Question about the supernatural act

[MRC_Hans]

Still at this?

If supernatural events happened occasionally in a random pattern, that is, the laws of physics were at times bypassed, this would show up when we observed the world. We would see disrepancies between theory and obserations that could not be explained. Just an example: If even one binary change in 10 million did not follow the laws of physics, your computer would fail hundreds of times per second (and even Microsoft can't match that ).

Therefore we (us sketics) conclude that the real world ALWAYS follows the laws of physics.

Hans

 

[Aster]

We would see disrepancies between theory and obserations that could not be explained.

That is an interesting point. But where we're talking about the supernatural or paranormal, isn't that exactly what we see, a disrepancy between theory and observations that cannot be explained ?

No, because what you seem to be saying is that there are no observations that cannot be explained and that the worlds understanding of the laws of physics is complete, enough to explain all. Coïncidence is probably the bottom line of the choices we have to explain the unexplained.

Everything may be explainable one way or another, sooner or later, yet the world will never be free of questions, of things that puzzle and bewilder us. Something that is viewed as supernatural or paranormal today will descend to normal and natural tomorrow.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

it is obviously very difficult (actually impossible) for the lay-man to judge which regimen is most benificial, and it is simply not reasonable that a sick person should be faced with the need to make such a choice.

It may not be reasonable, but it may be the reality. Listen, when you are sick, or think that you are sick, your direction should be first to listen well to what your own system tells you, mind, body, spirit and then go to your regular physician. When you are not satisfied with what regular medicine offers you, or when they cannot help you, you may want to try something alternative.

Therefore, I think that it should not be permitted to market regimens that are not documented to function.

Hypnotherapy, Regressiontherapy, Reïncarnationtherapy, Neuro Linguïstic Programming are all regimens that are documented to function, and very well so.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

You mean, why do you feel the need to pursue the issue that this might be a supernatural act? A desire to feel important, a genuine misunderstanding of the significance of the event, a desire to defraud others...? Take your pick.

A desire to defraud others... how dare you be so blind. Did you see your brother shot in the head and did you paint his funeral four years ahead of time ? Your list is by no means complete, you wrote your comment in one minute, it merely supports a useless intention, useless to this cause whichever side you're on. What I experienced ís an important ánd significant event. Nothing in your life could compare closely to what I have to offer in the light of something coming so close to what constitutes the supernatural.

You seem to support the idea that people should be motivated to mediocracy and that peoples insignificant deeds should be cheered upon, but I disagree. Nothing would blossom for sure, if we'd all be like you.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

Imagination/artistic inspiration. Where this comes from is another question, but it would be folly to suggest that every painting/story/poem is either a depiction of a real event or a prediction of the future. Why can't it just be a painting?

This is possibly correct, INSPIRATION. Where that comes from is not however another question, it ís the question by which answer the supernatural act could be explained.

Why couldn't it just be a painting ? In order for my painting to become a supernatural work of art it needs my normal abilities to extend even beyond inspiration. But don't believe me and don't look where science made this statement, for it didn't. But in the richest of cultures ancient and long gone, this understanding was quite embraced.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

I agree that people should be able to choose their own therapies. However, the question here is not about the freedom of choice, but the separation of "regular" and "alternative" medicine. Why, in your opinion, are the two differentiated at all? What's the criterion? I know what it is, I would just like to hear you opinion.

It was separated in order to go against fraud. One can only practice as a doctor, dentist, psychotherapist, etc, when one has obtained a licence to practice these professions. The list of these professions is extremely limited as opposed to the list of alternative medicine. These rules are enforced by the law. Without such a licence, it is against the law to utilise these titles.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

I agree that people should be able to choose their own therapies. However, the question here is not about the freedom of choice, but the separation of "regular" and "alternative" medicine. Why, in your opinion, are the two differentiated at all? What's the criterion? I know what it is, I would just like to hear you opinion.

We probably don't have a different view on this. In my own words, it was separated in order to go against fraud. One can only practice as a doctor, dentist, psychotherapist, etc, when one has obtained a licence to practice these professions in accordance with the law. The list of these professions is limited as opposed to the list of alternative medicines. These rules were/are enforced by the law. Without such a licence, it is against the law to utilise these titles.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Did you see your brother shot in the head and did you paint his funeral four years ahead of time ?

I do not need to have experienced what you have to suggest reasons why you think it may be supernatural. I was under the impression you wanted an explanation, not sympathy.

Your list is by no means complete, you wrote your comment in one minute, it merely supports a useless intention, useless to this cause whichever side you're on.

You are right, it did not take long for me to write my explanation. That is because the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. My post provides a plausible explanation where you claimed none had yet been offered. The fact that you dismiss it so readily confirms my suspiscion that you are unwilling to consider a non-supernatural cause.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That is an interesting point. But where we're talking about the supernatural or paranormal, isn't that exactly what we see, a disrepancy between theory and observations that cannot be explained ?

No, because what you seem to be saying is that there are no observations that cannot be explained and that the worlds understanding of the laws of physics is complete, enough to explain all. Coïncidence is probably the bottom line of the choices we have to explain the unexplained.

That is not my point. We see such discepancies in a number of areas where our knowledge is still limited. My point is that if random paranormal events exist, there is absolutely no reason to assume that they stick to areas where our knowledge is limited. They must happen in all areas, also in those that can be monitored and explained exactly. Like your computer.


Everything may be explainable one way or another, sooner or later, yet the world will never be free of questions, of things that puzzle and bewilder us. Something that is viewed as supernatural or paranormal today will descend to normal and natural tomorrow.

It was once widely believed that we might once understand everything. This seems increasingly unlikely, as each answer we find uncovers new questions. But that is not my point, either. We have found that in all areas where we d ohave understanding, the world can be shown to persistently follow the rules. Whenever something does seem to happen "paranormally", we ca nsafely assume that it is only because we do not know the rules well enough.

Rgds.,
Aster.

As of your prediction: The simplest explanation is really coincidence. You happened to think of an event that later actually occurred. There is several billion people in the world. Each of us dream of or imagine events regularly. Some of them will come true.

Hans

 

[Aster]

Hans

As of your prediction: The simplest explanation is really coincidence. You happened to think of an event that later actually occurred. There is several billion people in the world. Each of us dream of or imagine events regularly. Some of them will come true.

Problem with coincidence is that it is not an explanation. It's merely a means to explain something (away). I mean, can you show me a scientific way that supports this conclusion with evidence ? And then again, what exactly constitutes coïncidence ?
I would say that, if my drawing would indeed be proven to be connected to my brothers funeral and scenes of the afterlife, it would still be a coïncidence. This is why I call these types of coIncidences synchronicities. The difference between synchronicity and coincidence is always physically sensible.

Whenever something does seem to happen "paranormally", we can safely assume that it is only because we do not know the rules well enough.

I see, yes. And I agree with you. In that respect the paranormal and supernatural exists as a result of us not know the rules well enough. But that does not mean that reality may turn out to be very, very different from the concepts that we have of it now. Again, what we know now is based upon conclusionsthat are based upon the fact that we do not know the rules well enough.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Re: Hans

Problem with coincidence is that it is not an explanation. It's merely a means to explain something (away). I mean, can you show me a scientific way that supports this conclusion with evidence ? And then again, what exactly constitutes coïncidence ?
I would say that, if my drawing would indeed be proven to be connected to my brothers funeral and scenes of the afterlife, it would still be a coïncidence

Not in this context. A coincidence describes events which appear to be linked, when in reality there is no connection between them. That in itself is your explanation.

 

[Aster]

The BoyPaj

Not in this context. A coincidence describes events which appear to be linked, when in reality there is no connection between them. That in itself is your explanation.

My point is: can you give me scientific evidence to the fact that there is not a connection between the detail of my painting and my brothers funeral, there where it is in plain view that in reality there ís a connection between them ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

The Boypaj

I do not need to have experienced what you have to suggest reasons why you think it may be supernatural. I was under the impression you wanted an explanation, not sympathy.

That's not the point, Boypaj. Neither is a supposed search for sympathy. Your personal devoid of emotions makes you a very bad analyst. See, the point is that you suggest something that does not fit my experience, not any such experience. If you believe that someone who lost a relative through murder and then suggest that the intention of this person is stemming from a desire to feel important or a desire to defraud others, you are blind, blunt and numb. Perhaps you're watching to many murder cases on television.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: The BoyPaj



My point is: can you give me scientific evidence to the fact that there is not a connection between the detail of my painting and my brothers funeral, there where it is in plain view that in reality there ís a connection between them ?



It's amazing how believers will spout such logical fallacies thinking that it is perfectly reasonable.

You have a claim that this "event" is supernatural, it is up to you to provide the evidence that it is supernatural.

It's not obvious that it's supernatural. A connection exists, yes, but it's coincidence or it's planned by you. Those are the mundane. You had a painting. Did you not say you planned the funeral also? Where's the supernatural connection?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: The Boypaj

That's not the point, Boypaj. Neither is a supposed search for sympathy. Your personal devoid of emotions makes you a very bad analyst.

So if someone is emotionally attached to an issue, it makes them more objective about that issue?!

See, the point is that you suggest something that does not fit my experience, not any such experience. If you believe that someone who lost a relative through murder and then suggest that the intention of this person is stemming from a desire to feel important or a desire to defraud others, you are blind, blunt and numb. Perhaps you're watching to many murder cases on television.

No, what's being said here is that there is no evidence of the supernatural here. Anecdotes are just stories, they cannot be relied upon. Memories cannot be relied upon.

 

[Aster]

Re: The BoyPaj

It's amazing how believers will spout such logical fallacies thinking that it is perfectly reasonable.

But it ís perfectly logical and reasonable what I'm saying. I'm only asking you to support your conclusion of coincidence. You can do nothing more than back off and throwing the ball back into my court saying you are not the one who has to prove anything. That's not reasonable. It's amazing how you will just reason circumstantial evidence away by saying it's a coincidence and not be able to defend what your saying with anything in support of it.

