Greetings all

I was wondering about how the paranormal in general fits into the satanic perspective of individuals who'd care to answer.

I realize that there are many interpretations of what is and what isn't a paranormal event and that many of the so called documented cases were never met with a competent skeptic. What I'm interested in are individual perspectives on the possibilities that things might exist outside of our five senses' abilities to define them and possibly outside of current sciences' abilities to define them.

I notice that in the fiction and movies links on the COS website there are several ghost/paranormal/supernormal works cited (most of which I've read and adored ). I also have read the statements of many folks who define Satanism (including Dr. LaVey) and the consensus seems to me to be that there is a universal 'dark' force that is attractive to Satanists and represents a balancing force of nature. This force is, as yet, undefined and in darkness because most choose to not attempt to understand it. Do you feel that genuine paranormal events come from this space or are they simply good stories?

My own personal answer is that I'm ever the pragmatist. I fully admit that I do not understand the whole of the universe and I do in fact have trouble understanding even small parts of how the assembled collective that we call the universe functions. I have no idea of the breadth and depth of space and how it might possibly effect things down to an individual thought. From this perspective I can only say that maybe ghosts do exist, maybe there is a multi dimensional plane, an astral plane, and all manner of things that I have yet to see and understand. And maybe not.

As an epilogue to my query I'd like to offer a small bit of explanation. PLEASE don't take my referral to the COS website, and the works cited therein, as an attempt on my part to find some sort of 'loophole' in Satanic thought. I am relatively new to this course of study (though I've been studying philosophy, abstract thought, art, science, literature, and many of the dark corners that hide therein for all of my life) and have found my way to the COS by way of process of elimination.

For the first time in many years I am intellectually stimulated by a collective thought (in this case, Satanism) and am doing my own due diligence in investigation out of respect for your organizations as well as for purposes of remaining true to my own perspectives.

Thank you in advance to those who'd care to fill me in on their personal perspectives regarding the paranormal.

Thanks also to Magister Ventrue for the place to explore this in.

"I was wondering about how the paranormal in general fits into the satanic perspective of individuals who'd care to answer."

A topic that is brought up quite a bit by those who are not so quick to let it go (to an extent). I find it interesting that people will pay large sums of money for investigations into personal accounts, and rarely receive any answers. The Secret Life of a Satanist by Blanche Barton, is a good source to start. Enjoy finding your answers.

That's actually very perceptive of you. Perhaps I want to believe in something 'out there' despite available evidence indicating otherwise (for the most part).

I do have that book on my reading list but didn't realize it dealt with these kinds of issues/ideas. Thanks for the response and the tip.

Now where have I heard that before...

Seriously though at least your honest with yourself and thats always a good thing.

Well... not in the sense of some governing body though I see where you're going. More in the sense of something yet unexplained.

We run the gamut.
I think the only constant among Satanists is to verify for ourselves what is, and what is not.

Thank you, just the type of direction I was looking for.

Coincidentally, I ran across an interview with Magus Gilmore where he discusses his perspectives (a bit) on aliens and ghosts. My own views very closely echo what he said so I'm ever closer to adopting the left hand path as my own. To be more precise, I'm ever closer to identifying with that which exists within me and always has.

Here is a hint:

Volume Two: Satanic Sorcery

I think it's interesting, personally speaking. However I doubt I'd waste huge amounts of time to be a "Ghost Buster" or an investigator. The experience alone of walking through abandoned places or whatnot is worth the time and effort.

While it is interesting to see footage or pictures of ghosts and whatnot, I require a bit more proof. Such as experiencing something myself is more substantial evidence for me regarding paranormal activity, as we live in the 2000's and things can be easily forged in pictures and video.

Until then, I'm a curious skeptic.

Experiencing and understanding are two different things though.

If we experience something we cannot explain scientifically then we simply cannot know for sure what we experienced as our brains have not evolved to decode the absolute truth.
Most of these types of experiences ever reported do tend to have reasonable answers as to why they occur if we look in to cognitive neurology.

Yes, many religious theists experience things and use their experience to conclude what they believe is real. Sadly, no one else experiences those same things. Nor does everyone experience them. Faith is a silly thing.

You'll also find that the ones experiencing them are usually predisposed to the notion. For example I've never heard of a satanist being possessed. The power of suggestion is fun to watch.

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation will suffice"

Attributed to Joseph Dunninger.

There is no official opinion because it is not the duty of Satanism as a religion to speculate on that which is not known.

Some avidly pursue such interests, others find it a waste of time.

As others have pointed out, there is no "official" stance per se on paranormal claims.

My own take is that as a Satanist, I am first of all against mysticism. And I also think most of the anecdotes and "testimonies" regarding the paranormal are bogus. Acedotes don't make me a believer any more than a glowing concert review would make me a fan of the band.

