E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Paramount Pictures
The recently released movie "Paranormal Activity 3" focuses on the boundary between dreaming and waking - which psychologist Richard Wiseman says is prime territory for perfectly normal "paranormal" experiences.
Halloween is the peak time to dwell on ghosts, spooky noises, weird premonitions and other "paranormal activities" — but despite that label, such phenomena are totally normal. You can even create them yourself.
That's the message of Richard Wiseman's latest book, "Paranormality: Why We See What Isn't There." Wiseman, who began his career as a magician and is now an experimental psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, reveals the tricks of the paranormal trade — including the methods used by on-air psychics to make themselves seem, well, psychic. (To try them out, download Wiseman's "Instant Superhero Kit.")
Wiseman wishes normal people had a better understanding of the psychology behind seemingly paranormal activities.
"There's an enormous problem," he told me today, "actually more in America than in Britain, because the level of belief in the States is huge. We're talking about more than three-quarters of the population believing in some sort of paranormal phenomena — even with the rise in technology and science over the past 20 years or so. It's really quite staggering."
There are so many stories about chilling premonitions of doom, or alien visitations, or high-tech studies of haunted houses. Surely there must be some reality behind all those scary tales. It turns out that there is, but Wiseman says you don't have to turn to supernatural explanations. Here are five examples:
1. Selective memory: Can dreams predict future events? Actually, psychologists have found that people tend to have far more dreams than they consciously remember. A significant event — say, a death or dramatic change of fortune — can trigger the memory of a past dream that may seem to relate to that event. Also, you're more likely to hear about the one seemingly prophetic dream than about the many other dreams that went nowhere. In this essay for The Guardian, Wiseman delves more deeply into the selective nature of dream recall.
The fact that we often hear only what we want to hear, or remember only what fits our expectations, also plays into psychic readings. Wiseman refers to this as "fishing and forking": The psychic throws out some generalities as a fishing expedition, watches to see which of those observations you pick up on, and then follows that fork in the road to build up the reading. The Skeptic's Dictionary outlines the process here.
2. Ideomotor action: Sometimes zombies really are in control of our brains — but those zombies are our own mental processes that buzz along beneath our consciousness. For example, experiments have shown that unconscious muscle movements can guide your hands to rock a table during a seance, or move a Ouija board pointer to spell out a message, or twist a dousing twig to point to an underground water source (or not). But it works only if your zombie brain can process the results of the motor movements. If you're blindfolded, the effect is spoiled. The Straight Dope provides further discussion of the Ouija connection.
3. Sleep paralysis: For thousands of years, tales have been told about strange beings who visit in the middle of the night and have their way with sleepers. In the old days, these were demons known as succubi and incubi. Nowadays, they're aliens or ghosts (like the ghosts in the "Paranormal Activity" movies). Such experiences are associated with a psychological phenomenon known as sleep paralysis, in which the brain hovers at the edge of consciousness but keeps the mind-body connection turned off (except for the connection to the genitalia, which may explain why those succubi were so sex-crazed). "The body paralyzes itself," Wiseman said.
Researchers recently reported that they were able to train volunteers to experience out-of-body experiences as well as alien encounters during their semi-waking states.
Richard Wiseman discusses "Paranormality" on "BBC Breakfast."
4. Cold spots and infrasound: Ghostbusters often report feeling "cold spots," or suddenly becoming anxious, or getting weird readings on high-tech sensors when a specter makes its presence known. Wiseman said such sudden changes are due to natural rather than supernatural causes. Ten years ago, he and his colleagues used an array of thermal cameras and air movement detectors to figure out what was behind a "haunting" at Hampton Court Palace, near London. It turned out that chilly drafts blowing through cracks in the palace's concealed doorways created the unsettling sounds and the plummeting temperatures.
Low-frequency sounds, created by changes in the weather or even appliances such as air conditioners, can also create a sense of uneasiness in listeners, even if they can't consciously sense the sound. Wiseman conducted an experiment on the effects of "infrasound" during a concert and found that 22 percent of the listeners felt chills or other unusual sensations when they listened to music that was laced with the low-frequency tones.
5. Hyper-vigilance: All these effects are accentuated when visitors think they're in a haunted house. "Basically, when we become afraid, we become very vigilant. ... It feeds on itself," Wiseman said. He and many other scientists believe that such hyper-vigilance came in handy when our ancestors were in the midst of a mammoth hunt or a host of unseen threats. The same hard-wired instinct may explains why we seek out an eek by visiting a haunted house or watching a scary movie. "It's the way we've evolved," Wiseman said.
Although Wiseman doesn't see anything supernatural in paranormal activities, he does see a lot of value in studying them. "Trying to understand why people have these experiences is very instructive," he said. In fact, research has shown that some concepts, such as mind-reading and out-of-body experiences, are rooted in solid neuroscience. Just as science fiction can give rise to real-life innovations, so can tales of the paranormal.
"Whenever science has done well, so has the paranormal. ... You get this interesting relationship," Wiseman said.
