i, personally am agnostic (unsure of beliefs), but im curious what your thoughts are on anything and all things spiritual.
Printable View
i, personally am agnostic (unsure of beliefs), but im curious what your thoughts are on anything and all things spiritual.
There's a thread with a poll about religions here, if you're interested. :) I'm not sure if OBE and AP were ever discussed there, though.
I think it all comes down to what a person means by 'real'. Nothing like this is quite what people imagine it to be, because none of us understand such things at all well, and what we see and hear is an interpretation spun by our imagination. But that doesn't mean that its entirely pretend either.
*Moved to Religion/spirituality from Beyond dreaming
There's no real evidence I'm aware of that says they are anything other than dreams.
Thats what i believe as well. the inly reason i signed as agnostic is.. well... having a spiritual lady friend can get to you.
They are just dreams, I have never seen anything to suggest otherwise. So no, I don't believe there is anything supernatural going on with them at all. I don't believe in anything supernatural. Things that are supernatural are by their definition things that don't exist. If they existed, they would just be called natural.
Exactly: if things supernatural were natural they would just be called natural. Likewise, if supermarkets were markets they would just be called markets, if superconductors were conductors they would just be called conductors, and if supermodels were models they would just be called models. By definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
I define "supernatural" as something that is outside the realm of scientifically. The explanation of a supernatural thing is that it is supernatural. Basically: "It's magic; I ain't gotta explain shit."
But now we're just playing semantics.
Most people have that same kind of attitude about a great many 'natural' things also. There are things we can model well, and things we can't model well. The fact that there are people who don't want certain things to be subjected to that kind of analysis is a side issue. Some people believe that the earth is 6000 years old. I'm not going to waste my life defining my outlook on everything as an affirmation or negation of their limited outlook.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeDragon97
As has been discussed recently on other threads, color is an example of something that is outside of what is known scientifically or can currently be investigated scientifically. Vision uses color to represent light spectra in much the same way that we use it to represent national jurisdictions or populations or temperatures on 'false color' maps. We understand a lot about light, and about how the eye works, and some things about how the cerebral cortex works. But this doesn't tell us much more about color than our understanding of national jurisdictions or populations or temperatures does. Is color supernatural? Is it real? If you regard it as natural and/or real, then the availability or lack of a scientific explanation can't be what makes it natural and/or real.
A difference between color and supernatural phenomena is color is a more consistent part of most people's experience. But this is a different issue than the presence or absence of an explanation.
Its true that things that are rare or difficult to control are much more difficult to study scientifically. I don't think it follows that such things are unreal though. Ball lightening is an example of this. Its pretty hard to 'prove' or to develop a good theory about how it works when it only happens rarely and you don't know how to produce it so that you can study it. I think that some degree of agnosticism about ball lightening, "I don't know for sure if its real", is reasonable. But I don't think it would be reasonable to declare that all the people who have experienced it are likely deluded or lying. Things are mysterious and not understood until they become understood better. Some phenomena that are understood well now were almost completely mysterious and not subject to investigation just couple hundred years ago. Yet they were still real a couple hundred years ago. And any any area of human understanding, there are almost always people who recognize something a long time before other people recognize it, because we're not all informed by quite the same experience.
We know for a fact that ball lightning exists, though. And color is simply the way our brain interprets different wavelengths of visible light (which you pretty much said). There's nothing supernatural about it.
The only evidence I'm aware of is anecdotal. There's far, far more anecdotal evidence for precognition and telepathy in dreams.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeDragon97
I don't see how that's substantially different from saying "telepathy is simply the way my brain communicates with people who are not in the room with me". In neither case is there understanding of how it works. As I attempted to describe earlier, the understanding of light and of how the eye works is only indirectly related to the question of what color is. Similarly, being able to describe how my brain expresses a thought as a sequence of sounds tells me almost nothing about how a telepathetic impression might occur or even how it would get turned into a thought that can be expressed in language. The extent of our knowledge of the process is almost the same as with the question of color. More people are aware of color than telepathy. But far, far more people have experienced telepathy than ball lightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeDragon97
I don't know how to parse that statement except as a naked assertion, an expression of will. It declares a belief without appearing to address the argument I made.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeDragon97
I guess I'm done, if you don't feel like we're getting anywhere.
Search "ball lightning" on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowofwind
I really don't understand what you mean. Light travels into the eye, information is sent to the brain via the optic nerve, the brain processes the information. The same goes for sound waves and your ears, or volatile chemicals and your nose.Quote:
I don't see how that's substantially different from saying "telepathy is simply the way my brain communicates with people who are not in the room with me". In neither case is there understanding of how it works. As I attempted to describe earlier, the understanding of light and of how the eye works is only indirectly related to the question of what color is. Similarly, being able to describe how my brain expresses a thought as a sequence of sounds tells me almost nothing about how a telepathetic impression might occur or even how it would get turned into a thought that can be expressed in language. The extent of our knowledge of the process is almost the same as with the question of color. More people are aware of color than telepathy. But far, far more people have experienced telepathy than ball lightening.
Telepathy, on the other hand, is not an understood (or proven) process. Even if telepathy does exist, there very well could be a scientifically understandable process involved.
I'll stop if you want to.Quote:
I guess I'm done, if you don't feel like we're getting anywhere.
EDIT: Come to think of it, we're just perpetuating a bloody semantics argument. Let's just stop here.