Having said that, I'm also not so quick as to dismiss all things under the umbrella term of "paranormal" as useless, nor my own "unexplained" subjective experiences as necessarily invalid. For example, I don't find anything metaphysical at all behind Tarot cards, but at the same time I think readings can be beneficial if done the right way. And while I don't believe in haunted houses, I think some of the observations attributed to allegedly haunted houses may have other explanations besides "ghosts", and that these are things you can learn to apply to other situations.

If you haven't read it yet, you may want to check out the essay "The Law of the Trapezoid" from The Devil's Notebook. Also the "astrology" section of The Satanic Witch.

I think that it's a matter of as we brits say 'Horses for Courses', Regarding belief in Supernatural events or hauntings.

I personally know a family who own who an estate that dates back to the doomsday period in history, and this manor is deemed to have alot of history behind it and is widely regarded to be haunted.......
check out the link if you wish to see where im talking about.
www.creekseaplace.co.uk

My mother swears blindly to this day that she feels a presence every single time she goes into this place, but I have never felt any such thing inside the house or estate. (To me its just an amazing building that im hoping to get married in sometime soon!) :0)>
She believes in the paranormal, and I do not..........
The mind is a powerfull tool that we know very little about, Your mind controlls you without you even knowing it sometimes.
Until im confronted by a ghost/spectre or god himself I refuse to believe in something I cannot touch or see with my own eyes.

Great post though and its interesting to know what some of you people think on this subject.

Sure why not? Satanists come from a variety of backgrounds and contribute their own piece to the picture of Satan. Some Satanists beleive Satan is a real entity and have reasons to calim him worhsip-worthy. Thiestic Satanists, as they are known incorporate magic in their rituals just as LaVey Satanists poke pins into Voodoo dolls and yell "Revenge,Revenge".

From your second post on this board--



I recommend you read it before posting any further so that you don't further demonstrate how much you don't understand Satanism.

There is no such thing as theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists or Satanists who believe in a devil.

I second Priestess Umm_At'outa's strong suggestion.

Do your homework first, starting with reading The Satanic Bible before you post again.

I guess I should have been more clear with what I said. I am NOT a Satanist but have decided to contribute to this forum first so I can learn more, before I purchase the book and pay money to become one.

Phineas, is there any other way you can prove there is no such thing as LaVeyan Satanists rather than affirm the fact that I have not read the Satanic Bible?

Before Dr. LaVey came on the scene, there were no Satanists. Dr. LaVey developed, codified and established Satanism. All that came after are mere imitations.

If you had read The Satanic Bible you would know this.

The Church of Satan website also explains this.

The fact that you think you can convert to Satanism is very telling.

I encourage you to save your money. You are not a Satanist. And never will be. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as contributing to this forum.....how well received do you think someone who can't do simple arithmetic be in a forum for mathematicians? Think about it.

Those are not Satanists. Those are casualties of Christianity.

"Theistic Satanism" is an oxymoron.

Maybe I would never convert but who knows if I do win the lottery, I could spare US$200 and become affiliated. But for the time being I am pretty content with the influence of the Satanists I have known since I was 14 years old. Though I prescribe to a religion already I have always found my needs and drives to trump discipline and honoursworth. My few friends and some family on the "dark side" always learned to transcend beyond the feelings of guilt.

But anyways, Phineas I agree all self-claimed Satanists who came after LaVey codified what it really is, are just imitations. But sticking to the major notion of this thread...

Surely, Crowley knew much about the occult because his work deals with so well-defined and articulated methodology of Western ritual magick. Doesn't LaVey even mention the use of lesser/manipulative magic(Voodoo) and Greater/Ceremonial magic( a theatrical display of wild emotions)?

But I could be wrong, I don't know. All the behind the door private masses I have seen are mere re-dramatizations on the History Channel. I think I will go out and get the Satanic Bible and even look up Crowley. One of my friends once mentioned he was probably one of the earliest Satanist, but didn't even know it. But I don't know he could be wrong too.

As others have pointed out already some Satanists explore these unknown things and some do not. For instance two of the most famous people in the Church of Satan such as King Diamond and Rev. Thomas Thorn have made no secret of their persoanl experiences and beliefs in the supernatural spiritual world. Then you have many others who just have no interest in it at all. It is a personal thing.

Let's all pray you win the lottery.

Hmm interesting I would like to learn about their experiences and perception but it's too bad I am not much into Heavy Metal music.

I couldn't beleive though Coles had The Satanic Bible displayed in the Witchcraft section lol P.S. dude are you in a cyber cafe in that profile pic?

So, you're basically saying that these people have information that you want, but you are willing to do without due to their occupation of choice.

Interesting.

How thoughtfull, thank you

Indeed.

Crowley was not a Satanist, not even a black magician. He was a drug addict, a loser who never did a lick of work in his life; he inherited a small fortune from his father and squandered it on drugs and trips to the desert and publishing books that are so convoluted with nonsense they are pathetic.

Crowley died addicted to heroin and broke.

I have yet to see any contributions. A lot of laziness and spreading inaccuracies. As a self-proclaimed non-Satanist, what do you have to contribute? Simply posting in and of itself is not contributing.


First of all, it's M-A-G-I-C. Secondly, you'll find that many of us here (myself included) share Magister Phineas' opinion regarding Crowley. Lastly, you have some serious reading to do if you think that Lesser Magic is the same thing as Voodoo. I would normally offer a bit more of an explanation, if someone is seriously attempting to learn and has shown effort, but seeing as you're too lazy to read "The Satanic Bible" yourself, there's no reason for me to bother.

To me, that's like joining a Pink Floyd fan message board, to decide whether or not you want to buy any of their CDs. It should be the other way around.

And as it says right on the Church of Satan website, you don't "pay money to become" a Satanist. You're a Satanist if you honestly (read: without trying, or servitude) see yourself reflected in The Satanic Bible. You "pay money" for a membership in the Church of Satan, if you so choose.

As for why devil worshipers and the like are not Satanists, and why WE have rightful ownership of the term "Satanist", read this:
http://www.satannet.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=174793

If "winning the lottery" is really the only way you could hope to obtain $200 in life, then you have FAR more pressing difficulties in life to take care of. You also wouldn't seem like the type to join an organizaiton whose principles include things like self-sufficiency and personal accomplishments.


Regardless, it still doesn't make him a Satanist. Crowley didn't identify as a Satanist, the Thelemites don't identify as Satanists, and they all practiced a religion that is clearly not reflected in The Satanic Bible. If you get kicks out of Crowley's works, fine. He still wasn't a Satanist. The only people I see calling Crowley a Satanist are Christians who stupidly call anybody interested in the occult "Satanists", journalists who don't do their homework, and the people who blindly believe the Church propaganda and bad journalism.

As the great Carl Sagan said " extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In the hundreds of years of supposed paranormal claims has there been one case that has stood up to skeptical inquirey? I dont believe I've heard of any.

In my opinion study of the paranormal should be handled with an open mind but so far its been nothing but a debunkers paradise.

I say there is no paranormal or supernatural, there is only nature.

Exactly how much have you actually studied on the subject to come to this conclusion?

Have you actually read journal publications by those who investigated such things over the last one hundred years that you mention, such as by the BSPR or ASPR, and, if so, how many?

Have you looked carefully and without prejudice at the evidence?

Or have you only read the opinions offered from one perspective?

I am always interested in those who are so seemingly certain of such things when Satanism holds that it is doubt that is critical in achieving "the undefiled wisdom".

We certainly see Satanists who doubt that the so-called "paranormal" is real. However usually they do not pretend to the omniscience of the Lord God Jehovah and declare that they can know all things with absolute certainty.

Generally Satanists are simply pragmatic about such things.

So, is this just your best guess belief, or do you really know for certain?

And if you are certain, really certain, please share with the rest of us (including all the modern physicists who are still in the dark on this issue) just exactly how you can know this.

P.S. We tend to refer to it as the "super-normal".

Intelligent people who have experienced precognition, out of body experiences, instances of events seemingly changing course due to their wills would agree with you. If these events take place, they are natural. The problem with research is that pretty much everyone involved has a vested interest.

There are literally dozens that defy explanation for a variety of reasons.

One of the most notable cases is that of The Bell Witch whose apparent antics were witnessed and documented by a population of people including a possible encounter with Andrew Jackson.

Another that comes immediately to mind is the case of Carla Moran (of 'The Entity' fame). Dr. Barry Taff's (Neuropsychiatric Institute, UCLA) work and subsequent investigations of the case are well documented and certainly far from being 'disproven' (or proven) despite being on the chopping block for skeptical inquiry.

My stance is that we barely know the rudimentary functions of the natural world on this planet alone. As such, pragmatism is the only approach that makes sense. Anyone who is diametrically opposed to changing their viewpoints based on available evidence will sooner or later find him/her self in an inescapable quandary.

As an aside, one of the first things I noticed on my first reading of The Satanic Bible is that it doesn't presume and it doesn't box itself in. As such, it allows the student to grow and to continually find previously missed (or mis-applied) pearls of wisdom in the way that it's adaptable to the student's level of understanding. It really is a brilliant and life changing work.

Really? I thought Satanists existed all throughout history. It is just that Dr. LaVey was the first to label them as such. Just like how sharks existed long before marine biologists classified them as "sharks."

Perhaps instead of "experienced precognition" one should say, "had a precognition experience", as "experienced precognition" already seems to state that such a thing as precognition is possible.

Not that we could be certain such thins cannot happen, but as to explanations on why intelligent and mentally fit people are having these experiences, there is little or nothing unexplained left to study after you take a look at them from cognitive neurology point of view.

There is no evidence that these events take place outside the mind, but there are plenty of explanations, maybe even completely fulfilling, on how these experiences may happen inside the mind.

However there are other occurrences that still are unexplained but nothing in what you describe brings any such things to mind.

The only example of an unexplained phenomenon that I can come up with, which(as far as I know) is inconclusive, has to do with the sense of someone staring at you from behind.

There is no evidence however that it would be a fact that people can indeed sense such a thing, as it does not produce testable results. (which suggests that the phenomenon is some form of an illusion.)

However there are illusion stage magic tricks that also base on this phenomenon, and the magicians themselves are uncertain as to how the phenomenon itself functions, if indeed it does.

We only know that there seems to be a common experience that this kind of sense takes place.
As to what exactly is the nature of this experience there are many theories but none this far(that I know of) that would give a satisfactory account on all experiences of this nature, or could be used to construct experiments with.

Magister Nemo... there is nothing anyone can know for certain. We can only approximate through experience, reason and peer revue to come to a general concensus. I stated quite clearly that what I wrote was my opinion, but I happen to feel very strongly about it.

I view things from a very skeptical standpoint, especially strange claims of the supernormal. I just do not buy into any of that stuff. The "Amazing" James Randy has had an offer on the table for about 25 years of a million dollars to anyone who can show proof of paranormal activity or powers. It would be tested by an unbiased 3rd party. Its never been challenged. Not once.

Experiences of a personal nature are not valid unless you can prove it to other people... otherwise it's just hearsay and conjecture.

Have I read journals of paranormal experience? No. I've been reading science books and skeptical magazines for about 15 years. If you want to say that makes me biased, well then I guess I can't argue, but I believe I'm biased toward rationality.

Apply Occam's Razor. All things being equal the simplest answer is always the best choice.

And Skullfarmer... i dont totally buy the notion that Satanism doesnt box itself in. Satanists believe there is no god. How can you prove that? You can't... so does that mean I should remain pragmatic and live my life as if there might be a god?

People take up the challenge all the time. I think you meant to say that no one's ever come close to winning it.



Nothing wrong with that. Hell, I'll even say that I feel the same way. But there's something important to keep in mind -- Satanism and the Scientific Method are NOT one and the same! They can be perfectly compatible, but they're also very different.

Case in point:



Within the ritual chamber there is nothing but experience of a personal nature, and one's "best choice" is often anything but logical.

-Chess

I have to somewhat "side" with MASTER of NONE on this one.
It seems clear there is often no proper information bridge between paranormal literature and all the work that skeptics have done to debunk the paranormal.

Critical examination means you seek out or create the best and most professional criticism possible and then see if you can find criticism to that criticism.
Then if a claim of paranormality/supernormality does not manage to hold against that criticism, or to offer counter criticism, you will know that anything unexplained in it at least isn't sufficiently expressed.

Ritual chamber, also called the intellectual decompression chamber right?

Appreciation and understanding of the importance and power of fantasy does not need to exclude the ability to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality.
To my understanding the effect of magic isn't necessarily reduced by the understanding of how it works, although the science of "how it works" probably isn't the element you would use in the ritual chamber.

Chess...



Good point.. but still



I agree. The Wall Street Journal recently had an article explaining how scientists have discovered that our mind makes a decision well before we are even conscious of it, up to ten seconds in many cases. Whether thats the best choice is debatable but our instincts kick in well before we realize it.

However..when you're coming to conclusions of a scientific nature, you don't go with instincts, you go with the cold hard facts.



True, but you're purposefully engaging in that activity to achieve transcendent ends. I can appreciate the affect of subjective experience and emotions conjured up in meditative states.. but I cannot attribute those affects to the paranormal without valid evidence.

Which is why no one's trying to write up their ritual experiences for a peer-reviewed physics journal. As I said before, Satanism is not the same thing as the Scientific Method.



Exactly.



Okay. No one's saying you have to.

Some use ritual purely as a piece of applied psychology, intending no effect on anything but their own minds. Others feel rituals can have external effects in the world, via some mysterious means. And yet we somehow avoid having an Unholy War over this subtle matter of interpretation.

-Chess

Ah! But it could well be both.

Our science is still very inconclusive as to, in how many ways and what we communicate of our minds to each other.
We effect each others thoughts with just our presence and communicate things that still remain hidden on the conscious level from everyone taking part in the social situation.

The human animal is filled with communication methods and layers of manipulation and deceit not just between individuals but inside each one of us, lies upon lies that we build for our own minds.

No. True, there has been elements of Satanism as long as there has been the human animal. But, it was Anton LaVey who formulated those elements into a coherent whole, codified it and gave it a name.

To say that there were Satanists before 1966, because there were people and groups that shared certain aspects with Satanism, is like calling Jules Verne a Twentieth Century man because of his imagining technologies that did not yet exist. He couldn't be because he lived in the 19th and 20th centuries...even if ahead of his time.

There were no Satanists before 1966 because Satanism did not exist...only foreshadowings.

If Satanists are born and not made they existed before Satanism was codified. Someone said that Satanism is like the frame that fits around their life. The frame was made after many pictures were drawn. If those pictures fit in the frame then there's not much to dispute.

The Church of Satan did not exist before 1966. To say that there were not those who lived by a Satanic philosophy before that time would be pretentious. Was not Dr. LaVey a Satanist before he codified what it is to be one? You worded a paradox of logic Roho. Are you certain about what you said?

Actually...yes.

The Satanic Bible says that 'God' is a balancing force in nature. You would be correct in saying that those who follow Satanism reject God in the way he/she/it is drawn in any other religion (all -knowing anthropomorphic being with a beard and sandals). My interpretation of the words in The Satanic Bible are that since we don't understand what these balancing forces actually are, we draw our own conclusions about them. Every individual in every religion likely has a different idea about what God is, hence Dr. LaVey's allusion to man creating his own God versus some omniscient, never present, cruel and illogical God creating man.

Now, when I say 'draw conclusions' I don't mean to say that those conclusions are concrete. They are simply the best we can do with the best available evidence. New evidence would require a new shift in thought which is why I personally like to view life as a process (always taking in, always purging) versus it being some static form of existence.

In the way that people who follow the right hand path are comforted by the idea that some God sits in waiting for them at the end of their lives, I think the atheist takes comfort in the idea that man can explain everything with science and with his own abilities in logic and reason. In my experience, those who follow the left hand path seem to be comfortable with the idea that there are things that man cannot explain and will revel in exploring the doubt (as Magister Nemo pointed out). All right hand path religions attempt to explain where we came from, what our purpose is, and what our so called after life will be in the attempt to remove doubt.

To me, the left hand path represents the 'now' in whatever imperfect state it is in. History is valuable in its way, but it is gone. Tomorrow is likely, but still a dream. Right NOW is reality and Satanism celebrates life right now.

What Roho said seems very clear cut. How could there have been Satanists living the Satanic philosophy who called themselves Satanism before it was codified? There were very obviously a great deal of "de-factos" before this time, or otherwise people who lived according to said philosophy, but they were not Satanists. Not until 1966.

MORE EDIT: Never the mind, if I had checked the proper definition of de-facto I'd save my self a lot of time thinking. So De-facto Satanists they were then.

As I said, it's a personal decision.

For myself, I agree with you. Let someone else rely on ESP and psychic powers, for my part I rely on sinew, iron, flesh, all things I see right in front of my eyes with obvious results that are not "up for conjecture" or "need research." But I'm a straightforward fella like that.

I don't see how someone can rely on something that is inconsistent. That is like firing a gun in a random direction and hoping it hits the target.

Would it make a difference?

From where I sit, even if the God of the Hebrews were real and, all that is attributed to him were true, I couldn't in good conscience honestly worship such a thing without leaving a very sour taste in my mouth. And the omniscient being that he supposedly is would see right through the charade anyway, so there is no point in worrying about what might or might not be real, because I can't change who I am no matter what way the cards fall.

But luckily, pragmatism has nothing to do with brainless 'maybes' and, instead deals with reality. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, but you can't prove that a lot of things don't exist. Thankfully, some things are so absurd, you can safely ignore them and move on, all the while being pragmatic.

The same can be said for a lot of supernatural mumbo-jumbo, so while in that respect I agree with you, I'm not completely willing to scoff at the idea in it's entirety. I simply leave the pursuit of such things to those more qualified than myself and turn my attention to things which produce immediate and concrete results.

Ah, the key word is De-Facto Satanist. I'll remember that.

While no one called me on it, I meant to say "It is like calling Jules Verne a Twenty First Century man; but, he couldn't be because he livde in the 19th and 20th centuries".

Seriously...I may have a record for stupid mistakes in posts.

Does this make the experience somehow less "real"? A subjective experience is still something that exists.

No but for instance precognition becomes precognition experience instead of an actual precognition.

There are certain things that can happen in the brain that will make it so it is almost impossible to avoid false belief, like on brain damage patients that are unable to identify parts of their own body as their own.

More common are these cases of precognition that feel absolutely real but the memory of the precognition is actually severely altered after the "foreseen" event.

Certain suggestive methods pray on these types of phenomenon like the descriptions on Tarot Cards and skilled fortune tellers, where you feed the brain information that is likely to pick up on extra information in the future to falsify the memory as a precise prediction of whatever remotely significant eventually happens.

Of cause there are plenty of truly beneficial ways to use how the mind works with suggestions of different kinds.
Simply just using of symbols and art to relate feelings and life situations can be extremely beneficial to focusing thought and concentration.
Even more so when you have an ingeniously built multi-layered system like Satanism that easily spreads all over a persons different aspects. (Which everyone here knows very well of cause.)

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/dir.timereversed.pdf

WOW.

