word "supernatural" as a synonym for "unexplained" and I think my point got lost as a result. I meant "supernatural" in the usual sense of "that which is not subject to the laws of physics". My point was really that there are 3 possibilities here, not 2:.


Yes, I realise that some people (the religious fundamentalists mainly) see the supernatural as perfectly explained as acts of god etc. I don't subscribe to any such absolute explanations. While I am insisting on a more relativist understanding of the term "supernatural" I do understand that there are others are a lot more one-eyed. As a result, fundamentalists 'colonise' terminology and I just refuse to acknowledge their ownership of the term in the way they understand it. Its a little bit of a losing battle really but I insist.

I think too that through multiverse theories (and other similar theory), followed by discoveries of matter such as the Higgs Bosun, modern science is claiming back much of the awe and wonder for the universe that has been the domain of traditionalist faith/spiritual groups for a long time.


_________________
On a clear day you can see forever


FMX
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319

08 Nov 2014, 5:26 am

olympiadis wrote:
Change the wording to "not subject to the known laws of physics"
and the meaning changes profoundly, and the understanding will be corrected.


OK, that is a fair point, but what if we make it a bit stronger: "(the explanation) violates the known laws of physics"? Then I think there is still a distinction to be made between

1) "it violates the known laws of physics"; and
2) "it's unusual, but the known laws of physics allow it"

A truck going through a cow with both of them remaining unharmed would be an example of (1). Coincidences such as in the OP are examples of (2).

The reason I consider this difference important is that (1) really needs to be explained if we are to say we understand how the universe works, whereas (2) requires no explanation.


_________________
CloudFlare eating your posts? Try the Lazarus browser extension. See https://wp-fmx.github.io/WP/


Jabberwokky
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 477

08 Nov 2014, 6:27 am

FMX wrote:
olympiadis wrote:
Change the wording to "not subject to the known laws of physics"
and the meaning changes profoundly, and the understanding will be corrected.


OK, that is a fair point, but what if we make it a bit stronger: "(the explanation) violates the known laws of physics"? Then I think there is still a distinction to be made between

1) "it violates the known laws of physics"; and
2) "it's unusual, but the known laws of physics allow it"

A truck going through a cow with both of them remaining unharmed would be an example of (1). Coincidences such as in the OP are examples of (2).

The reason I consider this difference important is that (1) really needs to be explained if we are to say we understand how the universe works, whereas (2) requires no explanation.


The part about a truck and a cow going through each other without harm/damage sounds a bit like a multiverse idea. The only difference would be that someone sees it happen whereas the multiverse idea is a concept that nobody can (according to our current understanding) see. At least, we don't think it can be seen. Such things are currently thought to be supernatural fictions of deluded minds.However, if in the future it became evident that multiple universes are seen/sensed (at least partially), then the manifestatons of that which we call 'supernatural' would immediately become natural.

To me there is a fine line between what is deemed natural or supernatural or non-natural. In fact its less of a line than a blurred no-mans-land that moves under and asa consequence of observation. Much like theories of relativity found that the action of particles and waves changed seemingly in response to being observed.


_________________
On a clear day you can see forever


MysterMe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

08 Nov 2014, 7:29 pm

My two cents on the general subject of the thread:

I believe that beliefs are tools which we use to attempt to understand reality. They are models and maps which we apply to our experience in order to try and make some sense out of it. Like any map or model, they are useful insofar as they reveal and highlight relevant details and relationships, but in order to be useful they must necessarily simplify the subject they are representing. Therefore any model we might make of reality will by definition be incomplete and imperfect. And that's OK! The whole point of the scientific endeavor, as I understand it, is that "truth" is always relative and progressive. Any idea or interpretation is up for challenge and debate, although some are much more well-established than others. However, science is conducted by humans, and humans still fall prey to biased thinking and blind spots, even when we try to work actively against that tendency. One of the biggest blind-spots in modern scientific inquiry is that it deals primarily with repeatable, objectively observable phenomena. Those experiences which are more subjective in nature, and/or which are unique or at least very difficult to recreate are very hard to design experiments to test. And that's OK! Science is a very useful method for producing and analyzing certain kinds of reality-models, but it's not the only avenue of inquiry available to us, and the practice of science doesn't forbid other means of engaging with and learning about the world, and vice versa. By the way, as I understand it, the "laws" of physics are simply observed regularities in the behaviors of phenomena that we are capable of observing.

Now, as for me specifically, I've had a few strange experiences. Some might even be termed examples of the "supernatural" or of "synchronicity", though they've all been relatively subtle as these things go. Two that stand out: for a long while (and it will still happen occasionally) whenever I was driving and would pull up to a red light, it would change to green the instant my car stopped, or within a second or so. Interestingly, when I tried to actively test the phenomena, it stopped almost entirely. Awfully convenient, I can hear you saying. I offer no explanation for this, however, and there may well be some mundane cause (or simple coincidence, however unlikely) at work. Another very odd occurrence, which happened recently: a new friend of mine messaged me on Facebook saying she had just had a dream in which she and I were having a conversation, in the course of which I had casually mentioned that my birthday was quite close to hers, and that this could explain some of our similarities because we are both Capricorns. Now, for the record, I am by no means a "believer" in astrology, although Capricorn is indeed my astrological sign. Moreover, neither of us had any knowledge of the other's birthday prior to this (we became friends pretty recently and don't know most of those sorts of details). Anyway, she asks me IRL in FB messenger when my birthday is. I tell her that it's January 7th, and she says hers is on the 6th. Again, I repeat that neither of us knew the other's birthday before this conversation. Again, I have no definitive explanation, but this does seem to suggest that perhaps the idea of the "collective unconscious" or something similar has real merit.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Om nom nom...


_________________
?The only thing I know is that I know nothing.? - Socrates

?Today you are You, that is truer than True. There is no one alive who is youer than You.? - Doctor Seuss


olympiadis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,849
Location: Fairview Heights Illinois

08 Nov 2014, 7:42 pm

Right now the limitations of our science describe the incident with the cow in terms of what could not have happened.

A much more advanced science would simply ask the cow what really happened.



MysterMe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

08 Nov 2014, 7:49 pm

olympiadis wrote:
Right now the limitations of our science describe the incident with the cow in terms of what could not have happened.

A much more advanced science would simply ask the cow what really happened.


:D

http://principiadiscordia.com/book/55.php

8)


_________________
?The only thing I know is that I know nothing.? - Socrates

?Today you are You, that is truer than True. There is no one alive who is youer than You.? - Doctor Seuss


Graelwyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,601
Location: Hants, Uk

08 Nov 2014, 10:04 pm

I remember this topic coming up several times in my long, distant WP past.
I will simply say that I have had too many experiences to refute the existence of things I cannot explain by scientific means.
I will say no more as I can remember what happened to this sort of topic in the past when some did come on and share experiences of a supernatural nature, lol.


_________________
I am diagnosed as a human being.


seaturtleisland
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

09 Nov 2014, 12:36 am

MysterMe wrote:
My two cents on the general subject of the thread:

I believe that beliefs are tools which we use to attempt to understand reality. They are models and maps which we apply to our experience in order to try and make some sense out of it. Like any map or model, they are useful insofar as they reveal and highlight relevant details and relationships, but in order to be useful they must necessarily simplify the subject they are representing. Therefore any model we might make of reality will by definition be incomplete and imperfect. And that's OK! The whole point of the scientific endeavor, as I understand it, is that "truth" is always relative and progressive. Any idea or interpretation is up for challenge and debate, although some are much more well-established than others. However, science is conducted by humans, and humans still fall prey to biased thinking and blind spots, even when we try to work actively against that tendency. One of the biggest blind-spots in modern scientific inquiry is that it deals primarily with repeatable, objectively observable phenomena. Those experiences which are more subjective in nature, and/or which are unique or at least very difficult to recreate are very hard to design experiments to test. And that's OK! Science is a very useful method for producing and analyzing certain kinds of reality-models, but it's not the only avenue of inquiry available to us, and the practice of science doesn't forbid other means of engaging with and learning about the world, and vice versa. By the way, as I understand it, the "laws" of physics are simply observed regularities in the behaviors of phenomena that we are capable of observing.

Now, as for me specifically, I've had a few strange experiences. Some might even be termed examples of the "supernatural" or of "synchronicity", though they've all been relatively subtle as these things go. Two that stand out: for a long while (and it will still happen occasionally) whenever I was driving and would pull up to a red light, it would change to green the instant my car stopped, or within a second or so. Interestingly, when I tried to actively test the phenomena, it stopped almost entirely. Awfully convenient, I can hear you saying. I offer no explanation for this, however, and there may well be some mundane cause (or simple coincidence, however unlikely) at work. Another very odd occurrence, which happened recently: a new friend of mine messaged me on Facebook saying she had just had a dream in which she and I were having a conversation, in the course of which I had casually mentioned that my birthday was quite close to hers, and that this could explain some of our similarities because we are both Capricorns. Now, for the record, I am by no means a "believer" in astrology, although Capricorn is indeed my astrological sign. Moreover, neither of us had any knowledge of the other's birthday prior to this (we became friends pretty recently and don't know most of those sorts of details). Anyway, she asks me IRL in FB messenger when my birthday is. I tell her that it's January 7th, and she says hers is on the 6th. Again, I repeat that neither of us knew the other's birthday before this conversation. Again, I have no definitive explanation, but this does seem to suggest that perhaps the idea of the "collective unconscious" or something similar has real merit.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Om nom nom...


I think you should've deleted everything except the first paragraph and just wrote that.

While I'm a stubborn believer in things that are labeled supernatural I feel like your personal examples in the second paragraph were very bad ones. I think you'd have been better off just saying that there are some things too difficult to test in a lab setting. That might be a little bit weak as well because particle accelerators exist and we also have something called a scale model. There are ways of testing things we wouldn't think are testable. If it's too big scale it down for example. I'm not a scientist but I imagine the argument that some things can't be tested in a lab setting might not hold up well to people who know science. It's still better than your personal examples. You should've just left them out imho.



MysterMe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 43

09 Nov 2014, 1:00 am

seaturtleisland wrote:
MysterMe wrote:
My two cents on the general subject of the thread:

I believe that beliefs are tools which we use to attempt to understand reality. They are models and maps which we apply to our experience in order to try and make some sense out of it. Like any map or model, they are useful insofar as they reveal and highlight relevant details and relationships, but in order to be useful they must necessarily simplify the subject they are representing. Therefore any model we might make of reality will by definition be incomplete and imperfect. And that's OK! The whole point of the scientific endeavor, as I understand it, is that "truth" is always relative and progressive. Any idea or interpretation is up for challenge and debate, although some are much more well-established than others. However, science is conducted by humans, and humans still fall prey to biased thinking and blind spots, even when we try to work actively against that tendency. One of the biggest blind-spots in modern scientific inquiry is that it deals primarily with repeatable, objectively observable phenomena. Those experiences which are more subjective in nature, and/or which are unique or at least very difficult to recreate are very hard to design experiments to test. And that's OK! Science is a very useful method for producing and analyzing certain kinds of reality-models, but it's not the only avenue of inquiry available to us, and the practice of science doesn't forbid other means of engaging with and learning about the world, and vice versa. By the way, as I understand it, the "laws" of physics are simply observed regularities in the behaviors of phenomena that we are capable of observing.

Now, as for me specifically, I've had a few strange experiences. Some might even be termed examples of the "supernatural" or of "synchronicity", though they've all been relatively subtle as these things go. Two that stand out: for a long while (and it will still happen occasionally) whenever I was driving and would pull up to a red light, it would change to green the instant my car stopped, or within a second or so. Interestingly, when I tried to actively test the phenomena, it stopped almost entirely. Awfully convenient, I can hear you saying. I offer no explanation for this, however, and there may well be some mundane cause (or simple coincidence, however unlikely) at work. Another very odd occurrence, which happened recently: a new friend of mine messaged me on Facebook saying she had just had a dream in which she and I were having a conversation, in the course of which I had casually mentioned that my birthday was quite close to hers, and that this could explain some of our similarities because we are both Capricorns. Now, for the record, I am by no means a "believer" in astrology, although Capricorn is indeed my astrological sign. Moreover, neither of us had any knowledge of the other's birthday prior to this (we became friends pretty recently and don't know most of those sorts of details). Anyway, she asks me IRL in FB messenger when my birthday is. I tell her that it's January 7th, and she says hers is on the 6th. Again, I repeat that neither of us knew the other's birthday before this conversation. Again, I have no definitive explanation, but this does seem to suggest that perhaps the idea of the "collective unconscious" or something similar has real merit.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Om nom nom...


I think you should've deleted everything except the first paragraph and just wrote that.

While I'm a stubborn believer in things that are labeled supernatural I feel like your personal examples in the second paragraph were very bad ones. I think you'd have been better off just saying that there are some things too difficult to test in a lab setting. That might be a little bit weak as well because particle accelerators exist and we also have something called a scale model. There are ways of testing things we wouldn't think are testable. If it's too big scale it down for example. I'm not a scientist but I imagine the argument that some things can't be tested in a lab setting might not hold up well to people who know science. It's still better than your personal examples. You should've just left them out imho.


Fair enough, but like I said, I wasn't presenting them as examples of something I believe to be supernatural, just as odd occurrences which I can't completely explain in the traditional ways. Again, as I said, I am not a "believer" nor an "unbeliever" concerning this sort of thing, or just about anything else for that matter.

People are certainly developing new and ingenious ways of testing things that are very tricky to test. However, I do think one drawback of scaling models is that things sometimes simply don't work the same way on different scales. Look at the massive differences between the behaviors of phenomena on our macrocosmic biological scale versus the microcosmic subatomic / quantum scale, for example. We have one set of theories to explain the macrocosm, and another for the microcosm, and they both work very well in their own domains, but physicists have been trying to work out a way to unite them for a long time now. Those quanta get up to all sorts of shenanigans that often resemble what we often associate with the "supernatural". Popping in and out of existence, tunneling through seemingly solid barriers, transmitting information apparently instantaneously and seamlessly, etc. But I don't think having multiple models, theories, and explanations is a bad thing at all; I think diversity of thought (much like neurodiversity) is in fact very valuable.

Also, I don't think it's so much that some things can't be tested as that the act of testing alters the nature of the results.

Anyway, my personal examples weren't meant to be anything other than personal. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just poking around in the basement of my brain.


_________________
?The only thing I know is that I know nothing.? - Socrates

?Today you are You, that is truer than True. There is no one alive who is youer than You.? - Doctor Seuss


FMX
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319

09 Nov 2014, 6:21 am

MysterMe wrote:
I believe that beliefs are tools which we use to attempt to understand reality. They are models and maps which we apply to our experience in order to try and make some sense out of it. Like any map or model, they are useful insofar as they reveal and highlight relevant details and relationships, but in order to be useful they must necessarily simplify the subject they are representing. Therefore any model we might make of reality will by definition be incomplete and imperfect. And that's OK! The whole point of the scientific endeavor, as I understand it, is that "truth" is always relative and progressive. Any idea or interpretation is up for challenge and debate, although some are much more well-established than others. However, science is conducted by humans, and humans still fall prey to biased thinking and blind spots, even when we try to work actively against that tendency. One of the biggest blind-spots in modern scientific inquiry is that it deals primarily with repeatable, objectively observable phenomena. Those experiences which are more subjective in nature, and/or which are unique or at least very difficult to recreate are very hard to design experiments to test. And that's OK! Science is a very useful method for producing and analyzing certain kinds of reality-models, but it's not the only avenue of inquiry available to us, and the practice of science doesn't forbid other means of engaging with and learning about the world, and vice versa.


Well said. I agree with your thinking about models and the limitations of science. Therefore I am not as quick as most self-described "skeptics" to dismiss everything that cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. However, I'm not quick to believe those things, either. (I think that makes me a "skeptic" in the true sense of the word: "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions".)

A good example is Near Death Experiences, which I was fascinated with as a teenager. It was probably the closest I've had to an aspie special interest. At the time I was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they're real. Now that I'm (even more) skeptical and scientific in my thinking I'm not so convinced anymore, however I still have to consider it quite plausible. I do not "believe in" NDEs in a religious sense of the word. However, I'm willing to go on record saying that I consider that, on balance of probabilities, the supernatural explanation is about as likely as any other that I've read about (or as unlikely, if you prefer!)

As for your second paragraph, these are good examples of things that are slightly odd, but certainly not in any need of explanation. The chances of you being a Capricorn are roughly 1 in 12, so it's hardly an amazing coincidence.


_________________
CloudFlare eating your posts? Try the Lazarus browser extension. See https://wp-fmx.github.io/WP/


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,289
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Nov 2014, 5:46 am

a certain metasyntactic variable may well consider me an "ignorant riffraff" for saying this, but I have had many experiences that I can only conclude were supernatural. I will own it.