Newbie questions his sanity

[Whomp]

It has taken me quite a while to formulate this post.
I believe in a "god" because of first hand experiences I've had.

The more I lurk here, it seems the prevailing opinion is that deists are irrational at best. I am not a student of philosophy, and debating critical thinking is not my strong point. However I consider myself to be at least moderately intelligent.

So, "skeptically" speaking, is personal observation enough to make a judgement on, lacking other evidence? If not, then I must be irrational for believing I have experienced the things I have.

What the experiences have been is unimportant. Either they happened, or are the product of a deranged mind. If they happened, I begin to believe in a higer power. If they didn't, I'm crazy.

So I have to assume that my experience is real. I understand that my personal experience would not convince someone else of the existance of 'god', and I really don't care.
I feel absolutely no need to evangelize.

This board has really opened my eyes to critical thinking and skepticism. I find myself questioning and testing long held beliefs and opinions. This is a good thing. This is an issue I have trouble reconciling.

Reading back over my post, I realize I am not expressing myself well. Perhaps it will be enough to get a dialog moving though.

Whomp!

[Torment]

You say that either what happened was real or you are crazy.

Perhaps you are ignoring the possiblity of a third option?

Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally? I'm not asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally, I'm asking you if there is any possible rational explanation whatsoever.

Many people who claim to have "witnessed" miracles or some such thing, often don't accept that there are rational explanations. They insist that their interpretation of how these events happened are true, and don't even consider any of the alternatives.

[Whomp]

I'm not sure what the difference between

B]Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally?[/B]

and

asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally

If I think it can't be explained "rationally", then I'm pretty positive. Otherwise I wouldn't think that.

Let's postulate for a moment that I saw a manifestation of a spirit.
Let's also postulate that I can't find a rational, expainable natural phenomenon that would account for what I saw.

Is my story convincing to you ... of course not. But do I ignore my own experience because "rational" people don't believe in god?
Do I commit the sophistry of "It's a currently unexplained occurance that surely has some rational explination."?

Or, should I just sit and wait for the gentlemen with the canvas sportcoat?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Whomp
What the experiences have been is unimportant.

Hey Whomp,

I think the experiences are the most important thing. If you could capsulize what happened, maybe someone else who experienced something similar can make sense of it.

[Dymanic]

Hi Whomp!

I have always thought that if I woke up one morning and Jesus was sitting on the foot of my bed, and he told me all about how he wanted me to follow him and become a Christian...that I would do it without hesitation. I just won't do it on the strength of someone else's experience.

As one with some first-hand experience in psychedelic drugs, I would be fairly confident in my ability to distinguish between the real thing and some kind of hallucination. So, as torment says, a lot seems to depend on your degree of confidence in what you saw (or heard, or whatever). If you would like help evaluating that, then what the experiences have been is important.

'Cmon, give it up, we'll be nice.

[Torment]

Originally posted by Whomp
I'm not sure what the difference between

Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally?

and

asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally

If I think it can't be explained "rationally", then I'm pretty positive. Otherwise I wouldn't think that.

What I was asking was basically whether you were "pretty positive" as you just said, or "absolutely no doubt in my mind positive".

Let's postulate for a moment that I saw a manifestation of a spirit.
Let's also postulate that I can't find a rational, expainable natural phenomenon that would account for what I saw.

Is my story convincing to you ... of course not. But do I ignore my own experience because "rational" people don't believe in god?
Do I commit the sophistry of "It's a currently unexplained occurance that surely has some rational explination."?

Not being able to find a rational, explainable solution does not neccasarily mean one isn't present. If you simply give up after looking at a few and speculate that it is supernatural, that is not very logical. Did you ever consider you were hallucinating as a rational explanation?

We often don't think these kind of things happen to us, because we are healthy people. I blacked out and fell to the ground earlier this year. Nothing seemed wrong with me. I was in perfect health, and neither I nor my doctors could find a reason why it happened. Do I think it was a supernatural experience? No. The same can apply to hallucinations.
Or, should I just sit and wait for the gentlemen with the canvas sportcoat? [/B]
It is possible that it is a hallucination, or even temporary insanity. You seem to be rational enough right now. Hardly insane.

[Whomp]

Wow, how to write this without sounding like a raving lunatic...

