Paranormal Experiences

by mattnoel 108 Replies latest jw friends

  • Ravyn
    Ravyn

    I had a friend who lived in a haunted house. It felt rather hostile to her and my 'adopted' brother and I could definitely 'feel' something in certain areas of the house. One night we were standing in front of the entertainment center looking at her photos she had displayed on it and we had this sensation of a major electrical shock..knocked us both back and blew the whole wall--everything went dead for about an hour. We checked the fuses and breakers and nothing was out or tripped, then just as suddenly it all came back on. But we felt like something walked thru us. We went to the other side of the wall in the middle room and pulled off a piece of panelling and guess what? There was a doorway underneath!

    So whoever it was was walking thru the doorway and we happened to be standing there. I have heard that there are 'time rifts' and portals to other dimensions, and I think that is what that was. I just wonder what the personon the other side experienced walking thru us like that?

    Ravyn

  • Mary
    Mary

    Rem said: "....ten eyewitnesses can even agree on how a car accident happens - read the experiments and be amazed at how the brain works...."

    So if 10 people told you that they SAW with their own eyes, a car accident, would you conclude that they were all mistaken and that they never really saw anything? Or if they did, it was just their minds playing tricks on them? Or that they were lying to get attention?

  • rem
    rem

    Mary,

    If 10 people claimed they saw a car accident and there was, indeed, a wrecked car at the site, then I would believe there was a car accident. The details of the car accident will vary between the eyewitnesses as they will automatically manufacture their own memory of what happened. That's why an investigator will go out and take careful measurements of the physical evidence to get the objective truth.

    If 10 people claimed they saw a car accident and there was no wrecked car, no skid marks, and no other apparent damage, then I would have to assume they were mistaken. If physical evidence of the accident turned up, then their story would have weight. Paranormal anecdotes are of this variety of story.

    rem

  • rem
    rem

    Oh, yeah, another thing Susan Blackmore and others did some research on: It seems that people who believe in the paranormal are less able to understand probability than non-believers. I'm not sure if it's just the way believer's brains work, but believers are much more likely to see normal coincidences as something spectacular because they don't understand how probable the event was in the first place. Believers are more likely to estimate the chance of certain events happening (such as flipping heads on a coin) wrong than non-believers.

    http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/si92.html

    http://www.psychologie.uni-bonn.de/sozial/staff/musch/propsi.pdf

    rem

  • Mary
    Mary

    "....If 10 people claimed they saw a car accident and there was no wrecked car, no skid marks, and no other apparent damage, then I would have to assume they were mistaken....."

    I think that's the whole point though. Sceptics try to measure something "spiritual" by human physical measures. When they see no physical evidence themselves, they completely dismiss ALL sightings generally as people's overactive imaginations. Even if you have a completely credible person, (say a doctor) tell you that he sees furniture move across the room by itself, or hears voices when there's no one there, sceptics will go to any lengths to try and explain away the sighting, (even though they weren't there) and refuse to even consider the possibility that there might be something beyond this world.

  • rem
    rem

    Mary,

    Even if you have a completely credible person, (say a doctor) tell you that he sees furniture move across the room by itself, or hears voices when there's no one there, sceptics will go to any lengths to try and explain away the sighting, (even though they weren't there) and refuse to even consider the possibility that there might be something beyond this world.

    Au Contraire. Many investigators have set up cameras and microphones in allegedly haunted houses to capture such things. Mysteriously and conveniently the phenomenon goes away when it's being observed and recorded. On other occasions, the poltergeists themselves have been caught... but they were not ghosts. They were prankster teenagers or pets creating the phenomenon. You would know all about this if you did the research on it instead of assuming what skeptics think.

    The problem is with people who assume the probability of something beyond this world with just the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence. Sure, anything is possible... but with the type of evidence we have so far the paranormal is quite improbable.

    rem

  • Sunspot
    Sunspot

    One Sunday afternoon, my husband was outside in the yard playing ball with the kids, and I was setting the table for dinner. I had just put a fork on the table and moved to put another one down, and the first fork lifted up, hung in midair a few seconds, then fell back to the table, landing upside down.