That is going to take a few reads for me absorb with any kind of clarity. I've been working on a few little research projects, one involving the possible presence of a body of non statistical data, accessible by the collective consciousness (if such a thing exists) and the other involves the non linearity of 'time' (time is dimensional versus strictly linear is the way I'm looking at it).

This fits right into that. Thank you for the pointer, Magister.

You are welcome.

Remember please that evidence is not proof.

Evidence is only evidence.

How we interpret it can vary and is not always right.

It is only based on journals. There is not one Scientist of any degree in any field qualified to studying humans and the mind cited as a source to any of that. (Dean Radin is a Scientist but he is only a physicist and does not have education on the human mind unless you consider Parapsychology a valid Science to study the mind.)

And thus there is no way to investigate on any academic publications that would provide even the means to find out if there is any proof.
(Although it did note some Brain Scientists that had disagreed with the journals that were used.)

Dr. Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptics Society on the other hand is very unlikely to have missed anything of this nature allowing it to remain without serious debunking providing academic proof.
(And Shermer's Ph.D. is in History of Science which means he is superbly qualified to criticize what kind of Scientist is qualified to study these kinds of things.)

And frankly I couldn't find any experiment or evidence that wouldn't have reminded me from a bunch of different presentations of how experiments produce false results.

I don't know what's wrong with these people, but there are a lot of quantum physicist trying to leap over to human sciences fantasizing about what it would be like if the human brain could work like quantum physics.
It doesn't, and all they do by working without proper education is muddy the waters of science and lower it's credibility.

The right kind of scientists like Ramachandran and Sam Harris do study these things and if Scientists like that ever find something like this then I would get deeper in to it.

Yessir, point taken. Proceeding with caution

Well, cautious enthusiasm is probably a better descriptor.

Don't get fooled.
Time reverse effects are a fact in physics in certain anomalies and scales, to that there is proof, and to that the Quantum Physicist have credibility to argue theories.
But anything to do with the human brain?

There is not a shred of proof and very solid reasons to assume there is no such possibility.
Guessing, "since these things can occur in the laboratory what about the human brain?" isn't enough, and isn't the job of the Quantum Physicist but a Neurophysicist.

These wild guesses have been answered several times in almost every seminar that has to do with the brain and where some over enthusiastic Quantum Cook comes with their eyes gleaming to share their theories of other Scientists fields of study.

Many scientists are an enthusiastic bunch and it helps them when they are working in their own field.

Zardex

My apologies, I didn't mean to seem as if I were ignoring your input. Admittedly I am out of my league when discussing the outer reaches of scientific study/application. In many fields, basic discussion is beyond my scope of knowledge. Right now I'm in my second reading of Hawking's "Brief History of Time" and making some headway in rectifying my own deficiencies. I do appreciate your efforts to steer me in the right direction as I appreciate Magister Nemo's efforts to do the same.

The point is when looking at empirical evidence, cause and effect are simple enough to be taken as fact. If A+B=C under the same controlled conditions then you know the outcome under those conditions to be always the same.

Now people going off on a limb here. By saying that SOMETIMES, A+B=C under controlled conditions. The possibility of A+B=C in those conditions being really small therefore getting that result means that A+B=C in those conditions proves the existence of some new rule or theory. ... Uh.. No, that's not how it works. It means you may be onto something but you're not anywhere near close enough to draw a conclusion that should be held as valid or important.

This kind of logic that things may be possible because of some little anomaly is commonly used by people to try to prove the existence of some higher power or other. The credibility of this argument is quite empty. This paper seems to draw far too many conclusions on inconclusive evidence. Sure it's possible, it's also possible I'll win the lottery tomorrow.

Beware of hubris.

Beware of hubris.

Skip the credential-comparisons and examine the evidence.

It takes only ONE white crow to PROVE that all crows are not black.

Only one.

I think it's fair enough to say that you and I don't see eye to eye on some of this stuff as evidenced by the content of our posts on other threads. I'm disinclined to accepting anything as 'fact' and you seem to thrive on statistical data. I'm not possessed of a great analytical mind as I am classically trained in fine art and feel that I'm most skilled in left brain activity (though I make my living in a science field). One thing that working in the field I work in has taught me is that expected results often vary to a great degree, even in controlled testing.

Don't take this as a slight in any way, I do appreciate your insights... I just tend to approach problems differently (again, admittedly, my approaches might not be the best way but they make sense to me).

I think Magister Nemo has again shown great wisdom in counseling against hubris.

Still, I'd like to see more tangible evidence before I buy into something. I'm not saying I discard it entierly; I just do not depend or function on the unknown in my life. Hubris is bad, but doubt is not. Magister Nemo is very insightful with his posts.

It is easy to produce results that look like evidence, and with enthusiasm it is easy to accidentally falsify those results.

Criticism is usually the first thing to do if you want answers.
It is pointless to dwell on this so called evidence before looking in to the criticism.