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life. In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.
I'm unsure where my beliefs came from, but they have been with me as long as I can remember.

I have spent long months in the wilderness of New Mexico backpacking. On two occasions I have spoken to animals.

Well... OK... not spoken , but heard/felt in my head.
A deer walked into my campsite one day and laid down about 6 feet from me. Now when I'm out, I try very hard to be in harmony with my surroundings, (Woo Woo!!!) but I'm not THAT good!
A communication began with the deer. The particulars are unimportant. I was able to touch the deer before it left. I also saw things that it had "told" me.
I knew where it had slept the night before, and found the bed. I knew where two seperate springs were that I didn't know existed before. And I knew where i would find a decomposing cow. (Go figure)

Having "confirmation" of these things convinced me that I didn't imagine the whole thing, or have a psychotic break, but I also can't fit it within the "rational" world.

[Dymanic]

Hard to know what to make of that.

I would ask a couple of questions (just routine): Were you taking any kind of drugs or medications? Are you in your late teens/early twenties?

[Whomp]

I have taken psychadelics in my time, but I don't when I'm out packing. Too easy to mess up and hurt yourself.

Although I'm unsure of the reasoning behind the question, I'm 35 years old. The experience I related was probably 7 or 8 years ago.

[Dymanic]

Would you say that the experience was more auditory than visual? In other words, you say the deer didn't speak in words, but...not pictures, either? Something heard?

Were these two experiences unique for you, or have you had other similar ones? Have you developed an unusual rapport with any other animals since these incidents? So you find yourself irresistably compelled to watch 'The Wild Thorberrys' (Sorry...I HAD to put that in. I need to test you for teaseability at this time. If you've never seen the show, I recommend you check it out--I think you'll enjoy it).

Although I'm unsure of the reasoning behind the question, I'm 35 years old.
Just trying out a couple of ideas. Early twenties is the most common time for the onset of schizophrenia. The sort of experience you describe is not typical of what I've seen in the schizophrenics I've known (though they were all urban dwellers). It is not far from some drug-induced experiences I've had. Some people used to think it was funny to 'dose' somebody without telling them.

Another thing that pops into my head is that it is often recommended that contact with animals in the wild be avoided, especially when they seem to display unusually tame behavior--this is a common symptom of some stages of rabies.

You sound like you are willing to consider that this may have been some sort of delusional episode, and I agree that this possibility bears examination. Even if this is the case, it doesn't necessarily mean you're hopelessly deranged--the presence of mind you have shown so far indicates that you are pretty functional, which is more than a lot of us can say.

If that possibility bothers you, you might consider seeking the advice of a mental health professional. So far, I'd have to say that the conclusions you have reached are pretty much the same ones I would have reached if these experiences had happended to me. (Well, except for the part about God--I don't see it as evidence of that. Something unusual, and possibly unexplainable seems to have happened to you, but I don't see how it goes that far--doesn't prove astrology or Atlantis either).

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Whomp
I have taken psychadelics in my time

bingo. I have had a number of people report to me that they have had halucinations happen a long long time after they have consumed this stuff.....

[Whomp]

Hmmm, it seems that ANY explaination is more agreeable than a spiritual one.

have always thought that if I woke up one morning and Jesus was sitting on the foot of my bed, and he told me all about how he wanted me to follow him and become a Christian...that I would do it without hesitation.

From what I've seen so far, this may not be the most accurate statement. Are you saying that this would convince you of Jesus' existance, not of schizophenia, or temporary insanity?

Please understand, I've been treated quite gently in this thread and I appreciate it, but it seems that any mental gymnastics that DON'T include the spiritual are preferable to one that does.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Whomp
Wow, how to write this without sounding like a raving lunatic...

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life. In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.
I'm unsure where my beliefs came from, but they have been with me as long as I can remember.

I have spent long months in the wilderness of New Mexico backpacking. On two occasions I have spoken to animals.

Well... OK... not spoken , but heard/felt in my head.
A deer walked into my campsite one day and laid down about 6 feet from me. Now when I'm out, I try very hard to be in harmony with my surroundings, (Woo Woo!!!) but I'm not THAT good!
A communication began with the deer. The particulars are unimportant. I was able to touch the deer before it left. I also saw things that it had "told" me.
I knew where it had slept the night before, and found the bed. I knew where two seperate springs were that I didn't know existed before. And I knew where i would find a decomposing cow. (Go figure)

Having "confirmation" of these things convinced me that I didn't imagine the whole thing, or have a psychotic break, but I also can't fit it within the "rational" world.