    I was SO scared and shocked, and I tried to holler at my husband just a few feet beyond the back door, and nothing would come out! It was so weird! We did have a few more "problems" there, a "record player" (remember them?, lol) would turn on and off by itself, even when we unplugged it, and once we saw something white and filmy float from one end of our bedroom to the other as we were laying there talking. Very strange.

    Annie

  • be wise
    be wise
    I believe that there is some sort of maybe pshycic connection between close family members.

    Mattnoel, do you think this has some truth or is it bollocks?

    I think it's a mixture of truth and bollocks as with most things in life.

    No Special Mechanism

    The whole idea is summed up very clearly by Dr E. Lester Smith, scientist and theosophist, in his book Inner Adventures from which the following quotation is taken:-

    'It has been speculated that telepathy might involve electromagnetic radiation at some wavelength beyond the wide spectrum already mapped out, literally brain waves. But distance does not seem to impede telepathy; the inverse square law for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation does not apply. Alternatively, we might create "thought forms" in some mental medium and send them deliberately or unconsciously to the recipient. But if individual minds are already united within a universal Mind, then links already exist and no special mechanism need be envisaged. It should be necessary only to lower the barriers we erect in the vain attempt to keep our thoughts private. These could be lowered by love and empathy and by understanding the true nature of the situation. In practice it is not so simple. In the course of evolution we have put a lot of effort into creating and maintaining these barriers, so that they are quite strong. For telepathy, not one but two of them must be lowered or penetrated: those of the sender and those of the recipient of the thought: (8)

    Intuition

    The dictionary defines intuition as 'immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning’.

    This definition quite rightly implies an emotional basis to intuition and a by-pass of thought or reasoning. We have already seen that this is the case in the lowest form of intuition which was called 'gut- feeling' because it is based on the solar-plexus.

    Theosophical teachings indicate that 'mental' intuitions can come from a level of consciousness beyond the personality -- the Spiritual Self. They stem from the buddhic level of illumination and wholeness. This illumination can light up the higher mind so that it becomes 'taijasa' which can cross the bridge of the mind to the lower mental level to bring inspiration into waking human consciousness.

    Poets, philosophers, seers, inventors, composers and artists by making this link with the spiritual world have been, throughout the ages, the driving force in the cultural progress of humanity. (9)

    However in the most widely recognised type of intuition the light of the buddhic world by-passes the mind and is received at an emotional level. Quite rightly this faculty is said to be found more often in women than in men. Such intuitions are quite common but the difficulty in recognising them and translating their message to the waking brain consciousness is very real. Your intuition will work when confronting a situation or a person you meet in the first moments of the encounter. You must recognise it and know its truth before the mind comes in and kills or distorts the message.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    Just because something can't be tested by science at present, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

    That's true. I never claimed otherwise.

    and I think it is extremely narrow minded to "assume that it doesn't" exist.

    You think it's better to assume that it does exist? Without any evidence to support that claim?

    Could 16th century science test alpha or micro waves or study black holes? No they couldn't. So if you use the sort of logic as you mentioned for back then, you would conclude that none of those things existed.

    No, I wouldn't conclude anything. I would assume that they don't exist, pending further evidence. I would not have wated my time believing in things that could not be tested.

    Of course, we know today that these things DO exist, because technology has evolved. So perhaps in another hundred years, science WILL be able to varify that ghosts exist, which means that it wasn't people's overactive imagination at all; they were telling the truth all along.

    If the only "proof" you have is that maybe in 100 years we'll have some proof, you've got no proof.

  • Sirona
    Sirona

    REM:

    Einstien's theories were testable, otherwise he would have been laughed off. For a theory to be good it must be falsifiable (able to be proven wrong).

    I wasn't talking about Einsteins actual theories. I was talking about how he must have considered things that were not yet testable in order to come up with the ideas he came up with. FD suggested that consideration of these things was a waste of time....I strongly disagree. We have to think outside of the box! It is ridiculous to say "I'm not going to consider that because science can't prove it to me". There are theories regarding the universe that are impossible to test and noone pooh pooh's a great idea just because we don't have the technology to prove it yet.

    Sirona

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit