In what way is the "paranormal" a meaningful concept?

billydkid · 13th January 2009, 04:59 PM

How are the paranormal or the supernatural even meaningful concepts? This is not an original idea. I have heard it from far smarter people than myself and I have talked about it in here before. There may be things that are unexplained, but a notion of the paranormal requires something that is unexplainable, something that happens without mechanisms for it happening. It seems to me when we discuss the paranormal in here or humor people who make paranormal claims we are just being silly.

It may be that we could discover heretofore undiscovered and unexplained phenomena, but that doesn't make it "paranormal". Even if we discover people who can read minds, they would be reading minds via some sort of mind reading waves or something. The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.

Starthinker · 13th January 2009, 05:35 PM

Well, there is normal, then there is paranormal. If we discover that someone really can read minds then we can drop the para and describe it as normal. By the way, I'm not a real modo, I'm just a quasimodo.

arthwollipot · 13th January 2009, 05:47 PM

Dawkins has a term perinormal to describe those things which we just don't understand yet.

jimtron · 13th January 2009, 05:55 PM

Yes, I think it is a meaningful concept. For one thing, there are a great many people who believe in things that are mystical/supernatural/paranormal/etc, so it's good to have a term for it.

Quote:

The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.

Who knows, maybe we will--why not?

billydkid · 13th January 2009, 06:12 PM

I'm not talking about discoveries in physics or the cutting edge of science. I'm talking about natural phenomena which occur in everyday existence, normally observable phenomena. When are not suddenly going to discover thing about the nature of the observable world which we have somehow overlooked in course of human existence. We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years.

jimtron · 13th January 2009, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

I'm not talking about discoveries in physics or the cutting edge of science. I'm talking about natural phenomena which occur in everyday existence, normally observable phenomena. When are not suddenly going to discover thing about the nature of the observable world which we have somehow overlooked in course of human existence. We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years.

I don't think you can say what we won't discover in the future. To me it doesn't necessarily sound far fetched to think that we might learn about heretofore unknown human senses (and by the way it's already known that we have more than five senses). But regardless of future potential "paranormal" discoveries, I think paranormal is a useful term for describing abilities--real or imagined--that are supernatural.

kitakaze · 13th January 2009, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years.

And yet countless people all over the world keep claiming to have or have witnessed some kind of sixth sense. Countless people claim to have abilities that defy explanation by conventional means. These people are invited by the JREF and other organizations to submit themselves and their abilities to testing under controlled conditions designed to establish the veracity of those claims.

People refer to the paranormal and supernatural in their belief systems and promotional materials. As long as they push the acceptance of the paranormal in terms of something that is unexplainable, there is a valid reason to address the situation under their terms (paranormal) and to show that it is not (thus normal).

Jonquill · 13th January 2009, 07:29 PM

So what senses do we have other than the basic five?

jimtron · 13th January 2009, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Jonquill

So what senses do we have other than the basic five?

Balance, temperature, kinesthetic sense, and pain--and maybe others.

From the Wikipedia article on SENSE:

Quote:

The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste: a classification attributed to Aristotle.[2] Humans also have at least six additional senses (a total of eleven including interoceptive senses) that include: nociception (pain), equilibrioception (balance), proprioception & kinesthesia (joint motion and acceleration), sense of time, thermoception (temperature differences), and in some a weak magnetoception (direction)[3].

arthwollipot · 13th January 2009, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jonquill

So what senses do we have other than the basic five?

What do you feel when you need to go to the toilet? That's a sense, and it's not one of the traditional five. Nor is it one of the six that jimtron posted.

tesscaline · 13th January 2009, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

I'm not talking about discoveries in physics or the cutting edge of science. I'm talking about natural phenomena which occur in everyday existence, normally observable phenomena. When are not suddenly going to discover thing about the nature of the observable world which we have somehow overlooked in course of human existence. We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years.

And yet, with relation to the birth of human existence, we only recently discovered that the common cold is caused by microscopic organisms called "germs." Previous to that discovery, illnesses were considered to be of a paranormal origin (i.e. demons, bad spirits, karma, etc.).

We discover new things about the nature of the observable world constantly. Why do you think that should stop now?

not daSkeptic · 13th January 2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years.

You don't know this. None of us do. We have only been systematically observing our surroundings for a few hundred years, and what we've seen thus far has largely been limited to this planet. To say there are no significant discoveries out there based upon a nearly infinitesimal sampling is, in my opinion, exceedingly arrogant.

billydkid · 14th January 2009, 06:05 AM

I didn't say no significant discoveries. I suppose I didn't express it clearly. What I am saying there nothing about the fundamental nature of reality, the day to day experience of reality that, if it hasn't been revealed to us by now, is likely to suddenly get noticed. We aren't going to suddenly discover we have magical abilities which we, heretofore, hadn't noticed before. If it hasn't already been confirmed by now that some people can see into the future or read other people's minds or move objects with their minds, it seems pretty unlikely that we would suddenly discover that some people have this ability.

not daSkeptic · 14th January 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

... it seems pretty unlikely that we would suddenly discover that some people have this ability.

You're running head-first into the problem of induction. Your assessment of likelihood is based entirely upon conditions observed here on Earth (and perhaps the Moon). Nobody knows for certain whether those conditions will hold elsewhere. We assume they will, but we really don't know.

The universe is positively massive and has been around a very long time. The portion we have observed is so small as to be nearly nonexistent. For all we know, when future humans approach the fourth planet of the Ixnar system they may suddenly discover they do have the ability to read minds, owing to a previously unobserved environmental characteristic. We have no reason to suspect this may occur, but we also have no reason to dismiss it either. We simply do not have enough data.

Ashles · 14th January 2009, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

I didn't say no significant discoveries. I suppose I didn't express it clearly. What I am saying there nothing about the fundamental nature of reality, the day to day experience of reality that, if it hasn't been revealed to us by now, is likely to suddenly get noticed.

And what about Quantum Mechnics?

You don't think it's a fairly colossal gear shift to our understanding of reality to discover the behaviour of subatomic particles?

Superpositioning? Entanglement? Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it might not affect us. Or have ramifications for the future.

And who can say what might happen.
It is the bald declarations of what will and won't be discovered in the future that gives skeptics a bad name.

Paranormal is something that is outside what we consider our scientific knowledge or possibility with current knowledge.

"I can float in the air unaided by any devices" - paranormal.
"It may be possibe in the future to float in the air by aid of technology" - not paranormal.
"It may be possible to float in the air in the future unaided by any devices" - maybe, but fairly useless as taking too many unknowns as accepted to be a useful statement.

To put it another way. Go back in time 200 years and describe the double slit experiment. Should it theoretically have been considered Paranormal? I don't think so
To say - "I can make individual subatomic particles behave as if they are interacting wavelike with others" would simply be false. You are not doing that. It is nothing to do with your actions.
To say - "I can create an experiment never run before that demonstrates a property of subatomic particles that we haver never seen before" is correct.

So where is the Paranormal?

New and unexpected properties of the universe that do not contradict any previous observations does not equal paranormal.
Refinement of theories on more detailed levels does not equal paranormal.
Flying against demonstrated theories in ways considered not currently possible = Paranormal.

jimtron · 14th January 2009, 07:10 PM

A hundred years ago (or less), the idea that robots on Mars would be beaming photos and movies back to Earth would have been seen as only possible in science fiction. Again, not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality.

quarky · 14th January 2009, 07:20 PM

Itchiness can be para-normal.

Uncayimmy · 14th January 2009, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by jimtron

A hundred years ago (or less), the idea that robots on Mars would be beaming photos and movies back to Earth would have been seen as only possible in science fiction. Again, not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality.

How is that supernatural? By definition it is not natural but technological.

jimtron · 14th January 2009, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

How is that supernatural? By definition it is not natural but technological.

As I said in the excerpt you quoted, it's not paranormal. But 100 years ago, I think it would have seemed paranormal or the stuff only of science fiction. My point is that 100 years from now there may be technologies that today would seem paranormal or otherwise impossible. So we shouldn't rule out what may happen in the future.

From the OP:

Quote:

The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.

arthwollipot · 14th January 2009, 09:32 PM

Psychics never predicted the internet.

Starthinker · 15th January 2009, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Psychics never predicted the internet.

"I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found."

Carley DuBey, 1949

Rodney · 15th January 2009, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

"I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found."

Carley DuBey, 1949

Who is Carley DuBey, and do you have more details? Thanks.

quarky · 15th January 2009, 07:44 PM

I'll bet he was itchy.