More Halloween tales from the Cosmic Log files:
- 2002: Ghostly mysteries solved
- 2003: Why we seek out an eek
- 2004: Sharing your scares
- 2005: Ghosts on the rise
- 2006: Bring me your ghost stories!
- 2007: The science of spooks
- 2008: Chasing phantoms on film
- 2008: The science of bloodsuckers
- 2009: Seven ghoulish discoveries
- 2010: Spooky stuff from NASA
- 2010: How your brain handles terror scares
Check out Wiseman's "Paranormality" website for more about the book, plus lots of spooky photos and videos.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Yes, yes, yes!
Thanks Alan - there's precious little skepticism being promoted in the mainstream media these days!
Cheers, and have a naturally spooky holiday :)
Absolutely correct Sci-guy. We don't need any more "ghost hunter" type shows to prey upon the gullible. Politicians have got that racket cornered.
What we need is a new Houdini to go around and debunk these frauds.
I don't believe in ghosts, holy or otherwise. Good article Alan, as always.
Many "paranormal" events are not, but there are still things not so easily dismissed. Afterall, paranormal only really means it is beyond our current understanding or abilty to explain.
As for the Ghost Hunters (specifically), unless you are claiming outright fraud there is much they capture that is not currently explainable.
I am skeptical, and very analytical, but have directly experienced enough things to make me at least question our understanding of some phenomena and the world around us.
Skip,
I used to say the same thing until I had a "sighting" 10 years ago.
I used to do yard work for a fat, old Italian guy. He was a character, that's for sure. He ended up having a heart attack and died a couple weeks later. I went to his funeral and paid my respects.
About two weeks later, i was just about to fall asleep in bed when I heard my voice called, in a questioning matter, clear as day, about 10 feet from me. It was his voice (if you ever met the man, you'd understand how unique is vocie was).
I shot up in bed like a dart, looked to my left and saw a gray/black outline of a person (almost like those things in the movie "Ghost"). Right about where the eyes would be on this form, two lights briefly lit up and then faded. I was in such an immediate state of panic, that I reached for my bedside lamp. When I turned it on, the lightbulb exploded (Ive got a couple theories on what caused this).
Well, at this point, i was on the verge of full-out screaming. I jumped clear from my bed to the top of my steps, ran downstairs, and sat in the bathroom with the lights on for 2 hours until it started to get light out and went back to bed. It was terrifying.
That night certainly changed my whole view on the afterlife. Heaven and hell? No, I dont believe it's that simple and a guy is sitting on a cloud with a book judging you. I dont believe one billion China men are going to "hell" simply because they were raised to think a different way and never accepted Jesus as their savior. But did it make me believe that there's something going on after death? Hells ya.
The writers of South Park did shows on talking to dead people (a la John Edwards) and ghost hunters (a la Ghost Hunters). The fakery and foolishness was right on. Gullible people are easily fooled because they feel they need to have an open mind (a la my sister-in-law). People raised on magical myths (a la religion) are trained from an early age to believe in things they can't see, hear or feel. Science and common sense finds it hard to disabuse such people of their belief systems. What a shame.
Humans, especially the Undereducated, are stupidly superstitious. Look at all the people who believe in ''conspiracies" of any kind---they don't even have the brains to ask by whom, for what purpose"....guess it would wreck the fun.
Speaking of humans in the 3rd person; haha, are you not? Just an outsider looking in? hmm..maybe some have a right to be superstitious....a lot of it is culture that we shouldn't concern ourselves with.
SciGuy and Al are True Believers in "scepticism" in the same way as the other True Believers are in religion, etc. I reside in the middle. There's alot of fake paranormal stuff out there but you guys can not explain away ALL of it. And what is this? Just because sceptical stage magicians can duplicate the Paranormal and that somehow disproves ALL PARANORMALS??? Like you present to me a natural diamond I duplicate one using heat and 8 million PSI and me claiming yours was faked. I would be wrong and so is The Amazing Randi!!!!
Well you can say what you like, but the fact of the matter is that skepticism is not a rigid, dogmatic worldview. It is one which openly invites criticism, and requires evidence before belief of any claim.
You are misunderstanding skepticism if you think that "just because some magicians can duplicate the paranormal" that this disproves "all paranormals." Your comparison to diamonds is incorrect, because no skeptic in their right mind would say that "all paranormals" are false by demonstrating that one is. Merely, skeptics will call into question the validity of any claim that lacks sufficient evidence. In the case of paranormal events, this does encompass nearly all of them. Name one that has yet to be sufficiently explained by mundane, normal phenomena. Really do your research, and don't be a credulous believer before replying.
Randi might be wrong, sure. But in the mean time he's got a lot of evidence to suggest he is right. What side of the debate (if you even want to call it that) do you want to be on? The one that suggests, rather whimsically, that paranormal events might, just might, be supernatural - or the one that has attempted to (and successfully) discovered the true causes of these events through the rigors of science and careful observation?