I guess I would have to describe myself as a weak minded skeptic. I am one of those people who has to conciously fight the urge to pick up the phone and order the Pasto Pro or whatever the latest piece of junk Ron Popeil is hawking on TV. I have always been fairly gullible and only learned my skepticism after years of disappointments. In my younger days I was always drawn toward the fantastical. I used to read those Carlos Castaneda books and other mysticals sorts of stuff - which your story sort of puts me in mind of.

I guess my feeling is this - I still like/need to believe that there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in all our philosophies - to badly paraphrase Shakespeare. I do believe in the truths of science. I also happen to be a scientist. But I also believe in the truths of personal experience. I do not believe that everything is explainable. I believe that somethings in experience are irreducible. I believe that the brain, while composed of purely physical stuff, amounts to far more than the sum of its parts. I am not uncomfortable with the notion that there may be "mystical" aspects to reality - which is to say, aspects of reality of which we are not generally expressly aware but which can be profound and meaningful and which are just as real as those aspects which we take routinely forgranted. I am not talking about anything supernatural here, merely that there are subtle aspects of natural reality which are over looked in the workaday world. got to go. ok, now skewer me. got to start the weed whacker for the wife.

[shemp]

Whomp, the only first-hand experience you ever had with god was when he grabbed your willy and wanked you.

There is a simple explanantion. You are deranged.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Whomp
Hmmm, it seems that ANY explaination is more agreeable than a spiritual one.



From what I've seen so far, this may not be the most accurate statement. Are you saying that this would convince you of Jesus' existance, not of schizophenia, or temporary insanity?

Please understand, I've been treated quite gently in this thread and I appreciate it, but it seems that any mental gymnastics that DON'T include the spiritual are preferable to one that does.
Bingo! Your first shave with Ockham's razor.

[Whomp]

Shemp, you cutie! Gimmee a smootch....


Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Whomp

Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?
Occam says you should provisionally accept the simplest explanation that explains all the data.

We know that hallucinations happen. We can prove this, and they do not involve any new forces or entities. If you want to speculate that there is a ghost in the seance room making things go bump and playing the musical instruments, then that ghost is new to science and is therefore a more complex explanation than that the medium, under cover of darkness, knocked things around with his foot. Supernatural explanations do not fit into our current scientific understanding of the world (by definition).

[arcticpenguin]

To relate this to the specifics of your experience, a person alone in the wilderness for weeks or months at a time experiences hallucinations - would that be an extraordinary occurence? Would it be difficult to explain knowing what we know about the brain and hallucinations?

No.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Whomp

Hmmm, it seems that ANY explaination is more agreeable than a spiritual one.

I'm going to plead guilty to that, but I think I can defend it.

The most agreeable explanation (not always necessarily the best, just the default first choice) is always going to be the one that requires the least number of unsupported assumptions. The fact that this often makes the spititual explanation less desireable is not my fault; all explanations are measured with the same yardstick (if it makes you feel better, explanations that require intervention on the part of extraterrestrial beings are also disfavored for the same reason, and that's not exactly a spiritual explanation).

it seems that any mental gymnastics that DON'T include the spiritual are preferable to one that does.
You yourself suggested that a possibility is that the experience was delusional. I agree that that is worth looking at. If that's mental gymnastics, it ain't exactly the Olympics.

As far as my being convinced by a firsthand experience with Jesus--yes, I would tend to give a lot of weight to such an experience. I don't see that I would have any choice about this--in a struggle between my intellect and my eyes, the eyes tend to win out most of the time; when dealing with firsthand observation, the information is sent directly to the brain, and the conclusion is reached before the intellect is even consulted. A conclusion like that can be overruled, but not without considerable effort. As I said earlier, a lot depends on your degree of confidence that what you saw was real.

I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.
A spiritual explanation can be the simpler explanation only as long as you can confine it to its specific domain, which of course you can't; it has ramifications for the rest of reality. A lot of stuff comes unravelled as soon as one verifiable supernatural phenomenon rears its lovely head.

[wraith]

...just passing by...

Hi there Whomp...

Oh by the way, I dig your avatar Torment

[Torment]

Originally posted by wraith
...just passing by...

Hi there Whomp...

Oh by the way, I dig your avatar Torment
Thanks. I find it blends well with my username.

[Whomp]

A lot of stuff comes unravelled as soon as one verifiable supernatural phenomenon rears its lovely head.

I'm unsure why the existance of "soul" or "spirit" unravels anything. How is my experience any different that having Jeesus expounding from the foot of your bed?
I agree that I couldn't possibly expect someone to change thier viewpoint because of an unverifiable claim of mine.

Arctic -
I'll concede that one. Being out that long (over a month) does change your mindset. It sure didn't seem like a halucination though.

Like I'd be able to tell

But I can still pull out my forest service quads and look at two springs penciled in because of that experience.

[asthmatic camel]

Hi Whomp,

Have you considered the possibilty of sun-stroke as an explanation?

Just a thought.

[Whomp]

A.C. - No.

[Yahzi]

[Q]Whomp[/b]
I'm unsure why the existance of "soul" or "spirit" unravels anything.
Because it contradicts every other experience we have.

Irrationality lies in inconsistency: in accepting as true an experience that contradicts all the other data - while still accepting all the other data as true!

If souls are real, then a) murder is not the crime we thought, b) death is not the end, c) evolution is not the origin of man or life, d) the brain is not the mind, e) people with brain damage are simply inexplicable, f) the four fundamental forces are not sufficient to explain the universe, g) physics is missing something crucial, h) computer programmers are toying with forces beyond their ken, i) the common experience of 5,000 years of written history is wrong, j) Shakespeare's plays no longer make sense, k) Confucious no longer makes sense, l) The Illiad no longer makes sense, m) hospitals no longer make sense...

need I go on?

The discovery of the soul would be more significant than the discovery of fire, literacy, or the wheel. It would change human society that much.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Whomp



This board has really opened my eyes to critical thinking and skepticism. I find myself questioning and testing long held beliefs and opinions. This is a good thing. This is an issue I have trouble reconciling.

[/B]

All this board has done is open my eyes up to how incredibly stupid Skeptics are and arrogant to boot.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Torment
You say that either what happened was real or you are crazy.

Perhaps you are ignoring the possiblity of a third option?

Are you positive your experience couldn't be explained rationally? I'm not asking you if you THINK it can't be explained rationally, I'm asking you if there is any possible rational explanation whatsoever.

Many people who claim to have "witnessed" miracles or some such thing, often don't accept that there are rational explanations. They insist that their interpretation of how these events happened are true, and don't even consider any of the alternatives.

Rational explanation? Seems your notion of a "rational explanation" is anything consonant with the materialist metaphysic :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
[B]Hi Whomp!

I have always thought that if I woke up one morning and Jesus was sitting on the foot of my bed, and he told me all about how he wanted me to follow him and become a Christian...that I would do it without hesitation. I just won't do it on the strength of someone else's experience.



To give credit this is actually fair enough.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Torment


Not being able to find a rational, explainable solution does not neccasarily mean one isn't present. If you simply give up after looking at a few and speculate that it is supernatural, that is not very logical.



Yeah, and I'm pretty sure that the Skeptic will never enlighten us as to why it is illogical. Just axiomatic for the materialist/Skeptic!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Whomp
Shemp, you cutie! Gimmee a smootch....


Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?

Occams razor is only ever used in this board as a justification of materialism and skepticism. By definition they consider any explanation consonant with materialism to be more simple.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
The most agreeable explanation (not always necessarily the best, just the default first choice) is always going to be the one that requires the least number of unsupported assumptions.


So how the f*ck does this always justify materialism? For a kick off you're advocating the existence of a material world. Doesn't seem to me that materialists are f*cking presupposing the least number of unsupported assumptions.

Absolute f*cking a*seholes

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[Q]Whomp

Because it contradicts every other experience we have.

Irrationality lies in inconsistency: in accepting as true an experience that contradicts all the other data - while still accepting all the other data as true!