Uncayimmy · 15th January 2009, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by jimtron

As I said in the excerpt you quoted, it's not paranormal. But 100 years ago, I think it would have seemed paranormal or the stuff only of science fiction. My point is that 100 years from now there may be technologies that today would seem paranormal or otherwise impossible. So we shouldn't rule out what may happen in the future.

I don't think I understood what you wrote.

"[advanced technology] is not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality."

It seems like you're saying it wouldn't be viewed as paranormal but it would be viewed as supernatural. I see paranormal and supernatural as two different things. I see the idea of advanced technology of the future as being neither paranormal or supernatural.

Ben Franklin* wrote in 1776...
Paranormal - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking and science cannot explain it.

Supernatural - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking because angels tell him.

Advanced Technology - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking by using a device that transmits thoughts expressed in the form of vocal utterances to another device that makes those vocal utterances audible.

* I made that up.

Uncayimmy · 15th January 2009, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

"I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found."

Carley DuBey, 1949

Ever watch the TV show Space 1999? They correctly "predicted" portable phones. Of course, their version still used rotary dial (link provided for the younger readers).

jimtron · 15th January 2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

I don't think I understood what you wrote.

"[advanced technology] is not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality."

It seems like you're saying it wouldn't be viewed as paranormal but it would be viewed as supernatural. I see paranormal and supernatural as two different things. I see the idea of advanced technology of the future as being neither paranormal or supernatural.

Ben Franklin* wrote in 1776...
Paranormal - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking and science cannot explain it.

Supernatural - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking because angels tell him.

Advanced Technology - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking by using a device that transmits thoughts expressed in the form of vocal utterances to another device that makes those vocal utterances audible.

* I made that up.

I was using paranormal and supernatural to share the same meaning. An example was given earlier about germs. Sick people were thought to be inhabited by demons. That's supernatural. It turns out there was sort of a grain of truth to that, except for supernatural demons, it's natural germs that can make us sick. My point is that there are things that might seem impossible or unlikely or supernatural now, but in the future they might turn out to be very real. And then of course they would no longer be supernatural.

The term paranormal is useful to describe things that are currently not explainable by science.

Uncayimmy · 15th January 2009, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by jimtron

I was using paranormal and supernatural to share the same meaning. An example was given earlier about germs. Sick people were thought to be inhabited by demons. That's supernatural. It turns out there was sort of a grain of truth to that, except for supernatural demons, it's natural germs that can make us sick. My point is that there are things that might seem impossible or unlikely or supernatural now, but in the future they might turn out to be very real. And then of course they would no longer be supernatural.

The term paranormal is useful to describe things that are currently not explainable by science.

I don't normally like to get into semantic debates, but this thread is about semantics and meaning, so I will.

My first problem is with your original example about technology transmitting data from Mars. Such a prediction was never paranormal or supernatural. It was simply conjecture that technologies not yet developed could be developed. Science needs that kind of thinking to advance.

Your example about germs is a much better example. However, had the scientific method been applied, there never would have been demons. It's good science to say that you observe that when a person gets sick, others who come into to close physical contact with that person also get sick. Therefore, perhaps there is something physical involved. Declaring that something to be demons is supernatural and not scientific.

In today's world we have telepathy. It sits in the paranormal category because there is no observation of it actually happening. There are claims, but no scientifically valid evidence of the observation. If it did happen, it would immediately jump from being paranormal to being scientific. Scientists don't need to be able to explain it in order for it to be considered science.

Autism is a good example. Scientists know it happens but cannot fully explain the mechanisms involved. That's not paranormal because we know it happens. Assigning the cause to demons would be supernatural.

Which begs the question in the subject: how is paranormal meaningful? I'm sure someone like Sol Invictus (hangs out in the science forum) could give us examples of things that scientists have only observed sporadically. It wouldn't be paranormal simply because they haven't figure out yet what it takes to observe it reliably.

jimtron · 15th January 2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Which begs the question in the subject: how is paranormal meaningful?

It's meaningful because it has meaning(s). Uri Geller claims (or claimed) the ability to bend spoons via paranormal means (telekinesis or whatever). Of course, he was really doing it with natural means--the kind that magicians use. If you scroll up to the very top, very center of this page, you'll see the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge listed. That describes what's the challenge is about--paranormal powers.

Now maybe there will never be such thing a paranormal power, because if something like ESP is proven to be true, then it's no longer paranormal. Regardless, it's a useful term.

eta: regarding my "robots on Mars" example: that was in response to this from the OP:

Quote:

The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.

arthwollipot · 15th January 2009, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

"I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found."