It's fine to reside in the middle, just don't be tempted to buy into jargon that lacks evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to be sure, but when no evidence is found in support of something be paranormal, while much evidence is found to suggest that it may be nothing more than psychology or natural phenomena, one must consider where they place their faith.
I assure you, most skeptics wouldn't ever identify as "true believers." I encourage you to attend a skeptic's conference or skeptics in the pub sometime. They are filled with debate, and many people disagree about the validity of different claims, though all are generally interested in simply not being fooled. That's a pretty hard crowd to pull the wool over, so I suggest you reconsider your stance here.
That which can be positioned as true, with no evidence ... can just as easily be dismissed with no evidence.
There's nothing "true believer," about skepticism. This position is as ludicrous as calling secularism a religion. Militant atheism? Yeah ... that's like sleeping ferociously.
Skeptics have traditionally been the most open-minded people I've ever met. The difference is, we utilize filters for the massive amounts of "junk" out there. If anyone is interested, I suggest watching this video. The animations are not that great, but it does an extremely good job as explaining how one can only really be open-minded through skepticism. If you watch it until the end, I assure you will learn something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
I always liked Piggy's quote from "Lord of the Flies" - something to the effect that if ghosts did exist then clocks are cars would not work.
Everyone must play by the laws of physics - otherwise, we could be driving around in ghost powered cars and not have to worry about energy.
Do people who believe in ghosts also believe that our clothing have souls?
I've never understood that ... fine, you believe in ghosts. But, when you see them, shouldn't they always be naked? How can they still be wearing inorganic material regulated by natural physics?
Or, do you believe inanimate objects can become ghosts as well? If that's the case ... well, doesn't that limit the significance of our "souls" quite a bit?
I mean .... every single object ever created would be capable of the paranormal if that were true.*
*and no, I didn't write this while high
I would have guessed you were high
Natural_SciGuy, the issue with your blanket staement about uncovering "nearly all" is very misleading and if you are honest you will admit as much. As one example, the cold spot discovery was very much specific to that location. It cannot be used as a simplified explanation for every situation.
Keep in mind that human kind has a history of beliefs in the "supernatural" and over time those events became better understood as natural events and we've learned how to explain their causes and effects.
Our tools have become more sophisticated and we continue to learn more. Paranormal events may become fully explainable in the near future. Those who dismiss them as defying the laws of physics need to brush up on current physics. Reality is much more crazy than even ghosts when we discuss quantum physics and membrane/string theory. what we call paranormal only defies the laws of physics as we now understand them, but that understanding is not complete (who would have believed an invisibility cloak could actually be created before metamaterials were developed?)
Well, I must not be honest then, because I see nothing wrong with what I've said. Here's what I wrote:
If it isn't clear, I'm saying that skeptics will call into question nearly all paranormal events as - by their nature, and your own admission - they lack evidence that fits our understanding of how nature has been thus far been demonstrated to operate.... Hence their skepticism. How is this misleading? I've clearly stated the position taken by skeptics - are you taking issue with this?
My apologies if I am not understanding your point here, but I don't see any reason to call my statement misleading.
If you look at my other statements here, I think you'll find that we agree more than you may be realizing.
I have one problem with your reply though. You invoke quantum physics to bolster "paranormal" claims? Really? Why? Physics is just physics, and theoretical physics are mostly mathematically-based ruminations that attempt to explain observations that we don't have adequate tools to study properly. This isn't at all the same thing as invoking supernatural causality. If it's something we don't understand, then it's simply that - something we don't understand. That doesn't make it "outside of nature" or paranormal as most might define it. It doesn't explain ghosts, it doesn't do anything other than attempt to formulate a model for curious fundamental interactions. Your logic does not follow.
Both of which are not visible to the naked eye (or in the case of string theory, even instruments). They do not explain anything supernatural, nor are they strange in the regular sense of the word. They are mathematically coherent and make falsifiable claims. They are a sound explanation for how the very, very small particles function the way they do.
How do you measure a ghost? EVP? Electromagnetic field readings? Cold spots? How do you establish a causal link between these phenomena and the spirits of the dead? How do you define a spirit?
I think the key word here is causality. Those that think paranormal claims are credible generally see "evidence" and link it back to undead spirits, rather than formulating any logical reason why these spirits should cause certain phenomena. What physical properties of a spirit should cause cold spots, or electromagnetic fields, or EVP? Given that spirits are incorporeal and massless, why would they not be traveling at the speed of light? Are they reflected from absorptive surfaces? How do they become visible? What are they composed of?
And, for God's sake, how would any matter be able to assume the form of any animal, plant, or bacteria without the very real necessity of nucleic acids? Or cells? Or any other matter that gives form?
In the middle. So he only believes in half the bull@!$%#?
STILL you did not give a good answer to my post, only insipid tripe. In the middle lies the Truth, on the extreme ends you have the closed-minded sceptics and the closed minded 'believers' who think all 'paranormal' things are real. Only in the Middle you have the True Believers get Dose of Rationality (healthy scepticism)to screen out all the fake paranormal stuff. Only in the Middle you have the Open Minded Sceptic (me) who looks at the Scientific Facts and conclude that at least a small number of Paranormal Phenomena are real.