Sure I could be wrong and he could be on to something, but he does not catch my interest by drowning his finding in a pile of rubbish.

For instance when talking of those types of tests where people are guessing at what picture is in a card. Similar thing is done with illusionist stage magic. (And can be done accidentally)
If A+B=C almost all the time or even 100% of the time you still need to rule out foul play and errors.
If you want more detailed criticism against it then all you need to do is look in to it. (From for instance the Skeptics society)

And it is also good to consider the source.
I have no interest in joining Radin's war against the Skeptics society.
There are people investigating these things who actually have education on the human brain.

It's not that I'm being overly confident, I'm just not interested in old stuff I have already seen debunked.

(PS: Thank you Magister Nemo for suggesting Lucifer Principle which I just recently purchased.
Impressing enough it starts with a praising foreword from David Sloan Wilson who is known as one for the most sternest evolutionary science critics.)

My entire point is that the very real evidence exists that has not been "debunked" whatsoever.

It has been inadequately "explained away" by those who have not actually reviewed the evidence in question itself.

If you do not wish to examine the evidence, that is fine.

It does not change the fact that the evidence is real.

Also, please understand that evidence is not proof.

But neither is evidence to be ignored merely if it is inconvenient or even emotionally upsetting.

The evidence for what appears to be "precognition" is greater than that for any other supernormal items.

Polemics will not alter this fact.

For the Satanist, there is no "war" against this or that opinion.

But we are dead set against taking a perspective that requires ignoring the facts of reality when those facts contradict our assumptions.

That is why Satanism is at odds with faith-based religions.

We are equally against faith-based viewpoints in any area!

When you do read The Lucifer Principle (an excellent book in my opinion) you will have the opportunity to better understand the psychological principles behind such willful ignorance in favor of winning peer approval.

Opinion is irrelevant when evidence is offered.

The evidence is supreme.

The rest is only monkey politics.

How about the 9/11 events?

Look at what happened to worldwide random number generators more than two hours prior to the attacks:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/911anim.var.html

If you look at the overall data at this same site then it is clear that this was not accounted for by any normal deviations.

The evidence happened.

It was very real.

This is only one of many, many such examples of "tangible evidence".

Anyone can ignore it if they wish.

That does not make it "go away".

Neither does that mean that if "proves" any particular viewpoint right or wrong.

But it is real whether anyone likes it or not.

Thanks for clarifying that. I don't think I could have put it better my self. Evidence is important to keep in mind.

However, as you said, you must be careful to what conclusions you come to based on that evidence. As those conclusions will require testing to prove them true. If no evidence is present the conclusion ends up being, for all intensive purposes, false.

If one cannot even test it in the mathematical sense then the conclusion is either bogus or beyond our current scope of understanding.

Would you also say that because Satanism is not faith based religion it would not consider something to be true before considering the source?

Even the evidence doesn't exist simply because a Scientologist seas so for instance?

Who is Dean Radin? What is his relation to Hal Puthoff? What do you know about the people who's presentations you are ready to call evidence?

Anyone can collect a pool of insignificant unrelated pieces of evidence and make claims as to what they mean. Humans as pattern seeking animals will usually believe anything.

Consider my position Magister. What peer approval?

Are you talking about empirical evidence, pertaining to real fields of science(not pseudo-science)? Because evidence is not a subjective issue, it's objective, it is evident. If the evidence presented is false then by all means disregard it. Granted, with evidence you don't actually have any use for it is not really important know how accurate it is. No?

Precisely. When the evidence itself has nothing really to do with the claims made based upon it it is useless to investigate it's accuracy.

And then the other kind of evidence that is simply based on having to trust a Scientologist to have been honest about not having used trickery is just pseudo-science.

Well, this particular topic isn't rooted in life or death though it may or may not shape perceptions. For matters less ethereal I agree with your methodology (ies). In the case of the 'paranormal' I personally approach it with a wide open mind and with the understanding that I will have more questions than answers as, so far, even when science is/has been applied the results are most often inconclusive. It's simply the nature of that particular beast which is probably why serious science mostly disregards the subject.

Ah.

So if the evidence doesn't fit your view of what is possible then it must be a hoax?

We are to assume there is a gargantuan conspiracy when hundreds of scientists and engineers continue to find, produce and publish positive evidence for over more than one hundred years?

Nonsense.

That would make precognition easy to accept by comparison.

With that supposition you can ignore anything you dislike no matter who suggests it or how much evidence is offered.

The last time I ran into that approach was from a Christian door-to-door evangelist.

It was pointless to discuss things with him (he could explain away anything) and I can see that it is also pointless to discuss them with you.

So it's happy trails to you, pardner.

Others may be interested in further discussions with you if they wish, but I always close the door on evangelists who consistently pull this nonsense, and I now close my personal door on you as well for exactly the same reason.

(Now where is that "ignore this user" button anyway?).