If souls are real, then a) murder is not the crime we thought, b) death is not the end, c) evolution is not the origin of man or life, d) the brain is not the mind, e) people with brain damage are simply inexplicable, f) the four fundamental forces are not sufficient to explain the universe, g) physics is missing something crucial, h) computer programmers are toying with forces beyond their ken, i) the common experience of 5,000 years of written history is wrong, j) Shakespeare's plays no longer make sense, k) Confucious no longer makes sense, l) The Illiad no longer makes sense, m) hospitals no longer make sense...

need I go on?

The discovery of the soul would be more significant than the discovery of fire, literacy, or the wheel. It would change human society that much. [/B]

What a complete tit.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Whomp

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life.
On another thread, we concluded that one tends to first choose an explanation for things that fits with the system of beliefs he was already using. Just kinda easier to do that than make up a new one for every new experience.
In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.
Understood.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

So how the f*ck does this always justify materialism? For a kick off you're advocating the existence of a material world. Doesn't seem to me that materialists are f*cking presupposing the least number of unsupported assumptions.
Without necessarily getting into all that, what's your slant on the talking deer thing?

[Whomp]

Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Whomp
Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

I'm not on your side ar*ewipe. I have not defended what you have said in any shape or form. I am merely attacking those who unthinkingly espouse the materialist metaphysic. If I wish to make comments regarding the breathtaking stupidity of some of the remarks on this thread, then I shall do so.

If you don't like it then don't read my posts or put me on ignore. Your displeasure will not prevent me from voicing my opinions though.

I suggest you deal with it.

[Torment]

Originally posted by Whomp
Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

Don't worry about it. Half of us don't even realize if he is on your side or not. All we see when he posts is "This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here] ". :D

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Whomp
Ian, could you maybe go be on someone else's side?

Please?

Whomp, despite your hallucinatory talking deer the above proves that you are not wholly psychotic afterall :D

[Whomp]

Ian - Ahh sweet reason.

Yahzi, Im thinking about what you said, and I'm not quite clear how the existance of a soul etc. abrogates all those other things.
Let me ponder for a bit.

Torment, thanks.

[Whomp]

A.C. - I'm fairly sure the deer wasn't halucinating at the time. I could be wrong though.
Mushrooms abound.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Whomp
Shemp, you cutie! Gimmee a smootch....


Arctic, I'm not sure I understand how a complex (or far-fetched)explanation that does not involve spirituality, is better than a simple one that does.

Is that how Occam works?

Give an example of a religious explanation that is simpler than a scientific account.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by The Fool


bingo. I have had a number of people report to me that they have had halucinations happen a long long time after they have consumed this stuff.....

Yess indeedy, I think the reason for flashbacks (please confirm or refute) is that they drugs are chemicaly similar enough to interact with processes in the nuerons, thus causing the halucinations, but different enough that they don't break down.

Point is, flashbacks happen.

[Yahzi]

Yahzi, Im thinking about what you said, and I'm not quite clear how the existance of a soul etc. abrogates all those other things.
Well, if we could ask Nicole whether or not O.J. whacked her, wouldn't that simplify things?

But if you define the soul as to be utterly inaccessible from this life, then you've just defined it out of existance.

If the existance of a thing is indistinguishable from its non-existance, then that thing does not exist. We call this "Reason."

[Dymanic]

Give an example of a religious explanation that is simpler than a scientific account.
Piece of cake:
"And God said, 'Let there be light'. And there was light."

Occam's razor is just a heuristic tool. I wouldn't obsess on it too much. It doesn't really even say that the simpler explanation is better, just that it is the best place to start. It certainly doesn't say that there are not things that require complex explanations.

Perhaps we should pause and define 'simple' and 'complex'?

...never mind.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Piece of cake:
"And God said, 'Let there be light'. And there was light."

Occam's razor is just a heuristic tool. I wouldn't obsess on it too much. It doesn't really even say that the simpler explanation is better, just that it is the best place to start. It certainly doesn't say that there are not things that require complex explanations.

Perhaps we should pause and define 'simple' and 'complex'?

...never mind.


Quite so, I prefer the definition of the razor that stays truest to the original and doesn't require me to translate latin. "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" . Skydaddy did it all see? SKYDADDY controls TLOP controls YOU. Nothing extra, just the skydaddy, of whose imagination you are but a figment, so don't make him angry.;)

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Whomp
Wow, how to write this without sounding like a raving lunatic...

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life. In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.
I'm unsure where my beliefs came from, but they have been with me as long as I can remember.