You're being quite vague. How about you explain your position through example? What do you believe that you find to be "true belief with a dose of rationality?" Please, do tell. I'll gladly engage in a conversation regarding specifics, but this rhetorical argumentation you're posing is little more than posturing on both sides of the issue.
you have given a comparison that is poorly chosen and sort of makes the skeptics case. diamond growth, both natural and artificial, has been thoroughly explained by science. what we're talking about with "paranormal" phenomenon not a natural phenomenon that has was understood quite thoroughly before it was attempted in a laboratory, we're talking about the claim that something is either outside the realm of scientific discourse (in which case it doesn't exist in this universe) or has yet to be explained (which is the point of this article...these events are being explained without the need for supernatural nonsense). all of the paranormal phenomena can be scientifically explained. if there is something happening that we can't explain yet, just give it some time. some enterprising young scientist will come along and figure it out.
Boyle is absolutely correct. The universe is boring. Open minds cause problems. Santa Claus doesn't exist. Neither does the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny or zombies. It's time to stop enjoying possibilities and imagination and get to work and pay taxes.
You left out deities.
Also, candy corn is bad for you.
...... Personally as an artist I tend to look at things with an open-mind. In fact because of us with open-minds, you guys have televisions shows, movies, entertainment, fashion shows, dance-offs, even those cars and machines you all probably run every single day. Someone used their mind to invent those items, It requires imagination to come up with movies such as Disney, James Bond, and more.
My point is Imagination itself isn't a curse, or a bad thing to have. However you cannot let it trick you into seeing things are believing, Religion has nothing to do with imagination, it's a word called faith, I pity scientists for their lack in that wonderful feeling. Faith isn't explainable for it only exists in someones soul. (I don't give a rip about you narcissistic scientists and atheists you are not superior than anyone else) the common misconception between Imagination and faith is the paranormal.
What gives one the right to judge someone who may actually have seen haunting s? Are they Immediately stupid? are they insane and should they be exiled from being a human? What if that actually happens to you? Would you like to be treated so coldly? I don't go around believing that everything being called haunted actually IS haunted till I see for myself but I have had run-ins with something strange. idk what you think about me because I know for one thing you are NOT ME. So skeptics have no right to call ME INSANE or anyone else who has had that happen to them. I understand skeptics if they just don't believe in it and It's best if they remain not ever having an experience.
Science cannot explain everything about the universe or the reverse world, which of course is the spiritual side of our realm. Science can try their best to solve and disapprove spiritual involvement but they overlook one common thing it also requires. YOUR OWN SPIRIT, if you continue to disbelieve it's only natural you will never find anything about it. They're trying to solve something that they themselves are not letting themselves see. Simply blinding themselves without knowing.
Atheists, I really don't care about your thoughts, however if you start being pests to everyone else who isn't like you then you really are not being any better than a Christian calling you out for being atheistic. I have noticed a good amount of you and other religious folk acting like hypocrites. It's time to think than let your ego get in the way of your judgement because all I'm seeing up here is nothing but a bunch of ego's being extremely loud and yapping uncontrollably. thank you.
Lol - so... Be open minded, but ignore what science, atheists, critical thinkers, and non-artists such as yourself have to say?
That's quite a model for open-mindedness.
What evidence do you have for any of the "reverse/spiritual world" you suggest exists? You make the positive claim, if you expect others to believe it, then you must provide the rationale. Otherwise, what separates you from somebody asking me to believe in a dragon in their garage or an invisible man in the sky, or pink unicorns that only appear on sunny days?
Science can assign the highest possible certainty to observations and models. That is far better than blind speculation about what may or may not "exist," driven largely by a person's desires and hopes.
I'm hoping Anti is a huge troll, drivel like this can't honestly be taken seriously. Everyone experiences things they can't quite initially explain at some point in their life. The difference is the skeptics look for a reasonable, rational explanation (which there almost always is), and the "believer" instantly jumps to the boogey man, because they want so desperately to believe there is something more certain in life than death and taxes.
I appreciate imagination and creativity as much as the next person, but let's stop blurring the line between fact and fiction.
Poe's law, right...?
What is so wonderful about faith? Faith is belief without knowledge and as such is likely to lead someone to a bad conclusion about their world. Sure it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling (so does bourbon btw), but sooner or later reality intrudes.
So you think that atheists and skeptics feel they are better than everyone? I propose that you have an inferiority complex. I further propose that it is the result of faith butting up against facts and that there is a war inside your mind to reconcile the faith you hold so dear and the reality you can see with your own eyes. Atheists didn't do that to you, your close minded faith did.
If something interacted with our plain of existence, it should be measurable. Science should be able to measure anything that exists in our world as a fundamental rule. Where there is lack of evidence there is lack of phenomena. Every time. If a ghost were measurable, every scientist would be studying them. No scientist would discount the existence of ghosts if evidence were presented. That's because scientists ARE NOT close minded.