Carley DuBey, 1949

Goodness gracious! I stand corrected.

Soapy Sam · 16th January 2009, 01:28 PM

The term "paranormal" means two almost opposite things to different groups of people.
Comment from believer (paraphrased but essentially accurate):- "There's nothing paranormal about spirit. It's absolutely normal".

Non believer comment- "There's nothing paranormal."
So 100% agreement there, just agreeing to differ.

Dr H · 16th January 2009, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ashles

And what about Quantum Mechnics?

You can never find one when you need one.

Dr H · 16th January 2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by UncaYimmy

Ever watch the TV show Space 1999? They correctly "predicted" portable phones. Of course, their version still used rotary dial (link provided for the younger readers).

Isn't "rotary dial" redundant?

Uncayimmy · 16th January 2009, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dr H

Isn't "rotary dial" redundant?

English is funny like that. Apparently the root is from sundial where only the shadow appears to move.

cj.23 · 17th January 2009, 01:16 PM

Gosh, how on Earth did I miss this thread? Being too sick to pay attention I guess. I mentioned my opinions earlier in the week -
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...52#post4331552
It's directly on topic - but I thought just reposting it here was a waste of bandwidth.

cj x

jayman · 17th January 2009, 02:26 PM

I find the paranormal to be meaningful only as far people's belief in it. That's what fascinates me. That in the face of concrete evidence and stone-cold logic, people will still believe in the paranormal. Otherwise I think it's a waste of time to go looking for the paranormal. Since millions of claimant psychics have been tested and have failed the tests, we can concur that it more than likely doesn't exist. So, lets stop waisting our time trying to find it. We could never detect non-physical entities (ghosts) with EFM detectors and all the other equipment the pseudoscientific "ghost hunters" use, so, lets not waste our time looking for ghosts.

The only meaningful thing to study, as far as the paranormal goes, is why seemingly smart people still believe in it.

billydkid · 17th January 2009, 07:00 PM

Okay, apparently I am not making myself clear - if we hadn't discovered and confirmed by now that some people have the natural ability to read mind/foresee the future/move things with their minds, become invisible, talk to dead people, walk on water, levitate and so on - it seems very, very unlikely that we are likely to run across people with those abilities now. Tell me, would you seriously disagree? If we haven't run across a single person out of the many billions who have existed who can do any of these things, are you really waiting with bated breath to find the person who can?

cj.23 · 17th January 2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

Okay, apparently I am not making myself clear - if we hadn't discovered and confirmed by now that some people have the natural ability to read mind/foresee the future/move things with their minds, become invisible, talk to dead people, walk on water, levitate and so on - it seems very, very unlikely that we are likely to run across people with those abilities now. Tell me, would you seriously disagree? If we haven't run across a single person out of the many billions who have existed who can do any of these things, are you really waiting with bated breath to find the person who can?

How do you know we haven't? Take Daniel Dunglas Home as an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home
OK, so that falsifies your hypothesis?

cj x

jimtron · 17th January 2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Okay, apparently I am not making myself clear - if we hadn't discovered and confirmed by now that some people have the natural ability to read mind/foresee the future/move things with their minds, become invisible, talk to dead people, walk on water, levitate and so on - it seems very, very unlikely that we are likely to run across people with those abilities now.

I agree with the above. I disagree with the quote below (from the OP).

Quote:

The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.

I think the above is quite plausible.

George152 · 19th January 2009, 02:03 PM

It's common sense that they lack

Denver · 20th January 2009, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by billydkid

Okay, apparently I am not making myself clear - if we hadn't discovered and confirmed by now that some people have the natural ability to read mind/foresee the future/move things with their minds, become invisible, talk to dead people, walk on water, levitate and so on - it seems very, very unlikely that we are likely to run across people with those abilities now. Tell me, would you seriously disagree? If we haven't run across a single person out of the many billions who have existed who can do any of these things, are you really waiting with bated breath to find the person who can?

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Paranormal is a slippery term, because some people use it differently from others. But perhaps it would be best to understand it not so much a category, but as a state of categorization. When in the paranormal state, it is considered unknown as to whether it will proceed later to a scientific explanation, or will be found as a false claim, or will be something new (whatever that means). I think maybe the difference is that the paranormal pundits would rather it stay in a solid paranormal category, and those not so much on the woowagon would either say it means nothing, or as I suggested above, it is in an investigatory state as to its reality.