I have spent long months in the wilderness of New Mexico backpacking. On two occasions I have spoken to animals.

Well... OK... not spoken , but heard/felt in my head.
A deer walked into my campsite one day and laid down about 6 feet from me. Now when I'm out, I try very hard to be in harmony with my surroundings, (Woo Woo!!!) but I'm not THAT good!
A communication began with the deer. The particulars are unimportant. I was able to touch the deer before it left. I also saw things that it had "told" me.
I knew where it had slept the night before, and found the bed. I knew where two seperate springs were that I didn't know existed before. And I knew where i would find a decomposing cow. (Go figure)

Having "confirmation" of these things convinced me that I didn't imagine the whole thing, or have a psychotic break, but I also can't fit it within the "rational" world.

As a Christian, (and a skeptic), I have to wonder what would be the point of your experience. I am not saying there is no point....I am just trying to figure out if there is one.

Was this the only experience you've had of this nature?

Suggestion is a powerful thing. Being alone in the wilderness and getting in touch with nature seems to be a powerful source of suggestion to me. If you already have a thing about animals to boot, then I am not surprised by your experience.

[Whomp]

LOST:
One Grip. Fits my reality.

[Whomp]

Ruby,
I have had one other experience with this, but one is enough to illustrate.

as far as "point" goes; I guess I took my experience as "A spirit world does exist, and creatures do have souls/awareness"
Grrrr...
I'm having a difficult time finding the language.

Although i'm gonna get hammered for this, I really believe something like the "Force" exists. (Minus the levitation and lighningbolts of death, etc.)

Everything is tied together in some form. On a spiritual level if you like. Sometimes communication is possible on this level.

<shrug>

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Whomp
LOST:
One Grip. Fits my reality.

I don't think you have lost your grip on reality. I just think there might be a totally sane and rational explanation to your experience.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Just as a possible explanation with respect to hallucinogenics, I believe that some chemicals can be stored in fat and then released when the fat is burned off. It seems likely that hiking would lead to some fat being burned.

This is all just speculation.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Whomp
Ruby,
I have had one other experience with this, but one is enough to illustrate.

as far as "point" goes; I guess I took my experience as "A spirit world does exist, and creatures do have souls/awareness"
Grrrr...
I'm having a difficult time finding the language.

Although i'm gonna get hammered for this, I really believe something like the "Force" exists. (Minus the levitation and lighningbolts of death, etc.)

Everything is tied together in some form. On a spiritual level if you like. Sometimes communication is possible on this level.

<shrug>

I think I understand. I do believe we are all Spiritual beings. For me, the "force" is God. I just don't believe that animals or inanimate objects are spiritual.

[Whomp]

Ruby,
that's 'cause you're prejudiced!:p

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Whomp
Ruby,
that's 'cause you're prejudiced!:p :p :D

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

Point is, flashbacks happen.
I've never had one. Always thought it would be cool, tho.
In AA, that's called a 'freebie'.
I always wondered if the flashback thing was a load of bull, just something somebody made up to tell his friends when actually he was just holding out on them.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
Just as a possible explanation with respect to hallucinogenics, I believe that some chemicals can be stored in fat and then released when the fat is burned off. It seems likely that hiking would lead to some fat being burned.

This is all just speculation.

Wile E. Coyote,

You are correct, the active ingredients in cannabis are not water soluble and build up in fatty tissue, see
http://www.ukcia.org/research/ReviewOfResearchLiteratureConcerningEffectsOfCanna bis.html

for further details. As to the retention of other hallucinogens in body tissue, I'm not so sure. The likes of LSD and psilocybin appear to be broken down rapidly and excreted in short order.
I suspect that the "flashback" phenomenon with these sustances has more to do with recollection of a truly mind-bending experience rather than a pharmacological effect but I'm no expert.

Perhaps someone more knowledgable could enlighten us ?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Well, if we could ask Nicole whether or not O.J. whacked her, wouldn't that simplify things?

But if you define the soul as to be utterly inaccessible from this life, then you've just defined it out of existance.

If the existance of a thing is indistinguishable from its non-existance, then that thing does not exist. We call this "Reason."

Not if you define the soul as the self, a self which is ontologically self-subsistant.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not if you define the soul as the self, a self which is ontologically self-subsistant.