No one is calling believers insane. Skeptics merely point out the facts and try to describe what is happening. It is when faith slams the door to this explanation that the believer resorts to feeling insulted. Faith is funny that way. It says believe in me without question - and defend me with fury. That's fury, not facts! Blind faith is dangerous to human beings and those around them. It is the faithful who are close minded.
Sorry Alan but I am not convinced. I have talked to too many people who are extremely honest, including Astronomers, Airplane pilots even some Air Force officers and in my opinion, I am convinced that they at least saw something. By the way, several groups have proven that Mass Hysteria is an invalid diagnosis.
Finally, what is the harm in allowing people to believe what they will eh? Especially when some of this stuff, that we investigate, we still have little information to form an opinion on eh? Alan, am I the only Skeptic that uses the word Inconclusive? I think I am.
"I have talked to too many people who are extremely honest, including Astronomers, Airplane pilots even some Air Force officers and in my opinion, I am convinced that they at least saw something."
The sincerity of someone's beliefs have nothing to do with the the truth of the belief. People with schizophrenia sincerely believe they've seen and heard things that just are not there. This is why in a court of law a video of someone robbing a store is greater evidence than a eyewitness claiming nothing happened to that store.
"By the way, several groups have proven that Mass Hysteria is an invalid diagnosis."
Can you show me some some published, peer reviewed scientific studies that have shown Mass Hysteria is invalid? After all, you can find groups out there that claim the Earth is flat, or groups that claim everything is the product of something's imagination.
"Finally, what is the harm in allowing people to believe what they will eh?"
What a person believes affects how they interact with reality. There are billions of other people living in reality too, and when people go around believing in things they have no evidence for, they're actions can have a negative impact on others. Scientific progress got held back hundreds of years by people believing that questioning the church's view on things would send them to hell. Or in more modern times, gay people are discriminated against because so many people believe that gays are immoral and unnatural. That's why caring if what you believe is true or not is important.
"Especially when some of this stuff, that we investigate, we still have little information to form an opinion on eh? Alan, am I the only Skeptic that uses the word Inconclusive? I think I am."
Scientist will be the first to say that there are tons of things we still don't know. It's obvious there is so much about the universe we don't understand. However, there are plenty of things we do know about. And the things we do know, we know because scientist have tested and tested the findings as much as they could.
Skeptiker...
So you think people should just sit around and believe in nothing eh?
One should be amply prepared to reject beliefs that are false. It's the highest form of self-honesty.
Good grief - it's the old "atheists don't believe in anything" snipe! Atheists believe in plenty, but they believe within the realm of possibilities based on known facts. Why must someone believe in completely made up things to be considered spiritual, or somehow whole? There are plenty of natural phenomena that are awe inspiring and spirit-moving, and those are even better than fantasy because we know they are real and we are a real part of them. It seems to me that unless an atheist believes exactly what some old book says to believe that they believe in "nothing," is that it?
Tim Minchin -- Storm
Lol yes!
Sometimes, things can't be explained. Doesn't science account for this in the uncertainty principle or something? And not everything has been discovered. Things we take for granted now were considered magic a century or two ago. Or is life really just Walmart, Mickey D's, and decomposition. I don't think so, but for those of you who do, what a boring pathetic existence you must lead.
Trusting in a naturalistic explanation for everything isn't a boring, pathetic existence. Everyone looks at science and sees the generalization of mechanisms. These are only approximations, however, because there is no way to account for every variation.
But that is what makes nature beautiful, is its variation. And life might be Walmart, but the people that walk through there are individuals, have their own stories, and they are human beings. That makes them precious. Not having to use the crutch of the supernatural to appreciate having a life and being human is not pathetic at all.
The uncertainty principle (I'm assuming you're referring to the principle, Heisenberg's) has nothing to do with not being able to explain things. It has to do with being unable to observe and record all states of an atom at one time.
@ D, just because you believe that life is something more, doesn't mean that it is. Your life, like everybody else's is a "boring pathetic existence". Our lives are no different than dogs, rats, ants, and bacteria. Your existence is just as meaningless as that of the cow you ate last night. The only difference is that the cow is far less delusional.
Precisely, SA Hornick!
Nature is so deeply varied and astounding when one looks at it with a scientific eye. Reality is far more interesting than any "wave of the hands" explanation posited by supernaturalists. It is far to easy to write off incredibly elegant phenomena and ignore the astounding beauty present in nature by invoking the supernatural.
Nature is there. Nature is real. We can and do investigate it and gain wild understandings that have real impact on our lives and well-being. All other options amount to effectively burying one's head in the sand, or pretending to have esoteric knowledge just to feel "special." Guess what, you are special, but it has everything to do with your biology and evolution, and nothing to do with "supernatural" interventions.
LOL@ Tesla Coil, good one.