So why not just say it's an unknown, rather than say it's paranormal? I think because "paranormal" carries a few other elements with it (things like: it's unknown; it's fun; anyone with a digital recorder can play; and you might be able to make easy money off it).

13th January 2009, 04:59 PM	#1
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	In what way is the "paranormal" a meaningful concept? How are the paranormal or the supernatural even meaningful concepts? This is not an original idea. I have heard it from far smarter people than myself and I have talked about it in here before. There may be things that are unexplained, but a notion of the paranormal requires something that is unexplainable, something that happens without mechanisms for it happening. It seems to me when we discuss the paranormal in here or humor people who make paranormal claims we are just being silly. It may be that we could discover heretofore undiscovered and unexplained phenomena, but that doesn't make it "paranormal". Even if we discover people who can read minds, they would be reading minds via some sort of mind reading waves or something. The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.
	__________________ Wasting away in Blanchester.

13th January 2009, 05:35 PM	#2
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Well, there is normal, then there is paranormal. If we discover that someone really can read minds then we can drop the para and describe it as normal. By the way, I'm not a real modo, I'm just a quasimodo.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

13th January 2009, 05:47 PM	#3
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,004	Dawkins has a term perinormal to describe those things which we just don't understand yet.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

13th January 2009, 05:55 PM	#4
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Yes, I think it is a meaningful concept. For one thing, there are a great many people who believe in things that are mystical/supernatural/paranormal/etc, so it's good to have a term for it. Quote: The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible. Who knows, maybe we will--why not?
	__________________

13th January 2009, 06:12 PM	#5
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	I'm not talking about discoveries in physics or the cutting edge of science. I'm talking about natural phenomena which occur in everyday existence, normally observable phenomena. When are not suddenly going to discover thing about the nature of the observable world which we have somehow overlooked in course of human existence. We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years.
	__________________ Wasting away in Blanchester.

13th January 2009, 06:33 PM	#6
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Originally Posted by billydkid I'm not talking about discoveries in physics or the cutting edge of science. I'm talking about natural phenomena which occur in everyday existence, normally observable phenomena. When are not suddenly going to discover thing about the nature of the observable world which we have somehow overlooked in course of human existence. We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years. I don't think you can say what we won't discover in the future. To me it doesn't necessarily sound far fetched to think that we might learn about heretofore unknown human senses (and by the way it's already known that we have more than five senses). But regardless of future potential "paranormal" discoveries, I think paranormal is a useful term for describing abilities--real or imagined--that are supernatural.
	__________________

13th January 2009, 07:08 PM	#7
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by billydkid We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years. And yet countless people all over the world keep claiming to have or have witnessed some kind of sixth sense. Countless people claim to have abilities that defy explanation by conventional means. These people are invited by the JREF and other organizations to submit themselves and their abilities to testing under controlled conditions designed to establish the veracity of those claims. People refer to the paranormal and supernatural in their belief systems and promotional materials. As long as they push the acceptance of the paranormal in terms of something that is unexplainable, there is a valid reason to address the situation under their terms (paranormal) and to show that it is not (thus normal).
	__________________ Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6

13th January 2009, 07:29 PM	#8
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393	So what senses do we have other than the basic five?
Jonquill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 393

13th January 2009, 07:49 PM	#9
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Originally Posted by Jonquill So what senses do we have other than the basic five? Balance, temperature, kinesthetic sense, and pain--and maybe others. From the Wikipedia article on SENSE: Quote: The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste: a classification attributed to Aristotle.[2] Humans also have at least six additional senses (a total of eleven including interoceptive senses) that include: nociception (pain), equilibrioception (balance), proprioception & kinesthesia (joint motion and acceleration), sense of time, thermoception (temperature differences), and in some a weak magnetoception (direction)[3].
	__________________ Last edited by jimtron; 13th January 2009 at 07:55 PM.