Magister, I do hope that you're not dissuaded from further participation on the thread. I'm certain that I'm not alone in the appreciation of your perspectives herein.

I will reserve further comment for my Volume Two book.

We also have two specific forums downstairs for COS members that deal with related topics.

Membership does have its privileges.

Fair enough.

That being the case, we shall speak again on the subject quite soon.

I missed thanking you for this reference before. I'm still working through the foundational texts and haven't gotten to those yet. I've added them to my list, though and I do appreciate the suggestion(s).

Since this was directed to "all", I'll pipe in.
I do not believe in spirit worlds.

I have had a few experiences with "ghosts", without getting into the details, I have noticed a few elements of the phenomena.


Apparently:

They/it seems to be bound to a location or object familiar to the person in life, the more the person interacted with the object or house, the more they seem to occur.

They exist in timespace

They are subject to entropy, ghosts seem to fade or "die"

They can interact with matter, somewhat.

They seem to be an loosely organized electromagnetic phenomena interlaced with vestigial human emotion, usually "negative".

They can be dispersed (disorganized), or ghost busted.

Or so it seems.

Why is a topic of enduring and widespread interest met with such resounding silence in academia?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dean+radin&search_type=&aq=f

The difference in responses greatly varies whether one is asked publically or privately.

Does your experience agree with that?

Along the consciousness continuum as charted in the lecture its interesting to see what the neurosciences have difficulty in dealing with:

Creativity
Intuition
Genius
Psi
Mysticism
Mind is correlated but not the brain
Mental Monism (All is mind)

(Eastern sciences of energetic [informational rather than material] subjectivity cover this)


Even at the level of genius, such as Mozart genius there is no response in the neurosciences.

It seems that until a method is established for proving (or debunking) such phenomena, the world may never know. There are simply things in nature that we will not be able to explain. We will be able to make theories, but that is about as far as we will go.

As for the replies you will receive on said subject, they will be as varied as the answer to "How many licks does it take to get to the center of the Tootsie-Pop"

There are just too many variables in these events. Is it possible, sure. But I will approach it as a skeptic, even if I myself thought, I had seen something unexplainable.

What was it Anton LaVey said about being Supernormal?

I doubt that. We haven't even reached the tip of the iceberg yet. Wait another 50 years or so. What seems mysterious now may be common sense someday.

No reason to ever wait at all!
With the resources we have at our disposal it does explain/apply quite a lot.
Simply YouTubing the recommended authors mentioned deep within these walls of LttD will give one more than a mindful such as:

William Buhlman, Stephan LaBerge, Peter Kingsley, Joseph Farrell, Rupert Sheldrake, Richard Hoagland, Michael Cremo, Amit Goswami, etc. to name but a very few.

One is really only imprisoned by the limitations they impose on themselves.
There is something to be reaped from 'lost' ancient technologies returning into itself as a form of seemingly future 'sorcery'.

I am quite aware of much of the current evidence.

I was only pointing out that sometime in the not-so-distant future these things could become common sense knowledge.

In 50 years time, it will have matured itself beyond what we have discovered so far.

Possibly, yes. I can see with the speed at which technology and science are advancing today how things could be proven, and disproven.

I agree that we haven't even seen the "tip" yet. To see where we will be in 50 or so years both excites and frightens me. Maybe someone will create the "fountain of youth"!

Of course. I knew you were quite aware but I parroted such in this public space for transparent enough reasons. I agree with you and a return to a sort of golden age because of transhumanism and a technological emergence is quite eminent.
Great change is always preceded by chaos! Leviathan's Raging Sea!
And don't we all adore THAT book with heaping results!
Therefore I hang in there for the ride and embrace the chaos as we do have a gilmpse of what lies ahead!

I am confident, because of a healthy body of experience on what brain scientists from different fields, and the skeptics society, have to say about these types of phenomenon and how people come to believe in them, that there is no one scientist with a Ph.D in any cognitive brain sciences who claims any piece of evidence as being indicative of any such phenomenon as precognition.
It is my experience that no-one believes in that stuff after taking a deeper glance on how the brain works.

I do not think precognition is possible, but I am not certain lacking an absolute disproof.
However I am certain that all the evidence that has this far come forth is not indicative of any such thing, as it would be ridiculous to think there is a conspiracy hiding the "truth" from real scientists.

I don't think something must automatically be a hoax if I tend to disagree with it, but if it is something I have already heard debunked by serious scientists, and if it's backed up by texts written by a well known pseudo-scientist I have heard countless of times being accused of false claims by serious scientists, and who calls himself a parapsychologist, and who even has claimed to have a supernatural talent for spoon bending, and who is presenting evidence provided by his friend the scientologist... I tend to think it is a hoax.

Visionary entrepreneur James Walsh and scientist Dean Radin will discuss their latest research on the power of intention, and how Thanksgiving presents an opportunity to manifest order during the chaotic time ahead through the use of food.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/11/25.html