You all have your beliefs, I have mine. Doesn't mine I'm right. Also does not mean you are right. Tesla, with your outlook, you could no doubt do any number of depraved things because life is meaningless. Dr. Mengele felt the same way. And yes, nature is real, but how did it all start in the first place? Until you can explain that and prove it, you are in the same boat as me. You think I'm deluded, I can say the same about you. No body will know for sure until you die.
Remember when you see the sentence:
Sometimes, things can't be explained.
Add the word "yet"
@D, I think it's more depraved that the religious zealots believe that the only thing keeping order is belief in a higher power. I have far more respect for the moral atheist, who is a good person and helps people just because it's the right thing to do, rather than the religious nut who is only a good person because they fear being smited by the wizard in the sky.
I guess I should be thankful that so many people fear God's retribution, without it, who knows what these crazies would be doing, were the fear removed.
There's no scientific explanation to what touched my feet last night while I was sleeping.
do you own a cat?
because, that would be... you know, problem solved.
If you didn't observe anything touching your feet, how do you know something did? Just because you feel something doesn't mean it's real.
Ever had a fan blow on you and feel like there is a spider crawling up your leg? The brain's not perfect.
Josh, did you read the article? It contained a perfectly reasonable, scientific and repeatable explanation for what touched your feet last night.
Yeal, It was Mass Hysteria that touched your feet.
"In fact, research has shown that some concepts ... out-of-body experiences, are rooted in solid neuroscience."
So far, I have yet to see anything that definitively proves that spontaneous OOBE are the result of neurological processes or whether the neurological processes are the result of the OOBE via mechnisms not understood.
Although an experience mimicking what is clinically defined as a "typical OOBE" may be artifically stimulated into occurring and the neurological processes monitored, this does not mean that in a spontaneous OOBE (which are often reported when individuals are unconcious and/or after significant traumatic events, generally life-threatening) are the product of the same neurological processes.
Does the spontaneous OOBE as stimulus produce the neurological reposnes in the same way as artificially induced experiences in a clinical setting produce the neurological responses? Or are the responses the generators of the experience. I'm not sure that it's been clearly deliniated as to which is the truth, and it is VERY hard to capture records of spontaneous OOBEs for objective study to find out.
The cause of these sensations have been known for quite a long time. The brain temporarily loses its capacity to distinguish between what it senses of the body and what it senses of the environment. People induce the same thing with recreational drugs all the time.
Sense is experience. Our response is conditioned by experience. So our responses are a function of our senses. It's not difficult to imagine someone having been conditioned to experience that loss of boundary when certain body and environmental factors are present.
I've lived in too many haunted houses to be told by a bunch of closed minded 'sceptics' that *all* the hauntings were my imgination, mis-perception, sleep paralysis, etc. I *have* had clairvoyant dreams, one of which got me a job the morning after. I don't argue with people like these anymore. What's the point? Nothing you say will convince them, nor will any physical evidence such as film, photos, or EVPs. I know the paranormal exists. If the deny it, let them; it doesn't affect me or my convistions.
if your ability to spell is indicative of your level of scientific understanding, then i'll be happy to accept the label of "closed minded skeptic". more to the point, you are yourself guilty of what you are accusing the skeptic (i.e. "nothing you say will convince them..."). things don't exist until they are disproven; they may or may not exist, but require proof before they can be treated as scientific reality. this is a fine distinction, and one that will generally be beyond the understanding of anyone credible enough to believe in spirit photography or electronic voice phenomenon.
It's funny, the one thing in common about living in "all" those haunted houses is you. Doesn't that make you think that maybe the houses weren't really "haunted" but you are the one creating these manifestations to satisfy your beliefs?
Ghosty troll
I have had three dreams that came true. I gave conscious thought to those dreams while I was wide awake before the events happened. (In one case, it was a recently past event, which I found out about a short time later.)
The dreams that came true had nothing to do with selective memory. I am certain I really dreamed them.
These were due to coincidence, nothing more. I've had thousands of dreams that did not come true.
"These were due to coincidence, nothing more."
The co-occurance of two events that seem related to each other generally are related. The question is always to what degree they are related, and the nature of the relationship. Just because we may not always see the relationship does not mean there is no relationship.
A priori knowledge of an event is the main goal of predictive science. If we know in advance what will happen, we can prepare for and perhaps control that event.
Assuming the dreams you had did closely resemble actual later events, there is nothing to say with any confidence that your dreams were not related to those events. One would have to examine the nature of the dreams and the nature of the events, in detail. Obvisouly, this is very difficult to do with dreams. Nevertheless, the fleeting nature of dreams and their near impossibility of scientifically analyzing their actual details does not mean the dreams themselves were not somehow prophetic.
There is some real science behind "remembering the future," and other seemingly impossible feats. The phenomenon of quantum entanglement suggests that it may be possible to know the future (see "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect", Daryl J. Bem, Cornell University). Such knowledge then, if incorporated into a dream, would make the dream in fact prophetic.
Moral of the story: Don't discount the power of dreams as potential portents of future events.