13th January 2009, 10:01 PM	#10
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,004	Originally Posted by Jonquill So what senses do we have other than the basic five? What do you feel when you need to go to the toilet? That's a sense, and it's not one of the traditional five. Nor is it one of the six that jimtron posted.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

13th January 2009, 10:11 PM	#11
tesscaline Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 4,037	Originally Posted by billydkid I'm not talking about discoveries in physics or the cutting edge of science. I'm talking about natural phenomena which occur in everyday existence, normally observable phenomena. When are not suddenly going to discover thing about the nature of the observable world which we have somehow overlooked in course of human existence. We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years. And yet, with relation to the birth of human existence, we only recently discovered that the common cold is caused by microscopic organisms called "germs." Previous to that discovery, illnesses were considered to be of a paranormal origin (i.e. demons, bad spirits, karma, etc.). We discover new things about the nature of the observable world constantly. Why do you think that should stop now?
	Last edited by tesscaline; 13th January 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason: forgot a word...

13th January 2009, 10:55 PM	#12
not daSkeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,919	Originally Posted by billydkid We are not going to discover that there are some people who shoot rays out of there eyes and light fires. We are not going to discover that people have some sixth sense which has gone unnoticed for 100,000 thousand years. You don't know this. None of us do. We have only been systematically observing our surroundings for a few hundred years, and what we've seen thus far has largely been limited to this planet. To say there are no significant discoveries out there based upon a nearly infinitesimal sampling is, in my opinion, exceedingly arrogant.
	__________________ Skepticism, good. Organized skepticism, bad. Formerly daSkeptic.

14th January 2009, 06:05 AM	#13
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	I didn't say no significant discoveries. I suppose I didn't express it clearly. What I am saying there nothing about the fundamental nature of reality, the day to day experience of reality that, if it hasn't been revealed to us by now, is likely to suddenly get noticed. We aren't going to suddenly discover we have magical abilities which we, heretofore, hadn't noticed before. If it hasn't already been confirmed by now that some people can see into the future or read other people's minds or move objects with their minds, it seems pretty unlikely that we would suddenly discover that some people have this ability.
	__________________ Wasting away in Blanchester.

14th January 2009, 04:00 PM	#14
not daSkeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,919	Originally Posted by billydkid ... it seems pretty unlikely that we would suddenly discover that some people have this ability. You're running head-first into the problem of induction. Your assessment of likelihood is based entirely upon conditions observed here on Earth (and perhaps the Moon). Nobody knows for certain whether those conditions will hold elsewhere. We assume they will, but we really don't know. The universe is positively massive and has been around a very long time. The portion we have observed is so small as to be nearly nonexistent. For all we know, when future humans approach the fourth planet of the Ixnar system they may suddenly discover they do have the ability to read minds, owing to a previously unobserved environmental characteristic. We have no reason to suspect this may occur, but we also have no reason to dismiss it either. We simply do not have enough data.
	__________________ Skepticism, good. Organized skepticism, bad. Formerly daSkeptic.

14th January 2009, 04:39 PM	#15
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,711	Originally Posted by billydkid I didn't say no significant discoveries. I suppose I didn't express it clearly. What I am saying there nothing about the fundamental nature of reality, the day to day experience of reality that, if it hasn't been revealed to us by now, is likely to suddenly get noticed. And what about Quantum Mechnics? You don't think it's a fairly colossal gear shift to our understanding of reality to discover the behaviour of subatomic particles? Superpositioning? Entanglement? Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it might not affect us. Or have ramifications for the future. And who can say what might happen. It is the bald declarations of what will and won't be discovered in the future that gives skeptics a bad name. Paranormal is something that is outside what we consider our scientific knowledge or possibility with current knowledge. "I can float in the air unaided by any devices" - paranormal. "It may be possibe in the future to float in the air by aid of technology" - not paranormal. "It may be possible to float in the air in the future unaided by any devices" - maybe, but fairly useless as taking too many unknowns as accepted to be a useful statement. To put it another way. Go back in time 200 years and describe the double slit experiment. Should it theoretically have been considered Paranormal? I don't think so To say - "I can make individual subatomic particles behave as if they are interacting wavelike with others" would simply be false. You are not doing that. It is nothing to do with your actions. To say - "I can create an experiment never run before that demonstrates a property of subatomic particles that we haver never seen before" is correct. So where is the Paranormal? New and unexpected properties of the universe that do not contradict any previous observations does not equal paranormal. Refinement of theories on more detailed levels does not equal paranormal. Flying against demonstrated theories in ways considered not currently possible = Paranormal.
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell No one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate - Ivars Peterson

14th January 2009, 07:10 PM	#16
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	A hundred years ago (or less), the idea that robots on Mars would be beaming photos and movies back to Earth would have been seen as only possible in science fiction. Again, not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality.
	__________________

14th January 2009, 07:20 PM	#17
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Itchiness can be para-normal.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

14th January 2009, 09:10 PM	#18
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by jimtron A hundred years ago (or less), the idea that robots on Mars would be beaming photos and movies back to Earth would have been seen as only possible in science fiction. Again, not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality. How is that supernatural? By definition it is not natural but technological.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

14th January 2009, 09:30 PM	#19
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy How is that supernatural? By definition it is not natural but technological. As I said in the excerpt you quoted, it's not paranormal. But 100 years ago, I think it would have seemed paranormal or the stuff only of science fiction. My point is that 100 years from now there may be technologies that today would seem paranormal or otherwise impossible. So we shouldn't rule out what may happen in the future. From the OP: Quote: The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.
	__________________ Last edited by jimtron; 14th January 2009 at 09:32 PM.

14th January 2009, 09:32 PM	#20
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,004	Psychics never predicted the internet.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

15th January 2009, 06:17 AM	#21
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Psychics never predicted the internet. "I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found." Carley DuBey, 1949
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

15th January 2009, 11:19 AM	#22
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by Starthinker "I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found." Carley DuBey, 1949 Who is Carley DuBey, and do you have more details? Thanks.
Rodney Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,942

15th January 2009, 07:44 PM	#23
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	I'll bet he was itchy.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

15th January 2009, 07:56 PM	#24
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by jimtron As I said in the excerpt you quoted, it's not paranormal. But 100 years ago, I think it would have seemed paranormal or the stuff only of science fiction. My point is that 100 years from now there may be technologies that today would seem paranormal or otherwise impossible. So we shouldn't rule out what may happen in the future. I don't think I understood what you wrote. "[advanced technology] is not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality." It seems like you're saying it wouldn't be viewed as paranormal but it would be viewed as supernatural. I see paranormal and supernatural as two different things. I see the idea of advanced technology of the future as being neither paranormal or supernatural. Ben Franklin* wrote in 1776... Paranormal - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking and science cannot explain it. Supernatural - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking because angels tell him. Advanced Technology - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking by using a device that transmits thoughts expressed in the form of vocal utterances to another device that makes those vocal utterances audible. * I made that up.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

15th January 2009, 08:01 PM	#25
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by Starthinker "I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found." Carley DuBey, 1949 Ever watch the TV show Space 1999? They correctly "predicted" portable phones. Of course, their version still used rotary dial (link provided for the younger readers).
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

15th January 2009, 08:05 PM	#26
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy I don't think I understood what you wrote. "[advanced technology] is not paranormal, but an example of something that would have seen supernatural at one time, but became a reality." It seems like you're saying it wouldn't be viewed as paranormal but it would be viewed as supernatural. I see paranormal and supernatural as two different things. I see the idea of advanced technology of the future as being neither paranormal or supernatural. Ben Franklin* wrote in 1776... Paranormal - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking and science cannot explain it. Supernatural - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking because angels tell him. Advanced Technology - A person separated by thousands of miles from another can know what that person is thinking by using a device that transmits thoughts expressed in the form of vocal utterances to another device that makes those vocal utterances audible. * I made that up. I was using paranormal and supernatural to share the same meaning. An example was given earlier about germs. Sick people were thought to be inhabited by demons. That's supernatural. It turns out there was sort of a grain of truth to that, except for supernatural demons, it's natural germs that can make us sick. My point is that there are things that might seem impossible or unlikely or supernatural now, but in the future they might turn out to be very real. And then of course they would no longer be supernatural. The term paranormal is useful to describe things that are currently not explainable by science.
	__________________