You have a claim that this "event" is supernatural, it is up to you to provide the evidence that it is supernatural.

Sure, but YOU have a claim that this event is a coincidence, so provide me with something that supports that idea. You cannot, because you do not know what reality is, you don't know what coincidence is.

It's not obvious that it's supernatural. A connection exists, yes, but it's coincidence or it's planned by you. Those are the mundane. You had a painting. Did you not say you planned the funeral also? Where's the supernatural connection?

Okay, so a conection exists. Let's note this please. The fact that this connection is a coincidence is correct. Everything that connects is a coincidence. The idea that every coincidence is an illusion because it does not match reality, I believe is incorrect. Especially in my case.


Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Powa]

Re: Re: The BoyPaj

But it ís perfectly logical and reasonable what I'm saying. I'm only asking you to support your conclusion of coincidence. You can do nothing more than back off and throwing the ball back into my court saying you are not the one who has to prove anything. That's not reasonable.

Why? We accept a simpler explanation. It is you who's looking for something that goes beyond our current understanding of physics. So the ball is in your court to try and prove that what you're saying is true. Until such proof, we can argue till we're blue in the face and get nowhere. We cannot disprove your claim.

It's amazing how you will just reason circumstantial evidence away by saying it's a coincidence and not be able to defend what your saying with anything in support of it.

What circumstantial evidence? You painted a painting vaguely resembling what happened 4 years later. I've had many much more interesting coincidences and I never jumped to a conclusion that there was anything paranormal going on. Let me give you a fairly recent example: my brother and I were chopping wood one afternoon and at one time we sung a certain song. It was an old song I haven't heard for some 15 years. The very next morning the same song wakes me up playing on my alarm clock. I woke up instantly and kept on saying "Holly ◊◊◊◊...".

This in my opinion was a far more interesting coincidence than yours and I still didn't search for any paranormal explanations for it.

What I'm trying to say is this: if you want (or need) something to have significance, you'll find it and dismiss any other (more mundane) explanations.

 

[EternalUniverse]

You had raised a very interesting perspective. But somehow you are unable to answer my question. Somehow you seem to omit a direct answer because you are not able to provide it from a psychological/psychiatrical base of interpretation. You see... there is no pathology, I could never be their patient. Please, just from the perspective you offer, try and answer my question.

Rgds.,
Aster.

I do not understand exactly what you mean when you say that you expect a "psychological/psychiatric" explanation. If you are talking about emotions and feelings, then what I have been saying is that the connection you have perceived is emotional. Both instances (the death of your brother, and your art) represent things that are dear to you, and when combined, it is easy to form an emotional connection between the two. However, this connection is not necessarily related in any other way (especially in the case of one predicting the other).

What you are asking people to give you is a rational (unemotional) explanation of the events, and people have given it to you. Everyone has been telling you that, rationally, the best explanation (in relation to the others), involves coincidence. This explanation will probably not change until logic/reasoning dictates that something about your position warrants another explanation. What you are expecting, I perceive, is an explanation that does not involve logic or reasoning as people know it, and can not give. Just recognize the nature of the perspective offered in this forum - it is up to you to figure out if it is acceptable or not. If you accept, that is ok. If you reject, then you are rejecting the nature of the perspective.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/main_story.asp?intid=380293

This is an example of why "therapists", like Aster, are so dangerous. These were trained psychiatrists that mistakenly implanted memories.......... does it not follow that the risks of this happening with untrained "therapists" would be higher?

I have to wonder how many memories Aster has implanted and how many delusions he's validated for his patients.

 

[Aster]

suggestive questioning and unsafe levels of drugs that caused hallucinations

Wow... what an incredible low life effort to misrepresent and put into questionable shade what I do as hypnotheratpist. I would not disagree with you if you would present cases of hypnotherapy badly gone wrong. I know several of them. I also know there are more hypnotherapists who practice without any education or certification than those who do. Point out something like that and you have a good discussion going before you. But I tell you this: a well trained and certified hypnotherapist does NOT use suggestive questioning techniques nor prescribe medication. The problem you present is created by medics of the PROVEN sector you and your buddies applaud. Nor do I treat people for years and years; most cliënts succeed their therapy within a few months, seeing them weekly or bi-weekly.

I have to wonder how many memories Aster has implanted and how many delusions he's validated for his patients.

I don't implant ANY memories. I use methods of natural relaxation comparable to meditation techniques in order to resurface suppressed memories. Nor do I validate ANYTHING as a basic rule. It is the client who validates the therapeutic results by a system of ecological checking. If the validation is unsatisfactory for the client, we continue therapy. If ecological checking provides a satisfactory result and the client shows not a single sign of objection to the result, it is safe to call therapy to an end.

Really Thai, you're comparing dinos with mice. Your example proves that there are hazardous charlatans practicising in every layer of medicine, wether this be official or alternative.

Rgds.,
Aster.