The sad fact of the matter, no matter how many explanationsare given Americans simply do not have the brain capacity to understand what they are seeing, hearing or feeling is simply an act of brain power. It's astounding how ignorant Americans are becoming instead of more enlightened they are becoming more moronic or plain stupid. I've never seen such actions in real time practice as I've seen with Zak Bagins on Ghost Adventures this man really needs to be locked away in some asylum and he really needs professional help and someone close to him should suggest it.
I believe in science and in skepticism, but why is it that science always tries to disprove these kind of phenomenon ( which is not a bad thing) but never tries to prove that it exist?
Because there is no absolute certainty to proof. Science works by seeking to disprove hypotheses. If the hypothesis is that "ghosts exist" for example, the goal is not to find evidence that they exist, but to find evidence that they do not.
I could explain why it is much more efficient that way, but it's pretty easy to figure out when looking at it logically, and I wouldn't want to insult your intelligence.
I have to agree with SNAPPA. It is unbelievable how many comments I've read where it sounded like the comments came from a child. I think people are spending too much time watching movies and not getting involved in science and understand life around them.
When I was a teenager, I was absolutely convinved that I had seen a ghost. My kitten even reacted, tensing up and hissing. I was scared motionless (or so I believed). I could have passed a polygraph with flying colors.
But then, I started having sleep paralysis more frequently as an adult. At first I thought I was going crazy, until I learned from my mother and sister at a family gathering that these episodes actually run in our family. Sleep paralysis is crazy scary. It causes more paranoia and fear than actual life and death situations (at least for me, having experienced both). I totally understand why people with sleep paralysis think they may have seen a ghost, been abducted by aliens, or whatever. I can see how it can cause PTSD.
I was so relieved when I learned that I hadn't seen a ghost, that the world really was rational and sane. But I can also see how people who cling to belief in the paranormal would be very reluctant to let it go. They need mystery in their lives, and they aren't satisfied with the plethora of astounding mysteries that the universe actually throws at us. They need ghosts and goblins, not subatomic particles.
The mind is a crazy monkey.
Interesting that you and your cat both experienced sleep paralysis at the same time in a waking state...
Here's the thing though, you were obviously afraid of seeing a ghost. Rationalism is the whispered prayer in the night as a protection against what you fear. How rational is that?
By the way, that thing you see at the end of your bed at night? Science has not yet proven it's not there. Only that they believe it can't be there. And yet you are afraid of it.
Obviously my cat was reacting to me. He often did that. When I was upset, he'd be upset. When I was hyper, he'd be hyper. The smell of fear is not just hyperbole.
Most of the rest of your post makes no sense to me. Was I specifically afraid of seeing a ghost at the age of 16? No. A vampire would have made more sense, but we can't control our dreams (mostly).
And I see nothing at the end of my bed these days. Unless you mean my dresser. I'm pretty sure science can prove it's there and I don't fear it.
See my other posts as well as a few more written by others Jaimie. Call it what you like it sounds like whistling in the cemetery...
I think you used the term "scared motionless." That sounds scared to me.
@McWatts: It seems Jaimie L wrote a pretty straight forward post and explained things quite clearly, in her opinion. You immediately went with "Interesting that you and your cat both experienced sleep paralysis at the same time in a waking state..." but she did not say/write that at all. it was merely stated that the cat reacted to something as she reacted. Others' experiences are just that, others so instead of attempting to bully your opinion to try and make other believe that their opinion was incorrect or that yours is a better one to believe, how about adding value to the stream with good approach?
Who are you to state what she (Jaimie I apologize if you are a male and I keep saying she) "sounds scared" to you? really?
Thanks, Disabled_Vet! And yes, you got it right. I've been a female all my life. ;)
McWatts - I think we've got a disconnect here. I first stated an incident that happened twenty years ago. I believed at the time that it was an encounter with a ghost in the middle of the night. And yes, I described a part where "I was scared motionless (or so I believed)."
Sleep paralysis is terrifying and one's ability to move is gone. Everything that happened to me twenty years ago is so clear now because I can now fight off these sleep paralysis episodes if I can get myself to realize it's a dream. (That is usually the case.) Also, my kitty now sometimes wakes me up when I'm having an attack.
So now I can look back on that one episode when I thought I saw a ghost and compare it to all the sleep paralysis episodes I've had since then (with a wide variety of scary situations, but no more "ghosts") and realize that it followed the distinct pattern that my other episodes have had.
As I said before, the terror that these attacks of sleep paralysis cause is beyond that which I experienced in real life and death situations. There really isn't a word for the horror, helpessness, and complete inevitabilty of doom.
Scientists in China and India known as Buddhists have been studying this for 6,000 years. You mental midgets think you know so much, you only delude yourself into a corner.