15th January 2009, 08:32 PM	#27
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by jimtron I was using paranormal and supernatural to share the same meaning. An example was given earlier about germs. Sick people were thought to be inhabited by demons. That's supernatural. It turns out there was sort of a grain of truth to that, except for supernatural demons, it's natural germs that can make us sick. My point is that there are things that might seem impossible or unlikely or supernatural now, but in the future they might turn out to be very real. And then of course they would no longer be supernatural. The term paranormal is useful to describe things that are currently not explainable by science. I don't normally like to get into semantic debates, but this thread is about semantics and meaning, so I will. My first problem is with your original example about technology transmitting data from Mars. Such a prediction was never paranormal or supernatural. It was simply conjecture that technologies not yet developed could be developed. Science needs that kind of thinking to advance. Your example about germs is a much better example. However, had the scientific method been applied, there never would have been demons. It's good science to say that you observe that when a person gets sick, others who come into to close physical contact with that person also get sick. Therefore, perhaps there is something physical involved. Declaring that something to be demons is supernatural and not scientific. In today's world we have telepathy. It sits in the paranormal category because there is no observation of it actually happening. There are claims, but no scientifically valid evidence of the observation. If it did happen, it would immediately jump from being paranormal to being scientific. Scientists don't need to be able to explain it in order for it to be considered science. Autism is a good example. Scientists know it happens but cannot fully explain the mechanisms involved. That's not paranormal because we know it happens. Assigning the cause to demons would be supernatural. Which begs the question in the subject: how is paranormal meaningful? I'm sure someone like Sol Invictus (hangs out in the science forum) could give us examples of things that scientists have only observed sporadically. It wouldn't be paranormal simply because they haven't figure out yet what it takes to observe it reliably.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

15th January 2009, 08:49 PM	#28
jimtron Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 2,966	Quote: Which begs the question in the subject: how is paranormal meaningful? It's meaningful because it has meaning(s). Uri Geller claims (or claimed) the ability to bend spoons via paranormal means (telekinesis or whatever). Of course, he was really doing it with natural means--the kind that magicians use. If you scroll up to the very top, very center of this page, you'll see the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge listed. That describes what's the challenge is about--paranormal powers. Now maybe there will never be such thing a paranormal power, because if something like ESP is proven to be true, then it's no longer paranormal. Regardless, it's a useful term. eta: regarding my "robots on Mars" example: that was in response to this from the OP: Quote: The questions really is, is it reasonable to believe we would suddenly come across some undiscovered, fundamental natural phenomena that has somehow eluded us over the course of many centuries of human existence. That seems more than merely implausible.
	__________________ Last edited by jimtron; 15th January 2009 at 09:40 PM.

15th January 2009, 11:23 PM	#29
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,004	Originally Posted by Starthinker "I had a dream that there was a microphone that you could sing into and it would put your voice on the radio so you could sing along with songs. And there was also another device where you could look up anything and get any level of information about any topic and it was connected to universities and libraries and even hospitals all over the world through the telephone so any answer could be found." Carley DuBey, 1949 Goodness gracious! I stand corrected.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

16th January 2009, 01:28 PM	#30
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	The term "paranormal" means two almost opposite things to different groups of people. Comment from believer (paraphrased but essentially accurate):- "There's nothing paranormal about spirit. It's absolutely normal". Non believer comment- "There's nothing paranormal." So 100% agreement there, just agreeing to differ.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

16th January 2009, 01:48 PM	#31
Dr H Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 818	Originally Posted by Ashles And what about Quantum Mechnics? You can never find one when you need one.
	__________________ Dr H "I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry." -- John Cage

16th January 2009, 01:50 PM	#32
Dr H Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Earth Posts: 818	Originally Posted by UncaYimmy Ever watch the TV show Space 1999? They correctly "predicted" portable phones. Of course, their version still used rotary dial (link provided for the younger readers). Isn't "rotary dial" redundant?
	__________________ Dr H "I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry." -- John Cage

16th January 2009, 03:34 PM	#33
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485	Originally Posted by Dr H Isn't "rotary dial" redundant? English is funny like that. Apparently the root is from sundial where only the shadow appears to move.
Uncayimmy Banned Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 7,485

17th January 2009, 01:16 PM	#34
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,822	Gosh, how on Earth did I miss this thread? Being too sick to pay attention I guess. I mentioned my opinions earlier in the week - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...52#post4331552 It's directly on topic - but I thought just reposting it here was a waste of bandwidth. cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

17th January 2009, 02:26 PM	#35
jayman Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 200	People's Belief I find the paranormal to be meaningful only as far people's belief in it. That's what fascinates me. That in the face of concrete evidence and stone-cold logic, people will still believe in the paranormal. Otherwise I think it's a waste of time to go looking for the paranormal. Since millions of claimant psychics have been tested and have failed the tests, we can concur that it more than likely doesn't exist. So, lets stop waisting our time trying to find it. We could never detect non-physical entities (ghosts) with EFM detectors and all the other equipment the pseudoscientific "ghost hunters" use, so, lets not waste our time looking for ghosts. The only meaningful thing to study, as far as the paranormal goes, is why seemingly smart people still believe in it.