Which is exactly why I define it as a quality instead.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Piece of cake:
"And God said, 'Let there be light'. And there was light."

Occam's razor is just a heuristic tool. I wouldn't obsess on it too much. It doesn't really even say that the simpler explanation is better, just that it is the best place to start. It certainly doesn't say that there are not things that require complex explanations.

Perhaps we should pause and define 'simple' and 'complex'?

...never mind.

An example of complexity would be where we have all these multifarious scientific entities to explain the everyday world, such as neutrons, protons, electrons, left handed up quarks, right handed up quarks, right handed down quarks, left handed down quarks, charmed quarks, strange quarks, right handed top quarks, left handed top quarks, left handed bottom quarks, right handed bottom quarks, gauge bosons, higgs bosons, W bosons, Z bosons, neutrinos, photons, leptons, muons, gluons, fartons and lots lots more. Oh yes, and all their antiparticle equivalents. Scientists have it that all these entities literally exist. Yet they claim they constantly apply Occams razor as their overriding principle :rolleyes:

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

An example of complexity would be...
Again, Occam's razor doesn't disallow complex explanations, it just disfavors them.
Scientists have it that all these entities literally exist. Yet they claim they constantly apply Occams razor as their overriding principle
I'm not so sure Occam's razor is actually the overriding principle in science. Like I said, I wouldn't obsess on it too much.

But without necessarily getting into all that, what's your slant on the talking deer thing?

[ImpyTimpy]

Ok, I've gone over all the responses and I think I can offer a very rational explanation that does not include "God" or "hallucinations" and actually explains what happened.

Originally posted by Whomp
Wow, how to write this without sounding like a raving lunatic...

I am basically an animist, and have been all my life. In reality I don't actually believe in god, but its easier to say that than to explain.
I'm unsure where my beliefs came from, but they have been with me as long as I can remember.

Ok, so you basically feel very close to animals and nature right? This is what I'm going to base some of my explanation upon.

I have spent long months in the wilderness of New Mexico backpacking. On two occasions I have spoken to animals.

Well... OK... not spoken , but heard/felt in my head.
A deer walked into my campsite one day and laid down about 6 feet from me. Now when I'm out, I try very hard to be in harmony with my surroundings, (Woo Woo!!!) but I'm not THAT good!

You felt naturally connected to the deer, which to me makes sense given the fact that you feel a natural connection to animals. I'd say the feeling of communication was a by-product of you being somewhere you love and as a consequence on a natural "high". There's nothing mystical about simple human experiences like that. People feel deep emotional attachments or sometimes feel as if they are in tune with each other all the time. In your case, it was with the deer.

A communication began with the deer. The particulars are unimportant. I was able to touch the deer before it left. I also saw things that it had "told" me.
I knew where it had slept the night before, and found the bed. I knew where two seperate springs were that I didn't know existed before. And I knew where i would find a decomposing cow. (Go figure)

Having "confirmation" of these things convinced me that I didn't imagine the whole thing, or have a psychotic break, but I also can't fit it within the "rational" world.
I would have to ask just how you knew about the decomposing cow or the bed or the 2 springs in the first place?

I mean, did you actually end up seeing directions to the places, or did you stumble upon the said places and connect them with what you experienced?

If you were given actual specific directions then I'm stumped.. :p

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


All this board has done is open my eyes up to how incredibly stupid Skeptics are and arrogant to boot.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I'm not on your side ar*ewipe. I have not defended what you have said in any shape or form. I am merely attacking those who unthinkingly espouse the materialist metaphysic. If I wish to make comments regarding the breathtaking stupidity of some of the remarks on this thread, then I shall do so.

If you don't like it then don't read my posts or put me on ignore. Your displeasure will not prevent me from voicing my opinions though.

I suggest you deal with it.

ROFL, Interesting Ian ? Could you define arrogance for those of us who lack your paranormal IQ ?