I tend to be the person in my family/friend circle that plays the skeptic. Too many are so easily drawn into a neat - interesting - scary explanation and tend to believe that rather than the dull, boring, safe explanation. I do get a start from many people when they ask me if I believe in UFO's -- "Of Course!" I say immediately. If I see something flying that I do not recognize -- it is a UFO -- once that "O" is identified -- it is an IFO... So far even the "unexplained" UFO's are suffixed with the word -YET-
I am amused by skeptics. In their attempts to explain away supernatural phenomena, they come up with scenarios that are even more far-fetched than the idea of supernatural phenomena existing. I think skeptics are merely afraid. If anything supernatural were found to be true, they would lose their world view that everything in nature is perfectly explainable and controllable.
Not all of "Us Skeptics" Try to explain away everything. As I said above, I get the feeling I am the only Skeptic who uses the word, "Inconclusive"
If anything supernatural were found to be true, they would lose their world view that everything in nature is perfectly explainable and controllable. - In order to be found to be true by definition it would then be explainable therefore no true skeptic would be afriad of this
Then why do so many skeptics come down so hard on people and/or groups who are trying to find out if paranormal phenomena actually exist? Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is only one problem with science. It has not yet proven or disproven every last unseen phenomenon in the universe. Dark matter and string theory? Things that go bump in the night that have not been proven. Snark, Snark.
Continental drift? Insane theory and driven out of science (ignoring the obvious shape of contnental masses that looked like pieces of a puzzle that fit together) until tectonic plates and sea floor spread were proven.
Then the "magic carpet" on Mars where the scientist stated "it looks like mud and it acts like mud, but it can't be mud..."
The list could go on and on where science has derided what coudn't possibly be in one generation then had it proven in the next. "It looks and acts like that but can't be that."
Rationalism in it's extreme form can be every bit as much an irrational form of dogma as any other belief system.
I am a firm believer in scientific principles but science should be about open inquiry. Sure, don't believe it exists until you can prove it but don't state it can't exist until you disprove it. And snarkiness is not scientific principle.
You know, I was thinking that an explanation to Ghost might be found in the Quantum Theories. Now all that needs to be done is some Quantum scientist to examine the situation.
I don't find that explanation to be incompatible with quantum theory. Why can't a ghost be a piece of dark matter or an alternate reality bleeding through in accordance with string theory?
Let's put it this way, if there is dark matter, something is out there must have mass but can't be seen and apparently can't be measured by our current science. Yet numerous scientists believe it must exist. And if string theory is the theory that explains everything it should also explain the "paranormal"
The media, however, includuing the science media play up the snark factor every time.
I once lived in an old house, and "saw", in an attic room, a woman in a long black dress with a white apron. I mentioned this to no one. At the dinner table a week or so later, I shared my experience with the attic "ghost" with my housemates, expecting a good laugh, and one of them replied with amazement, "The woman in the black dress and apron?!" I have no idea what I "thought" I saw, and no explanation for my friend having seen it too. I most emphatically did not speak of the experience to anyone, or write it down. Odd to me that "science" closes doors on the paranormal, "explains" it all rationally, while at the same time, embracing unproven theories that are no less mysterious.
As Shakespeare wrote, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167
There will always be those who claim to understand science, and who are so sure of the limits of its potential even before any true scientific investigation can get off the ground. This is often due to in large part to simple fear of the unknown. It is considered common knowledge that human beings tend to fear what they do not understand. This fear holds us back from realizing our potential in a great many things; but science is especially vulnerable to this.
I am a researcher and doctoral candidate. My area of specialization is Psychology research and evaluation; specifically, cognitive neuroscience. I am also a clinician and psychopharmacology researcher. I happen to have an interest in modern physics (quantum physics and M-theory especially). I have traveled and have interacted with other cultures from many parts of the world, and I am familiar with varied human perceptions of the world as influenced by culture.
I won't try to "bedazzle" you with scientific jargon and try to convince you that some things we might call "paranormal" are real phenomena, and not tricks of a magician, products of a semi-dream state, or some quasi delusional process of a momentarily confused mind. I would simply ask you to more frequently engage in what psychologists call "meta cognition, or thinking about your thinking. Go to a quiet place, relax your mind and body, and simply observe your own thoughts. If you're not used to doing this, it will take some practice before you will encounter something quite remarkable: a heightened sense of awareness and change of your perception of not only the world around you, but of your own existential self. Sounds "deep," I know. Well, it is!
I believe that a true scientist is intrepid in her search for truth and knowledge. To her, there is no subject of the Universe that is off-limits to thorough, appropriate scientific investigation.
You know there is much more here (i.e., existing) than "meets the eye." You have a real sense of this. Do not discount this perception; instead, pursue and investigate it the best you can. Stay true to the principles of scientific investigation. You do not have to be an official "scientist" to conduct science. Human beings are designed with a deep need to understand our world, and most of us are quite capable of doing so if we put our fear aside and keep our eyes - and our minds - wide open.
"I see dead people."
What was that, kid? I didn't hear ya.
"I see dead people."
Kid, you're gonna have to speak up. I can't hear a word you're saying.
(Which isn't how the dialogue between Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment went in The Sixth Sense, but it probably should have. I've always wondered what Carl Sagan might have done with a screenplay about the paranormal. It makes me smile, thinking about it.)