Regards,

Asthmatic Camel

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


An example of complexity would be where we have all these multifarious scientific entities to explain the everyday world, such as neutrons, protons, electrons, left handed up quarks, right handed up quarks, right handed down quarks, left handed down quarks, charmed quarks, strange quarks, right handed top quarks, left handed top quarks, left handed bottom quarks, right handed bottom quarks, gauge bosons, higgs bosons, W bosons, Z bosons, neutrinos, photons, leptons, muons, gluons, fartons and lots lots more. Oh yes, and all their antiparticle equivalents. Scientists have it that all these entities literally exist. Yet they claim they constantly apply Occams razor as their overriding principle :rolleyes:

On the other hand, an example of simplicity would be where we have eloquent, educated people deciding that the universe is far too difficult to understand and who therefore resort to a belief in claptrap as an easy way out.

Regards,

Asthmatic Camel.

[Whomp]

On the other hand, an example of simplicity would be where we have eloquent, educated people deciding that the universe is far too difficult to understand and who therefore resort to a belief in claptrap as an easy way out.

I would have to disagree somewhat. I don't feel the universe is far to difficult to understand, and I don't feel I'm resorting to "claptrap" as an "out"

I CAN hope that the "eloquent" and "educated" applies to me. :)

I'm unsure how the belief in spirituality equates to a cop out.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
An example of complexity would be where we have all these multifarious scientific entities to explain the everyday world, such as neutrons, protons, electrons, left handed up quarks, right handed up quarks, right handed down quarks, left handed down quarks, charmed quarks, strange quarks, right handed top quarks, left handed top quarks, left handed bottom quarks, right handed bottom quarks, gauge bosons, higgs bosons, W bosons, Z bosons, neutrinos, photons, leptons, muons, gluons, fartons and lots lots more. Oh yes, and all their antiparticle equivalents. Scientists have it that all these entities literally exist. Yet they claim they constantly apply Occams razor as their overriding principle :rolleyes: Obviously you have a simpler theory with equal predictive power. Please post it, and show a few example calculations. The gyromagnetic ratio of the electron to 12 places would be a good one.

[ImpyTimpy]

I don't think beliefs in spirituality are a cop out if they're used to make philosophical grounds for explanations of some mysteries of the universe (hey, why not :p). But I do find them to be a cop out if they are used to replace common knowledge with kooky ideas.

For example, I ran into a guy who was convinced viruses enter auric fields of people, so to stop viral infections one must increase the strength of their aura... This is a cop out idea (dare I say absurd and kooky), ignoring factual science.

Hope that made sense....

Originally posted by Whomp


I would have to disagree somewhat. I don't feel the universe is far to difficult to understand, and I don't feel I'm resorting to "claptrap" as an "out"

I CAN hope that the "eloquent" and "educated" applies to me. :)

I'm unsure how the belief in spirituality equates to a cop out.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Whomp


I would have to disagree somewhat. I don't feel the universe is far to difficult to understand, and I don't feel I'm resorting to "claptrap" as an "out"

I CAN hope that the "eloquent" and "educated" applies to me. :)

I'm unsure how the belief in spirituality equates to a cop out.

spirituality noun [U] APPROVING
the quality of being concerned with deep, often religious, feelings and beliefs, rather than with the physical parts of life

Whomp, I believe in spirituality, in fact I admire it. Life would be immeasurably poorer without the creations of the spiritually inclined.

My point is that beliefs and feelings should not be used as evidence in support of whacky ideologies. I don't discount the possibility that paranormal entities and powers exist, I merely wish to see convincing evidence before I believe in them. To date I have seen none.

Regards,

Asthmatic Camel

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
for further details. As to the retention of other hallucinogens in body tissue, I'm not so sure. The likes of LSD and psilocybin appear to be broken down rapidly and excreted in short order.
I suspect that the "flashback" phenomenon with these sustances has more to do with recollection of a truly mind-bending experience rather than a pharmacological effect but I'm no expert.

Perhaps someone more knowledgable could enlighten us ? i don't know how flashbacks happen, but they definately are not a recollection. they suck, come out of nowhere, and amke you feel weird. for me it's not like i'm on acid, at least not the mental part, just weird trippy images and sounds.

[Shroud of Akron]

i have to completely agree with impy on this one. you already are predisposed to this sort of thing, so you may unconciously want to have this connection. when you find these things, your mind tells you that you had these images sent to you from the animal. kinda like filling in the gaps with what feels best to you.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel



ROFL, Interesting Ian ? Could you define arrogance for those of us who lack your paranormal IQ ?

Regards,

Asthmatic Camel

why expect a definition? it's just standard troll behavior.